George Hutchinson Revisited

[Curious Cat]

You've repeated that point how many times?, the actual quote even says: "but they do not believe that he is the individual described by Cox".
We know, the quote tells us, we don't need you repeating it over and over again.

The point that you seem to have missed is that the Echo (13th) told us that the force was divided (regardless between whom), the same article mentions "diminution" of Hutchinson's story.

A later paragraph then suggests Cox had established the appearance of the presumed murderer, but no-one was able to corroborate the appearance of the Hutchinson suspect - hence the "diminution".

The Star put their spin on the Echo story and took it a step further by suggesting Hutchinson's story had been discredited, it hadn't.

The Echo on the 19th further show how divided the authorities were on the subject, by now suggesting some believe Hutchinson, while others believe Cox.

If a newspaper does not believe a story, that does not make it 'discredited', it is the police who make that decision.
We know of no police opinion to suggest that, in fact we have the contrary.
If/when a story is discredited, the police do not believe it, and there will always be a reason.
If any police believe Hutchinson, then his story cannot have been discredited - it's really that simple.
A story must be proven wrong (containing lies/inaccuracies) for it to be discredited.

Nothing of the sort occurred.




Yes, and the same consideration is applied to Hutchinson.



Except, we have it in writing that some authorities ARE pursuing the Hutchinson suspect.

Your problem is your use of "favoured", the police know from experience that medical opinion can be contested. They also do not 'favour' one suspect over another in a case where the time of death is so uncertain.
Blotchy could have stayed until 3:30-3:45, and the Astrachan encounter simply never happened.
Likewise, Blotchy may have left at 1:00, and the Astrachan encounter was perfectly factual.

The police know this, they will investigate both suspects with the same vigor, which is what the story on the 19th is suggesting.



Clearly, he was not thoroughly investigated.




If I recall, I ended that remark by saying something like: clearly, the Hutchinson suspect was foremost in Abberline's mind, even as late as Dec 6th.
He was wrong, this is true, but what this account makes clear is that the story of Astrachan was not discredited in Abberline's mind.

Back in 1887 Isaacs had been arrested at Dover posing as a detective, he was wearing an imitation gold chain with a sham medal hanging from it, but no watch.
Isaacs was a 30 yr old Jew who lived in Paternoster Row, off Dorset st. he was known to dress well above his station. When arrested in December 1888 a journalist wrote: ....."who's appearance certainly answered the published description of a man with an astrachan trimming to his coat".

Brilliant. Then Hutchinson's ploy worked. The police arrested the wrong man because he gave a false description.

Thanks for finally clearing that up.

[Wickerman]

The line you quoted saying, "The City police have been making inquiries for this man for weeks past, but without success," is not in reference to Blotchy. The man is not Blotchy. The man in that sentence is not the individual Mary Ann Cox says she saw. The man written of in that sentence is a separate individual who was described by others in regard to a murder that wasn't of Mary Kelly.

You've repeated that point how many times?, the actual quote even says: "but they do not believe that he is the individual described by Cox".
We know, the quote tells us, we don't need you repeating it over and over again.

The point that you seem to have missed is that the Echo (13th) told us that the force was divided (regardless between whom), the same article mentions "diminution" of Hutchinson's story.

A later paragraph then suggests Cox had established the appearance of the presumed murderer, but no-one was able to corroborate the appearance of the Hutchinson suspect - hence the "diminution".

The Star put their spin on the Echo story and took it a step further by suggesting Hutchinson's story had been discredited, it hadn't.

The Echo on the 19th further show how divided the authorities were on the subject, by now suggesting some believe Hutchinson, while others believe Cox.

If a newspaper does not believe a story, that does not make it 'discredited', it is the police who make that decision.
We know of no police opinion to suggest that, in fact we have the contrary.
If/when a story is discredited, the police do not believe it, and there will always be a reason.
If any police believe Hutchinson, then his story cannot have been discredited - it's really that simple.
A story must be proven wrong (containing lies/inaccuracies) for it to be discredited.

Nothing of the sort occurred.

Blotchy was seen with Mary Kelly at an earlier time. Even if Astrakhan was the favoured suspect, there are no grounds to discredit Mary Ann Cox's description of the man she saw or the rest of her account. He is still needed to be tracked down to confirm when he left Miller's Court. Therefore Mary Ann Cox is never discredited.

Yes, and the same consideration is applied to Hutchinson.

If Blotchy is the favoured suspect then Astrakhan and Hutchinson's account is discredited by default as he can't very well converse with a dead woman in the street let alone watch another man do the same before going to her room. If there were investigating officers who favoured Blotchy then they were openly dismissing Hutchinson's account, regardless of whether you think that was professional of them to do so or not. If the papers report on that being the circumstance then that's not spin, it's just how it was at that point.

Except, we have it in writing that some authorities ARE pursuing the Hutchinson suspect.

Your problem is your use of "favoured", the police know from experience that medical opinion can be contested. They also do not 'favour' one suspect over another in a case where the time of death is so uncertain.
Blotchy could have stayed until 3:30-3:45, and the Astrachan encounter simply never happened.
Likewise, Blotchy may have left at 1:00, and the Astrachan encounter was perfectly factual.

The police know this, they will investigate both suspects with the same vigor, which is what the story on the 19th is suggesting.

If you really think the police never dismiss a suspect until they have been thoroughly investigated then maybe you should look up the case of Stephen Port. The evidence was there but they dismissed him as a suspect and left him to kill again.

Clearly, he was not thoroughly investigated.

Why did you suggest Joseph Issacs was the man Hutchinson saw when you had already proven he couldn't have been anywhere near Dorset Street that morning?

Should I keep Joseph Issacs on my suspect list or take him off through discrediting your suggestion that he was the man Hutchinson described as the man in Mary Kelly's company?

If I recall, I ended that remark by saying something like: clearly, the Hutchinson suspect was foremost in Abberline's mind, even as late as Dec 6th.
He was wrong, this is true, but what this account makes clear is that the story of Astrachan was not discredited in Abberline's mind.

Back in 1887 Isaacs had been arrested at Dover posing as a detective, he was wearing an imitation gold chain with a sham medal hanging from it, but no watch.
Isaacs was a 30 yr old Jew who lived in Paternoster Row, off Dorset st. he was known to dress well above his station. When arrested in December 1888 a journalist wrote: ....."who's appearance certainly answered the published description of a man with an astrachan trimming to his coat".

[Wickerman]

Hi
What i am going to suggest depends on the authenticity of both Hutchinson , and Mrs Maxwell's account.
At 2 am Hutchinson saw Kelly with a man , and part of his statement says , She said 'Oh I have lost my handkerchief ' he hand s one to her,
At 8 am plus Mrs Maxwell says an additional part that we are not aware of now, ''Her eyes looked queer , like she was heavy in cold''.. I read this in early 1970's , I have no idea where , but it was in some kind of publication.

Never heard of that, don't ever recall reading it. We must be careful though too many people apply creative license to what was really said, typically to help some personal theory of their own.

We can assume if both accounts were accurate, that Kelly was not killed between the hours of 2 am - 8.15 am, as if so how would Mrs M be able to make a reference to something that may have been the reason why Kelly wanted a handkerchief .
This would verify that Kelly was killed in daylight ,which initially . the police believed so.
The only reference to Mrs Maxwell suggestion , that Kelly may have needed a handkerchief , [I have been told on here years ago ] came from Donald mc'cormick And says '' All muffled up as in cold,'' Which is different then 'Her eyes looked queer, But the same meaning,
Regards Richard.

McCormick, yes the first Ripper book I bought, talk about starting at the bottom sources can only improve from that point.

[Simon Wood]

Abandon hope all ye who open a book by Donald McCormick.

[richardnunweek]

Hi
What i am going to suggest depends on the authenticity of both Hutchinson , and Mrs Maxwell's account.
At 2 am Hutchinson saw Kelly with a man , and part of his statement says , She said 'Oh I have lost my handkerchief ' he hand s one to her,
At 8 am plus Mrs Maxwell says an additional part that we are not aware of now, ''Her eyes looked queer , like she was heavy in cold''.. I read this in early 1970's , I have no idea where , but it was in some kind of publication.
We can assume if both accounts were accurate, that Kelly was not killed between the hours of 2 am - 8.15 am, as if so how would Mrs M be able to make a reference to something that may have been the reason why Kelly wanted a handkerchief .
This would verify that Kelly was killed in daylight ,which initially . the police believed so.
The only reference to Mrs Maxwell suggestion , that Kelly may have needed a handkerchief , [I have been told on here years ago ] came from Donald mc'cormick And says '' All muffled up as in cold,'' Which is different then 'Her eyes looked queer, But the same meaning,
Regards Richard.

[Wickerman]

kelly probably ate her last meal with blotchy on the way home to her place

I guess we can all pick a time that suits us, there are a few intervals to choose from.

[Curious Cat]

You're completely missing the point.
The 'only' reason for me quoting from that article is to demonstrate the police were divided on suspects, that the Star had exaggerated a situation which was perfectly normal.
The Star had with full bias suggested Hutchinson had been discredited, yet the same rationale had to apply to Cox, but they made no suggestion that Cox had been discredited - only Hutchinson, and without any justification sourced from police.

The article in the Echo of the 13th is making the argument for Cox's suspect being similar to a "Mitre Square suspect with fair moustache", and the Hanbury suspect "who entered a public house".
As opposed to Hutchinson's suspect being more in keeping with the Berner st. "very dark man", and the Hanbury st. "dark foreign-looking man".
So, we then get to that quote you quibble about above.
The City police have been looking for "Mitre square" suspect for these past weeks, but they do not think he is the same as the Cox suspect.
Whereas, the Met. police are more persuaded by Cox's suspect. An already divided investigation, without making clear any preference for the Hutchinson suspect.




On the contrary - the police will never dismiss any suspect until they have been thoroughly investigated, if that means they have two, three four or more suspects all being investigated at the same time, then so be it.
What you suggest simply never happens.
It should be obvious that if the authorities are still investigating two suspects on 19th Nov. then neither suspect can have been discredited, regardless of what any controversial newspaper chooses to print. Both forces worked tightly together and met on a regular basis - per Swanson.

The line you quoted saying, "The City police have been making inquiries for this man for weeks past, but without success," is not in reference to Blotchy. The man is not Blotchy. The man in that sentence is not the individual Mary Ann Cox says she saw. The man written of in that sentence is a separate individual who was described by others in regard to a murder that wasn't of Mary Kelly.

Blotchy was seen with Mary Kelly at an earlier time. Even if Astrakhan was the favoured suspect, there are no grounds to discredit Mary Ann Cox's description of the man she saw or the rest of her account. He is still needed to be tracked down to confirm when he left Miller's Court. Therefore Mary Ann Cox is never discredited.

If Blotchy is the favoured suspect then Astrakhan and Hutchinson's account is discredited by default as he can't very well converse with a dead woman in the street let alone watch another man do the same before going to her room. If there were investigating officers who favoured Blotchy then they were openly dismissing Hutchinson's account, regardless of whether you think that was professional of them to do so or not. If the papers report on that being the circumstance then that's not spin, it's just how it was at that point.

If you really think the police never dismiss a suspect until they have been thoroughly investigated then maybe you should look up the case of Stephen Port. The evidence was there but they dismissed him as a suspect and left him to kill again. The difference here is that the police didn't have multiple suspects. No-one else was in the frame. What I suggest simply does happen.



Why did you suggest Joseph Issacs was the man Hutchinson saw when you had already proven he couldn't have been anywhere near Dorset Street that morning?

Should I keep Joseph Issacs on my suspect list or take him off through discrediting your suggestion that he was the man Hutchinson described as the man in Mary Kelly's company?

[Abby Normal]

kelly probably ate her last meal with blotchy on the way home to her place

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman

I'm inclined to believe Hutchinson's statement, although recognise why it is in doubt. But partly that is informed by reasoning that Blotchy man left before MJK ate.

That means Blotchy left MJK's room before 2.00am. I think there is reason to believe just that. We know that MJK ate a meal of fish and potatoes sometime up to an hour or so before she was murdered, so likely between 1.00am and 2.00am. That would be after Blotchy (possibly using any money he gave her), but before Hutchinson's man. Mary Cox did not mention that MJK and Blotchy had any food with them, it's unlikely MJK and Blotchy would sit down to eat before he murdered her (if he was the murderer), we know MJK was alive over an hour after she went in with Blotchy (so a meal before they arrived would be too early) and it is unlikely they went out to eat before bringing Blotchy back a second time for the murder to then take place.

Dr Bond may have been contrary with his peers, we have a few examples to speak about, but he was no fool.
Bond knew he cannot estimate a time of death from digestion if he has no idea roughly when the meal in her stomach was bought.
Thats the part that he does not tell us in his report, but that report was for Anderson, and it is a detail Anderson does not need to know. The fact Bond is able to make an estimation of her time of death indicates he must have been provided with a rough time she ate. Once food was discovered in her stomach Abberline would have been informed and it would be his responsibility to discover the source of that meal - which shop provided the food.

So, although Bond's estimate of 1:00-2:00 falls short of the 3:30-3:45 rough time of the scream, it is near enough. His estimate being based on 'when bought' as opposed to 'when ate', which naturally could be a little later.

[Wickerman]

It's clear you can't abide critical thinking when it comes to Hutchinson but purposely dismissing basic information because it doesn't fit your rigid support for this one account is blinding you to the point of making you look ridiculous.

This is the quote you used...

"The City police have been making inquiries for this man for weeks past, but without success, and they do not believe that he is the individual described by Cox. The Metropolitan police, however, have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement."

The man being referred to in this quote is NOT Blotchy. They are referring to the man seen in Hanbury Street back in September. Two separate sightings but believing the men to be two separate individuals. As Blotchy and Astrakhan are two separate men seen in separate sightings. You misued the quote as it is about another strand of the investigation as a whole, not the specific split on who of Blotchy or Astrakhan was the likely killer of Mary Kelly.

You're completely missing the point.
The 'only' reason for me quoting from that article is to demonstrate the police were divided on suspects, that the Star had exaggerated a situation which was perfectly normal.
The Star had with full bias suggested Hutchinson had been discredited, yet the same rationale had to apply to Cox, but they made no suggestion that Cox had been discredited - only Hutchinson, and without any justification sourced from police.

The article in the Echo of the 13th is making the argument for Cox's suspect being similar to a "Mitre Square suspect with fair moustache", and the Hanbury suspect "who entered a public house".
As opposed to Hutchinson's suspect being more in keeping with the Berner st. "very dark man", and the Hanbury st. "dark foreign-looking man".
So, we then get to that quote you quibble about above.
The City police have been looking for "Mitre square" suspect for these past weeks, but they do not think he is the same as the Cox suspect.
Whereas, the Met. police are more persuaded by Cox's suspect. An already divided investigation, without making clear any preference for the Hutchinson suspect.

It's basic that if the earlier suspect is favoured over the latter one then the statement regarding the latter has to be dismissed. Nothing to do with spinning a story.

On the contrary - the police will never dismiss any suspect until they have been thoroughly investigated, if that means they have two, three four or more suspects all being investigated at the same time, then so be it.
What you suggest simply never happens.
It should be obvious that if the authorities are still investigating two suspects on 19th Nov. then neither suspect can have been discredited, regardless of what any controversial newspaper chooses to print. Both forces worked tightly together and met on a regular basis - per Swanson.

[Curious Cat]

Hi Curious Cat

It is an interesting question, and would certainly help to pull the timeline together if we knew when and where the food was consumed. I am certainly no expert on digestion, but a quick internet search seems to suggest potatoes are digested in about an hour - which is what my Blotchy out, Astrakhan in timeline was based on. No idea how alcohol and fish affect the digestion time.

I saw an estimate of 2 hours for food to generally pass through the stomach into the intestine, but yes the average for potatoes and fish appears to be 50-60 minutes. However, that's based on each going through the digestive system on an already empty stomach. The body takes longer to break down foods when consumed together, adding to the digestion time.

So if we give it 50 to 70 minutes between consumption and murder then a 3am to 4am time of death puts that meal being had between Hutchinson meeting Mary Kelly on the corner of Flower and Dean Street and him taking up his vigil opposite the entrance to Miller's Court.

[etenguy]

A question for me on this all along has been when and where the fish and potatoes were bought/acquired? She had no means to cook them at Miller's Court so would have to consume them elsewhere unless brought home ready cooked. The fish would take at least 2 hours to digest while potatoes would take up to another hour. So the meal was eaten at around 3 hours before death. If she was murdered between 3am-4am then the meal was consumed around midnight to 1am. Mary Kelly was in her room over that time.

Hi Curious Cat

It is an interesting question, and would certainly help to pull the timeline together if we knew when and where the food was consumed. I am certainly no expert on digestion, but a quick internet search seems to suggest potatoes are digested in about an hour - which is what my Blotchy out, Astrakhan in timeline was based on. No idea how alcohol and fish affect the digestion time.

[Curious Cat]

Hi Wickerman

I'm inclined to believe Hutchinson's statement, although recognise why it is in doubt. But partly that is informed by reasoning that Blotchy man left before MJK ate.

That means Blotchy left MJK's room before 2.00am. I think there is reason to believe just that. We know that MJK ate a meal of fish and potatoes sometime up to an hour or so before she was murdered, so likely between 1.00am and 2.00am. That would be after Blotchy (possibly using any money he gave her), but before Hutchinson's man. Mary Cox did not mention that MJK and Blotchy had any food with them, it's unlikely MJK and Blotchy would sit down to eat before he murdered her (if he was the murderer), we know MJK was alive over an hour after she went in with Blotchy (so a meal before they arrived would be too early) and it is unlikely they went out to eat before bringing Blotchy back a second time for the murder to then take place.

A question for me on this all along has been when and where the fish and potatoes were bought/acquired? She had no means to cook them at Miller's Court so would have to consume them elsewhere unless brought home ready cooked. The fish would take at least 2 hours to digest while potatoes would take up to another hour. So the meal was eaten at around 3 hours before death. If she was murdered between 3am-4am then the meal was consumed around midnight to 1am. Mary Kelly was in her room over that time.

[etenguy]

There was also a second reason, as I mentioned in another post, the Star early edition came out just after the inquest where they stated Mrs Cox had described the murderer (another of their assumptions), but Hutchinson actually knew this report was wrong - another reason to come forward.

Hi Wickerman

I'm inclined to believe Hutchinson's statement, although recognise why it is in doubt. But partly that is informed by reasoning that Blotchy man left before MJK ate.

That means Blotchy left MJK's room before 2.00am. I think there is reason to believe just that. We know that MJK ate a meal of fish and potatoes sometime up to an hour or so before she was murdered, so likely between 1.00am and 2.00am. That would be after Blotchy (possibly using any money he gave her), but before Hutchinson's man. Mary Cox did not mention that MJK and Blotchy had any food with them, it's unlikely MJK and Blotchy would sit down to eat before he murdered her (if he was the murderer), we know MJK was alive over an hour after she went in with Blotchy (so a meal before they arrived would be too early) and it is unlikely they went out to eat before bringing Blotchy back a second time for the murder to then take place.

[Curious Cat]

I don't know what you mean "read it properly", you read it the same way.
Hutchinson's story was not discredited, it was the Star putting a spin on a divided investigation. There never was a consensus for a single 'police suspect', but the Star tried to make the public think so.



He doesn't say, but on or about Dec. 6th he arrested Joseph Isaac's and if anyone fit the description of Hutchinson's suspect, it was Isaac's. Abberline was reported to have said to a fellow officer: "we've got the right man at last, this is a big thing".
So clearly, Hutchinson's suspect was foremost in Abberline's mind as late as December.

It's clear you can't abide critical thinking when it comes to Hutchinson but purposely dismissing basic information because it doesn't fit your rigid support for this one account is blinding you to the point of making you look ridiculous.

This is the quote you used...

"The City police have been making inquiries for this man for weeks past, but without success, and they do not believe that he is the individual described by Cox. The Metropolitan police, however, have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement."

The man being referred to in this quote is NOT Blotchy. They are referring to the man seen in Hanbury Street back in September. Two separate sightings but believing the men to be two separate individuals. As Blotchy and Astrakhan are two separate men seen in separate sightings. You misued the quote as it is about another strand of the investigation as a whole, not the specific split on who of Blotchy or Astrakhan was the likely killer of Mary Kelly.

It's basic that if the earlier suspect is favoured over the latter one then the statement regarding the latter has to be dismissed. Nothing to do with spinning a story.


In what way did Joseph Issacs fit Hutchinson's description?

And how did Hutchinson even see him when he was in a cell at the time? You yourself have already proven Joseph Issacs' alibi...

Isaacs was arrested on Nov. 8th, held in police custody (at either Barnet or Holloway) until the 12th, then brought back to Barnet police court to be sentenced to 21 days hard labor, at Holloway.