Casebook Examiner Number 5

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"…But still leaving us with the existing problems associated with the Romford scenario, as well as the other objections to the “different day” hypothesis, chief amongst which is the suggestion that the striking similarity between the Hutchinson and Lewis accounts was pure coincidence."

Just how striking is it to find men outside the gateway to a court that more or less functions like a brothel, Ben? My suggestion is that you will find many of them there every day in the week.
Plus, I am not ruling out the suggestion that Hutchinson could have chanced to make some money from knowledge gained on his behalf about the inquest - if so, he could have made up a story and involved the man mentioned by Lewis - but I think such a suggestion has the obvious flaw of playing out the drama in dry conditions. If he did have knowledge of the details spoken of at the inquest, he would reasonably have noted Cox´s words on the rain.
Therefore, I think that the better suggestion is that the man Lewis saw could have been just a guy who knew that there was sex to be had in Miller´s court - exactly like Hutchinson knew about it. If we had looked in on the setting on Tuesday or Wednesday instead, I see no reason to rule out that there were men outside the court on them nights too - or on any other night for that matter.

"A dry one, but the sheer extent of fiddly accessorial detail (which is then memorized and regurgitated to police and press) in the case of Hutchinson’s description would be implausible even on the driest of days in broad daylight."

Exactly - a dry one. I´m glad we agree on that! It is really what matters here, for that points us in the direction of Hutch getting it wrong datewise. If Hutchinson instead was lying to conceal a more sinister purpose, he committed the obvious fault of not describing his man as a well buttoned-up guy, crouching in the rain. Whichever way we turn, we are left with him depicting a scene in a dry street.

"It most emphatically does not stand to reason that unless Hutchinson told the perfect lie, he didn’t lie at all."

Of course not, Ben. You are correct there. But I think that it equally applies that anybody who wants to con the police actually tries to make their lies as convincing as possible - and slipping up on the weather would be a terrible mistake. It would in no time have the police wondering if you were lying or just wrong on the dates. In this case, the former alternative would have been dropped, since they could easily ask the source about the weather at a second interwiew.If he came clear there (excuse the pun!), the police could confidently send him on his way, and thank him for his efforts, although they had proven misguided in the end.

"But Lewis’ account effectively does place Hutchinson there"

No, it does not. It never has and it never will. What it does, is that it places a man there, any man in fact - a punter, most likely. The killer, perhaps. McCarthy, taking a breather maybe. The identity of the man remains unknown.

" I was only pointing out the haste with which you arrived at your Dew-related conclusions ... Clearly, you’ve changed your mind, but I don’t say this in criticism."

You know, Ben, I often change my mind. I make it a point to do so whenever the evidence can be pieced together in a manner that urges me to do so. I am utterly and profoundly convinced that we owe it to history to do so, when searching for hidden truths. The one truly detrimentary path to walk, would in my wiew be to choose a solution to a historical riddle and then stand by it, no matter what, not caring if surfacing evidence points the other way, not giving a damn if the ice under your theory thins and starts cracking.

I would like in this context to point out to you that some days ago, we found a man that was a plumber at the age of 38, but a tin worker at 35. At that stage, you stated that it would have owed to him not being able to ply his real trade, instead having to settle for a much less profitable and statusboosted work. He would have been a full-fledged plumber, though, just giving his job as a tin worker since that was what he did for the moment, you reasoned.
Interestingly, when we spoke about Hutchinson calling himself a groom in another thread, I suggested that this exact thing may have applied - that he was truly a plumber, but that he had come on harder times, and had to do some grooming instead, thus presenting himself as such.
But at that stage, I was told that it was a ridiculous suggestion, since an educated plumber would never write himself as anything but that, owing to his sense of pride.No plumber would confess to being a groom, even if that was the occupation he had for the moment, it was said.

So things do change, Ben, not only in the world I live in. Radically, even. And when they do, we need to put our ears to the ground and listen.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hunter:

"Sara Lewis didn't even mention Wideawake Man in her deposition to the police"

Well, to be perfectly honest, she DID mention him - but she gave no description of him.

But overall, it is painfully easy to agree with you that the Kelly material is full of holes...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Hunter]

Hi Fisherman,

The man Sara Lewis mentioned in her deposition was talking to a woman. In her inquest testimony she claimed that she saw a man standing alone.

If memory serves me right, there was a lodging house across the street from Miller's Court. It doesn't seem unusual that people would be standing near the doorway at any hour. Many had a small foyer entrance that would have provided some shelter on a rainy night.

[Ben]

Does not common sense prevail, when it is inconceivable that Abberline would have been taken in by Hutch.

So you now agree that Hutchinson was not someone that anyone should be "taken in by"?

Progress!

Seriously though, Rich, the indications are strong that Abberline was not "taken in" by Hutchinson in the long run, at least not the extent that he considered him a squeaky clean, honest-to-goodness witness who saw Jack the Ripper.

[Ben]

Glad you enjoyed the article, Hunter.

The man Sara Lewis mentioned in her deposition was talking to a woman.

The Bethnal Green Road man was described by Sarah Lewis as having spoken to a woman at the corner of Dorset Street, whereas the man in the wideawake was quite alone. The police report specifically had the words "talking to a female" crossed out in connection with the wideawake man, so there is no doubt that his was a solitary vigil.

There was indeed a lodging house opposite the court, but crucially, both Hutchinson and Lewis' man were allleged to have been monitering the entrance to Miller's Court specifically, without exhibiting any interest in the lodgging house which they could, in any case, have entered if they sought shelter.

As for the Star, I would suggest that there’s absolutely no reason to doubt the veracity of two independent press sources attesting to the same observation (the Echo also reported that a "very reduced importance" had been attached to his account). Bear in mind that both papers had earlier provided Hutchinson’s full account, with the Star in particular expressing initial enthusiastic optimism that it might yield results for the investigation. As such, it would hardly have benefited them to then claim falsely that Hutchinson’s account was now discredited. The Star also “discredited” Packer, which we know to be true.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“Just how striking is it to find men outside the gateway to a court that more or less functions like a brothel, Ben?”

It is certainly an exaggeration to claim that the court functioned “more or less like a brothel” as there were several other court residents who clearly had nothing to do with prostitution. It also doesn’t seem remotely likely that the prostitutes’ clients would chose to wait in an exposed location in the hope of using the services of one of the court’s residences, especially as there was no opportunity to observe any “action” going on inside; especially not a miserably cold and rainy night; and especially not when there were opportunities to procure shelter a few feet away if the punters really felt the need to wait for a particular prostitute.

The congruity between the Lewis and Hutchinson descriptions extends not only to the time and location, but the actual activity, reported by Lewis and alleged by Hutchinson, of watching and waiting for someone. At 2:30am on the morning of 9th November, Hutchinson claimed to have:

“…stood there (outside the entrance to Miller’s Court) for three quarters of an hour to see if they came out”. Parenthesis mine.

And Sarah Lewis made the following observations concerning a man standing outside the entrance to Miller’s Court at 2:30am on the morning of 9th November:

“The man standing in the street was looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out”.

Hutchinson came forward as soon as Lewis’ evidence was made public knowledge.

There are those who claim to consider this to be one big coincidence of timing and detail. The chances of it being a “coincidence” are absurdly slim, however, and I still have faith that many people realise this, and yet it will continue to be resisted in a very vocal fashion by those who believe that the acknowledgement of this glaring "non-coincidence" just might lend weight to the proposal that Hutchinson could have had some involvement in the Kelly murder. This is to some extent expected. Anyone arguing for the candidacy of any given suspect will find him or herself in the minority of opinion. They will always be the bad guys in the equation, and I naturally accepted that this goes with the territory. Other people have their own preferred solutions and suspects, and there will never be such a thing as a majority-endorsed suspect solution.

“that points us in the direction of Hutch getting it wrong datewise.”

No, Fish. I really don't think it does. You got the idea that Hutchinson might have got it wrong “date-wise” directly from me, after I mentioned on another thread that Walter Dew had once made this suggestion. After dismissing the idea and cautioning me against listening to anything he says, you then wrote an article championing Dew’s suggestion as the right one. While I’d never begrudge you changing your mind (because we owe it to history etc etc) it is very surprising that you should now express such incredible certainty over a theory you only formulated a few weeks ago.

“If Hutchinson instead was lying to conceal a more sinister purpose, he committed the obvious fault of not describing his man as a well buttoned-up guy, crouching in the rain.”

Yes, exactly. He slipped up when fabricating. What explanation could be less complicated?

“Interestingly, when we spoke about Hutchinson calling himself a groom in another thread, I suggested that this exact thing may have applied - that he was truly a plumber, but that he had come on harder times, and had to do some grooming instead”

And that would be a reasonable suggestion were it not for the fact that Hutchinson said nothing about plumbing. He was, according to his own account, a “groom by trade now working as a labourer”, not a plumber now working as a groom. That “by trade” reference tells the story here. Grooming was his main occupation, but on account of “harder times” he was now irregularly employed as a labourer. It makes no sense whatsoever for a plumber to have listed his “trade” as that of a groom while omitting any reference to plumbing altogether.

I have no idea why you think that your Michael Goldstein reference changes any of this. If Goldstein was ever interviewed by the police in 1891, I have no doubt that he would have described himself as a plumber by trade, now working as a tin metal worker.

Cheers,
Ben

[corey123]

Hello Hunter,

I appriciate the kind words, although half of it wasn't really "profiling".

[Fisherman]

Hunter:

"The man Sara Lewis mentioned in her deposition was talking to a woman. In her inquest testimony she claimed that she saw a man standing alone."

So you mean that it may not have been the same man? Possible, of course.

"If memory serves me right, there was a lodging house across the street from Miller's Court. It doesn't seem unusual that people would be standing near the doorway at any hour. Many had a small foyer entrance that would have provided some shelter on a rainy night."

That is true, of course. Plus Miller´s Court - McCarthy´s rents - did offer a number of prostitutes who, according to contemporary press, serviced clients in their rooms. Such things make for great male magnets ...

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Let me get this right.Hutchinson got it wrong,it was not the day and night of 8/9 that he went to Romford,came back,and followed Kelly and companion home,watched ,and then walked the sreets,but the day and night of 7/8,a full 24 hours before.A 24 hour lapse in memory..A void that needs to be explainedSo where did he spend the day and night of 8/9,the night Kelly was Killed?.
I am pretty sure that if I had to forego a nights bed,and walk the streets,I would be remembering the particular night for a long time afterwards,yet we are expected to believe,that Hutchinson,who displayed an amazing feat oof memory and obsevationon on the 12th,at the same time became confused with a whole 24 hour day.Believeable? Of course not.
Aberline was not a fool,yet we are again asked to believe that a valuable witness,under interogation,was able to fool him about the timing of perhaps the most valuable evidence in the whole ripper case.Again to the tune of 24 hours,because it is certain,from what Aberline states,that it was the 9th of November that Aberline believed Hutchinson followed Kelly and stood outside Crossingham's,and I am100 per cent certain that Aberline was correct.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"It is certainly an exaggeration to claim that the court functioned “more or less like a brothel” as there were several other court residents who clearly had nothing to do with prostitution. It also doesn’t seem remotely likely that the prostitutes’ clients would chose to wait in an exposed location in the hope of using the services of one of the court’s residences, especially as there was no opportunity to observe any “action” going on inside; especially not a miserably cold and rainy night; and especially not when there were opportunities to procure shelter a few feet away if the punters really felt the need to wait for a particular prostitute."

There was a number of prostitutes. Prostitutes attract men. The equation is a simple one.
I also mentioned in my article that a signal system of some sorts may have been in use, and if that was the case, then the exact spot facing the entrance to the court would be the place to observe it from.

But you do make a good point when you say that it was a miserably cold and rainy night! It is the very same point I make in the article, and to my mind it clinches that Hutch was not there on the morning of the 9:th. And if he was not there, he certainly was not the man Lewis said she saw.

"Hutchinson came forward as soon as Lewis’ evidence was made public knowledge.
There are those who claim to consider this to be one big coincidence of timing and detail. The chances of it being a “coincidence” are absurdly slim, however"

Ben, please consider that we are faced with a couple of possibilities in this case. To begin with, you have always said that the man who testified as George Hutchinson was an outright liar. But you mean that he would be lying to conceal the fact that he was really Joe Fleming in disguise, Mary Kellys killer.

That is a hefty accusation. Why not instead, if you need to see him as a liar, ponder the possibility that he was short on money - as he stated himself - and saw a chance to make a buck from the police. He gets word of the inquest, and he fabricates a story and tries to clinch it by claiming that he stood outside the court at 2.30, as witnessed about by Lewis. That would be a clever scheme, the way I see things, and it would turn him into a much more ordinary and common species than an eviscerator and a serial killer.

Why not opt for this, much more simple, solution to your thoughts on him being of the lying sort? It would explain the loiterer and his behaviour very conveniently, and since you apparently mean that this is totally impossible to explain in any other fashion than by using Hutchinson, it would be a good bid, I think.

Myself, I will stand by my own hunch that this was not what happened, for reasons I have already given; if he knew about the inquest, he would have known about the rain too. Obviously, he did not. Instead, he gave a story that seemed to be played out on a dry, overcast November night. For some reason or another.

"He slipped up when fabricating. What explanation could be less complicated?"

The above. For starters.

"If Goldstein was ever interviewed by the police in 1891, I have no doubt that he would have described himself as a plumber by trade"

No doubts. Of course not. That must feel reassuring.

I was never of the opinion that I would sway you, Ben. And that holds true, regardless of the evidence presented. It would always be the same outcome, no matter what. I know this from experience.
Therefore, I am thoroughly pleased to see that the other posters who have chimed in seem to think that my suggestion is a very feasible one. To me, that counts - and warms very much.

Finally, I feel that I really ought to comment on this oneliner:

"You got the idea that Hutchinson might have got it wrong “date-wise” directly from me"

... but I really cannot think of what to say. Perhaps that I have seemingly done a lot of work for no good reason, since you had already done it for me. You of all people, Ben...?

Here ends our discussion for now. Once again, we have dug our trenches and fired our guns and I fail to see that we could produce any fruitful discussion by going over it one more time. If you are of a different meaning, please post your thought and I will respond.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"it is certain,from what Aberline states,that it was the 9th of November that Aberline believed Hutchinson followed Kelly and stood outside Crossingham's,and I am100 per cent certain that Aberline was correct."

When he wrote to his superiors and stated that he thought Hutchinson was telling the truth, yes, then Abberline believed that Hutchinson had been in place on the 9:th. If not, we would not be having this discussion.

"A 24 hour lapse in memory..A void that needs to be explained"

Okay: People sometimes mistake dates.

"I am pretty sure that if I had to forego a nights bed,and walk the streets,I would be remembering the particular night for a long time afterwards"

Yes, Harry. And so did Hutchinson. If we accept that he was Toppy, we actually know that he remembered it for many a decade. Probably all his life, actually.
But this has nothing at all to do with getting the date wrong. Many people who have most vivid memories of things they have done, cannot pinpoint the date. And, once again, Hutchinson also remembered that the night he was in Dorset Street, was a night on which you could walk the streets for hours, waiting for the Victoria Home to open. He also remembered that it was a night on which men walked the streets in unbuttoned coats, and leaned on lampposts. He very clearly gave away that he was in Dorset Street on a dry night, Harry! That is the crucial matter - it is in his police report, taken down in ink by Badham.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Take this Hutch talk elsewhere please. Corey and Tom did some fine work that we can discuss a bit. I'm so sick of Pro-Hutchers who are so frigging obsessed with their suspect that they have lost all reason and all ability to look logically at other possibilities. They are like religious fanatics. From now on, I shall refer to them as Hutch-Qaeda. Take it away from here. Argue nonsensically at JTR Forums, though Howard would get sick of it as well. I theorize, therefore I refute. Great! We get it. Now piss off.

Thanks,

Mike

[Sally]

Fisherman - a fine piece of work, insightful and well constructed.

You are to be congratulated meticulously argued article - and I see I am not by any means the first to do so. And you are right. Hutchinson’s account of the movie scene with Mary and Mr. A (or S) is one of a dry night. Yes. It is indeed the case that the simplest solutions are often the best ones. Your argument is plausible enough.

However. Sorry, there’s going to be a ‘however’…. this does not in itself indicate conclusively that Hutchinson was not there on the morning of the 9th, although that may of course have been the case.

What I think it does do is demonstrate, quite conclusively, that he was in error - as you in fact argue. It shows that Hutchinson could not realistically have had the encounter that he claimed at the time that he stated. As the veracity of his account is such a contentious issue, it is commendable that you have succeeded in resolving it, finally.

Hutchinson may, as you suggest, have been mistaken as to the day, although for the circumstances of the occasion, I think not. Let us assume that Hutchinson did have a long standing relationship with Kelly. In those circumstances alone, he would surely have been unlikely to have mistaken the day on which he last saw her alive? Yes, of course, it is possible - but so are many things, technically. I count it as unlikely, on the whole. I think, Fisherman, that you are giving Hutchinson the benefit of the doubt, here.

So, if he was not mistaken, then alternatively, he may have been telling porkies. In that case, he either was there, and made the story about Kelly and Astrakhan man up; or he was not there and did the same.

And if he lied, why did he lie? If he was not there, why say he was? I think there are questions still to be addressed.

But an interesting read, and a very worthy piece of research on the whole.

[Fisherman]

Hi Sally!

Many, many thanks for your kind words on my article! If, as it seems, you have gone through this thread, you will have noticed that I posted an answer to Mike, where I stated that I opted for the one-day-off scenario in recognition of Frederick Abberline´s estimation of the man he interwiewed, George Hutchinson. Abberline was of the meaning that Hutchinson had told the truth, and I find it plausible that this may have held true to at least a very great extent. Hutchinson was an honest man, or so Abberline thought, and I chose to honour that assessment.

There are, though, other suggestions of it all that may be equally true, just like you say. He could have been telling porkies, for example. But when it comes to your stance that he would not have gotten the day wrong, I am anything but sure about that, the reason being - as I have argued before - that we cannot be certain that Hutchinson knew from the outset that it was Kelly that had been killed. From a purely technical point of wiew, we cannot even be sure that he even knew that there had been a killing at all, at least not until after some time.

As a matter of fact, if we accept that Hutchinson DID get the day wrong - and that is my stance - then such a thing would very much strengthen the suggestion that he did not know about Mary Kelly´s demise until he contacted the policeman on Sunday. If he had known everything on the morning of the 9:th, he would arguably not have been very likely to confuse the evening before with the evening of the 7:th.
But if the news dawned on him only on Sunday, then a few days would have passed, and it would suddenly be much more understandable if he got things twisted - maybe even more so because when you have a sighting of a woman that you some days later realize have been killed, you may feel an inclination to tie your observation of her with an unidentified man to the murder itself.

And is there something speaking for such a thing? Would he not have been sure to have heard about Mary? Well, that would depend on where he was and what he did - and we know nothing of this! It would seem that the man Abberline judged to be a useful and honest citizen did absolutely nothing for a couple of days, in spite of his observation of Kelly. But if we give him the benefit of a doubt, and accept that he did not KNOW that what he had seen could have been a prelude to murder (actually, it could not, since he was in Dorset Street the night BEFORE, but if he got things up he would be happily unaware of that) until Sunday, then all of his actions suddenly become very, very logical. He contacts a policeman, nothing comes from it, and the day after he goes to the police station, encouraged by his fellow lodgers, to ensure that his message comes across.

And there you are, Sally. That is how I look upon it nowadays. It could have been one or two other ways around, though - but he was NOT the man Lewis saw, either way.

Once again thanks for your kindness, Sally!

The best,
Fisherman

[corey123]

Thanks Mike