If you took the time to read my posts a little more carefully, instead of being in such tremendous haste to post all the time yourself, you would have noticed that I already addressed the issue of police concerns over Hutchinson’s late arrival.
We know that Abberline initially endorsed Hutchinson despite the latter only making himself known after the closure of the inquest, but unfortunately the buck did not stop with Abberline. He wasn’t the sole voice of the “authorities”, nor was he anything like the most senior amongst them.
You’re the one always going on about “divisions” within the police, and here may be another case in point. Regardless of Abberline’s initial non-issue with Hutchinson’s three-day tardiness, it is clear from the Echo’s proven correspondence with the police that it was very much an “issue” in the ultimate judgement of Scotland Yard.
Alternatively, Abberline might have given Hutchinson the benefit of the doubt initially, only to do an about-turn “in light of later investigation” reported by the Echo. Who knows precisely what that betokened, but it’s possible that Hutchinson slipped up when on walkabout with detectives in search of the non-existent Astrakhan man. Whatever occurred, it would only have been compounded by the numerous embellishments he made in his unsanctioned press interview.
Speaking of “terrible arguments”, to borrow your phrase, are you now suggesting that Hutchinson supplied Abberline with a candid, clandestine “reason” for coming forward late, which the latter didn’t bother to mention in his report to his superiors?
It’s fun the way the mystery “Sunday policeman” now stands accused of being afflicted by the same bizarre condition that you insist Hutchinson suffered from; becoming so obsessed with reading and collating only those press reports mentioning a “later” time of death that he closed his eyes and blocked his ears to anything that might lend support to a different time.
In the case of your mystery copper, the fixation was apparently so irrational that when a witness approached him in the form of Hutchinson with a story of potentially major importance, his first priority was to check whether it corresponded with selective press gossip and rumour. And if it didn’t, ignore it entirely.
Even if this mystery policeman was the incompetent buffoon that you and RJ would have us believe (but can’t), whose commitment to his professional duties only went as far as aligning himself with the latest press speculation, there were plenty of reports indicating an “earlier” time of death circulating on Saturday. How could he have missed or ignored all of these, and for what possible reason? It wasn’t exactly his call to make. As a mere constable on beat, all professional wisdom regarding the likely time of Kelly’s death would have been passed down from his superiors, not from a handful of newspapers.
I'm sure he did see exactly what he claimed to see, and there are other statements referred to that Kelly was out after she met Blotchy.
In the form of actual police statements and inquest testimony, or confused press accounts?
The fact Abberline was reported as being excited at the Dec. 6th arrest of the Astrachan look-alike (Isaacs), shows he still held Hutchinson's story in high regard.
There is no evidence that Isaacs even vaguely resembled Astrakhan, nor is there the slightest hint that Abberline was interested in Isaacs for that reason (always assuming he was “interested” in him at all, and that the “keep this quiet!! We’ve found the ripper at last!!” quote attributed to him in the press wasn’t a vast mound of steaming fictitious cow dung, as it so obviously was).
As they are still investigating it 4 days later
The evidence for which is...?
We’re still waiting.
A story may be “discredited” without being proven false. I have never claimed that Hutchinson was “proved” a liar; only that he was suspected of having lied. If this distinction isn’t “so obvious it doesn't need explaining” I don’t know what is. What was “bogus” about the Star’s report that Hutchinson had been discredited? What possible motive are you ascribing to them for falsely devaluing the account, bearing in mind the same newspaper had enthusiastically published it the previous morning?
The report also groups three previous suspects as in keeping with the Astrachan suspect, namely, the report suggests - the Berner-street suspect, the Hanbury-street suspect, & a Bucks Row suspect.
In what respect are any of those suspects “in keeping” with Astrakhan man?
Yet that flies in contradiction with the story given by Galloway on the 16th, where a Met. constable indicates he is looking for, "a man of a very different appearance", meaning Astrachan.
No, NOT meaning Astrakhan.
We’ve been over this a million times. The man observed by Galloway was “working in concert with the police”, and the policeman he encountered simply fobbed him off. Not to be misconstrued as evidence supporting a continued hunt for Astrakhan man.
Maybe you should be aware that the story published by the Echo on the evening of the 13th, was a copy of an article first published in the morning press.
Where’s your evidence that any “copying” occurred, as opposed to two different newspapers independently obtaining their information from the same source? The Echo had no reason to “copy” any other paper when they were in direct and proven communication with the police.
Another reason the Echo were in possession of details unavailable to their “morning contemporaries” was simple chronology - the “later investigations” that had so drastically reduced Hutchinson’s credibility had not yet occurred, or at least were not known about, by the time the morning newspapers went to print early on the 13th; whereas the Echo, being an evening paper, were able to report on events and decisions that had occurred throughout that day.
The only “tampering” here is being done by you, erroneously and baselessly claiming that the Echo reworded an article from a morning paper, whereas in fact they were reporting on an entirely separate issue - one that was totally unknown to the “Morning Post” in the morning of 13th November. It all boils down to your annoyance that the Echo article doesn’t support your conclusion regarding the ultimate treatment of Hutchinson.
That annoyance evidently extends to the inquest evidence, and its conspicuous absence of your favourite “well-dressed” suspect, which is why you’re compelled to invent and conjure up a whole load of mythical Astrakhan-spotters, insisting (without a shred of evidence) that it was they who comprised the 53 statement-providers alluded to in the Echo, and that they were all “slated to appear” at a phantom “second sitting”.
The far more logical explanation, however, is that the vast majority of these 53 “witnesses” provided neither valuable information to the investigation nor any insight into Kelly’s final movements, and were filtered out prior to the opening of the inquest.
Obviously, if she can't describe anything in detail it is because she can't see the detail.
Not common sense.
You’re still not getting to grips with the basic concept of nondescript people and objects being recognised again. What if there was nothing in particular to distinguish him from other nondescript looking people? It’s also nonsense to argue that Lewis couldn’t have seen his face from 20 feet away (whereas Hutchinson is perfectly capable of noticing the pattern on a handkerchief from 120 feet away apparently!).
But that is not your position, and we are talking about 'your' belief, like you talk about mine. You don't lump someone else's belief into it when you are talking about my theory (whatever that is).
Sorry, Jon, I can’t even begin to decipher what you’re talking about here. I was responding directly to the argument that he would not have engaged in X or Y activity if he was the killer, and I thought my point was a reasonable one; why would he “use” previous descriptions of himself to help create a fictional suspect?
When you were a kid didn't you ever follow someone down the street, and when they turn the corner you run to that corner and peek around it watching them until they get far enough away that you can walk down the street behind them again.
Not without getting caught, which I certainly would have been if I had been as absurdly conspicuous and unsubtle as you claim Hutchinson was, contrary to his very own words. It would have been impossible for Kelly and Astrakhan to have remained oblivious to Hutchinson’s stalking behaviour if he had followed them into Dorset Street and hovered a few feet away while the couple had their three-minute hanky exchange outside the court.
You agree Hutchinson had to be within earshot of them both to hear what he claimed, yet you don't apply common sense. The problem is not with Hutchinson, it's with you Ben.
So it’s my fault that Hutchinson’s own account of his own location during the “lost my handkerchief” conversation made it impossible for him to hear it? It couldn’t be the simplest and most obvious explanation, that he made up the encounter. I don’t envy the insolubility of your task - place him too far away from the couple and he’s out of earshot and hanky-spotting range, but place him any closer and it becomes hopelessly implausible that Kelly and Astrakhan weren’t both alerted to his presence.
Alternatively, you could always read his actual interview where he provided his actual location - at the corner of Commercial and Dorset Street. If that’s too far away to have heard conversation or discerned colour (and I agree entirely), I don’t see how that’s my problem. If you believe him, you have to accept his words as they stand, rather than manipulating and altering them to salvage some semblance of believability.
You call it a “stupid mistake”, but people are still falling for it even today.
Lewis was there AT 2:30, she does not say what time she arrived.
She said " I was at her house at half past 2 on Friday morning.."
Why would she mention the time of 2.30am if it didn’t relate to her arrival? She was “there” at 3.00, 3.30, 4.00, 4.30 etc too - why didn’t she randomly volunteer the information that she was in the same room at those times? What was so special about 2.30 that it warranted inclusion in her statement and testimony?
All this tells me is, you probably do not do a whole lot of walking.
Considerably more than you, Jon. If there’s one thing your omnipresence on Casebook Hutchinson discussions makes clear, it’s that opportunities for outdoor recreation must be at a premium.
But for all this vigorous defense of your belief GH was only a timewaster, who do you think actually caused these crimes?
I have never suggested, “vigorously” or otherwise, that Hutchinson was “only a timewaster”. I thought I’d made that abundantly clear throughout our discussions, but suffice to say I share your conclusion that Hutchinson was the man in the wideawake seen by Sarah Lewis.
Your couldn’t be more wrong in your assessment of common lodging houses as ill-suited for the killer’s purposes. On the contrary, they would have served him excellently, as they enabled their inmates to become needles in a haystack, which is presumably why senior detectives continued to investigate them as probable bolt-holes for the killer. Why do you suppose the men who duffed up Thomas Sadler made straight for a lodging house directly after their attack?
Then we have this respectably dressed "botherer" (Britannia-man), who did at least try to lure loose? women into dark alley's.
Who else in this drama, local low-life or not, was ever reported to have employed such obviously suspicious activity?
Who described the bothersome man from Bethnal Green Road as “respectably dressed”, and what do you consider so “obviously suspicious” about his behaviour? No, I don’t think he’s a “reasonable candidate”; I think he’s a lousy one. Or do we imagine the ripper was in the habit of approaching two women, murdering one of them in a nearby alley while the other waits patiently nearby and promises not to do anything inconvenient like running for the nearest policeman?
You don’t have a scrap of evidence that Bowyer ever signed a statement to the effect that he had seen a man in the court at 3.00, less still one who “fit the published description”.
In this case the witness (Hutch) did not know what happened, or when it happened
Unless he had his head stuck down a rabbit hole for several days, it is inconceivable that he remained oblivious to the fact that a murder had occurred in Miller’s Court for more than a few hours after leaving the front door of the nearby Victoria Home; ditto the revelation that the victim, Mary Jane Kelly, was the same woman he effectively stalked in the small hours of that morning.
You really think he needed to collate and assess other witness accounts to decide whether or not his own encounter with the victim just a few hours earlier might just have been significant?
Really, if you think a witness in court can just talk about whatever they think is important you clearly have never been in a court of law.
Whereas you’ve never been in the real world if you’re seriously suggesting that witnesses are actively suppressed from revealing critical information because the stupid, ignorant authorities - as per your theory - never think to ask them or permit them to volunteer information unprompted. No, that’s just normal courtroom procedure, according to your purportedly extensive experience. If it wasn’t for street gossip and a keen-eyed journalist asking the “right” question, police and inquest proceedings would have yielded nothing, according to you?
This is precisely the sort of desperate nonsense you must cling to in order to revive the discredited bits of tattle and rumour that appeared in the press shortly after the murder, and you don’t mind painting the police and coroner as painfully and breathtakingly incompetent in the process, all because you’re frantic for anything, however tenuous, to come to the rescue of your “well-dressed” toff ripper theory.
If Bowyer had truly seen a man in Miller’s Court at 3.00am on the morning of the Kelly murder, the police and coroner would have elicited the information. Definitely and irrefutably.
He described the man to Abberline. Which is consistent with one of those "others" in the Police Notice, who had seen a similar looking man to what Hutchinson later described
No, he didn’t.
Provide a direct quote from Bowyer attesting to the presence of anyone in the court at 3.00am, and show me where anyone else described a man resembling Astrakhan. I’m not confident that you will deliver in either case.
You don’t find it all problematic that he mentioned nothing of this encounter during his first “interrogation” with Abberline (who would certainly have quizzed Hutchinson on the time and location of this policeman encounter, had it truly occurred.
Hi Ben. And how do you know that he didn't mention it?
Here is the totality of Abberline's statement regarding Hutchinson:
"I have interrogated him this evening and I am of opinion his statement is true. He informed me that he had occasionally given the deceased a few shillings, and that he had known her about 3 years. Also that he was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch them."
This was recorded the same evening that Hutchinson came forward. No mention of the PC one way or the other, which is not to say it hadn't been discussed. Do you expect Abberline to have given this PC a right good bullocking in print before he even had a chance to speak with him? For all he knew at that point the man DID report the incident to his superior officer. The files are mute.
Other than that, more of the same. I think we have reached an understanding and there is little need to proceed further.
I do, however, suggest you carefully re-read Post #1226 by Caz. You seem not to grasp the internal contradiction in your own thinking regarding this 'lazy' PC. Hutchinson's story is obviously bogus, transparent, etc. etc., and yet this men ignored this "crucial" clue? Come again?
With all good wishes, RJP
P.S. What is a 'dink driver'? Is this some sort of golf club to be used when you just want to 'dink' the ball back onto the fairway?
Possibly for the same reason various known serial killers have inserted themselves into the investigation as witnesses; because it affords then the opportunity to “explain away” potentially incriminating connections to the victim or crime location, to keep track of the investigation, and to perhaps send police on a false scent.
"Keep track of the investigation"?
Ah, yes, of course....the detectives will tell the witness everything they are doing.
Obvious, when you think about it.
"Various known serial killers"?
Common is it Ben?
There's a whole list of serial killers who pretend to be witnesses in order to divert investigations?
Given these Jack the Ripper murders are often touted as the first true example of a serial killer in the media. This killer-turned-witness appears to have rapidly evolved his craft given no known precedence for a role such as this.
You're not allowing for the evolution of the serial killer. We can't apply the modern methods of some serial killers to the first known case, any more than we should credit early stone-age man using the wheel.
Of course, if you had a genuine mid 19th century murder case where a killer came forward posing as a witness, then you might have the basis for an argument.
Do you have such a case?