Possible reason for Hutch coming forward

[Sam Flynn]

Originally Posted by Wickerman

But Gareth, the truth is he claimed to have known Kelly for three years - which tends to blow a hole in your objection I suspect.

If he'd said "a year or two" I'd be inclined to agree.. Three years would still be an exaggeration.

[Michael W Richards]

There are in fact very few reasonable answers for the thread question here, and for my money, one choice is the most probable....he was giving a story based upon what he had actually witnessed and done during that evening, he was giving his statement because it seemed someone else saw him there and he wanted to clear himself, he was giving his statement for the possible money and fame, or he was giving his story for a purpose as yet undetermined.

I think its the last one. I doubt his entire story because of the obvious embellishments and because of his 4 day delay in coming forward, I believe it wasn't particularly wise to imagine that assuming the role of Wideawake would give him any safety from suspicion...the man seen was obviously spying on that courtyard and was likely the catalyst for the Pardon offer Saturday afternoon, I would imagine that destitute people would consider even small sums a windfall, but I don't think he saw some big payday or heroic portrayal in the media...leaving some unknown purpose as the most probable.

Despite Caz's protestations, I consider changing the very nature of the figure seen watching the court from potentially malicious to essentially benign is a huge perspective changer, and the fact that the Police considered this man worthy of consideration as an Accomplice to the murder demonstrates that Wideawake was seen as potentially malicious character.

Claiming to watch an area where someone you claim to know by name and well enough to hand out money to on occasion, entered with a stranger is evidence that the guy was weird, but the preexisting friendship seems to dilute the potentially malicious nature of the man. Might have had a crush on her, might be looking out for her safety..waiting to hear or see any problems from that courtyard, might have stalked her, ...all viable possibilities.

But when we didn't know that man, he was dangerous.

[Varqm]

Originally Posted by Wickerman

Tell me, if Mrs Long was an upstanding woman, what happened to her 'suspect', the "shabby-genteel foreigner"?

What happened to Schwartz's 'suspect', the "broad-shouldered man"?

What happened to Lawende's 'suspect', the "red-neckerchief-man"?

Then of course we still have Mary Cox, so what happened to "Blotchy"?

C'mon Varqm, if you think the police lost interest in Hutchinson & his suspect because they make no further mention of him, then explain why Lawende, Schwartz, Long & Cox are no longer mentioned either.

Did they lose interest in all their suspects, or were the other witnesses liars too?
Then, they secretly believed some nobody called Kozminski was the killer, without a shred of evidence, or an established sighting?

I see it,so when 2 witnesses have a "suspect" sighting,one is 15 minutes long (and the way Hutch observed Astra man) and one few seconds,you will choose the one with the few seconds.To each his own.

[Wickerman]

Originally Posted by Sam Flynn

If he'd said "a year or two" I'd be inclined to agree.. Three years would still be an exaggeration.

But Gareth, three years prior, Kelly was living with the Morgenstern's in Breezers Hill, their next door neighbor was Stephen Maywood, who kept horses at Romford.
A potential connection speaks for itself.

[Wickerman]

Originally Posted by Joshua Rogan

The Morning Advertiser 14th Nov describes the details of Hutchinson's statement but doesn't name him, instead saying "The name of the man who has given the information referred to to the police is purposely withheld for reasons which are necessary for his own safety"

Is this the MA being overly cautious (since every other paper went ahead and named him), or was the name George Hutchinson an alias?

All I read into this is that the Morning Advertiser are relating the official line - that the police have chosen not to name the witness.
The fact his name appears in print as a result of his own actions is beside the point.

[Wickerman]

Originally Posted by Sam Flynn

If he was there at all, which I doubt. Like I suggested, what kind of idiot would wander the streets all night in the rain, having spent 45 minutes in or around a courtyard that had a covered passageway leading to it?

Well, it wasn't "all night", in the strickest sense, the place closed for cleaning sometime after 2:00, but most of these places opened again by 5:00 am, or thereabouts.
So, two, maybe three hours, not "all night".

And, whether you choose to believe Hutchinson was there, others saw the same man seen by Hutchinson.
Lewis saw the same couple go up the court while the loiterer was standing there, plus Bowyer saw Astrachan in the court when he went to the pump for water.

"Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, who's description tallies with that of the supposed murderer. Bowyer has, he says, described this man to Inspector Abberline and Inspector Reid."
Echo, 14 Nov. 1888.

Corroboration exists for parts of Hutchinson's story, and Abberline knew more than we do. He certainly knew of both these statements by Lewis & Bowyer, so there is really no mystery surrounding why Abberline chose to believe Hutchinson.
He was there, and Abberline knew it.

[Paddy]

George James Hutchinson (Groom) married Margaret Isabella Stevens in 1874 at Christchurch, StGITE. His address is 12 Martha Street not far from Pennington. He had lived there since birth... His dad was Thomas a Stone Mason. His wife worked on the market. He was a butcher after marriage and was lodging in Newinton in 1901 with out his wife...
Pat...

[Wickerman]

Hello Paddy.

Thankyou for that, what indication do you have that this Hutchinson was ever a Groom?

[Robert St Devil]

Hi Jon.

Can you make anything out of "the shoes"? Hutchinson states in his "fuller report" on the 12th that the Astrachan man "walked softly". This coincides with Cox's testimony at the inquest, about the man making no sounds as he walked ahead of her. Could Mary have encountered two men with noticably soft soles within the span of a few hours? Or, is George borrowing a piece of information that he learned from The Star Nov 12 evening edition to dress up his suspect?

I read The Star has a slant against George Hutchinson. With the same breath, they dismiss Packer and Hutchinson and champion Cox's suspect [15th]. Mr Galloway insists he saw Cox's suspect [16th]. The man arrested in Euston resembles Cox's suspect [19th]. And, the man who attacks Annie Farmer has likeness to Cox's suspect[21st]. However, I don't recall seeing similar reporting in The Times.

[Wickerman]

Originally Posted by Robert St Devil

Hi Jon.

Can you make anything out of "the shoes"? Hutchinson states in his "fuller report" on the 12th that the Astrachan man "walked softly". This coincides with Cox's testimony at the inquest, about the man making no sounds as he walked ahead of her. Could Mary have encountered two men with noticably soft soles within the span of a few hours? Or, is George borrowing a piece of information that he learned from The Star Nov 12 evening edition to dress up his suspect?

Hi Robert.
I think the easy answer to that is to ask "why?"
Is Hutchinson so inept he can't even think up details by himself, he has to refer to newspaper stories for inspiration?
And, if you can think of this then why couldn't anyone else, like a detective?

Would you need to look at a newspaper to help you come up with details?, or could you do this all by yourself?

The footwear most worn by the ordinary working man was the boot, hobnail boots. Old army boots picked up from second-hand shops. So most men could be heard coming, but if you wore anything else, like dress shoes, then you "walked softly", because no-one would hear you coming.