A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[Fisherman]

Hi,
The word ''dismissed'' can conjure up a false picture.
I would say, that the inquiry based on Hutchinson's statement resulted in nothing coming of it, and it faded from there investigation.
I agree people can mistake days, but it is a fact also, that important times in ones life [ and this would have been one in Hutchinson's] never leave ones memory, especially over such a short time from the 8th/9th -12th November.
And his vagabonds lifestyle is speculation, does one trek to Romford sum up his lifestyle.?
At the period we are talking about, the average citizen walked everywhere, my grandmother born 1880, used to recollect that as a young woman she would walk miles to reach a destination, and she was not a vagabond...
And what about the Victoria homes daily records of inmates, one would assume they existed , and would have been easily for the police to have checked.
The home was not for the down and outs , but was vetted, and its residents of good character.
Regards Richard.

But it did not "fade away" slowly, the Hutchinson proposition, did it, Richard? In a matter of days - and few of them - the red hot trail, arguably the hottest trail there had ever been, was reduced to next to nothing.
It was curtains down, Richard, no fading at all.

You say that important days in your life never leaves your memory. I agree! But that has never been up for discussion, has it? For Hutchinson DID remember that day, in very great detail - so great, in fact, that it has many posters disbelieving him.

Therefore, this is a non-issue, Richard. It´s not challenged by anybody at all.

The suggestion I bring to the table is not that Hutchinson may have been off when it comes to his detail memory. What I say is that he failed when it comes to the SEQUENTIAL memory. And these are two different things, as I have tried to explain many, many times. To little avail, it would seem, since you speak of people not forgetting important days!

I know of a very nice poster out here that claims that he has heard a radio programme where Hutchinson´s son Reg spoke about his father. And I don´t doubt that this poster really DID hear that programme. The detail memory is very strong, and the poster in question remembers phrasings and such things, just as he can say what time of the day it was sent.
But he cannot pin the day, the week, the month or the year.
And THAT, dear Richard, is because when he tries to do so, he needs to employ the SEQUENTIAL memory - which is another thing altogether, and something that is easily muddled.
It´s apples and mango fruits, Richard.

All the best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
The word ''dismissed'' can conjure up a false picture.
I would say, that the inquiry based on Hutchinson's statement resulted in nothing coming of it, and it faded from there investigation.
I agree people can mistake days, but it is a fact also, that important times in ones life [ and this would have been one in Hutchinson's] never leave ones memory, especially over such a short time from the 8th/9th -12th November.
And his vagabonds lifestyle is speculation, does one trek to Romford sum up his lifestyle.?
At the period we are talking about, the average citizen walked everywhere, my grandmother born 1880, used to recollect that as a young woman she would walk miles to reach a destination, and she was not a vagabond...
And what about the Victoria homes daily records of inmates, one would assume they existed , and would have been easily for the police to have checked.
The home was not for the down and outs , but was vetted, and its residents of good character.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Hi,
Why do we keep ranting on about the Hutchinson saga?
Why don't we just accept that he made his statement to the police in good faith?
It should be simply a case of did the man seen by him, represent Mary Kelly's killer.?
The policeman passing the ''Commercial street'' end at 3am, is surely a pointer to Hutchinson actually being there ...would it not have been easily checked, leaving the options one of three.
A] He was there at as he stated.
b] He was familiar with the regular beat of that officer, and used it to his advantage.
c]He mistook the day.
Option A..is the obvious, no man even out to earn a penny, would place himself right opposite the murder scene , and invent a story of seeing the victim out at 2am, complete with dialogue, and to boot a suspicious man dressed in finery, unless he was off his head.
b]Even if he was familiar with the police patrols , he could not be certain [ unless he was there] that the evening in question, a officer would pass that location at precisely the time he stated.
c]To suggest that he mistook the day ..is to be frank clutching at straws. people were not morons , he stated that he returned to the Victoria home ''when it opened'' which would have been on the Friday morning, which is usually a different day then the weekend. ie sat/sun, and could have been easily checked by the police.
Was there not a daily record of occupying residents?.
We have Hutchinson the witness on a par with Maxwell the witness, both were believed by Abberline, and both have gone down in Casebook as having made ''a genuine mistake''.
Have we proof of this, or is this a question of trying to be too clever?.
Regards Richard.

Richard, if Hutchinson had been confirmed to be the Crossingham´s man, I don´t think that his story would have been dismissed, by and large, by the police.
But it was.
So either he was disconfirmed to have been that man, or something else surfaced that allowed for the police to drop his story and still regard Hutchinson as an honourable man. Any suggestions what that may have been?
We have Dew, a man that served as a detective on the spot, at the time - and he says that Hutchinson was not a man he would reflect on, and he leads on that a mistake was made regarding the dates on Hutchinson´s behalf.

To me, that puts your option C in the driving seat. People may have a hard time accepting that this sort of confusion over the days occur, but it actually does. There are heaps of examples of it, and given Hutchinson´s vagabonding lifestyle he would have been very much subjected to the risk.

All the best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Why do we keep ranting on about the Hutchinson saga?
Why don't we just accept that he made his statement to the police in good faith?
It should be simply a case of did the man seen by him, represent Mary Kelly's killer.?
The policeman passing the ''Commercial street'' end at 3am, is surely a pointer to Hutchinson actually being there ...would it not have been easily checked, leaving the options one of three.
A] He was there at as he stated.
b] He was familiar with the regular beat of that officer, and used it to his advantage.
c]He mistook the day.
Option A..is the obvious, no man even out to earn a penny, would place himself right opposite the murder scene , and invent a story of seeing the victim out at 2am, complete with dialogue, and to boot a suspicious man dressed in finery, unless he was off his head.
b]Even if he was familiar with the police patrols , he could not be certain [ unless he was there] that the evening in question, a officer would pass that location at precisely the time he stated.
c]To suggest that he mistook the day ..is to be frank clutching at straws. people were not morons , he stated that he returned to the Victoria home ''when it opened'' which would have been on the Friday morning, which is usually a different day then the weekend. ie sat/sun, and could have been easily checked by the police.
Was there not a daily record of occupying residents?.
We have Hutchinson the witness on a par with Maxwell the witness, both were believed by Abberline, and both have gone down in Casebook as having made ''a genuine mistake''.
Have we proof of this, or is this a question of trying to be too clever?.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

No-one can say Hutchinson did see Lewis, the subject was never approached. More importantly, no-one can say Hutchinson did not see Lewis, or any other woman that night. That position is not supported by his statement.

Regards, Jon S.

You are of course correct here, Jon. We have no absolute certainty! (I do, however, think that the subject WAS approached - but not until after the police interview)

To be fair, Jon, Lewis would more or less have trod on Hutchinson´s feet walking into the passage he was guarding, and ommitting to mention her would be odd - at least to my mind. However, you make the interpretation that he could have been asked whether he saw any MEN as he stood there, and of course, if this was so, then he had no reason to mention Lewis. That´s agreed.

Let´s look at things from another angle, though.

George Hutchinson was described as a stand-up witness, a man that would not budge. Dew tells us that he was the kind of witness whose veracity he himself would not call into doubt.
And we know that Abberline did not doubt him either - he was of the opinion that Hutchinson spoke the truth.

So, what would the testimony of Sarah Lewis do for Hutchinson? Would it strengthen his story or would it dispell it? It seems an easy enough question to answer: it would of course confirm and corroborate it, right?

Wrong. It would potentially do so, but let´s keep in mind that the scarce details we have are not comparable to what they had back then. They had the possibility to establish all the little things that happened and all the positions of the participants in the drama! Everything, Jon.

... and although there was what we like to regard as a corroboration, the end result was still that the police invested much LESS value in Hutchinson´s story after trying to fit the pieces together.

Why?

Because, I would say, that Lewis and Hutchinson told stories that were incompatible with each other. If Lewis had said "there was a short, stout man standing outside Crossingham´s, looking up the court" and if Hutchinson had been a short, stout man, claiming to have stood outside Crossinghams, looking up the court, then this would have added to Abberline´s initial sentiments, and they would have had ironclad corroboration.

But as it stands, we have no sign at all that the match was made. All we have is less, not more, enthusiasm on behalf of the police. And, to be fair, we have no substantiation from Hutchinson that he was ever on the southern side of Dorset Street. We only have him speaking of the corner of the court - and to me, the corner of the court was the spot where you could choose between staying in Dorset Street or turning the corner into the passage. Hutchinson left his vigil from "the corner of the court", not from Crossinghams or the dosshouse.

This implication would have been all the police needed to establish that Hutchinson was not the man standing outside Crossinghams, if Hutchinson swore to it. They must reasonably have asked him if he was the man in the dosshouse doorway, and if he denied this, saying that he never even crossed the street, then the game was up.
If he was tallish and rank - like Toppy seems to be on that photo (admittedly taken many years after the events) - then he fitted very poorly with what Lewis said too. And even if he was not asked about Lewis in the police interview we have at hand, I would say that since the police had Lewis, they also had a test to put to Hutchinson! And it was in all probability where Hutchinson failed. Anybody who thinks that the police, the public and the press would have overlooked this possibility to confirm Hutchinson´s story is fooling himself totally, I´m afraid!

And what would be the outcome of all of this, if I am on the money here, and the police realized that the combination of Lewis and Hutchinson both having been in place did not pan out because Hutchinson had been wrong on the date? Well, then I would say that the overall picture of Hutchinson would remain one of honesty. No police source, no paper, no memoirs would paint him out as a luckseeker or a villain of some sort. Instead, what material we have, would be a material that described him as a stand-up person who got things wrong, who tried to help, but was proven wrong.

And what do we have?

We would also end up with a police force that did not throw Hutchinson´s story out totally, since it would be of relevance at any rate, albeit not of any major importance. But the police would certainly be interested in finding Astrakhan man anyhow, to establish the events on the night before the murder. So instead of saying that the story had been proven to be a lie, instead of claiming that it was of no value at all, they would probably say that a much reduced importance was ascribed to it than earlier.

And what do we have?

Likewise, there would still be some people in the force attached to the task of following up on the story, at least for some time.

And what do we have?

That´s how the riddle of George Hutchinson is best solved, at least to my mind.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

We all notice how Lizzie Albrook mentioned leaving Barnett on Thurs. night, yet Barnet makes no mention of seeing her.

We also notice how Diemschitz ran down Fairclough St, shouting for police, his statement suggests he was alone.

Kozebrodski, also ran down Fairclough St. shouting for police, he mentions no-one else with him.

If it was not for Spooner saying he saw two men running down Fairclough St. what would the theories be saying about that?

Guarranteed, either Diemschitz or Kozebrodski would be deemed a liar by some on Casebook.

Suffice to say, jumping to conclusions, taking sentences out of context, will always lead us down the wrong path.


No-one can say Hutchinson did see Lewis, the subject was never approached. More importantly, no-one can say Hutchinson did not see Lewis, or any other woman that night. That position is not supported by his statement.

Regards, Jon S.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

So GH did see Sarah Lewis?

Is that what you're saying?

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Hutchinson didn't need to be asked.

GH Statement, 12th November 1888—

"One policeman went by the Commercial-street end of Dorset-street while I was standing there, but no one came down Dorset-street. I saw one man go into a lodging-house in Dorset-street, and no one else."

Ergo.

George Hutchinson did not see Sarah Lewis.

Regards,

Simon

Thats one hell of a leap, Simon and, I might add, a perfect example of why theories go off on a tangent.

"When I left the corner of Miller's-court the clock struck three o'clock. One policeman went by the Commercial-street end of Dorset-street while I was standing there, but not one came down Dorset-street.

He's talking about policemen.

...I saw one man go into a lodging-house in Dorset-street, and no one else. I have been looking for the man all day."

The context is clearly "man", any number of women could have passed up and down the street. Women being traditionally deemed harmless, their presence often ignored.


Christer.
Hutch does not mention seeing anyone in Romford, or anyone while walking back on his 14 mile jaunt. Nor anyone but a policeman on Sunday morning, was the market deserted?
Only one lodger mentioned at the Victoria Home, so there were only two lodgers in the entire lodging-house, him and his mate?

How far do we need to go with this?

Regards, Jon S.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Hutchinson didn't need to be asked.

GH Statement, 12th November 1888—

"One policeman went by the Commercial-street end of Dorset-street while I was standing there, but no one came down Dorset-street. I saw one man go into a lodging-house in Dorset-street, and no one else."

Ergo.

George Hutchinson did not see Sarah Lewis.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

... with the built-in flaw that much as Lewis seemingly corroborates Hutchinson, Hutchinson does not corroborate Lewis.

Then again how could he, if he never saw her?

The best, Jon!
Fisherman

Where did he say he never saw her, and when was he asked?

All the best Christer, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

...then if you believe Lewis has confirmed the story, that is normally accepted as proof.

... with the built-in flaw that much as Lewis seemingly corroborates Hutchinson, Hutchinson does not corroborate Lewis.

Then again how could he, if he never saw her?

The best, Jon!
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Indeed not, Bridewell.

I should make clear that I'm not suggesting he wasn't there (I believe Lewis' evidence indicates very strongly that he was). I'm saying simply that it isn't proven, unlike in Packer's case, where it is.

...then if you believe Lewis has confirmed the story, that is normally accepted as proof.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Certainly. There were two newspaper sketches of the Hutchinson/Astrakhan/Kelly scene, and one is clearly more faithful to the account than the other. The weaker one is more crudely drawn and features various "extras" in the background, including a girl with what appears to be a mud-smeared or chocolate-smeared face. Most odd.

Hi Ben.
Yes, I'm aware of two but I have never raised them in a discussion as one of them (P.I.P.) is hardly worth mentioning, the figure at the end of the passage is only a silhouette. And the other (I.P.N.), the one I think you made reference to, does not identify the figure as Hutchinson.

The figure in I.P.N. Nov. 24, is surrounded by profiles of those who appeared in court, but as the reporter would have been present the fact those faces are identified is no surprise.

However, the figure below was not witnessed by the reporter, and I'm assuming neither did the reporter witness the presence of Astrachan, yet his figure is also shown in this "trustworthy" source of yours.
If I'm not mistaken you have vociferously objected to Astrachan even existing, yet here you are promoting a source who pictures both Astrachan and Hutchinson together in a scene you have sworn did not take place.

We do have the indication that the Star interviewed Hutchinson so 'they' knew what Hutch looked like, so if this scene had been published by the Star then I could understand your enthusiasm.
Instead, we have a drawing published three weeks later by a source who, for all we know, had no idea what Hutchinson looked like. But you think it is reliable?

Bewildering.

Yep, just like Hutchinson, who gave polar opposite details when communicating with police and press.

Ben, Sugden is quite complimentary towards the two accounts given by Hutchinson.

Sugden's opinions...

"The labourer is not to be dismissed as easily as the greengrocer".

"Two circumstances in particular speak strongly in his favor".

"The first is a remarkable consistency between his two statements"

".......there are only two discrepancies of fact between them".


Sugden goes on to point out the one version with a pale complexion and slight moustache, as oppose to dark complexion and heavy moustache.

"Given the length of the statements however, these small discrepancies are not significant".

"Far more impressive are the numerous points of corroboration, at least forty, between the two accounts".

And, on it goes...

My first concern is that you call on Sugden when he is being vague, so you can use his opinion to support your cause against Kennedy, but when Sugden is being clear in his acknowledgement of Hutchinson's claim, you ignore every word he says to the point of claiming the complete opposite of Sugden.

As you can appreciate, Sugden does not view the two stories by Hutchinson as "polar opposite" - more exaggeration on your part?

If you read the Star's report of the 15th November, you'll notice that Hutchinson and Packer are lumped into the same category under the headline: "Worthless stories lead the police on false scents."

Why don't you open your horizon's a little and read what other media outlets report, you will find the Star published opinions that were intentionally misleading and not the consensus.

Meanwhile, my sincere apologies to Droy and his much welcomed attempt to steer the discussion back on track!

The discussion was not "off track" until you arrived to raise old arguments

We, collectively, were just including Kennedy & Hutchinson among all the other witnesses, not focusing on him/them exclusively, that was your doing. Not that I mind, but there is something ironic about your point.

All the best, Jon S.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fisherman,

Sorry, I wasn't trying to lay a definitive explanatory burden upon you.

I just thought you might have a ready notion of why, if the cops truly believed Mrs Maxwell's story to be a matter of mistaken identity, she was allowed to appear at the inquest and sow the seeds of confusion.

Regards,

Simon

[DRoy]

Hi Michael,

The issue of whether the latch was on is dealt with Ms Cox's statement that the man pushed the door open and led Mary inside. Thats why I said we know the latch was on.

Sorry Michael, I'm not sure where you read the man pushed open the door. I can't find any comment from Cox saying anything other than MJK "banged the door". I'm not sure what that means but I don't think it is referencing the man opening it. The other comment from Cox is that the man closed the door after they went inside. No reference to how they got in the door.

As for why she went out, it really doesnt matter, her condition upon arrival home and her singing for over an hour does.

You said in reference to your theory of the latch being open..."That seems reasonable if you consider that she went out drinking and wouldnt want to fumble around using the broken pane access method when she returned." You made it sound like MJK knew she was going to get drunk to the point she wouldn't want to fumble around with the lock when she got home. My point was there is no proof she left her home to get drunk and therefore no proof she left the latch open.

Cheers
DRoy