Hutchinsons statement....

[harry]

Jon,
Hutchinson,s version gives a time of about 2.15,when Kelly and the male,mrA,enters the passage leading to the court and Kelly's room.

Sarah Lewis gives a time about 2.30 when she enters the passage leading to the court.Her inquest testimony, as published,states at that time,there was a man outside Crossingham's,a couple FURTHER on in Dorset Street,and no one in the court.

The female of that couple could not possibly be Kelly,if both Hutchinson and Sarah Lewis were telling the truth.There is a disparity of 15 minutes.That would not sit well in court,as you claimed.

[Wickerman]

Jon,
Hutchinson,s version gives a time of about 2.15,when Kelly and the male,mrA,enters the passage leading to the court and Kelly's room.

Harry.
2:15 for Hutch watching Kelly & A-man is fine, he left at 3:00 after waiting about 45 mins - so 2:15 roughly, is ok.
However, Sarah Lewis is not so clear.

In her police statement she said "between 2 and 3 o'clock".
At the Inquest she said:
"I was at her house at half past 2 on Friday morning"
In the Times she is reported as saying:
"on Friday morning about 2:30,"

"About", being the operative word.
Being "at" Mrs Keylers at 2:30 am doesn't automatically she walked in the door at that time.

In the Daily Telegraph she is reported as saying:
"I noticed the time by the Spitalfields' Church clock."

She also claims the Spitalfields clock woke her up at 3:30 am, so presumably the clock also chimed at 2:30, which is how she knew the time.

Lewis was already at the Keylers when the clock chimed 2:30, but this is not necessarily the time she arrived.
She does not say what the time was when she arrived.

Lewis was already at the Keylers when the clock chimed 2:30, but for how many minutes had she been there?
We do not know.

Her inquest testimony, as published,states at that time,there was a man outside Crossingham's,a couple FURTHER on in Dorset Street,and no one in the court.

You added "Dorset Street", the article does not say that.

"Further" could mean "on down Dorset St", or further "on up the court".
If we consult the Daily News, we find out what "further on" did mean.
"He was looking up the court as if he was waiting for some one. I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."

So there we have it explained, "further on" did mean further on up the court.

And, the fact there was no-one in the court is exactly what Hutchinson said. The couple he watched went into room 13, so they were also not in the court.
Apparently, the couple Lewis saw, in the same place, at the same time, also went indoors.

One other point is worth making. Sarah Lewis is not offering a continuous narrative. She is responding to specific questions. The line "There was nobody in the court" is a reply to a question, it does not continue from the previous sentence.

We do not play one version off against the other. What we do, is what any investigator will do, and that is collate all versions together to better understand what took place that night.

[Varqm]

They chose the Jewish witness because Lawende had a permanent address, and could be found quite easily. All the other witnesses were transient.

They wanted to solve the case,a big case,and at that time eyewitness was much more important than today (with science) and they would just let the only witness who saw the potential killer for several minutes go?
All they had to do was ask him to report every month or 2 for a reward and/or get his address and if he moves to report.
But I guess just let him ago and if they find a good suspect,just use the witness who is easiest to find even if he can't identify the man if he saw him again.Unbelievable.You think the police then was that dumb?

[Wickerman]

They wanted to solve the case,a big case,and at that time eyewitness was much more important than today (with science) and they would just let the only witness who saw the potential killer for several minutes go?
All they had to do was ask him to report every month or 2 for a reward and/or get his address and if he moves to report.
But I guess just let him ago and if they find a good suspect,just use the witness who is easiest to find even if he can't identify the man if he saw him again.Unbelievable.You think the police then was that dumb?

You're making that assumption, not me.
Abberline may have asked him to keep the office updated with a forwarding address every time he moves. Maybe he did, at least at first, or maybe he didn't. As this is pure speculation what cause do you have to jump to the next step and accuse the police of being dumb?

The selection of Lawende, for the reason's given, is the most practical solution. Which does not mean they dismissed all the other witnesses in the case, especially when they may have been very difficult to find.
So long as the police believe the same man is responsible for all the murders (Canonical Five), then they can use any description associated with each respective murder, so by extension, from any respective witness. They are still chasing the same villain.

[Flower and Dean]

With the disclaimer that I don't know anything about his personality and assuming he was telling the truth, I wonder if he thought he could get some money out of this man. If he thought of the man as a mark, that could explain why he'd keep such a close watch on him and noticed so many details. It would explain why he took so long to talk to the cops, too.

[Wickerman]

With the disclaimer that I don't know anything about his personality and assuming he was telling the truth, I wonder if he thought he could get some money out of this man. If he thought of the man as a mark, that could explain why he'd keep such a close watch on him and noticed so many details. It would explain why he took so long to talk to the cops, too.

Hi, yes, this has been suggested before, so you are not alone in that reasoning. I can comfortably agree this may have been his original intention for waiting so long in Dorset St.
Hutchinson doesn't have to be 'Honest George', we are only concerned whether he told the truth about his encounter with Astrachan & Kelly. Whether he developed criminal intentions as the minutes passed is beside the point as far as his honesty goes.
[That sound a little ironic, I know]

[Flower and Dean]

Hutchinson doesn't have to be 'Honest George', we are only concerned whether he told the truth about his encounter with Astrachan & Kelly.

Absolutely! What I was trying to get at is that if this was the case, it helps clear up some of the doubts about the stranger bits of his testimony. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this could be a possible scenario, I was worried it was too outlandish!

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
We have only one person who has identified himself as George Hutchinson since 1888, and that is Topping.His son identified him in the publication ''The Ripper and the Royals [ early 90's] and yours truly heard the same tale from someone claiming to be his son in the early-mid 70's [ on radio].
I have always maintained the radio broadcast was authentic, and nothing will change my mind.I heard it with my own ears, long before I had hearing aids.
If Topping was Hutchinson the witness, I believe he was being totally honest, and observant.
He allegedly informed his son, and others, ''That is a regret, that despite efforts , nothing came of it'' But he was paid the sum of Five pounds, for services rendered.
This was confirmed in 1888, in the Wheeling publication.[ a rare account]
Surely only the real witness would have known that money was paid, and the amount.?
Topping had two sons, and both have mentioned in the past of the account of their father exploits.
I have no reason to doubt.
The only concern should be ''Did this stranger kill Kelly''? and not ''Did he exist''.?
Regards Richard.

[Wickerman]

Richard.

I've had and misplaced the account in the Wheeling Register so many times I have lost count, and I still cannot recall the exact wording.
Whether Topping was G.H. has never been an issue for me, except his implied age, but then his age may not have been accurate anyway.

The huge problem for me is the stated fee paid by police. £5 is a ridiculously large sum for the period, when 5/- (shillings) would cover a weeks rent.

The suggestion of £5 does for this story what the £20 fee did for the 'Uterus' story in the Chapman case.
It makes the story incredible and as a result, unbelievable.

[Wickerman]

Absolutely! What I was trying to get at is that if this was the case, it helps clear up some of the doubts about the stranger bits of his testimony. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this could be a possible scenario, I was worried it was too outlandish!

No, I think you are spot on. I dare say many people had to be dishonest at times just to survive in the East End, a bit of lying, cheating, stealing, was probably necessary to get through the day for some people.
That doesn't mean they couldn't tell the truth for something as serious as this.
The police are quite willing to take statements from prostitutes, yet no-one would argue they are hardly the most honest people in the world out of sheer necessity.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Jon,
Five pounds was a lot of money. but the police were desperate after the murder at the court, and a star witness, who was prepared to assist them would be worth his weight in gold. we also, do not for sure know how long Hutchinson assisted the police.
Five pounds was approx Five weeks manual workers money, so although a decent sum, hardly a kings ransom, for such a star witness.
Regards Richard.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi: just a few thoughts on this part of the case.
Was Hutchinson a genuine, honest witness? In his favour we have to grant that Abberline felt that he was and he was an experienced detective who was familiar with the area at its population; something that none of us are. On the other hand Abberline was desperate for a lead in the case and, as was mentioned earlier in the thread, we all remember how Oldfield jumped at the Wearside Jack tape. My main objection has always been that it seems unlikely that someone dressed like the Prince of Wales would wander around 'the most dangerous street in London,' in the wee small hours? If he's being suggested as a suspect surely he would have wanted to blend and not stick out like the proverbial sore thumb. Also is it likely that a killer would go on to kill after someone(Hutchinson) had just stuck his face next to his own and could therefore identify him. The fact that he waited 3 days to report is problematic. Maybe he just didn't want to become a suspect but if he was a friend of Kelly surely he would have been keen to give his vital testimony. I can't escape the feeling that a reward or 5 minutes of fame was on his mind.
On the subject of Hutchinson the ripper. Back to Abberline; he clearly didn't suspect him. Is it likely that, after 3 days the killer would go to the police and put himself on the spot? Jack didn't avoid detection by offering himself up to the police.
Personally I can't help feeling that, after 3 days, Hutchinson made up this 'Burlington Bertie,' figure for reasons of reward/fame or perhaps he'd been in a 'bit of bother' with the police and saw a way of presenting himself as an upstanding citizen.
Regards
HS

[Pierre]

Hi Jon,
Five pounds was a lot of money. but the police were desperate after the murder at the court, and a star witness, who was prepared to assist them would be worth his weight in gold. we also, do not for sure know how long Hutchinson assisted the police.
Five pounds was approx Five weeks manual workers money, so although a decent sum, hardly a kings ransom, for such a star witness.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard,

Hope all is well.

How interesting that they may have paid as much as 5 pounds for his testimony, if it was him and if that actually was the amout of money paid to him.

When you say that "the police were desperate after the murder at the court", what do you mean by this and what sources do you base this thinking on?

If you do not have any particular sources, what general assumptions do you base it on?

Best wishes, Pierre

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi: just a few thoughts on this part of the case.
Was Hutchinson a genuine, honest witness? In his favour we have to grant that Abberline felt that he was and he was an experienced detective who was familiar with the area at its population; something that none of us are. On the other hand Abberline was desperate for a lead in the case and, as was mentioned earlier in the thread, we all remember how Oldfield jumped at the Wearside Jack tape. My main objection has always been that it seems unlikely that someone dressed like the Prince of Wales would wander around 'the most dangerous street in London,' in the wee small hours? If he's being suggested as a suspect surely he would have wanted to blend and not stick out like the proverbial sore thumb. Also is it likely that a killer would go on to kill after someone(Hutchinson) had just stuck his face next to his own and could therefore identify him. The fact that he waited 3 days to report is problematic. Maybe he just didn't want to become a suspect but if he was a friend of Kelly surely he would have been keen to give his vital testimony. I can't escape the feeling that a reward or 5 minutes of fame was on his mind.
On the subject of Hutchinson the ripper. Back to Abberline; he clearly didn't suspect him. Is it likely that, after 3 days the killer would go to the police and put himself on the spot? Jack didn't avoid detection by offering himself up to the police.
Personally I can't help feeling that, after 3 days, Hutchinson made up this 'Burlington Bertie,' figure for reasons of reward/fame or perhaps he'd been in a 'bit of bother' with the police and saw a way of presenting himself as an upstanding citizen.
Regards
HS

[Herlock Sholmes]

Apology and question

Just a quick apology that my last post appears twice (once is enough for anyone) I don't know how I managed it but I think it was while I was editing.

A question: earlier in the thread Abby Normal showed a photo that she claimed was Hutchinson. I can't recall ever seeing that before, but then again, I've been away from ripper stuff for a while. I may have it in a book somewhere and have just forgotten it.

Could someone tell me where the photo is from please.

With thanks
HS