Hutchinsons statement....

[Wickerman]

Maybe some are just struggling to understand the relevant issue here.

Hutchinson could have walked into Commercial St. Station and told them any old codswallop - that is true, but he didn't.
It has been suggested that there were enough details already in print over the weekend for him to assign to memory as part of his deception.
Fine, lets test that theory.

In the weekend press there is no mention of any Astrachan, gold watch chain, spats, or American cloth - so where did he get all this detail from?
In the gossip columns there was no mention of any couple walking up Millers Court between 2:00-3:00 am.
There is also no mention of the female being "the worse for drink", neither is there any mention of the female wearing no hat. Nor do we read of anyone seeing a loiterer opposite Millers Court in Dorset Street.

So, if this suggestion had any merit, we would expect to find all those details somewhere in print. After all some of these details are used to justify corroboration between the two stories. The fact we do not find any mention of them pulls the rug out from under that suggestion completely.

The suggestion that Hutchinson obtained all the necessary details from the weekend press is proven wrong.
It's that simple.

[Michael W Richards]

Jon,

I dont have a problem with you, I just dont believe that what you believe supercedes anyones elses beliefs when it comes to Hutchinson, and I also believe that the vast majority of people who've studied these cases have had their scrutiny of this statement and this chap and found him to be a curious distraction.

The point here is no-one, none of you have any reason to believe Hutchinson did not actually see what he claimed to see. You 'invent' a hypothetical scenario where in "you're" collective opinions he "might" have been able to obtain certain details.
This is not evidence - it's conjecture.

Lets take this bit first...we do in fact have grounds for questioning his statement by virtue of the fantastic detail provided by a middle of the dimly lit night sighting, an encounter..nay, a relationship with the recently deceased which of course cannot be validated by anyone who we have already established knew Mary Kelly for certain. Like Elizabeth. Like Julia. Like Mary Ann. Like Joe.

Lewis's testimony of what she saw is evidence.
Hutchinson's statement of what he saw is evidence.
Those stories match.

Lewis statement roughly matched that which she gave to the investigative officers, and Hutchs statement places him in the place Sarah saw wideawake in similar behaviour. Sarahs was given Friday. Georges was given after a published account of a witness sighting, attributed in error, circulated that weekend, and after 4 days of investigations and gossip and a full day of Inquiry testimony had taken place. Lets assume he did know her well...then he would also know the last person seen with her was vitally important to the investigation. Explain the delay.

All you (collectively) are doing is offering a hypothetical scenario, yet you seem to treat this as evidence, all the while dismissing true evidence.
You prefer to believe in conjecture, while I prefer to believe the evidence.


The evidence is that George Hutchinson made a statement that was not validated in any way by any other witness, the relationship...the encounter, the astrakan man...thats the evidence.

Show me one press report over that weekend which contains any one of those details which tie Hutch & Lewis together - just one.

We didnt know Hutch existed until Monday, so Im unsure what youre looking for here, the details in the story allowed for anyone, anyone, to have come in and claimed to be that unnamed fellow hanging about. Thank god he was only there looking after her best interests.

Michael, maybe you've been hiding under a rock, as has been demonstrated here, the police were still investigating the Astrachan story a full week later. So the claim by the Star was demonstrably false.

I prefer to see evidence of any claim of investigations specifically tied to Georges recollection of the events. It wasnt just the sighting Jon, it was a stated personal knowledge of the woman and previous friendly exchanges between the 2. It was also the equivalent to outright admission of stalking the woman, no-one is convinced that sort of vigil was benign. It was his back story. It was a gold pin on a lapel, described specifically.

Hutchinson may dazzle you for some reason, for me, he is merely curious and perhaps connected with this bizarre murder, but only as a bit player if so.

That he could lead somewhere I could buy, just not the serious interest suspect some people would have him be.

[Varqm]

We can 'believe' all the hypothetical chatter we want. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
The gossip on the streets was all the press had to go on over that weekend, and they printed lots of it, because neither the police nor Dr. Phillips would talk. Only the locals were talking.
Show me one story where those pertinent details are to be found in the local gossip.
Just one.

Not the officials,the residents.They were not allowed to leave till the afternoon.When they were allowed to leave there is no possibility people,curious onlookers and hangers-on, would ask these people? Sarah Lewis left Mrs Keyler's at about half past 5 in the afternoon.
Until it's eliminated that people could not have learned of Lewis testimony you can't run away that Hutch statement was corroborated by Lewis.You could not prove they did not either.Am after the truth not just blindly/naively following the meager account of Kelly's case.
And not only that the officials knew more about Kelly's case than we do and through the months/years abandoned him -did not use him - as an important witness,the "only" witness to have seen a possible suspect for several minutes.

[Abby Normal]

We honestly don't know that Sarah Lewis didn't tell anyone what she saw. I've seen a couple of posts saying he only had 1-2 hours to prepare his testimony after the inquest, does anyone have a source for when the inquest ended?



No.

That there was someone waiting and watching is corroborated by Sarah Lewis. I agree that it was likely Hutchinson, but just at the other posts here. He could well have been picking up on the story and placing himself as the guy watching.

Even if it was him, we don't know what exactly he was doing. Like I said, there are a number of possible reasons -- being nosy, being protective, being interested in the man's money. They're arguably more innocent than stalking.

You seem to want to use "stalking" in the broad sense of following someone for a number of reasons while keeping the stricter meaning and intent usually implied in it.

Well it's possible he wasn't there at all and he possibly picked up on Lewis story and retroactively falsely put himself there in the place of her waiting man.I guess that's the the biggest lie scenario then. But usually the best liars weave a bit of truth into there lies so I think that at the very least, some of his story was probably true.

[Varqm]

Times (London)
Tuesday, 13 November 1888
"THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER.
During yesterday several arrests were made, but after a short examination in all cases the persons were set at liberty, as it was felt certain they had no connexion with the crime. Dorset-street still continues to be a thoroughfare of great interest, and during the whole of the day people, who were evidently drawn thither solely out of curiosity, passed up and down the street, while before the entrance of Miller's-court a crowd collected. They were not, however, allowed to enter the court, which was guarded by two police constables."

Do you think think the crowd just stood there like statuettes?

[Varqm]

The neighbors of Miller's court,the people in the doss houses in Dorset St.,while the police were investigating in the day of Kellly's murder,they would not know that there was a murder?Did the witnesses in Miller's court, after they were allowed by police to leave at 5 p.m., had some order not to talk?

[Sam Flynn]

In the weekend press there is no mention of any Astrachan, gold watch chain, spats, or American cloth - so where did he get all this detail from?

He could easily have added the details himself, embellishing as he saw fit - going one better than some witnesses in places, perhaps to make his story more attractive. Whilst some reports speak of a well-dressed man, Hutch comes up with a really well-dressed man; some tell of Kelly being short of money, so Hutch has her directly ask him for a lend of some money; the papers speak of Kelly being drunk and sing-songy, so Hutch makes her "spreeish"; there are reports that the man with Kelly was seen a couple of days earlier carrying a mysterious bag, so Hutch comes up with a parcel with a strap; and so on.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
We have also a possible explanation for this story, and why Hutchinson may have been paid by the police.
What if the police had arranged with Hutchinson to assist them, by making a statement, and releasing details to the media that were false, so that the killer would believe that the authorities were looking for someone completely different.
This would give the Ripper a false sense of security, and that confidence, that the police were after someone completely different, may lead to his downfall.
Stranger things have happened,
Regards Richard.

[Abby Normal]

He could easily have added the details himself, embellishing as he saw fit - going one better than some witnesses in places, perhaps to make his story more attractive. Whilst some reports speak of a well-dressed man, Hutch comes up with a really well-dressed man; some tell of Kelly being short of money, so Hutch has her directly ask him for a lend of some money; the papers speak of Kelly being drunk and sing-songy, so Hutch makes her "spreeish"; there are reports that the man with Kelly was seen a couple of days earlier carrying a mysterious bag, so Hutch comes up with a parcel with a strap; and so on.

Yup, and I think hutch came up with the rich Jew for a reason. Jealousy.

[Sam Flynn]

What if the police had arranged with Hutchinson to assist them, by making a statement, and releasing details to the media that were false, so that the killer would believe that the authorities were looking for someone completely different.

Interesting idea, but they could have leaked a decoy description without recruiting a stooge. Even if they wanted someone to front up to the newspapers, they wouldn't have had to go to the lengths of writing a (fake) statement nor get a (fake) witness to sign it; witness statements were/are official internal documents, not something to be shared with the press.

[Varqm]

This is how people reacted in Chapman's murder ( Saturday ):

The Times (London)
Monday, 10 September 1888.

"During the whole of Saturday and yesterday a large crowd congregated in front of the house in Hanbury-street, and the neighbours on either side did much business by making a small charge to persons who were willing to pay it to view from windows the yard in which the murder was committed."

People would have asked questions like who died,how,was somebody caught,who last saw the victim...

[Bridewell]

Yes we do. His waiting and watching is corraberated by Sarah Lewis.
That alone is stalking behavior.

In fairness to Flower & Dean's point, she only corroborates that someone was waiting and watching - not that the person concerned was Hutchinson.

[Bridewell]

Gareth.

A witness walking into a police station cannot possibly know in advance what questions, if any, he is going to be asked.
You are almost suggesting Hutchinson learned and followed a script, one wrong question and he is screwed. It presents an extremely contrived scenario, just too far over the top for what he could get out of it.

One of the reason's Hutchinson appears to have an answer for every question is, Badham is not about to write down what Hutchinson did not know.
Badham will sidestep all his "didn't see", "couldn't hear", "don't know's". The police are only concerned with capturing as many details that can help them, and, that Hutchinson knew the answer to.
It's a team effort, in a manner of speaking.

You are just seeing the result of an interview by a very capable Sergeant, but interpreting it as "a man who had an answer for everything".

Well put. The story is Hutchinson's but the form and structure are Badham's.

(Just as an aside, it is being seriously suggested, by some UK police forces, that witnesses will compile their own witness statements to save officer time. It makes me wonder why police officers are trained in statement-taking, when witnesses can do it themselves with no training at all!?)

[Bridewell]

Until it can't be eliminated that Hutch heard the inquest testimonies it can't be argued Hutch statement was corroborated by Lewis's testimony.

This argument can be stood on its head with equal validity:

Until it can be confirmed that Hutch heard the inquest testimonies it can be argued Hutch's statement was corroborated by Lewis's testimony.

[Bridewell]

I agree with Sam Jon, and you so often let your biases into your posts while criticizing others.

His story was cited as being discredited shortly thereafter, so there is historical precedent for dismissing him. They believed him for a short period...maybe you should glean something from that.

Are you saying that there is credible and contemporary documentary evidence which specifically names George Hutchinson as "discredited"? Or are you letting your biases interpret vague references to a discredited witness as being specific references to Hutchinson?