Hutchinsons statement....

[Sam Flynn]

One can make up reasons or presumptions as to why no one said anything about the man. But the fact remains, nobody ever did. This gives me serious doubts as to both his story, his statement and not least, his identity.

Good points, Phil, but his identity is not in question as far as I'm concerned. No doubts in my mind - he was George William Topping Hutchinson.

[Wickerman]

I've sure they do but that's not what Sarah Lewis said she was doing at the inquest. According to the Echo report "She went to call on a woman she knew - Mrs. Keyler". In fact she makes no mention of her "close friend" being at 2 Millers' Court or of her also hearing the cry of murder during the night which is very surprising.

You of all people know that when you are in court you are expected to limit your replies to what "you" saw, "you" heard, and what "you" did, regardless of how many people were present with you. The court is not interested in any "we's", "ours" or "they's".
Do you think the Keylers were out of the house too? I mean Lewis doesn't mention Mr & Mrs Keyler being present either.

Just by way of an example we see the same with the testimony of Louis Diemschitz, when he ran down Fairclough street looking for a policeman.
His testimony is based on what he did, "I ran", "I could not find", "I took", "I shouted", "I met", etc.
We all know he was with Isaac Kozebrodski at the time. So why didn't Diemschitz say "we"?

So you know the answer to your question before you ask.

A key fact is that they both passed a man and woman outside the Britannia. Don't forget that they both separately and independently identified the man outside the Britannia as being the man who accosted them on the Wednesday night. Neither of them then manage to get to sleep, both of them are sitting up, and both of them hear the cry of murder. Only one woman testifies to any of this at the inquest. It's too much to accept that these are different women.

As I explained earlier, the Coroner does not need two witnesses with essentially the same story. Lewis is the only one who saw the loiterer, which was more important to the coroner.

Jon that’s ridiculous. The first version of Kennedy's story has her staying at 2 Miller's Court during the night of the murder, exactly the same as Sarah Lewis. Mrs Kennedy was obviously married which makes it unlikely that she was living at 2 Miller's Court, just like Sarah Lewis. It's nothing to do with semantics.

Excuse me David, but surely you are aware how many generations of family often occupied these cheap rents. How many married couples were at the McCarthy's?
What on earth would make you so sure Mr Kennedy was not also at No.2?

[Wickerman]

But Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes all wore hats...?

There's no "but" Christer, it was a means of social recognition.
Women of class would not be caught dead without a hat in public. To do so was akin to raising up your skirts and showing a bit of thigh....

[Wickerman]

Her time of death wasn't "presumed" or in any way official at this time.

There was no official source available, the press printed street gossip, they actually said so.

Besides, as I said, the news would have been rife on the streets around Miller's Court well before any of the papers had printed the misleading stories of Mrs Maxwell and Maurice Lewis.

"The news"?, no-one knew when she died, what news are you talking about?

The public had to turn to the press to learn anything, but much of what was printed over that weekend came from the streets anyway. Which is why we know what the street gossip was (we don't need to speculate), the most prevalent gossip was that Kelly was still alive late Friday morning.

[Wickerman]

However..I ask again. Why is it that it is impossible to find one person well known to Mary Kelly who uttered one word of acknowledging exactly who this Hutchinson fellow was in the aftermath of his statement to the police? Surely, he must have been known to them. He claimed to know Kelly well.

It's a fair question, but equally fair is the fact no newspaper printed, "we have asked around about this Hutchinson fellow, but no-one has heard of him".

We should not draw conclusions about the lack of answers to questions we have no indication were even asked.

[Varqm]

"I think" is of course a powerful argument, but I tend to be a bit careful about it whenever it surfaces just the same.

Mary Kelly was killed on the 9:th of November. George Hutchinson sought out the police on the evening of the 12:th of November. He claimed to have seen Kelly with a man in the early morning hours of the 9:th, meaning that it was on the night of the 8:th of November.
Putting it in weekday chronology, Hutchinson basically returned to London after having left Romford in the late evening of Thursday, arriving in the East End at around 2 AM on Friday. That was when he withessed the meeting between Kelly and Astrakhan man.
He then went to see the police on Monday. So we are dealing with a spectrum involving five days, Thursday-Monday.
We do not know when Hutchinson found out about Kelly having been killed.

Now, imagine that Hutchinson mistook Wednesday for Thursday - he lived a vagrant´s life, and will have taken whatever working opportunities that came along, sleeping whereever the work placed him, and being willing to travel by night between different places. If he made this very simple mistake (compare by asking yourself when you had that cod for dinner last week, was it on Tuesday or Wednedsay? When was it Trump twittered "cofefe", was it on Monday or Tuesday?), he would have been inclined to think that it must have been Friday morning he saw Kelly instead of Thursday morning.

It is a very trivial thing to do, and I have never seen it questioned with such heat until it was mentioned out here. Out here, we get "He could not have forgotten".

Believe me - he could well have.

As long as we agree that Hutch was not there at Friday morning in Dorset St. and saw what he said he saw that's all.
And that Hutch's story's point of entry from the testimony of Lewis's:"The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one" was changed to Hutch's:"I went to the court to see if I could see them, but I could not" (like he was waiting for them),and embellish the rest before it,that's all.

Theoretically it's possible that Hutch did not know about the murders by Friday or Saturday but practically speaking no.Besides his last known address was Victoria Home.I have not read anything that he went away from Whitechapel/Spitalfields. Besides as posters points out the news was almost everywhere.

[Fisherman]

As long as we agree that Hutch was not there at Friday morning in Dorset St. and saw what he said he saw that's all.
And that Hutch's story's point of entry from the testimony of Lewis's:"The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one" was changed to Hutch's:"I went to the court to see if I could see them, but I could not" (like he was waiting for them),and embellish the rest before it,that's all.

Theoretically it's possible that Hutch did not know about the murders by Friday or Saturday but practically speaking no.Besides his last known address was Victoria Home.I have not read anything that he went away from Whitechapel/Spitalfields. Besides as posters points out the news was almost everywhere.

A few points:

- Yes, we agree that Hutchinson was not in place in Dorset Street on Friday morning.
-No, I don´t agree that he didn´t see what he said he saw. I think he may well have - but on Thursday morning.
-It is completely possible that Hutchinson was not aware that Kelly had been killed on Friday/Saturday.
-His last known address was the Victoria Home, arguably because he had been placed there by the police. The place where he "usually stayed" was not the Victoria Home, in all probability.
-Just like you, I have not read that he left Spitalfields in the days leading up to his approaching the police. Just like you, nor have I read that he did not. Just like you, I simply don´t know where he was on those days, until Sunday. Differing from you, I prefer to say that instead of saying "I have not read that he was in Spitalfields on those days". It is what it is, so let´s respect that. And regardless if he WAS in Spitalfields or not, he could nevertheless be unaware of Kelly´s death, either altogether, or by way of only having heard that a woman had been killed in Whitechapel or even in Dorset Street - why would he surmise that it must have been Kelly? There are all sorts of possible explanations for why he may have been unaware of this, and positing that it would be only theoretically possible is simply not true.

[Fisherman]

He seems to have been in London. After wandering the streets all Friday night, Hutchinson says he gained access to his usual lodgings (Victoria Home) on Saturday. He then says he saw Mr Astrakhan in Petticoat Lane on the Sunday, and to have told his story to a police officer on that same day.

As far as I can remember, he said that he walked the streets all night on the night between Thursday and Friday, and that he was then let into the place where he usually stayed:

"After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed. I came in as soon as it opened in the morning."

I fail to see him saying anywhere that he gained access to these lodgings on Saturday, it was on Friday. Plus we do not know that he stayed in those lodgings all day, we only know that he was let in there. He could have taken a cup of tea and left. He could have fetched some belongings there. Or anything alse, including he may have slept there all Friday.

Moreover, the two sentences quoted above were obviously taken down by the reporter at the Victoria Home, and so when Hutchinson speaks of the place where he "usually stayed", that place would not have been the Victoria Home. You would not sit in the Victoria Home and speak of it in the terms Hutchinson used - he should have said "I walked about all night, since this place was closed. They let me in here as soon as they opened in the morning" or something along those lines.

[Fisherman]

I tend to think that's what Hutch meant, Fish.

Could be. And could not be. That´s our problem. We cannot decide for certain from what we tend to think.

[Fisherman]

There's no "but" Christer, it was a means of social recognition.
Women of class would not be caught dead without a hat in public. To do so was akin to raising up your skirts and showing a bit of thigh....

I can understand that - but if prostituted women ALSO wore hats, then it would have been hard to tell who was who amongst the hatbearers.

And the point I am trying to make is that we need to know how common it was not to wear a hat before we can judge how clear an indication it was that the women mentioned by Lewis/Kennedy or Lewis and Kennedy would have been Kelly. It was a prostitution district with many prostitutes, and if they signalled their trade by walking hatless, then why would we believe that the hatless woman seen by Lewis/Kennedy or Lewis and Kennedy must have been Kelly?

That´s what I´m after, Jon.

[Fisherman]

I believe I am correct in saying that Hutchinson says that he read of the Kelly murder in the newspaper?

Regards

Phil

I don´t think he said that, Phil. Can you find any such source?

[Phil Carter]

Good points, Phil, but his identity is not in question as far as I'm concerned. No doubts in my mind - he was George William Topping Hutchinson.

Hello Gareth

Hope you are well ☺

To each his own. For my own part, I find the "Topping" story unbelievable. But..there again..to each his own.

Regards


Phil

[Phil Carter]

I don´t think he said that, Phil. Can you find any such source?

Hello Christer,

I hope you are well 😊

My memory is poor..but I seem to recall this as his explanation as to why it took him so long to respond ans contact the police. I may be in err.

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer,

I hope you are well ��

My memory is poor..but I seem to recall this as his explanation as to why it took him so long to respond ans contact the police. I may be in err.

I am very well, thanks, Phil - hope you are well too!!

I cannot remember him saying anything like that anywhere, so I do think it´s wrong. Someone may have suggested it, and it may perhaps have stuck in your mind that way. If I in my turm am wrong, I´d welcome anybody to deliver the goods!

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
A quote as near as dammed, from a radio show mid 70's
''It was my fathers [ Topping] greatest regret, that despite his efforts, nothing came of it''.
This was alleged to have been a quote from the Witness Hutchinson , the story was repeated in the publication ''The Ripper and the royals'' some 18 years later, albeit without that quote..
It is a fact, that such a radio show existed , I have been saying this for god knows how many years.
Because I knew of such a claim many years prior to the book, I tend to believe that Hutchinson[ Topping] was being completely honest in his observations,, however as Fisherman states, it could have been a mistake, for the previous morning [ Thurs].
I personally do not subscribe to that view.
Regards Richard.