Hutchinsons statement....

[Sam Flynn]

That he had given her money before, and that he had known her for three years.
Three years before, Kelly was living at Breezers Hill.

Quite, which was another part of town entirely. At that time, if Hutchinson was indeed Topping - and I firmly believe that he was - he'd have been about 18 years old. A little young to have been knocking about with prostitutes on the Ratcliff Highway, methinks.

One landlord there had horses at Romford, Hutchinson was a Groom, with some connection to Romford.

That's a bit of a stretch, if you don't mind me saying.

[Varqm]

"I don't know that Hutch lied. It could be either way. If he did, I'd say it's far more likely that all things were made up with some idea that he might get a reward for his work"
Mike

Even Abberline did not during the interrogation/conversation.

If a witness tells an officer a reasonable enough story,with a straight face, how can the officer disprove/prove the story is true right there and then "during the conversation".The officer can't .It's impossible.Or it can't be scientific no matter what experience the officer had.Apparently some posters here have the scientific formula.

Plus:

Witness: Officer if you don't believe what I just told you,and I'm trying my best to describe what I saw,I can't help you further.I'm going to leave shortly.

What choice does the officer (Abberline) have but to take the statement and/or name.

A subsequent investigation then "has to be made" to verify the statement.Things like,is this person really a friend of the victim?
But what if that can't verified.What about the possibilty the witness and the victim met each other occasionally,out there in the big city,and nobody - victim's friends/acquaintance for example - remembers or can verify that? Surely this could happen.Then one have to rely on another witness's - who also was there - testimony to check the veracity of this witness's statement.You then have to decide which of the 2 witnesses is more credible.Sarah (albeit at a later time) or Hutch.

We are also then left to infer from the police officer's (who knew about the investigations more than anybody) subsequent actions and writings through the years what they think about the witness testimony.

Seaside identification.

Witness 1: I won't be able to remember the couple's faces since I was just passing by and did not have a good look.

Witness 2: Followed the couple, "stooped down and looked him in the face",watch them for 3 minutes.

Why choose witness 1 ?

[Wickerman]

I don't know that Hutch lied. It could be either way. If he did, I'd say it's far more likely that all things were made up with some idea that he might get a reward for his work than he lied because he was her murderer. That doesn't make much sense to me and never has.

Mike

The accusation that he lied about his encounter is invalidated by Sarah Lewis herself. The court record is brief and not as detailed as the press versions, here we read more of what she stated to the court:

In the doorway of the deceased's house I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing. He was not tall, but a stout-looking man. 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.
Daily News, 13 Nov. 1888.

Lewis saw the lurker, and the couple pass up the court at the same time, confirming Hutchinson's story. Lewis did not know Mary Kelly by sight so she couldn't tell the court who the woman was.

What this demonstrates is, that Hutchinson did not get the wrong night, and also that Hutchinson did not 'invent' Astrakhan.
However, Lewis was not asked to describe the man she saw, which is unfortunate, but the court was not aware that Lewis had likely actually seen Mary Kelly with a client.

[Wickerman]

Quite, which was another part of town entirely. At that time, if Hutchinson was indeed Topping - and I firmly believe that he was - he'd have been about 18 years old. A little young to have been knocking about with prostitutes on the Ratcliff Highway, methinks.

I've never commented on the "Topping" argument except to say that I find no reason Topping couldn't have been our G.H.
If I recall, wasn't there something like 30 or so years between the date of Topping's signature and those of G. H.?
We can't expect them to be identical after a considerable passage of time even if Topping was G. H.

That's a bit of a stretch, if you don't mind me saying.

It's speculation Gareth, nothing more.
On the other hand, what do we know about George that contests his claim to have known Mary Kelly?
Anything?

[Sam Flynn]

If I recall, wasn't there something like 30 or so years between the date of Topping's signature and those of G. H.?
We can't expect them to be identical after a considerable passage of time even if Topping was G. H.

Oh, they weren't exactly identical, Jon, but it's as near as dammit as far as I'm concerned. There is a significant degree of consistency between the samples, although some would argue the contrary, and I have no doubts whatsoever.

On the other hand, what do we know about George that contests his claim to have known Mary Kelly?
Anything?

I just find it remarkable that he should have known her during her Ratcliff Highway days, that's all; she had apparently only just arrived in the East End, yet here we have this teenage lad getting all chummy with her from the get-go, only to end up living round the corner from her three years later when they're still fast friends and he's lending her money. It's not impossible, but it doesn't ring quite true to me. It's as if he's beefing up the "familiarity" aspect of his story to justify his exchange with Kelly on the night of her death.

[Abby Normal]

"I don't know that Hutch lied. It could be either way. If he did, I'd say it's far more likely that all things were made up with some idea that he might get a reward for his work"
Mike

Even Abberline did not during the interrogation/conversation.

If a witness tells an officer a reasonable enough story,with a straight face, how can the officer disprove/prove the story is true right there and then "during the conversation".The officer can't .It's impossible.Or it can't be scientific no matter what experience the officer had.Apparently some posters here have the scientific formula.

Plus:

Witness: Officer if you don't believe what I just told you,and I'm trying my best to describe what I saw,I can't help you further.I'm going to leave shortly.

What choice does the officer (Abberline) have but to take the statement and/or name.

A subsequent investigation then "has to be made" to verify the statement.Things like,is this person really a friend of the victim?
But what if that can't verified.What about the possibilty the witness and the victim met each other occasionally,out there in the big city,and nobody - victim's friends/acquaintance for example - remembers or can verify that? Surely this could happen.Then one have to rely on another witness's - who also was there - testimony to check the veracity of this witness's statement.You then have to decide which of the 2 witnesses is more credible.Sarah (albeit at a later time) or Hutch.

We are also then left to infer from the police officer's (who knew about the investigations more than anybody) subsequent actions and writings through the years what they think about the witness testimony.

Seaside identification.

Witness 1: I won't be able to remember the couple's faces since I was just passing by and did not have a good look.

Witness 2: Followed the couple, "stooped down and looked him in the face",watch them for 3 minutes.

Why choose witness 1 ?

exactly. Hutch SHOULD have been the best witness in the whole dam case. he knew the victim, he got a great look at the suspect, heard him speak, thought he had seen him before and could definitely ID.

[John G]

"I don't know that Hutch lied. It could be either way. If he did, I'd say it's far more likely that all things were made up with some idea that he might get a reward for his work"
Mike

Even Abberline did not during the interrogation/conversation.

If a witness tells an officer a reasonable enough story,with a straight face, how can the officer disprove/prove the story is true right there and then "during the conversation".The officer can't .It's impossible.Or it can't be scientific no matter what experience the officer had.Apparently some posters here have the scientific formula.

Plus:

Witness: Officer if you don't believe what I just told you,and I'm trying my best to describe what I saw,I can't help you further.I'm going to leave shortly.

What choice does the officer (Abberline) have but to take the statement and/or name.

A subsequent investigation then "has to be made" to verify the statement.Things like,is this person really a friend of the victim?
But what if that can't verified.What about the possibilty the witness and the victim met each other occasionally,out there in the big city,and nobody - victim's friends/acquaintance for example - remembers or can verify that? Surely this could happen.Then one have to rely on another witness's - who also was there - testimony to check the veracity of this witness's statement.You then have to decide which of the 2 witnesses is more credible.Sarah (albeit at a later time) or Hutch.

We are also then left to infer from the police officer's (who knew about the investigations more than anybody) subsequent actions and writings through the years what they think about the witness testimony.

Seaside identification.

Witness 1: I won't be able to remember the couple's faces since I was just passing by and did not have a good look.

Witness 2: Followed the couple, "stooped down and looked him in the face",watch them for 3 minutes.

Why choose witness 1 ?

The same could be said of Israel Schwartz and Mary Ann Cox, who were both, on the face of it, better witnesses than Lawende.

[Pierre]

Just a general observation.

In any murder case the crime scene often provides evidence immediately visible to the eye.
Everything else that occurs from that initial determination is often the result of speculation by police.

- "How did the burglar enter the house?" - we go looking for an entry point - speculation.

- "Who murdered this victim on the street?" - we go looking for close-circuit tv on street corners or in nearby stores - speculation.

- When police are on their hands and knees scouring a field for potential evidence, this is speculation.

When answers are not available AT the crime scene, in order to enlarge the investigation the police apply speculation.

Investigation generally begins with speculation to look for evidence.
The resulting theory comes from the evidence, NOT from the speculation.

Many Casebook armchair detectives begin with speculation, and jump directly to theory, ignoring the 'evidence' bit.
Because Hutchinson MIGHT have lied, then he MUST have lied, ergo Hutchinson is a liar.

Such conclusions being the result of ignorance not evidence.

It doesn´t matter if Hutchinson lied or not. The problem is that no one can connect his statements to any evidence for anyone being a killer in all the murder cases. We need many sources indicating that x was a killer. There have to be sources for more than one murder, preferably for all of them. There must be sources for a motive. Hutchinsons statements are biased, there is a tendency in the testimony. I think that Abberline knew Hutchinson and let him testify as a strategy to divert people´s attention from what really happened in the Kelly case.

[John G]

It doesn´t matter if Hutchinson lied or not. The problem is that no one can connect his statements to any evidence for anyone being a killer in all the murder cases. We need many sources indicating that x was a killer. There have to be sources for more than one murder, preferably for all of them. There must be sources for a motive. Hutchinsons statements are biased, there is a tendency in the testimony. I think that Abberline knew Hutchinson and let him testify as a strategy to divert people´s attention from what really happened in the Kelly case.

Abberline knew Hutchinson?

[Wickerman]

It doesn´t matter if Hutchinson lied or not. The problem is that no one can connect his statements to any evidence for anyone being a killer in all the murder cases......

Lewis's testimony shows Hutch didn't lie. Lewis also saw a couple walking up the passage.
Whether the description of Astrachan was accurate, or even true, is the only question.

As Mrs Kennedy claims to have seen Kelly outside the Britannia sometime around 3:00 am, it is quite possible in my estimation that Astrachan was not her killer anyway.
Kelly hit the streets for the third and last time that night around 3 O'clock, and it was then that she met her killer.

First time she went out she brought Blotchy back. The second time, she brought Astrachan back, but the third time she brought her killer back.

[Varqm]

The same could be said of Israel Schwartz and Mary Ann Cox, who were both, on the face of it, better witnesses than Lawende.

Mary Ann Cox? The only thing I remember,if correctly, about her is she came to Miller's Court,her 2nd time that night, at 3:00 A.M..She did not hear the Oh,Murder cry.

[Varqm]

exactly. Hutch SHOULD have been the best witness in the whole dam case. he knew the victim, he got a great look at the suspect, heard him speak, thought he had seen him before and could definitely ID.

Yes.The police officer's subsequent actions and writings - not mentioning Hutch - speaks loud.But just thinking out loud, there is also that remote possibility they changed and thought of Astrakhan man as a witness rather than a murderer.But the way they looked for him makes me doubt it.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

There's a possibility that Hutchinson didn't even know Kelly.

Mike

Yes. This.

[Bridewell]

When the police (Badham and Abberline) questioned Hutchinson they had no idea of the value (or worthlessness) of his evidence. Initially at least, he seems to have convinced Abberline that his account was true. Statements from witnesses are not written in the witness's own words. They are a result of a question and answer session and the structured whole is compiled by the statement-taking officer. It is the officer, not the witness, who has ultimate control of what is included and what is left out. The fact that Hutchinson doesn't say how he saw as much detail as he did does not necessarily mean that he wasn't asked that question.

To Abberline and Badham Hutchinson just might have turned out to be an invaluable witness and it would have been somewhat foolish to have themselves done the job of a defence advocate by casting doubt on the value of what he said. Was Hutchinson a mugger or a pimp (or both)? We have no way of knowing, but again that doesn't mean that Abberline and Badham didn't know. I have long contended that Hutchinson saw the detail he did (jewellery much of it) because he was hoping to relieve Astrakhan Man of it when he emerged. He waited around for a long time before (so he said) giving up and going elsewhere. Chivalrous concern for MJK? Unlikely IMHO. Eye for the main chance and the opportunity of some lucrative easy pickings? Much more likely. The police though, had a vested interest in not highlighting anything unfavourable they knew about someone who could have been a key witness. Especially in that day and age George Hutchinson, honest working geezer was much more likely to be believed, by a jury, than George Hutchinson mugger and/or pimp.

[John G]

Mary Ann Cox? The only thing I remember,if correctly, about her is she came to Miller's Court,her 2nd time that night, at 3:00 A.M..She did not hear the Oh,Murder cry.

She gave testimony at the inquest about a suspect with a blotchy complexion.