Hutchinsons statement....

[Abby Normal]

Ok Andy, I wasn't sure what your position was on that. I might not have read every post here. There are some posters who do not think the 'loiterer' was Hutchinson, so we do agree on that point - he was there that night.

However, given the popularity of the wideawake hat, there was no cause for him to assume he was identified on the basis of that detail alone.

I'm more in favor of him coming forward when he did, for two reasons:
1 - Hutch, along with the rest of the public, were being told that Kelly died after 9:00 that Friday morning, due to press coverage offering that idea Friday evening and all day Saturday.

2 - Hutch learned, following the conclusion of the inquest, that one witness (Cox) was being credited with seeing Kelly with her killer about midnight. Hutch knew this to be wrong.

Both those conclusions only surfaced after the inquest, this is why he went to police to tell his story. It had nothing to do with being seen that night, likewise nothing to do with any suggested culpability in this crime.

How did hutch know that cox sighting was wrong?

[Wickerman]

How did hutch know that cox sighting was wrong?

Most of the public obtained their information from the press. So if the press conclude from the inquest that Blotchy was the murderer, and Hutchinson witnessed Kelly out after Cox's sighting, and after Cox last heard Kelly singing (around 1:00 am), then he might safely assume the press had got it wrong.
The man Hutch saw, and at a later time, was very different from the man described by Cox. So why wouldn't he assume the latter stranger was more likely to be the murderer?

There is sufficient cause for him to go to the police.

[Abby Normal]

Most of the public obtained their information from the press. So if the press conclude from the inquest that Blotchy was the murderer, and Hutchinson witnessed Kelly out after Cox's sighting, and after Cox last heard Kelly singing (around 1:00 am), then he might safely assume the press had got it wrong.
The man Hutch saw, and at a later time, was very different from the man described by Cox. So why wouldn't he assume the latter stranger was more likely to be the murderer?

There is sufficient cause for him to go to the police.

So the sighting by cox isn't wrong, it's just the blotchy couldn't be her murderer.

[Wickerman]

So the sighting by cox isn't wrong, it's just the blotchy couldn't be her murderer.

In Hutchinson's opinion, yes.

I'm aware there is a theory that Blotchy could have left and returned later.
All we were looking for in this question is to find justification for Hutchinson deciding to go to police, not whether he might consider Blotchy returning after Astrachan left, so I leave the returning Blotchy out of the equation

[Abby Normal]

In Hutchinson's opinion, yes.

I'm aware there is a theory that Blotchy could have left and returned later.
All we were looking for in this question is to find justification for Hutchinson deciding to go to police, not whether he might consider Blotchy returning after Astrachan left, so I leave the returning Blotchy out of the equation

Hi Wick
ok thanks for clarifying. I thought you meant cox sighting of Blotchy was false in some way-like she was lying or mistaken.

Yeah, I don't put much in the Blotchy returning theory-for may reasons.


hutch didn't need to hear about cox sighting to come forward if he wanted to help. If his story was true and he wanted to help police his sighting was important enough of itself.

also, if he had heard about cox sighting he could have heard about lewis sighting (of himself-as wide awake man) and come forward because of that.

[Sleuth1888]

Maybe the man Hutchinson saw was an upper class 'slummer?'

Slumming was a well documented act around the time of the killings and perhaps this explains the man's attaire/wealth and why Hutch peered into his face as he was passing with Mary.

Such a conclusion is not out of keeping with the evidence of the times. Slumming was a popular activity for people in order for them to experience life in the East End. Even a member of a royal family went 'slumming.'

[Sam Flynn]

Slumming usually entailed members of the middle or upper classes passing themselves off as poor in order to experience poverty from an "insider" point of view. See Seth Koven's excellent book on the subject, or read Jack London's People Of The Abyss for arguably the greatest example of an exercise in slumming ever undertaken.

I should add that "passing themselves off as poor" meant dressing up in poor clothing as a disguise.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Sam/sleuth

of course Sam is correct-a slummer wouldn't dress ostentatiously wealthy like Aman.

My issue is not however, with the slummer idea per se, but with the ridiculous amount of detail hutch provided and the script like story of the actions and dialogue.

along with that- the many parts of his story that seem to be culled directly from newspaper reports and also his substantial changing of the story from the police report and when he talked to the press.

[Sleuth1888]

Hi Sam/sleuth

of course Sam is correct-a slummer wouldn't dress ostentatiously wealthy like Aman.

My issue is not however, with the slummer idea per se, but with the ridiculous amount of detail hutch provided and the script like story of the actions and dialogue.

along with that- the many parts of his story that seem to be culled directly from newspaper reports and also his substantial changing of the story from the police report and when he talked to the press.

His press statement discrepancies could be explained as being motivated by money, attention seeking or bad reporting.

[Sam Flynn]

His press statement discrepancies could be explained as being motivated by money, attention seeking or bad reporting.

Indeed, and the same motives might have prompted his approaching the police in the first place.

[Abby Normal]

His press statement discrepancies could be explained as being motivated by money, attention seeking or bad reporting.

hi sleuth
well of course I agree with the first two, but not bad reporting. The main discrepancy in the press is now he says he stood directly outside her home. Too huge a change for just bad reporting.

you also forgot to add-or hes the killer. the change in story to now standing outside her home is classic guilty behavior. Changing your story to account for possible witness seeing you there.

not only that, but hutch saying he stood directly outside her home puts him in a whole new ballpark in terms of suspicion. Not only dos it place him even closer to the crime scene, it shows that he now admits to knowing EXACTLY where she lived. Something that his previous story dosnt have.

big uh-oh IMHO.

[Garry Wroe]

It was in the Star, early edition, subtitled - THE MURDERER DESCRIBED.
So, either he found it in the 'reading room' or someone else read it and let him know?

I very much doubt that Hutchinson saw or heard of any newspaper report pertaining to the inquest before he walked into Commercial Street police station at approximately six o'clock. And why, if he was desperate to clear up the misunderstanding concerning Blotchy, did Hutchinson not report to the police three days earlier and reveal the information relating to Astrakhan?

[Wickerman]

I very much doubt that Hutchinson saw or heard of any newspaper report pertaining to the inquest before he walked into Commercial Street police station at approximately six o'clock.

I'm not pushing the idea. It is merely a reasonable solution for him to feel inspired to correct a wrong, in his mind.
Some posters are quite comfortable with having Hutch reading up on the recent inquest, or at least what was available in the late afternoon.

And why, if he was desperate to clear up the misunderstanding concerning Blotchy, did Hutchinson not report to the police three days earlier and reveal the information relating to Astrakhan?

He wouldn't know of Cox's story "three days before".
One consistency we find in looking through the weekend press is that Mary Kelly was believed to have died late Friday morning. Numerous articles provide Maxwell's story and just as many theorize of her late morning demise.

This would be in the order of seven hours after Hutchinson met with Kelly, so his encounter will have had no bearing on the circumstances of her death, as theorized in the press.
So why would anyone come forward if they only saw her seven hours before her death?
This must have all changed when he learned of some of the inquest details.