Hutchinsons statement....

[caz]

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.

Hi Jon,

Now that is an intriguing thought, and one I can't recall reading before. A later timing would be more in line with the murders of Tabram, Nichols and Chapman, while Stride was killed earlier, which may have discomfited the ripper and led to the double event. With Kelly he could have reverted to what worked best for him and felt safer, with fewer people around to witness anything.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

Great post, Colin.

I've always found Hutch's recorded explanation for hanging around so long less than credible, and felt that Abberline would have questioned him further about this and got an answer he could accept, if not approve of or broadcast, for the reasons you suggest. 45 minutes in the hope of seeing Flash Harry again, and all because he appeared a better class of customer than Kelly usually pulled? Pull the other one. That's not even an explanation. After all, this witness was claiming to be the last man but one to see Kelly alive.

Love,

Caz
X

[Varqm]

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

Thank you.How could I miss. Blotchy is of course interesting.I wonder if he was the Joe Julia Venturney says Kelly was fond of.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Jon,

Now that is an intriguing thought, and one I can't recall reading before. A later timing would be more in line with the murders of Tabram, Nichols and Chapman, while Stride was killed earlier, which may have discomfited the ripper and led to the double event. With Kelly he could have reverted to what worked best for him and felt safer, with fewer people around to witness anything.

Love,

Caz
X

that scenario would put hutch right back in the cross hairs though, and I don't think mr wicky would want that, nosiree.

[Abby Normal]

Great post, Colin.

I've always found Hutch's recorded explanation for hanging around so long less than credible, and felt that Abberline would have questioned him further about this and got an answer he could accept, if not approve of or broadcast, for the reasons you suggest. 45 minutes in the hope of seeing Flash Harry again, and all because he appeared a better class of customer than Kelly usually pulled? Pull the other one. That's not even an explanation. After all, this witness was claiming to be the last man but one to see Kelly alive.

Love,

Caz
X

bingo
it shows stalking behavior at worst and at best wanting to see mary again, possibly for a hook up and or place to crash. in between it shows an unusual interest in her, perhaps a dab of jealousy.

[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.

The probably chose Lawende because he got two companions to verify his testimony.Verification or some,otherwise lots of people will get hanged if only he said she said.

[Abby Normal]

The probably chose Lawende because he got two companions to verify his testimony.Verification,otherwise lots of people will get hanged.

yup and because he was "respectable"

[Sam Flynn]

it shows stalking behavior at worst... in between it shows an unusual interest in her, perhaps a dab of jealousy.

I agree. Hutchinson's attention to detail, I'd suggest, went rather further than most people's would have under such circumstances.

[John G]

The probably chose Lawende because he got two companions to verify his testimony.Verification or some,otherwise lots of people will get hanged if only he said she said.

Maybe. Or maybe it was because of proximity of sighting to time of death. Or maybe he was the only witness they hadn't lost track of!

Of course, an unverified eyewitness account still has evidential value. But then, eyewitnesses have annoying tendency to get things wrong: http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/mistakenid.html

[John G]

I agree. Hutchinson's attention to detail, I'd suggest, went rather further than most people's would have under such circumstances.

Of course, there's always the possibility he got a little bit carried away and exaggerated what he actually witnessed.

[GUT]

I agree. Hutchinson's attention to detail, I'd suggest, went rather further than most people's would have under such circumstances.

Which proves ??????

[Sam Flynn]

Which proves ??????

I wouldn't say "prove", but it suggests to me that he either was unusually (as in obsessively) interested in Kelly, or he was making it up. Either way, both in terms of his (alleged) actions on the night, and the detail of what he appeared to recall, he was not a run-of-the-mill witness.

[Sam Flynn]

Of course, there's always the possibility he got a little bit carried away and exaggerated what he actually witnessed.

Possibly, John, in which case he got carried away big style.

[GUT]

I wouldn't say "prove", but it suggests to me that he either was unusually (as in obsessively) interested in Kelly, or he was making it up. Either way, both in terms of his (alleged) actions on the night, and the detail of what he appeared to recall, he was not a run-of-the-mill witness.

What rules out more observant than many others?

[Wickerman]

... 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....

We do have other examples of witness statements to police associated with the Kelly Inquest.
The statement by Bowyer is recorded in the third-person ("he knocked", "he knew", "he threw"), clearly worded by the investigating officer - Abberline, not Bowyer.
All the others are taken down in the first-person ("I saw", "I heard", "I went", etc.), and the phrasing in some cases betrays the terminology of an educated person - again, Abberline.