Hutchinsons statement....

[andy1867]

But in what way does the description he gave match previous "suspicious" characters?




And then add details that appear nowhere else?
I thought the idea was to describe someone who has already been described (as Andy said), but then you add those details that no-one else saw. Which pulls the rug right out from Andy's argument.
So now the new suspect looks nothing like previous "well-dressed men".

You can't have it both ways guy's. Hutch is either copying previous 'descriptions', or he's making one up to look different.
Which is it?

Hi Wickerman
sorry for the tardy reply...
I was referring to several reports in the press that that a "Well dressed man" had been seen..I wasn't referring to the tie pin, gaiters fob watch etc..
Say for instance I asked someone what a "Well dressed man" may look like in 1888...someone might reply
"Astrakan collar and cuffs, gold watch and tie pin, buttoned down gaiters...etc"
So...You can put the two together,maybe tenously.
I'm not particularly worried about the "rug being pulled from under my argument" although I don't see it as an "Argument"..I was simply asking questions and discussing it...although I realise that "Argument" oft times becomes the default position on these boards...
Thanks for your well thought out replies though..
Andy

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I have to admit that I had not been following the whole discussion and, therefore, had missed the point you were trying to get to. Apologies.

Thankyou for that Frank.
We have exchanged views before and I was surprised by the position you took, I though it was out of character for you. So, the above explains it all.

However, there’s a number of things in his (police and newspaper) story and his coming forward that makes me quite cautious putting stock in his story.

I agree, though I am less concerned about his press interview. That may have been embellished to some degree.

I'm not so much a defender of Hutchinson, though I may come across as such. What interests me are the baseless arguments that are invented to incriminate him. They seem to originate more from desperation than any interest in factual research.

When anyone comes up with a factual argument against him I will be the first to accept it.
I do agree that there are details in his story where he may have lied. First is his name, that may not be true.
Next is the reason he did not give 6d to Kelly, that reason may have been a lie, because he must have had money to get into some lodgings in the morning.
He may not have walked about all night either, more likely slept in some doorway at some point. But to admit that is admitting vagrancy, so he has a reason to lie there.

I have yet to hear a rational and tangible criticism of his story where it may be demonstrated that he lied to the degree that such a lie incriminates him in this crime in some way.
Most, if not all those who take issue with the description he gave are layperson's, or at least not occupied in a professional capacity to have dealt with witness statements on a regular basis.
So they convince themselves with uninformed opinions, while objecting to informed opinion, which to my mind means they have no basis for their objections.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman
sorry for the tardy reply...
I was referring to several reports in the press that that a "Well dressed man" had been seen..I wasn't referring to the tie pin, gaiters fob watch etc..
Say for instance I asked someone what a "Well dressed man" may look like in 1888...someone might reply
"Astrakan collar and cuffs, gold watch and tie pin, buttoned down gaiters...etc"
So...You can put the two together,maybe tenously.
I'm not particularly worried about the "rug being pulled from under my argument" although I don't see it as an "Argument"..I was simply asking questions and discussing it...although I realise that "Argument" oft times becomes the default position on these boards...
Thanks for your well thought out replies though..
Andy

Hi Andy.

Yes, there are several "well-dressed", or "respectably dressed", men seen by witnesses. Hutch didn't need to look through the papers to find that, he could dream up that little detail, "hey, I saw a well-dressed man that morning...", all by himself.
I wouldn't need newspaper stories to come up with that line so neither would Hutchinson, in my view.

What may be important is if Hutch used some specific detail in his description, that could have been obtained from papers over that weekend in association with the victim.
A simple comparison can demonstrate that this is actually not the case, so there is no basis for that argument.

If Hutch was intent on hi-jacking a previous suspect description to distract from himself, he needs something specific, like "the black bag", or a silk top-hat, or speckled trousers, but "the black bag" stands head and shoulders above any other detail in this case.
He didn't use it, in my view because, he didn't look to the press for inspiration, he didn't need to. He described what he saw, he was not making anything up.

[Michael W Richards]

I have yet to hear a rational and tangible criticism of his story where it may be demonstrated that he lied to the degree that such a lie incriminates him in this crime in some way.

If all you are looking at doing is protecting Hutchinson from unfair accusations that implicate him in this murder, you need not waste so much typing Jon. I for one only believe that Hutchinsons reason for coming forward at all 4 days late with a meticulous description that surely would have aided detectives 4 days earlier makes this particular tangent in the case somewhat interesting.

I also believe that he fabricated all of the story, and the "suspect" details, and his alleged friendship with Mary Kelly. His delay and his obvious fantasy sequence proves that last point was a lie succinctly.

[c.d.]

I have to agree with Wickerman. It doesn't necessarily follow that if it can be shown that Hutch was a liar then it proves that he was involved in Mary's killing. That only makes him out to be a liar.

And then again we have the issue of police stupidity and ineptness. If his story was so obviously a lie why was that not apparent to the police? It seems to me that the whole lying part is a moot point. He may or may not have lied but the police (unless they were complete buffoons) apparently concluded that he was not involved in the murder regardless of his statements and actions.

c.d.

[DJA]

Perhaps Hutchinson was part of a police cover up.

[Wickerman]

I for one only believe that Hutchinsons reason for coming forward at all 4 days late with a meticulous description that surely would have aided detectives 4 days earlier makes this particular tangent in the case somewhat interesting.

Hi Michael.
Here you touch on another bogus argument leveled against Hutchinson. Typically that "he waited 3 days (Fri-Sat-Sun) to come forward".

Hutchinson seeing Kelly alive at 2 o'clock in the morning has no bearing on the prevailing belief over that weekend that she was murdered sometime after 9 o'clock, a good seven hours later.

What possible use would his story be to police?
So naturally he felt no compunction to come forward.
All the major press outlets were reporting that Kelly was still alive after 9:00 that Friday morning, so we have a good idea what the prevailing belief was on the streets. There is no reason to suggest Hutchinson thought any different The woman he saw about 2:00 had been murdered later that same morning, sometime after 9:00, as best as anyone could tell over that weekend.

In fact, the sub-heading that the Star gave to Cox's testimony in their Monday afternoon edition following the termination of the inquest, "The Murderer Described", just may have caught Hutchinson's attention, or may have been brought to his attention.

Here we might have the very reason he decided to talk about his encounter to his friend at the home (the friend who suggested he go to police).
It appeared the press had assumed Cox saw Kelly with the murderer, yet Hutchinson had seen Kelly about 2 hours later, with another man.

It is very likely he only decided to go to police after being made aware of the belief in Cox's testimony - it was wrong (in his opinion). so, off he went to Commercial St. Station.

That being the case, the suggestion that his delay was "suspicious", because he "waited", are both bogus claims.

[andy1867]

Hi Andy.

Yes, there are several "well-dressed", or "respectably dressed", men seen by witnesses. Hutch didn't need to look through the papers to find that, he could dream up that little detail, "hey, I saw a well-dressed man that morning...", all by himself.
I wouldn't need newspaper stories to come up with that line so neither would Hutchinson, in my view.

What may be important is if Hutch used some specific detail in his description, that could have been obtained from papers over that weekend in association with the victim.
A simple comparison can demonstrate that this is actually not the case, so there is no basis for that argument.

If Hutch was intent on hi-jacking a previous suspect description to distract from himself, he needs something specific, like "the black bag", or a silk top-hat, or speckled trousers, but "the black bag" stands head and shoulders above any other detail in this case.
He didn't use it, in my view because, he didn't look to the press for inspiration, he didn't need to. He described what he saw, he was not making anything up.

Hi Wickerman....playing devils advocate though...honestly simply for the sake of discussion
Hutchinson would have seen the several "Well dressed man" "respectably dressed man" reports...and maybe thought...
"I might need a little bit more than simply following pre reported mainstream opinion, because of me tardiness at turning up"..and over emphasised on the "well dressed" stuff.
I see Hutchinson more of a bloke that thought he could be dragged in under suspicion of having been seen, rather than actually being Jack the Ripper.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman....playing devils advocate though...honestly simply for the sake of discussion
Hutchinson would have seen the several "Well dressed man" "respectably dressed man" reports...and maybe thought...
"I might need a little bit more than simply following pre reported mainstream opinion, because of me tardiness at turning up"..and over emphasised on the "well dressed" stuff.
I see Hutchinson more of a bloke that thought he could be dragged in under suspicion of having been seen, rather than actually being Jack the Ripper.

Hi Andy.
But isn't the basis for this theory the suggestion that "he had been seen"?

This is what Sarah Lewis said about the loiterer:
"He was not tall – but stout – had on a wideawake black hat
-- I did not notice his clothes".

How does this point to George Hutchinson?
No height, no age, no mention of moustache or beard. No color & style of clothes, in fact nothing to enable anyone to put a name to this vague figure.

So, what is the basis for Hutchinson "thinking" he had been identified?

[andy1867]

Hi Andy.
But isn't the basis for this theory the suggestion that "he had been seen"?

This is what Sarah Lewis said about the loiterer:
"He was not tall – but stout – had on a wideawake black hat
-- I did not notice his clothes".

How does this point to George Hutchinson?
No height, no age, no mention of moustache or beard. No color & style of clothes, in fact nothing to enable anyone to put a name to this vague figure.

So, what is the basis for Hutchinson "thinking" he had been identified?

Hi Wickerman
Simply because ,vague as the description was he had actually been standing there outside Millers Court .
We don't know Hutchinsons character or what he might have thought ,why he might have thought it.
It's simply an idea ,hardly a theory
Cheers
Andy

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman
Simply because ,vague as the description was he had actually been standing there outside Millers Court .
We don't know Hutchinsons character or what he might have thought ,why he might have thought it.
It's simply an idea ,hardly a theory
Cheers
Andy

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.

[Garry Wroe]

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.

Out of interest, Jon, how and when did Hutchinson learn about Mrs Cox's inquest evidence?

[Wickerman]

Out of interest, Jon, how and when did Hutchinson learn about Mrs Cox's inquest evidence?

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?

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Jon

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?

Why the quotation marks around "reading room"?

[Wickerman]

It was a term promoted as a source for Hutchinson to learn about Kelly's inquest. Apparently, the Victoria Home had a reading room.