Hutchinsons statement....

[andy1867]

I have been reading the forum, listening to the podcasts, I rarely post as most seems to have been covered.
Some seem to find Hutchinsons statement as rather "too exact" "too precise" and discount it as untrue for those, I suppose, plausible reasons, I mean who takes THAT much notice?
But reading through it tonight, there is one part where Hutchinson states...
and I paraphrase....
"He hid his head ...I stooped down and looked at his face"
Thats surely someone who is paying careful attention isn't it?..
So maybe the rest of his statement may not be that far off the mark

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Andy

"He hid his head ...I stooped down and looked at his face"
Thats surely someone who is paying careful attention isn't it?

The cynic might say that he threw that in because he was conscious that his statement might be a little too detailed. His thinking might have gone something like this:

"How can I explain how I got such a good look of a stranger I saw in passing in the middle of the night, in the poorly-lit streets of Whitechapel? I know! I'll say I stood by a lamp-post, bent over and stared into the man's face as he passed into its beam"

I've sometimes wondered how likely it would be for someone to do that, never mind the idea of his only getting a "stern look" in return.

[Abby Normal]

I have been reading the forum, listening to the podcasts, I rarely post as most seems to have been covered.
Some seem to find Hutchinsons statement as rather "too exact" "too precise" and discount it as untrue for those, I suppose, plausible reasons, I mean who takes THAT much notice?
But reading through it tonight, there is one part where Hutchinson states...
and I paraphrase....
"He hid his head ...I stooped down and looked at his face"
Thats surely someone who is paying careful attention isn't it?..
So maybe the rest of his statement may not be that far off the mark

why would he be so concerned about the mans face? he even said he didn't think he was any danger.

I agree with sam, I think he threw that in there to show he was paying very close attention to the man, hence the detailed description.

I think he also wanted to convey that he got a real good look at him.

but why? I think its because he wanted to convey he was a legit witness who saw a really suspicious man with Mary.

[c.d.]

If Hutch is to be believed it is not unreasonable that staring at the man was an act of intimidation. Make him uncomfortable so that he is only with Mary for a short time as opposed to all night and Hutch gets a place to sleep that night.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

If Hutch is to be believed it is not unreasonable that staring at the man was an act of intimidation. Make him uncomfortable so that he is only with Mary for a short time as opposed to all night and Hutch gets a place to sleep that night.

c.d.

No t bad idea. Never thought of that. Maybe some jealousy involved too?

[Wickerman]

Hutchinson may have been a little ticked off as his potential companion for the night was stolen from his grasp.
The direct glance he gave, right in his face, may have been to confirm who the man was. If you recall he said he had seen the man around on occasion, that he was known in the area.

And, in response to Andy.
Hutchinson did claim to see the same man on Sunday morning at the market. If he had been dressed differently then presumably Hutch would not have recognised him. Therefore, it is quite possible that Astrachan was dressed the same way on Sunday, as he was on Friday morning, which enabled Hutch to recognise him.

Which means Hutch was able to see in daylight, in better detail how this man was dressed.

[GUT]

If you recall he said he had seen the man around on occasion, that he was known in the area.

And, in response to Andy.
Hutchinson did claim to see the same man on Sunday morning at the market. If he had been dressed differently then presumably Hutch would not have recognised him. Therefore, it is quite possible that Astrachan was dressed the same way on Sunday, as he was on Friday morning, which enabled Hutch to recognise him.

Jon

While it was possible he was dressed the same, if Hutch had seen him around before, he didn't need to be dressed the same for Hutch to recognise him.

[The Good Michael]

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

Mike

[DJA]

If Hutchinson had asked Mary Kelly for accommodation for the remainder of the morning,he might have had a shred of credibility.

[John Wheat]

I have been reading the forum, listening to the podcasts, I rarely post as most seems to have been covered.
Some seem to find Hutchinsons statement as rather "too exact" "too precise" and discount it as untrue for those, I suppose, plausible reasons, I mean who takes THAT much notice?
But reading through it tonight, there is one part where Hutchinson states...
and I paraphrase....
"He hid his head ...I stooped down and looked at his face"
Thats surely someone who is paying careful attention isn't it?..
So maybe the rest of his statement may not be that far off the mark

I think your right andy. Hutchinson was a witness.

Cheers John

[caz]

If Hutch is to be believed it is not unreasonable that staring at the man was an act of intimidation. Make him uncomfortable so that he is only with Mary for a short time as opposed to all night and Hutch gets a place to sleep that night.

c.d.

Hi c.d,

It's certainly something Abberline might/should have asked Hutch under interrogation. If it didn't occur to Hutch that the man posed any danger to Kelly, he might still have been miffed that he couldn't spare the sixpence that might have paid for some shut-eye [or a bit of how's yer father], while this flash git evidently had exactly what the lady wanted.

If Hutchinson had asked Mary Kelly for accommodation for the remainder of the morning,he might have had a shred of credibility.

Well again, that might have come out during Abberline's interrogation. If Hutch admitted to hanging around for 45 minutes with that purpose in mind before giving it up as a lost cause, he would arguably have come across as more credible, while the man still doing his thing in that room would be the one the police needed to track down and eliminate. They already had Hutch if they needed to question him again - or at least he gave them the Victoria Home as somewhere he could be found.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Hi c.d,

It's certainly something Abberline might/should have asked Hutch under interrogation. If it didn't occur to Hutch that the man posed any danger to Kelly, he might still have been miffed that he couldn't spare the sixpence that might have paid for some shut-eye [or a bit of how's yer father], while this flash git evidently had exactly what the lady wanted.



Well again, that might have come out during Abberline's interrogation. If Hutch admitted to hanging around for 45 minutes with that purpose in mind before giving it up as a lost cause, he would arguably have come across as more credible, while the man still doing his thing in that room would be the one the police needed to track down and eliminate. They already had Hutch if they needed to question him again - or at least he gave them the Victoria Home as somewhere he could be found.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
nothing about hutchs statement jibes.

way too detailed description-at night no less. not only mans description but theyre actions and what they said-like a friggen script.
no explanation why he took such detailed notice.
lame excuse why he waited around for 45 minutes.
lame reason why he waited three days, after the inquest to come forth.
then an explosion of involvement-police, press etc.
significant change in story when he spoke to press.
says he saw man again, but no real attempt to track down, especially if he knew this man may have murdered his friend.
discrepancy in why he couldn't go to victoria house-too late or no money???
only witness who knew victim well.
discounted statement soon after in the papers


All other witness descriptions in the whole case are similar innocuous statements as one would expect, yet hutch is got all this nonsense going on.
something aint right, and it dosnt take a genius (or it shouldn't) to see it.
Hes lying.

[John G]

This is a bit of al long shot, but does anyone know if John McCarthy owned an astrachan coat? Obviously I'm not trying to imply anything, although interestingly he was 37 in 1888, so about 35 years of age!

[Sam Flynn]

This is a bit of al long shot, but does anyone know if John McCarthy owned an astrachan coat?

That, I suspect, we'll never know, John. If, by some miracle, an (authentic) inventory of McCarthy's accoutrements ever materialises, I'll certainly keep an eye open for all the other finery and bling that Hutchinson made up.... sorry, "saw"

[John G]

That, I suspect, we'll never know, John. If, by some miracle, an (authentic) inventory of McCarthy's accoutrements ever materialises, I'll certainly keep an eye open for all the other finery and bling that Hutchinson made up.... sorry, "saw"

I've a strange feeling you're probably right Sam, but it would certainly be a revelation if any of these issues came to light!