Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Possible reason for Hutch coming forward

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    Hi RJ.

    This part of Hutchinson's story you quoted, "After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed", was provided in the Central News interview, not part of his police statement.

    There is no dispute that this interview took place at the Victoria Home, yet he did not say "this place was closed", or "here, it was closed", so "his usual place" had to be some other address.

    He does give the Victoria Home as his address on Monday in the police statement, but that does not mean he was staying there Thursday/Friday of the previous week.
    But he does say "After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed. I came in as soon as it opened in the morning."

    Not "went in". Doesn't this indicate that the place he's in now is the same place he entered in the morning, his usual place, ie the Victoria Home?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
      he even added the red hankercheif of sailor man and a dastardly curled up mustache to boot!
      Show me an adult Jew who didn't wear a black moustache - it was the fashion of the time.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
        If he was there at all, which I doubt. Like I suggested, what kind of idiot would wander the streets all night in the rain, having spent 45 minutes in or around a courtyard that had a covered passageway leading to it?
        No other witness mention rain - only Cox, and her statement doesn't jive with that given by Prater, who made no mention of rain, neither did Lewis, Kennedy or Bowyer who visited the water pump that morning.
        So, it may not be wise to put your faith in the one solitary statement, especially when it seems to conflict with Praters.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
          But he does say "After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed. I came in as soon as it opened in the morning."

          Not "went in". Doesn't this indicate that the place he's in now is the same place he entered in the morning, his usual place, ie the Victoria Home?
          Joshua.

          Can you locate your reference?

          This is what the interview says:
          "I believe that he lives in the neighborhood, and I fancied that I saw him in Petticoat-lane on Sunday morning, but I was not certain. Kelly did not seem to me to be drunk, but was a little bit spreeish. After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed. I am able to fix the time, as it was between ten and five minutes to two o'clock as I came by Whitechapel Church. When I left the corner of Miller's-court the clock struck three o'clock. One policeman went by the Commercial-street end of Dorset-street while I was standing there, but not one came down Dorset-street. I saw one man go into a lodging-house in Dorset-street, and no one else. I have been looking for the man all day."
          Star, Nov. 14, 1888.
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
            Joshua.

            Can you locate your reference?
            Yes Jon, it's the Daily News 14th Nov.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
              Yes Jon, it's the Daily News 14th Nov.
              Hi Joshua.

              There were several newspapers which carried the interview, amazingly, they are not the same (wonderful), The Times & Star do not include that line, yet others do.

              Ok, lets say for arguments sake this was part of the interview.

              "I came in as soon as it opened in the morning."

              "IT" ?
              where is "it"?

              See how many times his interview uses the word "came", for instance he says:

              "...as I came by Whitechapel Church"

              He doesn't say, "I went by Whitechapel Church"

              Also:

              "... but not one came down Dorset street."

              He didn't say, "but not one went down Dorset street".
              This interview was not being conducted in Dorset street, agreed?

              So I would think the use of "I came in" is not out of the ordinary for Hutchinson when talking about another address, plus he also says "as it opened", as if he is referring to somewhere else, again.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • The Morning Advertiser 14th Nov describes the details of Hutchinson's statement but doesn't name him, instead saying "The name of the man who has given the information referred to to the police is purposely withheld for reasons which are necessary for his own safety"

                And also "He afterwards heard of the murder, but for certain reasons which it would be imprudent to state he did not immediately put himself in communication with the police."

                Is this the MA being overly cautious (since every other paper went ahead and named him), or was the name George Hutchinson an alias?

                Comment


                • The Pall Mall Gazette 14th Nov has the Hutchinson statement, followed by this intriguing article;

                  "WHAT IS CONSIDERED IMPORTANT?
                  A paragraph in the morning papers states that the police have received from Mr. Samuel Osborne, wire worker, 20, Garden row, London road, a statement to the effect that he was walking along St. Paul's churchyard yesterday behind a respectably dressed man, when a parcel, wrapped in a newspaper, fell from the man's coat. Osborne told him that he had dropped something; but the man denied that the parcel belonged to him. Osborne picked up the parcel, and found that it contained a knife, having a peculiarly shaped handle and a thick blade, six or seven inches long, with stains upon it resembling blood. The parcel also contained a brown kid glove, smeared with similar stains on both sides. Osborne found a constable, and together they searched for the mysterious individual, but without success. The parcel, says the paragraph, was handed to the City police authorities, "who, however, attach no importance to the matter." What on earth could be more important, after the statement made by the man Hutchinson and quoted above?"

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                    No other witness mention rain - only Cox, and her statement doesn't jive with that given by Prater, who made no mention of rain, neither did Lewis, Kennedy or Bowyer who visited the water pump that morning.
                    So, it may not be wise to put your faith in the one solitary statement, especially when it seems to conflict with Praters.
                    Don't the weather reports provide at least some corroboration? Besides, rain or no rain, the fact remains that the passage into Millers Court would have been a roof over his head, which would also have given him an opportunity to keep watch on Kelly's room.
                    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                      or was the name George Hutchinson an alias?
                      No, he was George Hutchinson alright.
                      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                        But Gareth, the truth is he claimed to have known Kelly for three years - which tends to blow a hole in your objection I suspect.
                        If he'd said "a year or two" I'd be inclined to agree.. Three years would still be an exaggeration.
                        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                        Comment


                        • There are in fact very few reasonable answers for the thread question here, and for my money, one choice is the most probable....he was giving a story based upon what he had actually witnessed and done during that evening, he was giving his statement because it seemed someone else saw him there and he wanted to clear himself, he was giving his statement for the possible money and fame, or he was giving his story for a purpose as yet undetermined.

                          I think its the last one. I doubt his entire story because of the obvious embellishments and because of his 4 day delay in coming forward, I believe it wasn't particularly wise to imagine that assuming the role of Wideawake would give him any safety from suspicion...the man seen was obviously spying on that courtyard and was likely the catalyst for the Pardon offer Saturday afternoon, I would imagine that destitute people would consider even small sums a windfall, but I don't think he saw some big payday or heroic portrayal in the media...leaving some unknown purpose as the most probable.

                          Despite Caz's protestations, I consider changing the very nature of the figure seen watching the court from potentially malicious to essentially benign is a huge perspective changer, and the fact that the Police considered this man worthy of consideration as an Accomplice to the murder demonstrates that Wideawake was seen as potentially malicious character.

                          Claiming to watch an area where someone you claim to know by name and well enough to hand out money to on occasion, entered with a stranger is evidence that the guy was weird, but the preexisting friendship seems to dilute the potentially malicious nature of the man. Might have had a crush on her, might be looking out for her safety..waiting to hear or see any problems from that courtyard, might have stalked her, ...all viable possibilities.

                          But when we didn't know that man, he was dangerous.
                          Michael Richards

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                            Tell me, if Mrs Long was an upstanding woman, what happened to her 'suspect', the "shabby-genteel foreigner"?

                            What happened to Schwartz's 'suspect', the "broad-shouldered man"?

                            What happened to Lawende's 'suspect', the "red-neckerchief-man"?

                            Then of course we still have Mary Cox, so what happened to "Blotchy"?

                            C'mon Varqm, if you think the police lost interest in Hutchinson & his suspect because they make no further mention of him, then explain why Lawende, Schwartz, Long & Cox are no longer mentioned either.

                            Did they lose interest in all their suspects, or were the other witnesses liars too?
                            Then, they secretly believed some nobody called Kozminski was the killer, without a shred of evidence, or an established sighting?
                            I see it,so when 2 witnesses have a "suspect" sighting,one is 15 minutes long (and the way Hutch observed Astra man) and one few seconds,you will choose the one with the few seconds.To each his own.
                            Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
                            M. Pacana

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                              If he'd said "a year or two" I'd be inclined to agree.. Three years would still be an exaggeration.
                              But Gareth, three years prior, Kelly was living with the Morgenstern's in Breezers Hill, their next door neighbor was Stephen Maywood, who kept horses at Romford.
                              A potential connection speaks for itself.
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                                The Morning Advertiser 14th Nov describes the details of Hutchinson's statement but doesn't name him, instead saying "The name of the man who has given the information referred to to the police is purposely withheld for reasons which are necessary for his own safety"

                                Is this the MA being overly cautious (since every other paper went ahead and named him), or was the name George Hutchinson an alias?
                                All I read into this is that the Morning Advertiser are relating the official line - that the police have chosen not to name the witness.
                                The fact his name appears in print as a result of his own actions is beside the point.
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X