Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Possible reason for Hutch coming forward

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

  • 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?
    Well, it wasn't "all night", in the strickest sense, the place closed for cleaning sometime after 2:00, but most of these places opened again by 5:00 am, or thereabouts.
    So, two, maybe three hours, not "all night".

    And, whether you choose to believe Hutchinson was there, others saw the same man seen by Hutchinson.
    Lewis saw the same couple go up the court while the loiterer was standing there, plus Bowyer saw Astrachan in the court when he went to the pump for water.

    "Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, who's description tallies with that of the supposed murderer. Bowyer has, he says, described this man to Inspector Abberline and Inspector Reid."
    Echo, 14 Nov. 1888.

    Corroboration exists for parts of Hutchinson's story, and Abberline knew more than we do. He certainly knew of both these statements by Lewis & Bowyer, so there is really no mystery surrounding why Abberline chose to believe Hutchinson.
    He was there, and Abberline knew it.
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • George James Hutchinson (Groom) married Margaret Isabella Stevens in 1874 at Christchurch, StGITE. His address is 12 Martha Street not far from Pennington. He had lived there since birth... His dad was Thomas a Stone Mason. His wife worked on the market. He was a butcher after marriage and was lodging in Newinton in 1901 with out his wife...
      Pat...

      Comment


      • Hello Paddy.

        Thankyou for that, what indication do you have that this Hutchinson was ever a Groom?
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Hi Jon.

          Can you make anything out of "the shoes"? Hutchinson states in his "fuller report" on the 12th that the Astrachan man "walked softly". This coincides with Cox's testimony at the inquest, about the man making no sounds as he walked ahead of her. Could Mary have encountered two men with noticably soft soles within the span of a few hours? Or, is George borrowing a piece of information that he learned from The Star Nov 12 evening edition to dress up his suspect?

          I read The Star has a slant against George Hutchinson. With the same breath, they dismiss Packer and Hutchinson and champion Cox's suspect [15th]. Mr Galloway insists he saw Cox's suspect [16th]. The man arrested in Euston resembles Cox's suspect [19th]. And, the man who attacks Annie Farmer has likeness to Cox's suspect[21st]. However, I don't recall seeing similar reporting in The Times.
          there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
            Hi Jon.

            Can you make anything out of "the shoes"? Hutchinson states in his "fuller report" on the 12th that the Astrachan man "walked softly". This coincides with Cox's testimony at the inquest, about the man making no sounds as he walked ahead of her. Could Mary have encountered two men with noticably soft soles within the span of a few hours? Or, is George borrowing a piece of information that he learned from The Star Nov 12 evening edition to dress up his suspect?
            Hi Robert.
            I think the easy answer to that is to ask "why?"
            Is Hutchinson so inept he can't even think up details by himself, he has to refer to newspaper stories for inspiration?
            And, if you can think of this then why couldn't anyone else, like a detective?

            Would you need to look at a newspaper to help you come up with details?, or could you do this all by yourself?

            The footwear most worn by the ordinary working man was the boot, hobnail boots. Old army boots picked up from second-hand shops. So most men could be heard coming, but if you wore anything else, like dress shoes, then you "walked softly", because no-one would hear you coming.
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • The likeliest explanation was that he saw someone with Mary Jane Kelly who may have been her killer and Jack the Ripper.

              Comment


              • Hello Paddy.
                Thankyou for that, what indication do you have that this Hutchinson was ever a Groom?
                Hi Jon it states he was a groom on his wedding cert in 1874.
                However after this in the census he was a butcher. His wife worked on the market.

                Pat....

                Comment


                • "And, if you can think of this then why couldn't anyone else, like a detective?"

                  Nice one, Wick. One of the best comments ever on a Hutchinson thread (or any other thread for that matter). Pretty much puts the whole Hutch thing in perspective.

                  c.d.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                    Hi Robert.
                    I think the easy answer to that is to ask "why?"
                    Is Hutchinson so inept he can't even think up details by himself, he has to refer to newspaper stories for inspiration?
                    And, if you can think of this then why couldn't anyone else, like a detective?

                    Would you need to look at a newspaper to help you come up with details?, or could you do this all by yourself?

                    The footwear most worn by the ordinary working man was the boot, hobnail boots. Old army boots picked up from second-hand shops. So most men could be heard coming, but if you wore anything else, like dress shoes, then you "walked softly", because no-one would hear you coming.

                    Jon, the "dress shoe" of the period had hard leather soles and heels, they would be if anything, louder than boot soles on cobblestones.

                    And clearly Hutchinson didnt need any help with embellishments, he quite obviously did just fine in that regard on his own.
                    Michael Richards

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Paddy View Post
                      Hi Jon it states he was a groom on his wedding cert in 1874.
                      However after this in the census he was a butcher. His wife worked on the market.

                      Pat....
                      Thankyou Pat, that does make a significant difference, in my opinion.

                      Mind you, considering what happened to Mary, the fact this Hutch (if he is the witness?), became a butcher might send some theorists into a frenzy
                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • One thing that is abundantly clear is that Hutchinsons statement Monday night had nothing to do with aiding the police, nor catching Marys killer. Waiting 4 days is ample reason for this position,...any suspect could be half way around the globe let alone anywhere in the UK by that time. It was definitely not intended to aid police in the investigation of a murder of someone the witness claimed to know, and befriend on occasion.

                        So...now that any altruistic element is dispensed with, lets see what other half baked ideas people come up with. Frankly, Ive already given you the most probable reason....its one we dont know. He gave his statement for reasons known to himself, and not to help catch a killer. That in and of itself should cause anyone to hesitate before accepting a miraculously detailed suspect description....since it had no bearing on actually assisting the police anyway.
                        Last edited by Michael W Richards; 12-16-2017, 01:17 PM.
                        Michael Richards

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                          Jon, the "dress shoe" of the period had hard leather soles and heels, they would be if anything, louder than boot soles on cobblestones.

                          And clearly Hutchinson didnt need any help with embellishments, he quite obviously did just fine in that regard on his own.
                          I appreciate the point you are making Michael, but hobnail boots are studded with nails, which make a series of click's on contact with cobblestones at every step. This is why a constable on his beat could be heard a good distance away.
                          Whereas well-worn leather dress-shoes tends to go soft after time.
                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                            I appreciate the point you are making Michael, but hobnail boots are studded with nails, which make a series of click's on contact with cobblestones at every step. This is why a constable on his beat could be heard a good distance away.
                            Whereas well-worn leather dress-shoes tends to go soft after time.
                            If someone could afford a dress shoe during that period, then why would we assume he wears them till the heel is worn away and soft? Unless he buys them used, which contrasts the opulence of the rest of the description.

                            And the hobnail boot heel doesnt wear down exposing the nail heads, from use, the nails are embedded deeper in the leather, or the head is worn away.
                            Michael Richards

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                              "And, if you can think of this then why couldn't anyone else, like a detective?"

                              Nice one, Wick. One of the best comments ever on a Hutchinson thread (or any other thread for that matter). Pretty much puts the whole Hutch thing in perspective.

                              c.d.
                              Hi c.d.

                              I've heard nothing suggested against Hutchinson that a well trained detective couldn't have thought of at the time.
                              So all these, "hey, what-if.....", always amount to nothing.

                              This isn't the first time someone has suggested Hutchinson scoured the newspapers for details to help him make up a composite character.
                              Does anyone 'seriously', think they couldn't describe a make-believe character all by themselves?, and if they can, then why not Hutchinson?

                              Hutchinson described a gold watch chain with a red seal, buttoned boots and gaiters, horseshoe tie-pin - do we read of any of those details in some newspaper? - No.
                              So if he can think of those ostentatious? details all by himself, why not something so mundane as "walking softly"?
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                                If someone could afford a dress shoe during that period, then why would we assume he wears them till the heel is worn away and soft? Unless he buys them used, which contrasts the opulence of the rest of the description.

                                And the hobnail boot heel doesnt wear down exposing the nail heads, from use, the nails are embedded deeper in the leather, or the head is worn away.
                                Michael. this is what hobnail boots look like....


                                http://glencoemountaineer.blogspot.c...iled-boot.html
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X