Possible reason for Hutch coming forward

[Wickerman]

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.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[Wickerman]

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

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[c.d.]

"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.

[Paddy]

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....

[John Wheat]

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

[Wickerman]

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.

[Robert St Devil]

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.

[Wickerman]

Hello Paddy.

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

[Paddy]

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...

[Wickerman]

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.

[Wickerman]

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.

[Wickerman]

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.

[Varqm]

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.