Possible reason for Hutch coming forward

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[Sam Flynn]

or was the name George Hutchinson an alias?

No, he was George Hutchinson alright.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[Joshua Rogan]

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?"

[Joshua Rogan]

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?

[Wickerman]

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.

[Joshua Rogan]

Joshua.

Can you locate your reference?

Yes Jon, it's the Daily News 14th Nov.

[Wickerman]

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.

[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?

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.

[Wickerman]

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.

[Joshua Rogan]

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?

[Wickerman]

He claimed that he'd known Kelly for five years, which - if her biography has any grains of truth in it - is difficult to believe in itself, as she apparently had only moved to London 4 years previously. That aside, we can say with some confidence that she'd only arrived in Spitalfields within the last two years, prior to which she'd lived at Stepney and around the Ratcliff Highway. To my mind it's rather unlikely that Hutchinson's trajectory took him to those places at the same time as Kelly and that, at best, he was likely exaggerating the length of their acquaintance; at worst, he made it up in order to make his encounter with her, and the subsequent interest he took in her liaison with Astrakhan Man, seem more plausible.

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.

[Wickerman]

I don't see it that way.

Here is what Hutchinson said:

"After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed."

But surely that doesn't mean to say he just now realizes (at 3 a.m.) that the Victoria W. M.'s Home was closed?

I don't see it. These were his usual digs; 'closed' means 'curfew,' and he would have known the curfew. Half-way from Romford he already knew he was 'screwed,' and this is confirmed when, reaching the East End, he hears the clock strike 2 a.m. Hence he loiters in Fashion & Dean & environs until 3 a.m. and then wanders around until daybreak, because, he states, "the place where I usually sleep was closed." (Almost an afterthought after explaining the entire night's movements). That's how I've always read it.

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.

There was a rule, it might be in the Common Lodging house Act of 1851, but all Common Lodging houses had to close while the common areas were cleaned. If I recall correctly it was between 2-3.00, but I would like to see the reference again to be sure.

The Lodginghouse keeper Wilkinson (Eddowes case) at Flower & Dean St., said he generally closed at 2:30 or 3:00, I suspect this is in recognition of the Act.

If Hutchinson was occupied with his sighting from 2:00 onwards, for the best part of the hour, then his "usual place" would close up before he left Millers Court.

This is why I say he only discovered that he had no place to stay after he left the court. It's an assumption based on some general rule, but it might explain his comment in his interview.

[Wickerman]

hutch should be best witness by far and Aman should be suspect number one.

and yet none of the police later give his man any credence and neither do we.

Yet, Abberline's 'pet' suspect undoubtedly was 'Respectable', with a strong Jewish Appearance.

He didn't get that from Long, Schwartz, Lawende or Cox. Only one witness offered that description.