Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[harry]

Abby,
If read properly,I do mean Cox.

Jon,
If paperwork is not available,we do not know what if any survived,or what were the contents,so no good asking me where any might be today.
What proof?Of Aman perhaps.If I believe,as I have posted,he didn't exist how could I offer proof of his existence.That task is up to you who appears to believe he was real.What is your proof? I have never been in the police force,and Lewis was not passing by.Her destination was Millers Court,at which she had arrived.


RJ,

At least you ask reasonable questions.

After three days and an inquest,and no information of anyone else, except Lewis,of coming forward and claiming to have been in Dorset Street,It wasn't such a big risk Hutchinson took in claiming he was there for 45 minutes.Same as putting himself,Kelly and Aman on Commercial Street,or was it Commercial Road.Of course he could have been in Commercial road in reality,and of known of the situation as far as pedestrians being present or absent,and seeing none,used that knowledge in fabricating his story.Risky,if so it came off.

Regards.

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
It depends on who we consider the real George Hutchinson was.
Was it the man Topping [ who has claimed identity] ?
Or someone else still unidentified,
If the latter who knows ,
If Topping , I would say he was neither a liar, or a scoundrel.
But that is my opinion .
Regards Richard.

[Abby Normal]

Abby,
If read properly,I do mean Cox.

Jon,
If paperwork is not available,we do not know what if any survived,or what were the contents,so no good asking me where any might be today.
What proof?Of Aman perhaps.If I believe,as I have posted,he didn't exist how could I offer proof of his existence.That task is up to you who appears to believe he was real.What is your proof? I have never been in the police force,and Lewis was not passing by.Her destination was Millers Court,at which she had arrived.


RJ,

At least you ask reasonable questions.

After three days and an inquest,and no information of anyone else, except Lewis,of coming forward and claiming to have been in Dorset Street,It wasn't such a big risk Hutchinson took in claiming he was there for 45 minutes.Same as putting himself,Kelly and Aman on Commercial Street,or was it Commercial Road.Of course he could have been in Commercial road in reality,and of known of the situation as far as pedestrians being present or absent,and seeing none,used that knowledge in fabricating his story.Risky,if so it came off.

Regards.

Harry
Cox saw mary with blotchy. Not sure what she has to do with hutch? Or lewis.

[Joshua Rogan]

Why not go to the police station that evening, then?

I'm not sure George would have been able to sleep the day away. He had no money for a bed, so - unless he was lying about his finances, or found some loose change on the streets during his nocturnal perambulations - the best he could probably hope for was a snooze in the communal kitchen. I'd imagine that once the murder was discovered this would quickly have been abuzz with rumours and gossip.

[Joshua Rogan]

The Pall Mall Gazette, 12 Nov. offers a few small details of the room where the inquest was held.
"...a green-walled, square, little room".

Thanks Jon, I'd not seen that description before.
On the minus side, I think I read that the three committee rooms were not built until the 1930s, so it's unlikely to have been one of these. Perhaps they used one of the offices under the main hall.

[Michael W Richards]

Possibly, witnesses may not have accompanied the jury. It's difficult to look when the Press Search is still not working.
As principal witness, Barnett being her companion, the police will take him to the mortuary to identify the body as part of his statement.
There really is no-one else available.

Looking through a broken window into a dark room is not acceptable, so there's no point in thinking this was how the I.D. was done.

Since this last point isn't established as being "unacceptable" by any records Ive read, and since that is a statement that appears in the press, it is still possible I think. Which of course would be a ridiculous ID, and would put into question his ability to distinguish the features he says he was able to identify.

Her eyes are covered by a forehead skin flap, for one. The relatively unscathed parts of her that were visible from the window didn't seem to be convincing, yet I cant imagine a lover not being able to identify his partners hands, legs or feet.

[Sam Flynn]

There's nothing to preclude a second, more formal, identification after she'd been cleaned up.

[Busy Beaver]

Casebook submitter Mort Belfry wrote a really good piece of work called the sixteen possibilities on the death of Mary Jane Kelly. It's in the Mary Jane Kelly sub folder under victims. Might be worth a re-look for some of you!

Cheers
Busy Beaver

[Wickerman]

Why not go to the police station that evening, then?

Because the afternoon/evening papers quite unanimously report that Kelly was alive and in public late Friday morning. Long after he had seen her.

[Wickerman]

Jon,
If paperwork is not available,we do not know what if any survived,or what were the contents,so no good asking me where any might be today.
What proof?Of Aman perhaps.If I believe,as I have posted,he didn't exist how could I offer proof of his existence.That task is up to you who appears to believe he was real.What is your proof? I have never been in the police force,and Lewis was not passing by.Her destination was Millers Court,at which she had arrived.

As I keep mentioning, Lewis saw this unidentified loiterer (Hutchinson?) opposite Millers Court, while this other man & woman - being the worse for drink & hatless, pass up the court.
" I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."

So, someone was there. Deny Astrachan existed all you like, but there was a man & woman doing just what Hutchinson said Kelly & Astrachan was doing.

Funny how the anti-Hutchinson subscribers, when faced with a character that proves their theory wrong, resort to claiming "he didn't exist".
The only way out for the defective theory I guess

[Sam Flynn]

Because the afternoon/evening papers quite unanimously report that Kelly was alive and in public late Friday morning. Long after he had seen her.

Cuts no ice whatsoever with me, Jon.

[Sam Flynn]

As I keep mentioning, Lewis saw this unidentified loiterer (Hutchinson?) opposite Millers Court, while this other man & woman - being the worse for drink & hatless, pass up the court.
" I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."

That ONE report is completely at odds with every other, and with Lewis's witness statement.

[Wickerman]

That ONE report is completely at odds with every other, and with Lewis's witness statement.

I recall you think that "further on" means beyond Hutchinson (further on down the street). That is only your belief. "Further on" in my view means ahead of Lewis, as Lewis was following on some distance behind this couple.

Just look at her inquest testimony.
- First Lewis talks about passing the Spitalfields clock.
- Then, she talks about seeing the man loitering opposite Millers Court.
- Then, she mentions this couple who passed along.
- Then, talks about the loiterer again.
- Then, about arriving at the Keylers.

Take a look at this pic.



The red circles indicate a dash " - " signifying a break in her testimony, where a question was asked by the Coroner.
As can be seen her reference to this couple, "-- another young man with a woman passed along", is an interruption, by a question, of her talking about the loiterer.
So this is not a sequential narrative, it is a series of replies to questions unknown.

[Trevor Marriott]

I recall you think that "further on" means beyond Hutchinson (further on down the street). That is only your belief. "Further on" in my view means ahead of Lewis, as Lewis was following on some distance behind this couple.

Just look at her inquest testimony.
- First Lewis talks about passing the Spitalfields clock.
- Then, she talks about seeing the man loitering opposite Millers Court.
- Then, she mentions this couple who passed along.
- Then, talks about the loiterer again.
- Then, about arriving at the Keylers.

Take a look at this pic.



The red circles indicate a dash " - " signifying a break in her testimony, where a question was asked by the Coroner.
As can be seen her reference to this couple, "-- another young man with a woman passed along", is an interruption, by a question, of her talking about the loiterer.
So this is not a sequential narrative, it is a series of replies to questions unknown.

Hi
Have you any corroboration to your explantion for the dashes.

To my mind it could just me the writer used a dash instead of a comma. I cannot imagine all those interruptions which you suggest.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

The Victoria Home expressly prohibited sleeping in the dormitories during the day, especially for free, otherwise every lodger in the distract would have taken night shifts and enjoyed free doss during the day.

What’s this “normal activity of a serial killer” you’ve suddenly become obsessed with? What activities beyond the murders themselves would you categorise as “normal activity” for a serial killer? Who are these “strictly the basics” serial killers who commit the murders, engage in these other “normal activities” (whatever they are), but never venture beyond that?

I see you’re now suggesting that the PC advised Hutchinson to go to the police station, so let’s just explore that particular scenario for a moment. Let’s draw a discreet veil, at least for the time being, over the policeman’s failure to note Hutchinson’s name and address.

Why didn’t he follow the PC’s advice and go to the police station?

According to you, remember, a fellow lodger had just lent him a copy of Lloyds Weekly News with its “revelation” that the medical examination supported an early morning, small hours time of death after all. This, according to you, was Hutchinson’s “eureka!” moment, when he finally relinquished all those “later ToD” reports that he’d been diligently stockpiling since Friday - the ones that had hitherto led him up the garden path and formed the basis of his excuse for not alerting the police earlier.

So I ask again, why didn’t Hutchinson do as the PC advised and go to the police station, now that his alleged “excuse” (for inactivity) no longer existed?

If the same story is repeated in every paper, there's more chance Hutchinson will be aware of the story.

But if Hutchinson was reading the papers, there is next to no chance of him missing out on the Kennedy and Prater (etc) accounts indicating a much earlier a time; a time consistent with the Astrakhan episode. Picture an innocent Hutchinson reading a free newspaper in the Victoria Home common room on Saturday 10th November - he would have as much exposure to the “early” reports as he would to the “late” ones. Yet according to you, he puts all his eggs in the latter basket, considering it justification for sitting on both his arse and his ever so slightly crucial evidence, for three whole days.

“All you have to do is judge how inconsistent the times for that cry of murder were, with the various stories of Kelly being alive in the late morning - all consistent stories.”

But it doesn’t matter if the times of the “murder” cries varied slightly. What matters is that they are all broadly consistent with Hutchinson’s alleged experience, which they were. Or are you suggesting that he dismissed the entire report because of minor timing inconsistencies?

You must understand that it wasn’t Hutchinson’s job to play detective. It didn’t fall to him to collate and assess other eyewitness evidence. It was his basic moral responsibility to relate HIS eyewitness evidence the moment he learned of the murder.

Of one thing I remain confident, and that is that an innocent, truthful Hutchinson would not have “reasoned” as you do. Remember, as far as Hutchinson would have been able to ascertain from the press, Astrakhan man was the last man seen in Kelly’s company before she died. That fact alone would provided sufficient impetus, to any sane human being with some semblance of a moral compass, to come forward.

I think you’ve just about had your shout on this subject, Jon. You haven’t convinced anyone with your “reports of a later time of death = justification for Hutchinson’s delay” hypotheses because it makes absolutely no sense from a moral or logical perspective. It’s not impossible (unlike your Daily News “passing up” couple which you’re still trying to flog); just epically unlikely.

All the best,
Ben