Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Ben]

I, for one, have never assumed that Hutchinson’s alleged Sunday sighting and subsequent attempt to alert the copper were “unrelated”; far from it. I’m quite sure he was attempting to convey the impression that his encounter with the mystery PC occurred hot on the heels of his re-spotting of the suspect. Unfortunately, this makes an even greater nonsense of the PC’s bizarre inaction; not troubling himself to pursue or locate the suspect, and not even bothering to record Hutchinson’s particulars. What a negligent phuckwit.

Not lost on some, reassuringly, is the fact that Petticoat Lane had extremely obvious Jewish associations. I suggest it is far more likely that Hutchinson invented the Sunday sighting to reinforce suspicions against the Jewish community, and that he deliberately reserved the lie about the Sunday PC for the press knowing that they, unlike the police, were in no position to expose the fabrication by checking whether or not a constable actually was stationed where Hutchinson claimed. Constables patrolled meticulously delineated beats, which meant if Hutchinson’s tall tale didn’t correlate with any of them, the fabrication was easily exposed (which it clearly was, as evinced by Hutchinson’s discrediting shortly thereafter).

What’s this nonsense you keep repeating about serial killer statistics? Have you heard or read about a single study that utilises statistics garnered from all known serial cases in history? Can you show me where, when and how such information was quantified? A killer’s propensity to come forward or otherwise is entirely dependent on whether or not he even found himself in the type of compromising circumstance that might encourage such a preemptive strategy. If he does not inject himself into the investigation, it may owe simply to the absence of such a circumstance, as opposed to having an intrinsic disinclination to do so.

[Wickerman]

Weren't all those who claimed to hear a cry of murder corralled in the court until allowed out by the police? And so not in a position to tell the press anything until it was too late to get it into print that day. Leaving the daylight sighting claims of Maxwell, Lewis, etc (who were free to talk to whomever they pleased) as (seemingly) the most reliable indicator for time of death.

Maxwell was asleep, so perhaps not sequestered in Millers Court. The press got to her before the police, apparently. Lewis was the first source of that late morning sighting, confirmed by Maxwell later in the day.
Or, so it seems...

[Wickerman]

Is it context your struggling with today wicker or just in your world view everyone who debates you on hutch is one single minded monster?

The various accusations against him are sufficient to demonstrate how weak each individual accusation is. If it doesn't even carry the support of like-minded accusers, why should anyone else give them serious attention.
Hutch can't have been all things to every accuser - some clear picture needs to be demonstrated.

[c.d.]

"concisely stated and gets to the point of it. Friend, acquaintance, or even if they only had a strict client relationship-whatever-he knew her, apparently well-Three years!!!

any person with a modicum of morals would have come forward sooner."

Hello Abby,

But don't you think that the police would have asked him how he knew Mary and for how long? And also why he didn't come forward sooner?

It seems to me that anyone who wants to make a case for Hutchinson being Mary's killer needs to do so without the assumption that the police were complete idiots and totally incompetent.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

Only in the context of my refutation of your insistence that the papers had settled the matter in respect of a later TOD, which is by no means clear-cut when the selfsame papers also report the earlier cries of "Murder!".

I don't ever remember saying it was "settled", that is your word.
There were sufficient stories to influence the public that she was alive late in the morning.

Besides, the "cry of murder" is by no means the main thrust of my argument, just one aspect. As per my post immediately before this one, the mere fact that a woman had been 'orribly murdered in Miller's Court that morning should have been enough for Hutchinson to come forward, given that he'd seen Mary Kelly and a mysterious stranger enter, but not leave, her room that same morning.

Your insistence that he had to come forward seems to be based on some modicum of decency, but if he is a liar anyway, why doesn't any concern for self preservation kick in, and take priority?

On the other hand, from my point of view. No amount of gossip is going to give him a guilty complex if these stories are accompanied by tales of her being seen alive after 9:00 Friday morning.

His 2-2:30 am liaison has no bearing on this presumed late morning, after 9:00 am, murder. That!, is what all the gossip had to be about.

[Joshua Rogan]

Maxwell was asleep, so perhaps not sequestered in Millers Court. The press got to her before the police, apparently. Lewis was the first source of that late morning sighting, confirmed by Maxwell later in the day.
Or, so it seems...

Yes, that was my point Jon. Maxwell was at 14 Dorset Street, so when she awoke (probably at the same time as Hutchinson) was free to talk to the press, or anyone who cared to listen. Whereas Mrs Prater, Sarah Lewis and / or Mrs Kennedy were unable to leave the court until 17:30 (Lewis, anyway, the others being detained until then is my supposition)

[Joshua Rogan]

Not lost on some, reassuringly, is the fact that Petticoat Lane had extremely obvious Jewish associations. I suggest it is far more likely that Hutchinson invented the Sunday sighting to reinforce suspicions against the Jewish community, and that he deliberately reserved the lie about the Sunday PC for the press knowing that they, unlike the police, were in no position to expose the fabrication by checking whether or not a constable actually was stationed where Hutchinson claimed. Constables patrolled meticulously delineated beats, which meant if Hutchinson’s tall tale didn’t correlate with any of them, the fabrication was easily exposed (which it clearly was, as evinced by Hutchinson’s discrediting shortly thereafter)..

I'm not sure it was detailed which PC or where abouts he was when Hutchinson claimed to speak to him. But if it was directly after the Sunday sighting of A Man, doesn't the boundary between Met and City police run along Middlesex Street (Petticoat Lane)? So it might easily have been a City PC who Hutch claimed to have spoken to, just to complicate things.

Perhaps Hutchinson's apparent "discrediting" was down to nothing more than the police prefering a later time of death?

[Wickerman]

I think it's the Kennedy statement Joshua may be thinking of Sam
She said nobody was allowed to leave the court until 5pm I think

It was Sarah Lewis - left at 5:30, spoken at the inquest.

[Michael W Richards]

How does this lookout get a warning to Astrachan, at the other end of the passage, inside the room?

I am providing you with hypotheticals Jon because thats all we have after all these years and threads.

He could whistle. He could intercept someone entering the courtyard. I also suggested he might be watching for Blotchy to come out, when he would go tell someone else, the real killer, that the coast was clear. There is no need to place astrakan in this picture at all Jon, as I suggested, he could easily be misdirection intentionally inserted into the story.

I dont worry myself too much about tossing Hutch out with the bathwater, suspect-wise, he will still fascinate me though in terms of how this storyline was used. And by whom. Hutch was never there. No-one saw him, no-one had a chance to vet his identity with Marys real friends, the ones we know she knew. The timing of his arrival seemed to have prevented any potential naysayers from having a go at him.

His, like Israel Schwartz's story were not intended to provide evidence to aid the capture of a criminal, they were to "spin" elements of the other stories available into something more palatable, and perhaps less dangerous to people closely associated to the respective stories. Both were given at night, directly to police. There are no one on one interviews with Schwartz published later that I know of, nor with Hutchinson.

Israel gave the police a story where Jews were far less likely to have committed the crime, despite the fact she dies on Jewish property, after a Jewish meeting, in the passage of a club of Anarchist socialist Jews, when no-one is seen on the street sometime before the murder by witnesses interviewed within 1 hour of the murder. Fanny saw no-one but the young couple, as did Brown. Israel may well have owed his pal Woolf Wess a favour, or maybe he was was there that night, attending the meeting, and he came forward to move the suspicion from the Anarchists to the Antisemitic to help save a club he belonged to. Maybe someone knew that, a gentile, and he was so pissed off he wrote some antisemitic suggestion of guilt on a wall at an entrance to a building almost completely populated by German, Russian and other Eastern European Jews. Maybe Kates killer saw that and saw a chance to shuffle off the blame, tossing his rag down beneath the message.

Hutchinson turned a suspicious lurking malevolence into a casual friend looking out for the welfare of his pal Mary. And gave the most meticulous description of a suspect by any witness in these cases, someone seen on Dorset Street in the middle of the night. 4 days after he says he witnesses her with some man, 4 days after his friend is butchered, and 4 days after most all of the statements of courtyard witnesses and friends of Mary are printed and published, and hours after the Inquest into the manner of her death is completed. He knows about Wideawake, he knows about Blotchy, and he knows that the issue of the Pardon Offer on Saturday is almost certainly linked to the man in Kennedy/Lewis's story..Wideawake.

[Wickerman]

...... Unfortunately, this makes an even greater nonsense of the PC’s bizarre inaction; not troubling himself to pursue or locate the suspect, and not even bothering to record Hutchinson’s particulars. What a negligent phuckwit.

We do not know where this PC was located.
As I pointed out to Gareth, it could have been at the Spitalfields Market.
This is an obvious choice for an out of work labourer to go to earn some ready cash, both Saturday & Sunday.
A PC stationed at the market is not permitted to leave (as evidenced in the Chapman case). In fact, the Spitalfields Market is not on the list of Point Detail for the Met.
Therefore, it would appear this PC is contracted out (which was done) to the market.
That is one reason the PC did not take Hutchinson to the station.
Whether the PC made a note of what Hutchinson told him cannot be known.

[Varqm]

And that's your conjecture.

It's more common sense than conjecture.It is also more common sense than conjecture that since the Kelly inquest was stopped illegally with no chance of being revived (against the Coroners Act 1887),and there was no PC-on-the-beat in Dorset St (the reason the inquest was stopped- because of the social criticism and embarassment - perhaps the Lord mayors show?). in the inquest so nobody could contradict him, and there was no perjury laws against what Hutchinson did if caught lying making it easier to do,Hutch acted.
It's also common sense that locals hanging out in Dorset St. would have noticed there was no PC-on-the-beat in Dorset St.Thursday evening/Friday morning.



-

[harry]

Caz.In reply to your post 714.

I do not know what the problem is either.All we are aware of is the wording in an interview.If any other wording outside of what we read was uttered,you ,Wickerman,or I would not be aware of it.Why make things up.Any problem I entertain,and has not been answered,is,if one person,Badham, can think of that three word phrase,and use it,why couldn't Hutchinson?Can you explain why?

[Abby Normal]

The various accusations against him are sufficient to demonstrate how weak each individual accusation is. If it doesn't even carry the support of like-minded accusers, why should anyone else give them serious attention.
Hutch can't have been all things to every accuser - some clear picture needs to be demonstrated.

What????
Hutch is viewed variously by different people as totally honest to a liar only to a killer. Some people, like me, leave all options open since we dont really know.
If new evidence or material is discovered it could change ideas, like stephens latest research and book. Research and learning works that way.

That people may have differnces of opinion on details but agree on a basic premise only strengthens the credibility, since it shows they think for themselves and not following some kind of mindless group think.

This monolithic world view you seem to have on it is very strange.

[Abby Normal]

"concisely stated and gets to the point of it. Friend, acquaintance, or even if they only had a strict client relationship-whatever-he knew her, apparently well-Three years!!!

any person with a modicum of morals would have come forward sooner."

Hello Abby,

But don't you think that the police would have asked him how he knew Mary and for how long? And also why he didn't come forward sooner?

It seems to me that anyone who wants to make a case for Hutchinson being Mary's killer needs to do so without the assumption that the police were complete idiots and totally incompetent.

c.d.

Hi cd
Maybe? I would like to think so. But its not in the record so who knows?

I dont think the police were idiots nor do i think you have to assume they were for hutch to be guilty.

Nobodies perfect.

[harry]

Jon.In answer to your post 725.What's not true? Surely all killers face a risk of being cught. Whether they are or not caught ,the risk is there.Quite a number of killers,not seen at, or entering the crime scene,are convicted.Why should the Kelly murder be any different? You are getting irrational in your thinking Jon.

Do you think someone pushed the kiler into the room and threw him a knife? Why do you make comments like that.It's garbage,but on a par with some of the claims you make lately.


I resort to special pleading you say.The Stanley Setty crime was fact.The killer introduced ficticious characters,and he later admitted the fact.It is no more pleading than the numerous articles you and others have submitted in support of Hutchinson's alledged sighting.


Offering an example that rarely happens,you state.How often are we faced with a description so complete as that offered by Hutchinson.Yet that rare occurance is offered up time and time again in Hutchinson's defence.