Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Simon Wood]

Amiss?

Yes. I don't believe a word of it.

[Wickerman]

And your reason would be?

[Simon Wood]

It was only in the Wednesday 14th November version [The Times] that Hutchinson was named and able to—

“. . . fix the time, as it was between 10 and 5 minutes to 2 o'clock as I came by Whitechapel Church. When I left the corner of Miller's-court the clock struck 3 o'clock.”

The Times article concluded—

“The description of the murderer given by Hutchinson agrees in every particular with that already furnished by the police and published yesterday [Tuesday] morning.”

Evening News, Tuesday 13th November 1888—

“Another Statement Confirming One Made On Monday.”

Belfast Newsletter, 14th November—

"This description exactly tallies with one already furnished to the police."

Daily News, 14th November—

"It will be observed that the description of the supposed murderer given by Hutchinson agrees in every particular with that already furnished by the police, and published yesterday morning."

The police were using George Hutchinson to corroborate himself.

[Wickerman]

Thanks Jon, very interesting.
Weren't the pubs around the market allowed to open outside normal licencing hours, to accommodate the early start of market workers? If so, could the fixed point duty also be extended in the area to cover this?
Otherwise, I have read that fixed points were manned from 9am to 1am.

If flexible hours were adopted for certain areas they will not be listed in the Police Book.
I also have the entry you mention (9 am to 1 am), that would be 16 hours, likely a misprint. Stewart Evans provided me with that, and also this:



The above is taken from a multi-page listing which identified every street corner in every division where a F.P. was designated.

With regard to the PC at the Christian St FP, I've always wondered if he had just finished duty when he learned of Stride's murder, so felt free to leave.
Anyway, I believe that if a pc had to leave his fixed point (and murder is a pretty good reason) then the next beat pc to arrive there was supposed to man it until he returned.

That sounds familiar, but it would not apply to a constable on private assignment.

[Wickerman]

It was only in the Wednesday 14th November version [The Times] that Hutchinson was named and able to—

“. . . fix the time, as it was between 10 and 5 minutes to 2 o'clock as I came by Whitechapel Church. When I left the corner of Miller's-court the clock struck 3 o'clock.”

The Times article concluded—

“The description of the murderer given by Hutchinson agrees in every particular with that already furnished by the police and published yesterday [Tuesday] morning.”

Evening News, Tuesday 13th November 1888—

“Another Statement Confirming One Made On Monday.”

Belfast Newsletter, 14th November—

"This description exactly tallies with one already furnished to the police."

Daily News, 14th November—

"It will be observed that the description of the supposed murderer given by Hutchinson agrees in every particular with that already furnished by the police, and published yesterday morning."

The police were using George Hutchinson to corroborate himself.

The "furnished yesterday morning" is referring to the Scotland Yard press release you had in your 2nd column.
It isn't the police who are using Hutchinson to corroborate himself, this is the opinion of the press.

The press are drawing attention to the obvious similarities between the description given by Hutchinson on the 14th, with the description from an unidentified source published the previous day, which came from the police.

[Simon Wood]

Yes, the press were treating them as two discrete accounts. The first from an anonymous source; the second from George Hutchinson, who happened to agree with the anonymous source [himself].

Why didn't the police avoid any confusion by naming Hutchinson in the first report which appeared in the press on Tuesday morning?

[Wickerman]

Yes, the press were treating them as two discrete accounts. The first from an anonymous source; the second from George Hutchinson, who happened to agree with the anonymous source [himself].

Why didn't the police avoid any confusion by naming Hutchinson in the first report which appeared in the press on Tuesday morning?

But Simon, the police do not name their source - the witness.

I think the press were in effect saying:
"Aha!, now we know who the labourer with military appearance" was (in the description published yesterday), because that was all the police wrote about their source.

There are similar official releases to compare with. Take for instance the Daily Telegraph of Nov 12th, where we read suspect descriptions in both the Stride & Eddowes murders.

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_telegraph/dt881112.html

No witnesses are identified.
Do you have an example where the witness is identified for an official police release?

[Wickerman]

Otherwise, I have read that fixed points were manned from 9am to 1am.

This is written in the 1889 Police Book:

"During the daytime the ordinary beats of the metropolis are covered by about 1,500 men; but in addition some 500 constables are stationed at "Fixed Points", where, between the hours of nine a.m. to one a.m., they may always be found.....
In town districts, day duty of sixteen hours is divided into four reliefs, ie; four hours on and four hours off, commencing at six a.m. and ending at ten p.m. ; in country districts there are two reliefs only, and the men do eight hours consecutive duty."

So we have no real clarity on the F.P. duty, and it does not help Darryl's original question because the F.P. duty had ended by the time Hutchinson came by Thrawl St.

[RedBundy13]

Hi Pat, yes I do. I found it in PRESS REPORTS:
Daily News
United Kingdom
14 November, 1888

Here it is anyways:THE SPITALFIELDS MURDER
THE MAN LAST SEEN WITH KELLY
FULL AND DETAILED DESCRIPTION
The following important statement was made last evening by George Hutchinson, a groom by trade, but now working as a labourer. Hutchinson said:-

On Thursday last I had been to Romford, in Essex, and I returned from there about two o'clock on Friday morning, having walked all the way. I came down Whitechapel road into Commercial street. As I passed Thrawl street I passed a man standing at the corner of the street, and as I went towards Flower and Dean street I met the woman Kelly, whom I knew very well, having been in her company a number of times. She said, "Mr. Hutchinson, can you lend me sixpence?" I said, "I cannot, as I am spent out going down to Romford." She then walked on towards Thrawl street, saying, "I must go and look for some money." The man who was standing at the corner of Thrawl street then came towards her and put his hand on her shoulder, and said something to her which I did not hear, and they both burst out laughing. He put his hand again on her shoulder and they both walked slowly towards me. I walked on to the corner of Fashion street, near the public house. As they came by me his arm was still on her shoulder. He had a soft felt hat on, and this was drawn down somewhat over his eyes. I put down my head to look him in the face, and he turned and looked at me very sternly, and they walked across the road to Dorset street. I followed them across and stood at the corner of Dorset street. They stood at the corner of Miller's court for about three minutes. Kelly spoke to the man in a loud voice, saying, "I have lost my handkerchief." He pulled a red handkerchief out of his pocket, and gave it to Kelly, and they both went up the court together. I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for three quarters of an hour to see if they came down again, but they did not, and so I went away. My suspicions were aroused by seeing a man so well dressed, but I had no suspicion that he was the murderer. The man was about 5ft 8in in height and 34 or 35 years of age, with dark complexion and dark moustache turned up at the ends. He was wearing a long dark coat trimmed with astrachan, a white collar with black necktie, in which was affixed a horseshow pin. He wore a pair of dark "spats" with light buttons over button boots, and displayed from his waistcoat a massive gold chain. His watch chain had a big seal with a red stone hanging from it. He had a heavy moustache, curled up, and dark eyes and bushy eyebrows. He had no side whiskers, and his chin was clean shaven. He looked like a foreigner. I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house or hear any noise. I was out last night until three o'clock looking for him. I could swear to the man anywhere. I told one policeman on Sunday morning what I had seen, but did not go to the police station. I told one of the lodgers here about it yesterday, and he advised me to go to the police station, which I did last night. The man I saw did not look as though he would attack another one. He carried a small parcel in his hand, about eight inches long, and it had a strap round it. He had it tightly grasped in his left hand. It looked as though it was covered with dark American cloth. He carried in his right hand, which he laid upon the woman's shoulder, a pair of brown kid gloves. One thing I noticed, and that was that he walked very softly. I believe that he lives in the neighbourhood, and I fancied that I saw him in Petticoat lane on Sunday morning, but I was not certain. I went down to the Shoreditch mortuary today and recognised the body as being that of the woman Kelly, whom I saw at two o'clock on Friday morning. Kelly did not seem to me to be drunk, but was a bit "spreeish." I was quite sober, not having had anything to drink all day. 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. 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, but no one else. I have been looking for the man all day.

[RedBundy13]

one of the strangest things to me hutch said was all the business of the red hankercheif. He goes on about it and being red. me thinks he dost protest too much.

I think hutch may have left his red hanky in her room.

I KNOW!! Crazy, right!?! Especially after it was in the newspapers for the Eddowes murder that the suspect was described wearing a Red Handkerchief around his neck! Strange... Somethings gotta be up with this guy! You definitely could be on to something here. He forgot his red hanky in the room so he wanted the police to know that he'd seen "someone" with one talking to Kelly just prior to her being murdered!
I like your thinking Abby!!

[RedBundy13]

Ordering now...

As Stephen Senise has pointed out, Hutchinson's description may owe more than a little to the widely-published description of Leather Apron, who "never by any chance attacks a man". The description contains a number of other features which might have found their way into Hutchinson's account.

Thanks Sam, I'm ordering the book as we speak. Cant wait to read it. I've thought for quite some time that the murderer wanted us to think that he was Jewish. Especially after Chapman, with all the Jew bashing that went on in Hanbury St. just following the murder. Then Stride just outside of the Jewish Workingman's Club. And the with Eddowes last being seen talking to a man (almost certainly the Ripper) in the alley of the Great Synagogue. And we can't forget about Goulston St, where the Jewish Bath House was and not to mention the entire street was filled with Jewish residents.
Since I haven't read the book yet, is there a Jewish connection with Mary Kelly? Or is Hutchinson the Jewish connection? Obviously trying to pin her murder on a Jewish man if he's making it all up.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

The Irish Times, Wednesday 14th November 1888—

"London, Tuesday [13th]

"We are enabled to state that since the termination of the inquest on Mary Janet Kelly, an important link in the chain of evidence has been discovered which is likely to afford a clue to the murderer, and may, at least, avail to prevent a repetition of the crime. The name of the informant is at present kept secret, but his veracity is unquestioned, and he was personally acquainted with the deceased."

George Hutchinson was never identified as the secret informant. His independent story was introduced as corroboration of the original police statement, despite differences between the 13th and 14th November press reports.

Two witnesses, two differing descriptions of the same man.

Daily News, Wednesday 14th November—

"It will be observed that the description of the supposed murderer given by Hutchinson agrees in every particular with that already furnished by the police, and published yesterday morning."

If your 'Aha!' theory is correct, the press were extremely dim when it came to putting two and two together.

Regards,

Simon

[Darryl Kenyon]

Thanks for all the info on fixed point duties Wick

[Joshua Rogan]

And we can't forget about Goulston St, where the Jewish Bath House was

What makes you say that the Bath House was Jewish? I was under the impression that it was open to all, and managed by the Vestry of Whitechapel.

[Sam Flynn]

What makes you say that the Bath House was Jewish? I was under the impression that it was open to all, and managed by the Vestry of Whitechapel.

Yes, I believe it was a general public bath, not a "mikveh"