Why Did The Police Discount Hutchinson's Statement So Quickly?

Thanks for the support David, and I think yes, we can be sure he was at least discarded as a witness, and therefore their comments, re:discredited, make sense.

Im starting to apply the "what is" rule with these murders, what is is that George was said to be dicreditted, and Israel wasnt called at the Stride Inquest,, and Packer was not believed........barring anmy evidence that might suggest otherwise.

Should GH have been tossed aside, or is he really of value, or are parts of his story still credible if others are not?

My guess is yes, no, and no. Based almost solely on their treatment of his by November the 15th-16th.

All the best mon ami, cheers.

[DVV]

Hi Mike,

that's a very nice post (excellents points).
But are we sure he has been "dismissed" properly ? Certainly the police started to "doubt" (and perhaps "seriously")...
But why?
We can't know for sure, but the discrepancies between the police statements and the press reports might have been the main reason, or one of the reasons.
And perhaps more importantly, the very fact Hutch talked to the press could well have disgusted the police.

Hutch was supposed to be the hunter, and anonymous one, ignored by his prey.
Talking to the press, he gave his prey the oportunity to flee, hide, etc., and ran the risk to become the prey.

Amitiés,
David

Hi all,

I just posted this point on a related thread but felt that it is an important consideration in this one too.

George Hutchinson was on Monday night, the 12th of November 1888, a godsend. He was taken for a man that spoke the truth, and his story immediately was acted upon by the authorities as it was, if true, a fabulous clue to the potential killers identity....the acute description of Astrakan almost ensured that this suspect could be found.

But when they investigated it, within 72 hours, he was discredited.

The key here being that we can be certain they did investigate this witness and his story as fully as they were able to. That investigation resulted in his dismissal.

I think the only reason it seems fast is because his story was of such perceived value that they immediately followed this important lead to the hilt. Some other witnesses and their stories did not get that kind of immediacy from the police,.....even though in retrospect, they may have been far better leads to pursue.

Best regards all.

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Ben.

In actuality, regular patrons of given lodging houses were generally allowed free use of the kitchen area, but only until a certain time, at which point they were either expected to pay for a bed or leave the premises. Had it not been so, most kitchens would have been piled to the rafters with non-paying customers seeking free shelter for the night.

As for Hutchinson, he claimed that the Victoria Home was “closed” when he left Miller’s Court, as a consequence of which he walked about all night and only returned “when it opened in the morning”.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

There's no evidence that Chapman was "turfed out" of the lodging house. She left of her own volition because she knew, or was alerted to the fact, that if she didn't procure money for her doss soon, they would let the bed she usually occupied. She wasn't told to leave, at least not according to three press reports I've just dredged up from The Times, The Daily Telegraph, and the Morning Advertiser.

Sadler was turned away on account of his bloodstained, beaten appearance; the deputy fearing, with some justification, that the other lodgers would conclude that "his injuries had been done in the house".

It simply wasn't the case that Hutchinson had "nowhere else to go". At the very least, he could secure a roof over his head. His very own lodging house, the Victoria Home, allowed access to the downstairs kitchen. The doorkeeper was only stationed at the foot of the stairs leading up to the rooms to prevent access to non ticket-holders.

All the best,
Ben

[Jon Guy]

there was nothing preventing free entry into the lodging house kitchen.

Hi Ben

Could someone stay after 2.00 am in the kitchen without doss money?

Just before 1.45am, John Evans went to the kitchen to ask Annie Chapman if she had any money, she then left saying keep my bed I will be back with money. Not number 35 Dorset St but still a Crossingham`s L.H.

Sadler too, was turfed out of the Lodging House when he had no money.

I do see it as perfectly reasonable that someone should be propping themselves up in the doorway at that time of the morning with nowhere else to go.

4. Even more intriguingly, Mrs Cox describes blotchy as "short, stout... wearing a billycock hat", and Lewis describes her man as "stout, but not very tall, wearing a wideawake". Did Lewis latch onto part of Cox's story?;

A good question indeed Sam if I may interject here, however it may also be seen as somewhat timely based on the reported status of Marys room after 1:30am.....meaning, Lewis's sighting could well have been Blotchy Face outside Marys room. Maybe not content with being shown the door near to the time Elizabeth climbs the stairs....and perhaps considering popping back in uninvited later...since if he hadnt known Mary lived alone when arriving at room 13, he likely did soon thereafter.

I see his "escorting" a hammered Mary through her own doorway, him closing the door behind them....appearing to want to get away from the company of Ms Cox....as having a potentially lascivious undertone.

But if its Mary that cries out at 3:45am, he definitively still hasnt killed her.. yet.

"oh-murder....I thought I told you to go home,.. Im sleeping".

You know me Sam ....all the best

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

Indeed, Ben - but then Hutchinson doesn't mention seeing Lewis's arrival, either, so we're quits

Most probably through fear of making it appear too obvious that his hand was forced as a result of her evidence, not that I'm remotely convinced that he really did neglect to mention Lewis.

Lewis seems to see bogey-men everywhere, and - if she's one and the same as "Mrs Kennedy", which I'm sure she was - this seems to have been something of an obsession with her

Personally, I think Mrs. Kennedy was a separate entity - someone who learned of Lewis' evidence and attempted to pass it off as her own. A reporter from The Star observed that one of the "oh murder" accounts was being parroted, and since there are no press accounts that even vaguely resemble Prater's, it could only have been Lewis' account that was being Chinese Whispered in the manner described by The Star. There's only Mrs. Kennedy who could fit the bill in that regard.

In her original police statement, Lewis initially says that Mr Wideawake was talking to a woman, but that last bit is struck out, which doesn't augur well for her reliability

Bear in mind that she had just described a man talking to a female outside Ringers'. It's quite possible that the statement-taker confounded the two sightings (Ringers and Crossingham's) when committing Lewis' recollections to paper.

She also saw another rather young looking man

But that's consistent everywhere.

In every Sarah Lewis account, she speaks of a "young man" who "passed along" with a woman. That's not a journalistic invention.

Mrs Cox describes blotchy as "short, stout... wearing a billycock hat", and Lewis describes her man as "stout, but not very tall, wearing a wideawake". Did Lewis latch onto part of Cox's story?

I'd say it's more likely that the descriptions are similar on account of their having seen the same man.

Dorset Street was renowned for its doss-houses, so the odds of someone standing at Crossingham's door (which faced the entrance to Miller's Court by default) at the time Lewis passed wouldn't have been particularly low.

It's not just the man's presence that establishes a disturbing congruity between Lewis' man and Hutchinson's account of his own movements; it's their ostensibly "shared" preoccupation with Miller's Court. The chances of two separate individuals having that same preoccupation at the same time and more or less the same location must be regarded as very slim indeed. I'm not sure why a proliferation of doss houses would increase the likelihood of anyone standing outside them, especially as there was nothing preventing free entry into the lodging house kitchen.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

That's true, Gareth.

Although, as you may have guessed, I was thinking of one "core component" in particular when I made the above observation; his presence outside a crime scene (and apparant interest in same) as seemingly corroborated by Sarah Lewis. I just can't dismiss that as random, unrelated coincidence, however hard I try.

All the best,
Ben

Indeed, Ben - but then Hutchinson doesn't mention seeing Lewis's arrival, either, so we're quits Consider the following:

1. Lewis seems to see bogey-men everywhere, and - if she's one and the same as "Mrs Kennedy", which I'm sure she was - this seems to have been something of an obsession with her;

2. In her original police statement, Lewis initially says that Mr Wideawake was talking to a woman, but that last bit is struck out, which doesn't augur well for her reliability;

3. Intriguingly, the East London Advertiser, reporting Lewis's inquest testimony, has her stating that she saw two men around Miller's Court that night: "When she went into the court she saw a man standing outside the lodging-house door. He was not very tall, but was stout looking. He wore a black suit and had a black hat. The man was looking very eagerly up the court as if he was waiting for somebody to come out. She also saw another rather young looking man". Hadn't spotted that before - and it seems an unlikely invention on the part of the journalist if you ask me;

4. Even more intriguingly, Mrs Cox describes blotchy as "short, stout... wearing a billycock hat", and Lewis describes her man as "stout, but not very tall, wearing a wideawake". Did Lewis latch onto part of Cox's story?;

5. Dorset Street was renowned for its doss-houses, so the odds of someone standing at Crossingham's door (which faced the entrance to Miller's Court by default) at the time Lewis passed wouldn't have been particularly low. The narrowness of the street could easily give the impression that someone standing outside Crossingham's doorway was looking up the Court, even if they weren't.

[Ben]

That's true, Gareth.

Although, as you may have guessed, I was thinking of one "core component" in particular when I made the above observation; his presence outside a crime scene (and apparant interest in same) as seemingly corroborated by Sarah Lewis. I just can't dismiss that as random, unrelated coincidence, however hard I try.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

I'd say it's perfectly possible that the police dismissed Hutchinson as a publicity seeker who wasn't even there at all after discovering that he lied about certain aspects of his actions and movements, and yes, they may have done so in error, since many of the core components... may well have been true.

Unfortunately, Ben, many of his core components bear an uncanny resemblance to stories concerning Kelly's movements, and descriptions of sinister men, which were splashed all over the popular press in the days leading up to Hutch's going to the police.

Hi Archaic,

I'd say it's perfectly possible that the police dismissed Hutchinson as a publicity seeker who wasn't even there at all after discovering that he lied about certain aspects of his actions and movements, and yes, they may have done so in error, since many of the core components - such as his superficially "corroborated" presence opposite Miller's Court as seen by Lewis - may well have been true.

All the best,
Ben

My favorite post of your view on this Ben, you have captured neutrality and hit key points.

As you know, Im inclined to throw it all in the bin...but good post.

All the best mate.

[Ben]

Hi Archaic,

I'd say it's perfectly possible that the police dismissed Hutchinson as a publicity seeker who wasn't even there at all after discovering that he lied about certain aspects of his actions and movements, and yes, they may have done so in error, since many of the core components - such as his superficially "corroborated" presence opposite Miller's Court as seen by Lewis - may well have been true.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

All of this could well have given the impression that he had sunk a few.

Absolutely no way, Richard.

If Barnett had given the impression of being "furiously drunk" at the inquest, there is no way the coroner would have congratulated him on giving his evidence well. The overwhelmingly logical deduction is that Barnett was not furiously drunk at the inquest and the journalists at the Wheeling Register were simply talking nonsense.

And speaking of nonsense, there is nothing remotely noteworthy or interesting about two disreputable sources independently coming up with a similar bogus story in association with a piece of witness evidence. As I've already explained, trashy crime novels are awash with stories of informants being paid off vast sums to keep quiet about something of major significance. It's the oldest trick in the book, and it becomes even more attractive when allied to an aleady bogus theory being bandied about; the Royal Conspiracy. Reg needed no inspiration whatsoever beyond this to conjur up a payment issue.

We know the Wheeling Register's claims are wrong, since the police clearly did not pay Hutchinson five times a salary they didn't believe he was earning. It doesn't "appear to have truth". We know otherwise, but again, it seems likely that the motivation for the invention was the same. There is absolutely no interesting "coincidence" here.

sum one hundred shillings, roughly is equivilent to the Wheelings description of 'five times a weeks wage'

NO IT ISN'T!!!

Hutchinson wasn't taking home a weekly wage, which means he would not have been entitled to five times that non-existent wage. That's not remotely compatible with a 100 shillings figure. I've explained this an absurd amount of times now. Yes, I share your doubts that Hutchinson was unemployed at the time, but the only thing we need to be aware of his that the police really believed he was unemployed, albeit initially, and it would have been the police who dished out any cash on offer.

Summing up I find the argument that George Hutchinson, was not a regular worker,somewhat strange

It's not an "argument". It's what Hutchinson himself told Abberline. Of course, if you think Hutchinson lied about that...

All the best,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi Garry,
I accept the word 'Gossip' in relation to the Wheeling Register, however although it seems likely that the inquest report concerning Barnett was 'overdone', there is still the fact that he appeared to have great difficulty in getting through his statement at the inquest, it was noted that he always repeated the last word of a sentence, in starting another, and was clearly nevous, and clearly stressed.
Therefore it is no wonder the coroner praised him for what must have been a very disturbing experience , it was stated in one report that he was even confused what he had to do when holding the bible , i believe he kissed it , and handed it back initially.
All of this could well have given the impression that he had sunk a few.
But the gossip that mentioned a payment to a 'clever individual' has been confirmed, has it not by a relation to a man named Hutchinson?, who has exactly the same surname as the witness that the Wheeling Register was talking about.
So this was not invented, it appears to have been truth, how they got hold of that information , i have not a clue, from Hutch himself , or one of his associates perhaps.
But we have Toppings eldest son , stating[ not just in Faircloughs book , but approx 18 years earlier] that his father used to mention that payment in the 1920s/30s, and as that sum one hundred shillings, roughly is equivilent to the Wheelings description of 'five times a weeks wage', surely that is as near as damm proof that he was the witness.
Ben keeps saying 'Yes but no police force would pay a witness for their help' and follow on with especially as he was 'unemployed'.
I can only say that by Hutchinsons own statement , he suggests that he had at least some money when going TO Romford, also as a regular at The Victoria home, he had to have been vetted as a man of regular income, as he would not have been allowed to be a resident, infact correct me if i am wrong , but i believe the police had connection in vetting dwellers there?
Summing up I find the argument that George Hutchinson, was not a regular worker , somewhat strange, as it all points to the contary.
A character referance for Topping , albeit by his own flesh and blood, has him as a hard working man , hardly if ever out ofwork.
A perfect resident for the Victoria Home, i would suggest.
Regards Richard.