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

[perrymason]

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

[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.

[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

[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.

[perrymason]

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.

[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

[perrymason]

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.

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Richard.

Given our previous discussion relating to the unreliability of anecdotal evidence, particularly that which has been passed down through the intrafamilial route, I thought that the following account, provided to Dan Farson by the niece of Mary Ann Cox, might be of interest:-

"The night of the murder of Mary Kelly my aunt was very young, just married with one child. She was standing at her door and waiting for her husband who was a bit of a boozer. She saw Mary coming through the iron gate with this gentleman, a real toff. Mary was always bringing home men, mostly seamen from a pub called the Frying Pan, singing and holding their arms with a bottle of gin under her arm. This night as they got under the lamp in the court they stopped. Mary's words were "all right love don't pull me along". My aunt said they were only a few yards away from her, at the door she said she saw him as plain as looking at her hand. He was a fine looking man, wore an overcoat with a cape, high hat, not a silk one, and a Gladstone bag. As they went into the house, Mary called out "goodnight" to my aunt."

She also added that her aunt heard 'terrible screams from Mary, but no one took any notice because it happened often'. Finally, she is quoted as saying this about the discovery of Kelly's body:

"Now next morning a Mrs Storey who was always in and out of Mary's room to have a pinch of snuff and a chat, was the first person to find the terrible body. Mary had a string on the door so anybody visiting had no need to knock. She dashed next door to my aunt and they both went in. My aunt never forgot the sight she saw.”

As I’m sure will be immediately apparent, virtually every detail has either been grossly exaggerated or distorted to the point of untruth – a perfect illustration, I would suggest, of the inherent unreliability of second-, third- and fourth-generation anecdotal evidence.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[perrymason]

Just saw my last post....and my apologies for the spelling errors....discredited, and any for anmy.

All the best

[Sam Flynn]

As I’m sure will be immediately apparent, virtually every detail has either been grossly exaggerated or distorted to the point of untruth.[/SIZE][/FONT]

More damningly, most of it seems to be pure invention.

[perrymason]

In an effort to punch my prior point that David picked up on, as it relates directly to the thread question,.....the potential for the information that Hutchinson gives to be "case breaking" is clear,...Ive never read a more detailed suspect description in any cases Ive read about.

So he was dismissed quickly because his story was investigated quickly. That being said they did not officially step back from his suspect until late on the 15th or 16th....which would suggest that they dismissed his story after they had spent nearly 72 hours investigating it.

These facts lead one to conclude that the dismissal was warranted, not rushed,... at least in the opinions of the men he talked to, and that investigated his story.

Best regards all.

[Garry Wroe]

Precisely, Sam. And we have no way of knowing whether these inaccuracies originated with Mrs Cox, her niece, or a combination of the two – which is why I have repeatedly advocated a circumspect approach with regard to the Toppy claims.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Garry,
Ninety per cent of what you wrote I was well aware of , but who was Mrs Storey?, and whats this about a piece of string, I am totally bewildered.
I am beginning to believe we are totally ignorant. of anything that happened that night in millers court....totally on the wrong wavelength..all of us
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

who was Mrs Storey?

Interestingly, Rich, there was a Bridget Storey, aged 34, who lived at nearby Paternoster Row in November 1888. There's a possibility that this was the woman to whom Cox referred, albeit perhaps she wasn't a contemporary resident of Miller's Court at the time of Kelly's death. That said, she could have moved from Miller's Court to Paternoster Row shortly afterwards, I suppose.

Bridget Storey was admitted to the Whitechapel Infirmary on 21st Nov 1888, giving her address as 4, Paternoster Row. She was suffering from "tussis" (a cough), so perhaps some of her snuff had gone down the wrong way!

and whats this about a piece of string

No mention was made of it at the time, but the "window trick" was described to some extent - and no piece of string was involved. Sounds made up to me, as does the jolly tableau of the drunken sailors staggering home from the Frying Pan on Mary's arm (...how stereotyped is that? They were probably singing "Yo Ho!" as well ). The mention of an iron gate at the entrance to Miller's Court is clearly fictitious, as is the dialogue between Kelly and Mr Astrakhan... oops! but Cox didn't see her with Mr Astrakhan, did she? Also, the stor(e)y of Mary dishing out snuff to impromptu visitors seems to have crept in from nowhere, but there's no mention of "Only a Violet", which you'd think Cox would have remembered. To make up for that, Cox somehow "remembers" hearing Mary scream.. it's just a pity she'd forgotten about the screams at the time of the murder!

[perrymason]

...... it's just a pity she'd forgotten about the screams at the time of the murder!

I dont think any single witness that we study here is beyond being effected by the details of others stories to some degree, or to some embelishments....Astrakan may have only come to him after he had first boarded the vehicle that he thought verifies his story, Wideawake Hat man.

Mary Ann isnt the "ear-witness" to anything that night Sam, only the singing going on as she passed, when it was,... and to the light seen inside, when it was lit.

Elizabeth Prater is in the same house, and Sarah Lewis is almost across from Marys door, the same 2 witnesses that are in close proximity to room 13 oddly enough. Yet Neither say the sound was from Marys room. Sarah,... "as if at her door", and Liz,... "as from the court".

I support both their sound accounts, and yet point out that it needn't have been Mary crying out. Since no noise followed that call, it would seem no attack did.

But a woman may have uttered that in shock from the courtyard that wasnt Mary Kelly.

Best regards Sam.