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

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Richard, Sam, All.

Contrary to what has been assumed, I’m inclined to think that it is Blotchy rather than the Jewish-looking suspect who underwent the somewhat spectacular metamorphosis at the hands of Mrs Cox’s niece. I have nothing to substantiate this surmise beyond a gut feeling, however.

The piece of string is an interesting one. There has been a good deal of conjecture about the method by which Mary Kelly secured her room after her key went missing. Whilst some sources mentioned a spring lock, others (Barnett included) referred to a bolt. Recently, though, I discovered that both terms were interchangeable descriptors for a locking mechanism that looks very much as though it was the precursor to the modern-day night-latch (see below). The bolt was spring-mounted, ensuring that it self-actuated whenever the door was closed. To disengage it, one simply pulled the chain and the bolt slid back into a neutral position. As I understand it, a piece of string was often attached to the chain for ease of use. In Kelly’s case, this would have made even more sense since one end of the string could have been left close to the broken window pane, thereby rendering this mode of access simpler and possibly less dangerous.

Whether Kelly did indeed attach a piece of string to the lock is, of course, open to debate. But at least the apparent contradiction between the bolt and spring lock appears to have been resolved.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Garry Wroe]

Apologies for the above. Another gold medal for incompetence. Now I'm off for a pinch of snuff ...

[richardnunweek]

Hi Garry ,
If a peice of string was attached to the chain , and was near the broken window, it would indeed make sense, however surely that could not have been evident when the police arrived, for surely entrance to the room would have been quite easy to see.
I am intriqued about the report of a Mrs storey, and Cox, actually entering the room, surely that was not likely, although one report did say, that residents of the court were concerned about Marys well being,, and reported no one could make her hear, and upon this reported to her landlord., and because of this Bowyer was sent to check.
This however appears to be incorrect, but as i said earlier, i believe we are proberly miles away from the actual events of that night/morning.
Regards Richard.

[Rosey O'Ryan]

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.

Perry Mason,
Your post raises a number of questions, firstly, how long did it take the police investigation to interview other witnesses about the area of Miller's Court, considering the in-depth detail supplied by Hutch? You surmise approx. 72hrs at the least. I think you are right in your surmise...but Jack was lonnnnggg gone, before Hutch appeared on the scene, so to speak.
Rosey :-)

[perrymason]

Perry Mason,
Your post raises a number of questions, firstly, how long did it take the police investigation to interview other witnesses about the area of Miller's Court, considering the in-depth detail supplied by Hutch? You surmise approx. 72hrs at the least. I think you are right in your surmise...but Jack was lonnnnggg gone, before Hutch appeared on the scene, so to speak.
Rosey :-)

Hi Rosey,

That figure of 72 hours is the approximate time that George Hutchinsons story was apparently believed by the investigators, as we dont see anything from them until I believe late on the 15th or early the 16th that he was "discredited" as a witness.

We can see that they felt the witness was still very useful on Monday night, more than 72 hours after finding her...perhaps if only for the short term assuming they could bring some men in for him to identify. He said he was sure he would recognize the man again. I dont think any other witness who saw a suspect last with a victim said that, if memory serves.

We know that the people who appeared at the Inquest Monday were felt to be credible evidence......(other than Mrs Maxwell, judging by the comments introducing her testimony...perhaps she was just deemed honest but somehow mistaken), so we can assume they were checked out over the weekend for opinions about their character.

They jumped on the witness sighting portion with George....maybe at the expense of first reviewing whether he was worth their extension of belief...as it seems the Inquest witnesses received.

Best regards

[Sam Flynn]

We know that the people who appeared at the Inquest Monday were felt to be credible evidence... so we can assume they were checked out over the weekend for opinions about their character.

I'm not so sure the police would have had the time, resources or inclination to perform character-checks on every witness, Mike. On any witness, come to that - especially considering the pressure they must have been under at that time.

[perrymason]

I'm not so sure the police would have had the time, resources or inclination to perform character-checks on every witness, Mike. On any witness, come to that - especially considering the pressure they must have been under at that time.

Hi Sam,

My thinking is that on the weekend, those witnesses were believed all they were going to get, so I think if focussed on their potential viability to put on the stand, the police could interview a few people known by most witnesses on Saturday and Sunday. They had interviewed the witnesses themselves Friday, and they did have that weekend to organize themselves enough to think they could mount an Inquest on the very first business day after the murder.

They were dealing with fixed address witnesses for the most part too....enabling some neighbors to perhaps know them better than a roommate at the lodging house might.

But Georges value wasnt necessarily long term....I think thats the way they saw his tale at first....he could and would identify who he saw if they could find him....maybe that search for possibles was their way of feeling his story out....but they had to act on it right away, having lost 3 days already. If the man he said hed seen hadnt fled by Monday,....its not a stretch to think hed leave his coat, his spats and his horse head pin in the closet from Tuesday or Wednes on anyway.

Cheers Sam.

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Richard.

The point of the ‘niece’ post was not to introduce a possible alternative to the scenario already associated with the Kelly murder, but rather to emphasize the extent to which established facts can be distorted via the process of oral transmission. We know, for example, that Mrs Cox heard no scream or happened upon Mary Jane’s body, and yet such claims were being passed on as ‘fact’ a few decades later. My post, therefore, was simply an illustration as to the unreliability of the type of oral history that is presently being accorded so much gravitas by proponents of the ‘Toppy was Hutchinson’ argument.

As for the piece of string, I take on board your observation that, had it existed, it would have been spotted by Abberline and colleagues as they waited outside Kelly’s room prior to entering the crime scene. But perhaps it was. As I argued in my book, even though the window frame was removed prior to anyone entering the room, ingress was only possible after John McCarthy broke down the door with a pickaxe. Then, once inside, Abberline conducted an extensive search for a key, the implication being that the door had not only been bolted, but locked via the mortise mechanism also attached to the door. If so, then maybe Abberline did try to disengage the bolt, as you suggest, and only ordered a forced entry once he realized that a key had been used on the door.

Hi Mike.

In point of fact, if you’d care to check one of my earlier posts, you’ll see that, if The Echo is to be believed, the authorities were viewing Hutchinson’s claims with some scepticism by 13 November – within twenty-four hours of the memo in which Abberline stated his belief that Hutchinson was a credible witness.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Sam Flynn]

For info, Garry, I'm a proponent of the "Toppy was Hutchinson" argument who doesn't in the least believe the bulk of the Reg Hutchinson story - at least, not as it comes across in The Ripper & The Royals.

[Garry Wroe]

I’m aware of that, Sam, thanks. By the way, are you still of the opinion that Mrs Cox’s niece was referring to the Jewish-looking suspect, or might there be something in my admittedly intuitive belief that she was describing Blotchy?

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Garry,
I am somewhat confused, are we absolutely certain that the window frame was removed? I believe that the entire window was boarded up before the scene was departed, leaving just a couple of burly policeman to watch over the scene.
The key mystery is still just that.
Could that lock be opened if one had access to the inside without a key?
If so why was the door not opened by hand?
If the door was locked by a key from the outside, would that prevent opening from the inside, without having that key?
If the former...Why force the door?
If the latter... if the killer had the key to room 13, he either took it off the victim, and locked the door on his way out, or he had the key that was lost according to Barnett all along, which if so would hint at premeditation.
We have to fully understand the key mystery, for it is obvious, that the police must have tried to enter the room via the window, before asking McCarthy to gain forceable entry,
Confusing....
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

By the way, are you still of the opinion that Mrs Cox’s niece was referring to the Jewish-looking suspect, or might there be something in my admittedly intuitive belief that she was describing Blotchy?

Possibly, Garry - although there's more of Hutchinson's man in this description than Blotchy, I feel:

"She saw Mary... with this gentleman, a real toff. 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"...He was a fine looking man, wore an overcoat with a cape, high hat, not a silk one, and a Gladstone bag."

If you swap "respectable" for "fine looking", "high hat (not silk)" with "felt hat turned down in the middle", and "Gladstone bag" with "parcel with a kind of strap on it", it's practically the bogey-man himself! Even the tenor of the conversation under the lamp* is similar to the one Hutchinson claims to have heard. Either way, this "real toff" has more of Astrakhan about him than the ragged-trousered piss-artist carrying the 'top of reeb' reported by Mrs Cox at the time of the murder.


* albeit the lamp in Hutchinson's story was in Commercial Street, not Miller's Court.

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Sam.

Firstly, what I intended to write earlier was ‘some proponents’. So, apologies for that. I think it was the shock of seeing Johnny Rotten on TV a little earlier fronting a butter advertisement …

Anyway, thanks for your response to my earlier question regarding the narrative of Mrs Cox’s niece. As I stated, mine was no more than an automatic assumption. But you certainly make a good case in favour of the Jewish-looking suspect. I’m in two minds at present. It just reinforces my belief that everything Ripper ought to be checked, double-checked, then cross-checked. Much like one’s choice of candidate for butter adverts …

By the way, nice coster slang.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Richard.

You make some extremely pertinent points regarding Kelly’s door and the issues surrounding the missing key. For a more detailed analysis, might I suggest that you consult the relevant chapters here …

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media...roe_full2.html

… and there are doubtless archived threads here on site dealing with the same.

To briefly address your questions, however, it is certainly true that Abberline and a retinue of onlookers stood outside Kelly’s room for quite some time whilst awaiting the arrival of the bloodhounds. At some point, the frame was removed from the window aperture and a number of photographs were taken of the crime scene. When finally the order was given to enter the room, it was discovered that the door was either locked or, as some would have it, bolted. It was at this juncture that John McCarthy fetched a pickaxe from his shop and broke open the door. Once inside the room, Abberline, according to a number of newspaper accounts, made a fruitless search for the missing key.

As an experienced detective, Abberline would have been perfectly familiar with the kind of spring lock clearly visible through the empty window aperture. Indeed, given that Kelly herself had during the preceding two weeks experienced little difficulty in reaching in through the broken window pane to disengage the bolting mechanism, it would have represented an example of rank incompetence had it not occurred to Abberline to do the same. And yet the door had to be forced, and, once it had, Abberline conducted a search for a key. The only possible conclusion to be drawn from such, I would suggest, is that the door was not only bolted, but locked, too. And since the only key to the room was that which had been ‘mislaid’ by Kelly some two weeks prior to her death, one can only assume that this was the key that was used on the mortise lock.

So, unless the reports of Abberline’s search for the key were in error, one is bound to conclude that the killer somehow came into possession of Kelly’s key and, after murdering her, used it to lock the door on departing the crime scene. And this, as you correctly observed, is indicative of premeditation.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe writes:

"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"

...and thus, it serves well to remind us that we ought to regard Reg Hutchinsons tale as a healthy helping from the same pile of garbage?

Possibly so. The trouble involved in such a stance, though, lies in the fact that once we allow ourselves to move with statistics - and statistics tell us that every time somebody succeeds to let the truth seep through the filter of time and mouth-to-mouth conveying of a story, there will be heaps of examples showing us that the original truth will end up somewhere between seriously flawed and quite inrecognizable - we give up every possibility to take any story at face value. It kind of resembles what happens when you sift for gold in a river - the few nuggets of gold will be totally outnumbered by all them pebbles.
And still, the gold is around!

When it comes to Reg´s story, I think we have TWO possible strains of alteration attached to it, and not just the normally suggested one; the one telling us how ridiculous Churchill is in the context, and how very apparent it is that it could not have been a coincidence that the Royal conspiracy was fed by Reg´s words.

The second strain of alterations is of course the long tradition of researchers agreeing on the oddity of the elements involved in the Reg Hutchinson story - this agreement has resulted in a reinforcement of the argument that it all MUST have been a load of crap from beginning to end, and it has provided Reg with a character that we have very little actual proof for: the greedy liar, prepared to go along with any suggestions from the equally sinister Fairclough, once it puts a little flesh on his wallet.

To my mind, all of this has it´s origin in the naming of Randolph Churchill, and if Randolph Churchill was named by Toppy for the simple reason that his name was the first that sprung to mind when he needed to put a name to being high up society´s ladder, then there has never been any real and relevant reason to point either Toppy or Reg out as anything but bad illustrators. That, though, has not stopped this particular tale from being the victim of precisely the thing you advice to take care of - years and years of building up a picture that may or may not be a true one.

Just like Sam, I am quite convinced that Toppy was the witness; I think the signatures put it beyond reasonable doubt. And that, of course, is why I also think we need to realize that there was at least a nugget of gold hidden among the pebbles in Reg´s washing pan. There may of course have been more gold in it than so, but it remains hard to prove.

The same applies to the suggestion that Toppy would have been asked to write his full name in the police protocol. To me it is quite obvious that he simply chose not to. Maybe the fact that he signed his wedding papers without adding his middle names has a bearing on the matter too.

The best,
Fisherman