Hutchinson Content---Moved from MJK crime scene thread

[Sam Flynn]

The dreaded "Hutch" virus seems far more persistent and deadly than anything Will Smith had to tackle in "I Am Legend" Unless the ghostly image of the face of Reggie's dad is etched into the panels of the partition or sits grinning in miniature alongside Baphomet, I can't see that Hutchinson has anything but the most tenuous connection with the analysis of the crime scene per se.

[richardnunweek]

Hi all,
How i wish a certain Reg Hutchinson was still alive and had the inclination to reply to posts that were damageing to his fathers memory, although proberly the truth of the matter is even he tired of repeating his fathers account of his meeting of a ripper victim ie Kelly in the early hours of the 9th november 88.
We have no proof that Reg was a hoaxer,or indeed his father GWT, we do know that he existed and he was the father of Reg, and that his date of birth was 1/10/1868, therefore aged 22 years and one month at the time of the sighting.
Regardless of the above observations, we have the suggestion that one GH whoever this mysterious gentleman was, actually was a attention seeker , or a liar possibly to safeguard his freedom, and the reason for his delay in reporting such an important sighting as alleged was fear.
My reasoning is that being the case, fear of what?
Fear of being seen in Dorset street at a possibly relevant time.
Fear of being suspected of being her killer.
Fear of being suspected of being accused of being jtr.
Question.
Are we seriously believing that even if Gh was not GWT, that he presented himself to a extremely paronoid police force, on the eve of the 12th nov and stated that he was in the presense of the most recent victim of the whitechapel murders, and had no alibi, unless he was being truthful?
If GH was not Gwt he would have to have been quite MAD to have presented himself to H division on the monday evening, if he was that, then Abberline was not a good judge of character...
I assume its safe to imply that Regs father was not a victorian lunatic, and if indeed it was his good self that gave the report to Abberline, then we have whether we like it or not a honest account of sighting regardless of its relevance to events on the morning of the 9th november 1888.
My first post as a junior , hope it gets through.
Regards Richard.

Sox,

I agree with all 4 of you that nowhere is it explicitly laid out what the reasons for dropping his suspect description were, or how Abberline felt at that point, or why this all happened within 48 hours....it just leaves us with a conclusion. Hutchinson's suspect was by that same Wednesday, discarded. And replaced by another witness suspect, that of Mary Ann Cox. Which leaves us to surmise that A) They now thought Blotchy Man was the last seen with Mary again, and B) that they believed her story at that same point in time.

Why? Who knows and who really cares....Hutchinson became a possible suspect or accomplice by his own admission, but he evidently offered no usable leads as to whom might have killed her, as a suspect witness. And when he is dismissed they revert back to the last man seen with Mary...they did not continue to look for stories that had Mary being outside her room after Blotchy Man...because without Astrakan man, there werent any others to pursue. Including the now on record, Caroline Maxwell's.

My best regards.

[Sox]

So...in terms of the thread premise, George Hutchinsons statements are useless when assessing what impact "Astrakan Man" has on the events of November 9th.

See, you keep saying that, but as far as I know you have access to the same information as the rest of us and there are no official statements or reports, from 1888, that say what you claim, as Ben & Dan have both pointed out.

Hello all,

When George Hutchinson makes his trip to the Police Station Monday night, it has been almost 4 days since he had his alleged sighting, and that alone dispels any notion that he comes forward based on his nagging conscience or a sense of civic responsibility, and it effectively nullifies his contention Monday that he and Kelly were friends. It is hard to imagine that a "friend" would not present what amounts to the most detailed sighting of any suspect by any witness in a Ripper case, and certainly the best in this case, as soon as he hears of Mary's fate.

Had Hutchinson given his account in the same voluntary manner on the previous Friday afternoon, you could make a reasonable case that he was trying to assist the Police and help his friend. But after more than 72 hours, the "suspect" could have fled the city or the country, and the "witness" places himself in the role of the Loitering Man, (one of the catalysts perhaps for the rapid issuance of a Pardon for Accomplices on Saturday), the man seen by Sarah Lewis.

The mere fact that he delays coming forward, and then places himself in a suspicious role that night as Loitering Man might well reflect his consideration of his predicament.... having been seen watching the courtyard by someone.

If he does not come forward, he risks being spotted by Sarah Lewis at some point, or by someone else thinking he matched her description. By coming forward, he diffuses that risk by introducing Astrakan, and explaining his presence as that of a friends.

Abberline jumped at Hutch because Hutch's sighting gave him hope, something in short demand when it came to clues about the Whitechapel killer,...but even so, within 2 days, he abandons Hutchinsons suspect.

I think the only thing that they didnt already figure out about George Hutchinson, and the thing we still cant agree on, is why he showed up at the Police Station at all if his sighting was 4 days old, ....and why he was not seen as credible in half that time.

He adds intrigue...but not witness value.

So...in terms of the thread premise, George Hutchinsons statements are useless when assessing what impact "Astrakan Man" has on the events of November 9th.

My best regards all.

[Ben]

An illustration "circulated" by the Illustrated Police News means nothing about the actual police

Absolutely, which is why I said:

Before then, the Astrakhan description had been circulated to all stations and a detailed pencil sketch appeared in the Illustrated Police News (not a police rag, despite its name) and other newspapers.

You're right; we don't know every single detail, but as you've acknowledged previously, there are enough indications from subsequent police-authored documents to permit the inference that Hutchinson's suspect description was eventually discarded as having little or no value. We don't know why this happened, but I do feel that some of the reasons previously suggested are indicative, as you say, of speculation and wishful thinking.

[Dan Norder]

An illustration "circulated" by the Illustrated Police News means nothing about the actual police. They made up illustrations of all sorts of things just based upon whatever information they assembled with no regards to whether it was real or not, including Mary Kelly's klller escaping via the window and so forth and so on. It's not like an actual police-sanctioned wanted poster or anything.

We know that Abberline originally found Hutchinson's statement as honest and potentially relevant. We don't know what happened after that. Some people have spent a lot of time inventing up their own storyline based upon speculation and wishful thinking, but the answer here, just as it is for much of this case, is that we honestly just don't know.

[Ben]

Hi Sox,

It doesn't all boil down to The Star, though. All they did was provide the first indication that Hutchinson's account was discredited. It was the subsequent interviews, memoirs and reports from pretty much every senior police official that ultimately vindicated the newspaper's 15th November claim; from Robert Anderson's statement that the only man to have acquired a good look at the murder was Jewish, to Abberline's claim that the reliable witnesses were the ones that had described a "P&O cap" (Lawende and possibly Schwartz) or had acquired a rear view (Long).

To write him off completely would be imprudent, I agree. If he lied about his reasons for being there, "writing him off" would stifle any further discourse as to why he lied. That's not to say that any possibility of his encountering Kelly on the night of her murder should be dispensed with; merely that his suspect sighting evidently failed to pass muster in the long run.

All the best,
Ben

[Sox]

Hi Sox,

It is difficult to say for certain, but he seemed to disappear off the map as early as the 15th November. Before then, the Astrakhan description had been circulated to all stations and a detailed pencil sketch appeared in the Illustrated Police News (not a police rag, despite its name) and other newspapers. Then on the 15th Novemeber, The Star announced that the account was "now discredited", and other newspapers were speaking of "invention" at around the same time. A dismissal of his evidence around this time would certainly account for the lack of interest later accorded it by senior police officials.

Best regards,
Ben

Hiya Ben, that is pretty much what I thought, I mean come on, The Star? There you have my whole problem with Kellys murder in a nutshell, the last 'official' comment we have on George Hutchinson is Abberlines, & that is why I cannot dismiss him. If ever official documents turn up discrediting this witness, then I would be happy, but until such a time I think it unwise to write him off completely.

[Ben]

Hi Sox,

It is difficult to say for certain, but he seemed to disappear off the map as early as the 15th November. Before then, the Astrakhan description had been circulated to all stations and a detailed pencil sketch appeared in the Illustrated Police News (not a police rag, despite its name) and other newspapers. Then on the 15th Novemeber, The Star announced that the account was "now discredited", and other newspapers were speaking of "invention" at around the same time. A dismissal of his evidence around this time would certainly account for the lack of interest later accorded it by senior police officials.

Best regards,
Ben

[Varqm]

"She goes out after she gets rid off Blotchy face."

One of the things that bothers me and make me disagree with the client
theory is that the ripper had ample time and less worry about people just
passing by or popping up, and would have choosen,I think , a position /circumstance where Kelly would not have been able to cry 'Oh Murder".

As far as Hutchinson goes I think they would have milked his info as far as it can go.He would have been one of the two ( Cox ) most important witnesses.
If they could interview the astrakhan man that would have covered some
questions about that night and would have gotten from him a new set of info.
The only reason they would have set aside Hutch's testimony is that it was useless because it was false. I doubt at any time the police already exhausted
it's use.