The Statement of George Hutchinson

[The Good Michael]

It should also be noted that if Hutch was basing his info on what he`s picked up from the inquest proceedings that day, then he would be aware that Caroline Maxwell swore she saw Kelly alive later that morning.

Jon,

If George (topping) was the murderer, he would have known that Maxwell's testimony was nonsense. You see, he was the cleverest of the clever, this George Hutchinson. Of course you're correct.

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

But, despite the detailed witness statement at no point does Hutchinson put himself opposite Millers Court, or outside the Lodging House, or mentions seeing Sarah Lewis.

We're talking about an incredibly small area here. Dorset Street was far narrower back then than the paved area behind the car park we see today. If someone was hovering in the general vicinity of the entrance to Miller's Court, and someone else was standing directly behind him but against Crossingham's, I can guarantee you they'd be standing within a few feet of eachother, and perhaps the more salient point remains that both were allegedly "watching and waiting for someone".

Hutchinson may well have mentioned a female enter the Court who wasn't Kelly, but it wasn't included in the statement. Remember that Hutchinson mentioned other details (knowing Kelly for three years, out of temporary employment etc) that were equally absent from his statement. Either that or he deliberately neglected to mention Lewis for fear of making it too obvious that it was her sighting of him near a crime scene that had forced his hand.

then he would be aware that Caroline Maxwell swore she saw Kelly alive later that morning.

True, but he would also have been aware that the preponderance of evidence pointed at an earlier time of death from the one suggested by Maxwell.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Hutchinson may well have mentioned a female enter the Court who wasn't Kelly, but it wasn't included in the statement.

I can't quite see that, somehow, Ben. Given that the apparently trivial entry of a lodger into a lodging-house, and the passing-by of a policeman on Commercial Street, were included, I can't imagine that someone actually entering Miller's Court would have gone unnoted... whether by Hutchinson (if he was indeed there) or Sgt Badham/Abberline/the press when they interviewed him.

[Ben]

Given that the apparently trivial entry of a lodger into a lodging-house

Yes, but there's no evidence that he mentioned the lodger to the police, Gareth, unless that too was omitted from the statement. The lodger detail was included in a press version of his account, and given that it concerned a male seen in the area, it assumed an arguably greater significance than a detail involving a female who wasn't Kelly entering the court. I can perfectly understand its omission for that reason, but on the other hand, my alternative suggestion; that Hutchinson deliberately avoided mention of Lewis, remains valid.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, but there's no evidence that he mentioned the lodger to the police, Gareth, unless that too was omitted from the statement.

That's why I mentioned Abberline and the press, both of whom he spoke to after giving his statement. Still no sign of Sarah Lewis, though - despite Hutchinson's opening up the sluice-valve when he spoke to the papers.

[Ben]

Most probably because he wasn't asked about it. He'd already established Kelly's whereabouts, so there was no longer any need to ask or answer the question: Did any other female enter the court? It was well-known that women lived in the court, and any court-entering female was obviously not a viable candidate in Kelly's death.

[Sam Flynn]

Whatever.

[Fisherman]

In Abberlines case, I find it hard to believe that he would have divided the population in sexes before asking about them - the obvious thing to do would be to ask Hutchinson if he saw any other PERSON at the scene, only to later add what he mentioned to the police protocol.
When we take part of the protocols attached to the other killings, females are not ruled out from them as a bi-product of the police´s decision that the killer would have been a man. Therefore, I say that at least Abberine would have asked about ALL people at the scene, dwarves, lion-tamers, blind beggars AND women included - and he would have seen to it that each and everybody witnessed about was added to the protocol. Nothing else makes sense - and sense, I believe, is what we are looking for. Some of us, at least.

Fisherman

[Ben]

the obvious thing to do would be to aske Hutchinson if he saw any other PERSON at the scene, only to later add what he mentioned to the police protocol.

And the chances are strong that he probably did ask that question, only to be informed that the only other person at the scene was a women who strolled in sometime after 2.00am. Since the woman in question would not have been a viable suspect in Kelly's murder, and since it was well known that women lived in the court, it is entirely reasonable to surmise that it wouldn't have been included in the statement. We KNOW that other observations made by Hutchinson - including some pretty crucial ones - were not included in the body of the text, and the Lewis detail could easily have been included among them.

Just to be clear. I've no doubt that Abberline asked the relevant questions. I'm only pointing out that some of the answers to those questions clearly did not merit inclusion in the body of the text.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"And the chances are strong that he probably did ask that question, only to be informed that the only other person at the scene was a women who strolled in sometime after 2.00am. Since the woman in question would not have been a viable suspect in Kelly's murder, and since it was well known that women lived in the court, it is entirely reasonable to surmise that it wouldn't have been included in the statement. We KNOW that other observations made by Hutchinson - including some pretty crucial ones - were not included in the body of the text, and the Lewis detail could easily have been included among them."

To begin with, Ben, the chances that Hutchinson was asked about if he saw somebody at the scene are not only "strong" - he WAS asked that, period. We need not have it on record, even, since it is the one question that would have been prioritized over all others.
The fact that he mentions the other characters around proves that he either was asked - or volunteered the information before Abberline got round to posing the question. Of this there can be no doubt whatsoever.

As for "since it was well known that women lived in the court, it is entirely reasonable to surmise that it wouldn't have been included in the statement", I´m afraid that is a malfunctioning supposition. To begin with, how would Abberline know that the woman in question was a lodger in the court? How would he be able to rule out that she was an accomplice of the Ripper? How would he be able to rule out that she was a man in disguise? How could he be sure that she played no role whatsoever in the killing?
Apart from all of this, that woman would have been a witness that Abberline wanted to lay his hands on, at the very least. So no, even if we from the press material allow ourselves to believe that Abberline omitted to get potentially crucial details into the protocol, we certainly have no indication that he - or any other police of a righteous mind - would ommit to mention one of the very few people that could be placed on the spot on the night of the most high-profile case in the history of crime. And at the time of the Kelly murder, Abberline KNEW that the case had that magnitude.
The only possible conclusions are that:
1. Hutchinson never saw the woman.
2. Hutchinson saw her - but decided not to mention her.
3. Hutchinson saw her - but forgot about it.

The possibility that he saw her and mentioned her to Abberline, and that the latter simply left her out of the protocol, is not a realistic possibility for reasons given above.
Moreover, if Huchinson had been an imposter, supplied with the knowledge about what was said, and by whom, at the inquest; then what possible reason could he have had for leaving her out in his testimony? Mentioning the woman would have clinched his story in an emphatic manner.

Fisherman

[Ben]

As for "since it was well known that women lived in the court, it is entirely reasonable to surmise that it wouldn't have been included in the statement", I´m afraid that is a malfunctioning supposition. To begin with, how would Abberline know that the woman in question was a lodger in the court?

He wouldn't.

All he'd need to know is that a female was seen entering the court. It wouldn't have merited any significance whatsoever given that several women lived in the court, some of whom were prostitutes who kept nocturnal hours. Of course Abberline wouldn't have considered a woman a possible suspect. If that was the case, he would have grilled Lewis, Prater, Cox and Venturney as suspects, which is so obviously a nonsensical supposition.

Apart from all of this, that woman would have been a witness that Abberline wanted to lay his hands on, at the very least.

But if he'd already worked out from Hutchinson's statement that Lewis was the woman in question, he'd already managed to "lay his hands" on her well in advance of Hutchinson appearing at the inquest. It may have been on that very basis that Abberline was able to rule out some of the scenarios you posit, such as the women in question being an accomplice of the ripper, or of her being a man in disguise (!?!) She wasn't any of those things, because he knew it was Sarah Lewis. (A bit like: "We know the loitering man is not suspicious because we know it was only George Hutchinson!")

So no, even if we from the press material allow ourselves to believe that Abberline omitted to get potentially crucial details into the protocol, we certainly have no indication that he - or any other police of a righteous mind - would ommit to mention one of the very few people that could be placed on the spot on the night of the most high-profile case in the history of crime.

Then why did he "ommit to mention" the male lodger emerging from a lodging house or the policeman who passed the end of Dorset Street? Clearly he did omit aspects of Hutchinson's testimony that were not considered essential to the capture of a potential murderer, unless you mean to suggest that the press were the more indefatigable detectives who manage to extract more from Hutchinson that the hapless police?

The possibility that he saw her and mentioned her to Abberline, and that the latter simply left her out of the protocol, is not a realistic possibility for reasons given above.

No offence, but those reasons weren't very convicing, and as such, the possibility that Lewis was mentioned (albeit not by name) by Hutchinson, remains a valid one, since we know that Hutchinson other observations (and mentioned other characters) that were omitted for whatever reason.

Moreover, if Huchinson had been an imposter, supplied with the knowledge about what was said, and by whom, at the inquest; then what possible reason could he have had for leaving her out in his testimony

I've already said: If Hutchinson deliberately neglected to mention Lewis, it may have been through fear of making it too obvious that it was her sighting of him near a crime scene that had forced his hand.

[Fisherman]

I think Sam clinched it in his earlier answer: Whatever.

Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

Then, with the greatest of respect, Fisherman, why not check out the manner in which Violenia was interrogated, exposed as a liar, then simply discarded by police - despite the fact that, in attempting to implicate Pizer, Violenia placed himself with Chapman shortly before her death. Perhaps this will accord you a clearer insight into the methodology employed by Abberline and his colleagues.

Regards,

Garry Wroe.

[DVV]

If Toppy was the witness, then his most terrible souvenir would have been Mary's corpse in the mortuary.
But apparently, he never mentioned this.
And just remembered the money he got from the police.
A bit strange, imo.

Amitiés all,
David

[caz]

Hi All,

I’ve finally caught up from where I left this discussion at page 8. Blimey!

I’m glad I missed all the serious drama queen stuff. And now it looks like the document examiner formerly known as Crystal has flounced off in a huff and left the boards for good.

Anyway, to bring the lady’s thread back on topic:

I went to Kew, quite clearly, and I saw the statement of Hutchinson, and the rest, quite clearly. And the observations I made are all sound. I would be astonished if anyone else working in the field disagreed with me.

And back in post #78, she had addressed Richard thus:

‘…yes, I do know now whether Toppy was Hutch or not. I have no doubt, because there is no doubt.’

I don’t get any of this. How could she say that she would be ‘astonished’ if anyone else working in the field disagreed with any of her observations, when she knew for a fact that Sue Iremonger did just that over witness sig 1? Crystal appears to have been as definite about this being in Hutch’s hand as Sue was about it being in Badham’s.

And why did Crystal tell everyone early on in the 1911 thread not to trust any expert who reaches a ‘definite/no doubt about it’ conclusion and then go and do the same thing herself with Toppy and Hutch?

I neither know nor care who (or what) Crystal was. I only know that she acted like a clever dick from the start, yet she usually managed to read stuff into my posts that wasn’t there. That’s either dumb or intellectually dishonest.

Talking of clever dicks, did anyone notice that when she accused those who disagreed with her of being jealous of her cleverness she said they were suffering from ‘dick’ envy. I’d be a tad worried now if I were a male poster who had lapped up Crystal’s attentions. Even I had assumed she had no balls - in any sense.

I do hope for their sakes that Richard didn’t hit the nail on the head without even realising it:

I respect everyone on Casebook , that comes across as valid, but i am nobodys fool, and i will not give out too many chances to' carrot dangling 'posters.
Regards Richard.

It was my understanding that you had received and digested the proverbial "carrot" in this case. That's all.

You sure you don't want to wash your mouth out, Ben - and then gargle with TCP?

Last word on Priscilla - I mean Crystal - definitely goes to the Good Michael:

Go away. Really, just go away. You are no one and you mean nothing. You are a bit of undigested pork and nothing more.

Love,

Caz
X