The Statement of George Hutchinson

[Sam Flynn]

Whatever.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[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

[Jon Guy]

Hiya Ben and David

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.

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.

[DVV]

You're right Ben,

Abberline said he believed Hutch.
He never said: "I believe him, thought he can't be the man seen by Lewis."

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

The point about Sarah Lewis' evidence is that it effectively seperates Hutchinson from the Packers and the Violenias who were probably money and/or publicity seekers. Lewis described someone loitering opposite the court shortly before the murder. As soon as that became public knowledge, Hutchinson came forward and claimed he was loitering opposite the court shortly before the murder. The chances of that being a random, unrelated coincidence are obviously very slim, and the chances of Hutchinson deliberately assuming the identity of the man Lewis saw when he wasn't even there are even slimmer, especially if he didn't even provide an albi for where he really was.

False confessions are one thing, but false witnesses claiming to be real witnesses seen by other real witnesses have no historical precedent whatsover, and for pretty good reason.

All the best,
Ben

[DVV]

There is a third alternative, Ben. The inherent contradictions in Hutchinson's press and police statements were recognized and he was disregarded as a reliable witness without those contradictions ever having been properly investigated.
Garry Wroe.

Hi Garry,

imo, that's how things ran.
There are contradictions / differences, but more importantly, the police certainly thought: "Why did this guy talk to the press ?"

Amitiés,
David

Hi again,

Ben, I think you have the right element to focus on, but I believe it may be Sarah's story that led to his disgrace, because they perhaps discovered that he knew of it prior to coming into the station Monday night.

With that single kernel and imagination like the kind capable of constructing Astrakhan Man, he could be off to the races.

We know we dont need to answer why he would .........why would someone fake an organ and letter....why would someone fake any letter, why would someone make false claims.....in Packers case the reasons may be financial, but in GH's case it may be "just for the jolly", like many other warped senses of humor writing little notes that Fall.

Best regards Ben

[Ben]

Indeed, Garry.

And a timely reminder of that third possibility.

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

There is a third alternative, Ben. The inherent contradictions in Hutchinson's press and police statements were recognized and he was disregarded as a reliable witness without those contradictions ever having been properly investigated.

Regards,

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

I dont see any restrictive elements in the memos and reports that were submitted regarding the Canonical investigations, in that if someone was suspected of something that they wouldnt come right out and say so.

If they suspected Hutchinson (a huge "if") they probably did "come right out and say so", albeit not in public. However, the chances of every police suspicion surviving the test of time are extremely remote. No doubt many hundreds of men were suspected at some point during the investigation, but the likelihood is that only a fraction of those recorded suspicions have survived.

It's entirely on the cards as to whether Hutchinson was suspected or not. If he was, there's no reason to assume those suspicions survived the test of time. If he wasn't, it wouldn't reflect badly on the police in the slighest, since policing in general was in its relative infancy in 1888, and they had no knowledge of serial killers, let alone serial killers who pre-empt suspicion by contacting police (which we know a lot more about today).

It's very unlikely that his admission to loitering where he did - which so neatly coincided with Sarah Lewis' description of a loitering man in the same spot and same time - was a random coincidence. More likely to my mind, he realised he'd been seen and came forward with a crap excuse for being seen there and an even crapper fictional suspect to explain and superfically "legitimize" his presence.

It's the ultimate "I was there because" excuse. Consider the paralell: Why was I seen licking my lips outside the candy store on the night it was robbed? Oh, only because I was watching the fat man who broke in..."

Best regards,
Ben