Hutch and an alibi?

[perrymason]

George Hutchinson claimed that Mary Kelly knew him by name, tried to borrow money from him, and that his loitering watching the courtyard in his story is for concern for his "friend".

Then on Friday, the day she is found dead....where is he with this story of great inportance to her murder investigation?

How about Saturday?

Maybe he was busy....how about Sunday?

Likely went to church and forgot.

How about showing up at the Inquest and telling his tale?

Nope.

After the Inquest, after 3 full days where Police dont know about any Astrakanish Man, after dinner, he comes waltzing in.

Sound like his concern for Mary fits with his behaviour?

All the best

[harry]

Perhaps Hutchinson and Kelly were more than mere aquaintancies,and coming forward was in anticipation of believing he would eventually be sought and questioned.Any story he told,about being at the scene,was liable to be treated with suspicion,if the delay was such that he had to be found.It is a quandary that many have been placed in,and a great number do come forward.
How close an aquaintance might he have been?The giving of an occasional shilling might signify very close.

[Jane Welland]

Hi Harry

I was thinking about this, this morning.

Assuming for a moment that we accept that he did know Kelly, what might have been the nature of their relationship?

It's an interesting question, isn't it?

As we know Mary was engaged in prostitution, the most obvious solution is that Hutchinson was a customer - but in order for this to have worked, he would have had to have been a returning customer, and, if we believe that she encountered him on the night of her death and asked him for sixpence, it appears, to me, at least, that this was a fairly intimate acquaintance. Would she have needed to know Hutchinson fairly well to ask him for money in passing?

I think so. I notice also, that she asks him to lend her sixpence, not give her sixpence - the implication being that they will meet again in order for her to repay the money. You could argue that she never intended to do that, and that 'lend' was a euphemism for 'give' - but we don't actually know that this was the case.

The impression given by Hutchinson's account is that they did know each other quite well - maybe he had known her for 3 years.

I think they probably did know each other - because this part of Hutchinson's statement does not appear to me to be contrived. Why say he knew her at all, if he didn't? In fact, why say he knew her at all?

He could had just said he was passing by and observed Kelly with Astrakhan. That would have tied in better with his behaviour - namely, not coming forward until after the inquest.

This is what I mean about things here not adding up: His statement regarding his encounter with Kelly suggests that they knew each other quite well - comfortably, at least - and yet, although Hutchinson was apparently suspicious of Astrkhan Man, he did nothing to intervene in the situaiton which included his friend, or good acquaintance Mary - even though he knew perfectly well that she was engaged in prostitution, and even though he knew perfectly well that there was a murderer of 'unfortunates' on the loose in the immediate vicinity.

Then, far from coming forward when he heard about the death of his friend, he waited until after the inquest. That doesn't strike people as odd?

He wasn't obliged to say he knew Kelly - as I say above. Nobody else known to us who was witness that night seems to have known that. He could indeed have said that he was passing by. Sheltering fromm the rain, perhaps, in a nearby doorway, since he had missed his chance of lodgings for the night.

But no, he didn't do that. He said he had known her for about 3 years. It just doesn't work.

He knew her well enough to give her money, but he didn't apparently care enough to come forward sooner. Yet he offered to view her body in the morgue, an act which I currently view as being unecessary, and inexplicable in all but suspicious circumstances.

I'd like to hear other views on this, if anyone has any.

Jane x

[Fisherman]

Well, there is always the passage where he tells the police that Kelly asked her: "Hutchinson, will you lend me sixpence?"

If they were close, why not call him George? "The two Joe´s" were called by their christian names, as far as we know. Then again, I now that it was not all that unusual for married women of the lower classes to call their husbands by their surnames in the old days back here in Sweden...

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
No alibi, admitting to be at , or near the scene of the crime, admitting he knew her, and helped her out, and suggesting a scenerio that would have been suspicious even in 1888.
Hutch did all that... Why?
After a reward, by inventing a suspect ..hardly.
A glory seeker, which could have ended him being suspected as her killer... a very dangerous game.
A possible scenerio that HE actually accompanied Kelly to her room, spent some time with her, proberly until the Victoria home opened at 6am, with kelly being alive, but left a item of his in the room[ a hanky?] and invented Astracan as a substitute for himself , which included a explanation about a red hanky.. simply being paranoid, as he could never admit being in kellys room.
Or the most likely explanation, he was been straight, and recalled it as it was, albeit three days late, which as he said himself he was very anxious in coming foreward.
Would you not have been?
You are placing youself at a murder scene, with no alibi, you state that you knew the victim, and even hepled her out at times, so not only would the police reaction worry you, but what about the killers?
Would you not be concerned that he would consider you a witness, and he could come after you?
I would.
Regards Richard.

[Jane Welland]

Hi Richard

I think on the face of it, what you suggest here is plausible. The testimony of Maxwell, in particular, is difficult to find a satisfactory explanation for, imo - I know that, even at the time, it was thought she must have been mistaken. Of course, that testimony has been considered before - mostly, it seems to me, leading to speculations that Kelly may not have been the woman found in No. 13 that morning.

I like your theory, and it would go some way to explaining the frankly bizarre beahaviour of Hutchinson if he had, as you suggest, been in Kelly's room himself that night, had left her, still alive and well, in the early morning - then discovered that she had been brutally murdered.

Yes, if I was him in such a situation, it might well take me a few days to think about what to do. Murder being a hanging offence then, he might have been worried about the possibility of being accused and found guilty for her murder, and maybe by association, of the other prior victims as well.

Substituting Astrakhan for himself is something that has also occurred to me - although I didn't place Hutchinson in such an innocent role!

My problem with it is that I still don't see why Hutchinson would have needed to have come forward in the first place - particularly having waited so long to do so. He was seen, yes, by Lewis - but not identified. As we have discussed here, his appearance as recounted by Lewis seems generic enough that he could have been anyone (within reasonable parameters, obviously!).

If he had left a distinctive item of his in Kelly's room, how would the police have known it was his? I don't think, even if that was the case, by the way, that it could have been a red hanky, as I see that as being part of the generic description of the Jew.

Without forensics, I'm just not sure how the police would have traced an item belonging to Hutchinson back to him?

What do you think?

Best wishes

Jane x

[Ben]

Interesting observations, Jane.

I must admit the distinction you highlighted between "lending" her money and simply "giving" her some is not one I previously considered.

Hi Richard,

The problem with the idea that he delayed coming forward out of fear is that the "delay" just happend to come to an abrupt end with the termination of the inquest. The "coincidence" is just too glaring to ignore, in my view.

Best regards,
Ben

[Jane Welland]

As you say, Ben...

Hi Richard,

The problem with the idea that he delayed coming forward out of fear is that the "delay" just happend to come to an abrupt end with the termination of the inquest. The "coincidence" is just too glaring to ignore, in my view.

I think that's one of the key points in the whole affair, personally. Consider - if Hutchinson had come forward sooner - closer to the event, say - perhaps the same day, the day after? What would we have thought then? Would we have viewed him as being less suspicious (those that do view him as being potentially suspicious, that is)?

Whilst having a number of issues with other aspects of Hutchinson's performance, I do think his timing in coming forward makes a difference to the way in which we view him currently.

It is possible that his timing made a difference to how his contemporaries saw him as well.

Jane x

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Lets suggest that Gh actually spent a few hours in kellys room that morning, and he left her room soon after 6am to return to his lodgings.
And at that time she was alive.
Lets assume there was no 'Astracan' he chatted up kelly , he asked her if as a favour he could doss in her room until daybreak.
Later that day, he hears that she has been found cut to bits, and people are saying she was killed around 4am, now what a predicament our George would be in..
Not only could someone known to them, have seen them together in commercial street, but also lingering in Dorset street, he remembers that he was standing opposite the court, whilst Mary went to her room alone, not wanting prying eyes to see her taking him back.
He is uncertain what to do, then whilst in petticoat lane on the sunday, he spots a man in astracan, and he has a idea, he could give himself a reason for loitering with , or nearby the victim , as he was concerned for her safety., and substitutes this man for himself.
That scenerio is very dramatic, but as i dont see him as a killer, and believe his actual statement, is the only alternative i can give.
Regards Richard.

[Jane Welland]

Hi Richard

I think it's been raised elsewhere, but if you are right, and Kelly was murdered in the morning - in this scenario, after Hutchinson had left her room -

Then we would need to need to explain how it was that Kelly's time of death was reckoned to be earlier, partly at least, from the contents of her stomach.

Would her meal of Fish and potatoes (tempted to say 'Chips' but there are unfortunate connotations there...) have had time to have digested to the same extent, say, if she had eaten it early in the morning and shortly afterwards been killed?

I think that may be a problem - but what do other people think?

Jane x

P.S. - I meant 'fish' obviously, not 'Fish'!. Sorry Fisherman - I'm sure you weren't part of Kelly's last meal!

[Garry Wroe]

Hello All.


By way of clarification, I'd like to point out that Hutchinson explicitly stated both to the police and press that he entertained no fears for Kelly's safety when allegedly he observed her in the company of the Jewish-looking suspect. His attention was stimulated, he claimed, because of the striking nature of the man's ostentatious appearance. With reference to this man, Hutchinson even went so far as to contend that 'I did not believe him to be the murderer.'


As far as I'm aware, the police inventory of Kelly's room included no reference to a red handkerchief. But if information has emerged about which I am ignorant, I would be grateful if someone could point me in the direction of the relevant source material.


I would also suggest that, if Hutchinson was unaware of the depth of Kelly's insobriety on the night in question, it must be considered highly unlikely that he met her on Commercial Street as claimed. As such, the Jewish-looking suspect was almost certainly a figment of Hutchinson's imagination – as indeed was the allusion to the loan of sixpence, the red handkerchief and so on.


Similarly, there appears to be something of a misapprehension relating to the fact that Hutchinson viewed Kelly's remains on the morning of Tuesday, 13 November. Despite certain assumptions to the contrary, such an event would not have been facilitated at Hutchinson's request. Rather, it was standard procedure for police to take any potential eyewitness to the mortuary in order to establish a positive identification. Given that, amongst others, both Elizabeth Long and the matron of the Lambeth Workhouse performed similar duties during the course of the earlier murders, there was nothing even remotely sinister, suspicious or unique with regard to Hutchinson's mortuary visit.


Finally, it has been argued that the superficiality of the Sarah Lewis statement would have proved insufficient to have rattled Hutchinson, compelling him to come forward with his clearly fabricated story relating to Kelly and the Jewish-looking suspect. But this is to view the situation with the benefit of hindsight. For his part, Hutchinson had no idea whether Sarah's evidence had been deliberately underplayed by the police – as had been the case with Lawende and possibly Schwartz before her. For all Hutchinson knew, Sarah might have got a better look at him than was evident from her inquest testimony and may, in fact, have been able to identify him. Given the fact that he lived locally, it must also have occurred to Hutchinson that Sarah might even have known him. In view of such a scenario, it hardly requires a titanic leap of imagination to envisage the degree to which these and other factors could have influenced his thinking and subsequent behaviour.


Regards.


Garry Wroe.

[Jon Guy]

Similarly, there appears to be something of a misapprehension relating to the fact that Hutchinson viewed Kelly's remains on the morning of Tuesday, 13 November. Despite certain assumptions to the contrary, such an event would not have been facilitated at Hutchinson's request. Rather, it was standard procedure for police to take any potential eyewitness to the mortuary in order to establish a positive identification. Given that, amongst others, both Elizabeth Long and the matron of the Lambeth Workhouse performed similar duties during the course of the earlier murders, there was nothing even remotely sinister, suspicious or unique with regard to Hutchinson's mortuary visit. ]

Hi Garry

I don`t think there was any misunderstanding regarding the requesting to see the body, the wording fell that way over some posts. The original point was that as it was police procedure, it could have been a factor in his
doing a Violinia.

[Sam Flynn]

Would her meal of Fish and potatoes have had time to have digested to the same extent, say, if she had eaten it early in the morning and shortly afterwards been killed?

A couple of years ago, Jane, I posted some scientific research from Japan (Osaka University, if memory serves), where various foodstuffs were steeped in a representative mixture of gastric fluids. Fish protein was digested quite rapidly, such that the fish was unrecognisable within a couple of hours or so. Allowing for some variability, this suggests to me that Kelly might have eaten her last meal between 1 and 2 AM, with a time of death around 1.5-2 hours later. If she'd eaten significantly earlier it would have rendered the observation of partially digested fish protein in the stomach unlikely, as it would effectively have "dissolved" had it been in the stomach for 2.5/3 hours or longer.

[Jon Guy]

If she'd eaten significantly earlier it would have rendered the observation of partially digested fish protein in the stomach unlikely, as it would effectively have "dissolved" had it been in the stomach for 2.5/3 hours or longer.

Hi Sam

Is the above taking into account that the fish was taken with potatoes, and that when proteins and starchy carbohydrates are combined they interfere with each others digestion. Digestion is impaired as these two compounds cannot fully digest in their competing environments.

[Jane Welland]

Hi Sam

Thanks for your - as usual - informed response to my query.

Does this imply then, in your view, that Kelly couldhave been killed in the morning of the following day, as suggested above by Richard?

Thanks in advance

Jane x