Are the reports in the contempory newpapers sufficient to discredit Hutchinson?

[Wickerman]

Evidence?

Of witnesses coming forward virtually the moment the public inquest closed and the opportunity to be quizzed in public had passed?

Nah, didn't think you had any.

I don't need the evidence Ben, but you need a better memory
You already had this exchange with another member who had been a policeman who, speaking from experience, told you the same as I have just told you, that witnesses are often late coming forward.
Evidence enough I should say!

No she wasn't.

For that to happen, she would have needed to have spent the night in Miller's Court and been a genuine witness, ...

That is what we are told, Kennedy was not let out until the police opened up the court.
"she (Kennedy) found the police in possession of the place, preventing all egress to the occupants of the small house in this court. When questioned by the police as to what she had heard throughout the night,...."

Both the Press Assoc. & The Echo interviewed this Mrs Kennedy, which should put paid to any continued speculation (not by you), that Lewis & Kennedy may have been the same person. They were not.
Alternately, your conjecture that Kennedy was not held in the court, presumably not visiting her family, and consequently not a prime source, is entirely contradicted by a variety of sources.

It was not just the Star who carried Kennedy's story.
However, the Star, were quite satisfied that both Kennedy and Prater were original sources (not having access to Lewis), so whoever the unnamed 'parroters' were, the Star did not waste time publishing their claims.

Despite the possible lack of awareness on the part of the Star as to who was the "parrotter" and who was the "parrotee", the fact is that the matter was resolved when Lewis appeared at the inquest and Kennedy sank without trace.

What happened to Lewis?, she vanished from sight too.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

Purely to put the tale into modern day prospective, and to look on it as a purely rational explanation given by a person who was having a bad day when a serious of events transpired against him.

I quite understand, but personally, I find that any attempt to invent a modern-day parallel only serves to underscore the problems with Hutchinson's account. It reinforces existing implausible elements instead of offering solutions. In my opinion, anyway. Others may disagree, but far from a being a "purely rational explanation", your narrative is awash with the very same weirdnesses that characterise Hutchinson's statement, and features the same odd behaviour that I'm quite sure a thoroughly decent bloke like the real Richard Nunweek would not engage in.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

You already had this exchange with another member who had been a policeman who, speaking from experience, told you the same as I have just told you, that witnesses are often late coming forward.

You've referred to long-buried exchanges from years ago that I've had with other members once too often, and I think it's about time you stopped. If you're eager to recruit the participation of the members in question by encouraging me to say something bad about them, as you seem to be, I'm afraid I don't anticipate much success.

I'm not talking about late witnesses coming forward. I'm talking about witnesses who wait a considerable degree of time and only come forward as soon as the opportunity to be grilled in a public arena had passed. You claimed there are examples of this happening, so I'm all ears.

That is what we are told, Kennedy was not let out until the police opened up the court.
"she (Kennedy) found the police in possession of the place, preventing all egress to the occupants of the small house in this court. When questioned by the police as to what she had heard throughout the night,...."

That is what Mrs. Kennedy C-L-A-I-M-E-D.

That does not make it true, which is fortunate, because it isn't.

The above is merely what she told reporters in the immediate aftermath of Kelly's murder, shortly before she was exposed as a plagiariser of Sarah Lewis' evidence and booted off the scene, leaving only the original, genuine witness to provide a police statement and inquest evidence. It's very obvious that the "being detained in the court" was simply another detail she picked up from Lewis in one of the lodging houses where gossip ran rampant.

However, the Star, were quite satisfied that both Kennedy and Prater were original sources (not having access to Lewis), so whoever the unnamed 'parroters' were, the Star did not waste time publishing their claims.

They had identified the phenomenon of "parrotting". What they had yet to establish was who was responsible. If "half a dozen women" were parrotting off Lewis' account as their own experience, the non-psychic Star journalist had yet to appreciate which of them was the original source for the story. The answer, of course, was none of them, because Lewis had honoured her agreement with police not to divulge her evidence before the inquest. Hence they unwittingly printed the copy-cat version.

But it all came out in the wash when the true originator appeared at the inquest.

What happened to Lewis?

Her evidence continued to be considered valuable, as evinced by reports from the 19th November, but you're not about to start that argument again, and nor are we going to have another round-in-circles round of fisty-cuffs over Kennedy.

[richardnunweek]

Good morning Ben.
I will always respect another person's view , and I do agree that my modern day narrative reads suspicious, simply because I attempt to have a answer for everything.
However whilst I accept that my delay in coming forward , can be viewed as suspicious, sometimes situations can warrant such a delay, explanations which I disclosed.
Sometimes when one tells the truth precisely, and they are met with distrust, they tend to elaborate , in order to convince their accusers.
The ''Why did you do this''?, and the ''Why did you do that?. encourages that response.
It does not warrant a '' Guilty'' of lying conviction, it would simply be an opinion, and a individual's take on it,
Was George Hutchinson deliberately telling Lies?
Was George Hutchinson concerned, by his being near a murder scene.?
Was George Hutchinson actually in Kelly's room that night.?
Who was George Hutchinson. was it indeed Topping?
If not, have we another name to fit the face?
When researching Topping's family, did ''ALL'' of them show no Knowledge of the tale told by Reg?
Does one time poster JD Hutchinson, actually exist , and was her family ties truthful?
The questions are endless, but until we collect all the missing pieces of the
puzzle . we can only offer opinions.[ unfortunately ]
Regards Richard,

[pinkmoon]

In my own opinion no. If truth be known they had already condemned Hutchinson's story before any information regarding the poice giving him the boot could have emanated from police sources. So it didn't make any difference to them what information was coming their way (from the police) regarding the discrediting of Hutchinson, they had already made up their minds. Were they entitled to deduce that Hutchinson was a liar? Of course they were, and his observations of the man in question were somewhat far fetched, what bugs me though is the failure to compromise. Throw out the description of Astrachan, and he becomes believable, he was sighted at the scene as he professed, give his some leeway is what I say, try and construct what happened that night without the detailed description of Astrachan, and we might get somewhere.

If only the police at the time had realised this, and had said to Hutchinson, "come on Hutchinson, we know you were at the scene of the crime shortly before Kelly was murdered, give us a real description of the man you saw with Kelly", or words to that effect. For I believe that it's possible that Hutchinson saw someone with Kelly that night, and played the description up to appear more important in the eyes of the police. In short he gave them what they wanted, the description that had impressed itself on the public mind, an impression put there by the press. How ironic, that the very institution that had put that image into the public mind, was now condeming Hutchinson for providing that self same description.

all the best

Observer



all the best

Observer

Could Hutchinson have taken Astrachan man to meet Kelly for a small fee and could he have waited round to make sure he wasn't mugged afterwards for a small fee of course.Hutchinson hanging round for such a long time is suspicous to say the least he must have had a very good reason possibly financial .

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Anything is possible Pink moon.
But Dorset street had such a reputation, that the police patrolled allegedly in pairs, that being the case unless Hutchinson was a rough handful , its doubtful that he was much of a deterrent against potential muggers.
Regards Richard.

[pinkmoon]

Hi,
Anything is possible Pink moon.
But Dorset street had such a reputation, that the police patrolled allegedly in pairs, that being the case unless Hutchinson was a rough handful , its doubtful that he was much of a deterrent against potential muggers.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard,Dorset street was a truly awfull place Mr Hutchinson must have felt very safe and very confident nothing was going to happen to him to hang round so long .

[Sally]

And yet according to him, Pink, he saw virtually nobody at all during his loiter on Dorset Street - an account oddly at odds with that of Mrs Lewis, who recounted seeing a number of people, including, apparantly, him.

There exists contemporary documentary evidence that Dorset Street was both overcrowded and extremely unpleasant - even by contemporary standards - yet on that night, at that time, it contained (according to Hutchinson at least) only himself, a soon to be dead prostitute, who - as chance would have it, was a friend of his; and a somewhat theatrical suspect who - as chance would have it again - appeared strikingly similar to a series of 'well-dressed' men reported in suspicious circumstances in the press.

It seems almost as if the stage was set.

Did George (if that was even his name) lie? Almost certainly, about some things at least. At the very least, it is difficult to accept that his highly detailed account could have been entirely accurate in terms of what he said he heard and saw in poor weather and very dim, possibly obscured by rain, lighting conditions.

The questions are of course as to the extent of his fabrication and motives for said porky-pies.

Possibilities are legion. One effect that his sudden emergence after the inquest had was to take the spotlight of Blotchy. Whether the two occurrences have a causal or casual relationship is anyone's guess.

[pinkmoon]

And yet according to him, Pink, he saw virtually nobody at all during his loiter on Dorset Street - an account oddly at odds with that of Mrs Lewis, who recounted seeing a number of people, including, apparantly, him.

There exists contemporary documentary evidence that Dorset Street was both overcrowded and extremely unpleasant - even by contemporary standards - yet on that night, at that time, it contained (according to Hutchinson at least) only himself, a soon to be dead prostitute, who - as chance would have it, was a friend of his; and a somewhat theatrical suspect who - as chance would have it again - appeared strikingly similar to a series of 'well-dressed' men reported in suspicious circumstances in the press.

It seems almost as if the stage was set.

Did George (if that was even his name) lie? Almost certainly, about some things at least. At the very least, it is difficult to accept that his highly detailed account could have been entirely accurate in terms of what he said he heard and saw in poor weather and very dim, possibly obscured by rain, lighting conditions.

The questions are of course as to the extent of his fabrication and motives for said porky-pies.

Possibilities are legion. One effect that his sudden emergence after the inquest had was to take the spotlight of Blotchy. Whether the two occurrences have a causal or casual relationship is anyone's guess.

Hi Sally,Mr Hutchinson was almost certainly up to no good himself by hanging round that area he was running the risk of being mugged or worse.He must have come forward because he thought he had been seen by someone in the area or purely to make some money from the press .The police at the time must have thought him a strange witness so they must have investigated him properly and come to the conclusion he was a time waster.The whole thing for me though is why did he hang round for nearly an hour after Kelly took punter back to her room very strange behaviour.

[Ben]

Yep, to all Sally said.

Sometimes when one tells the truth precisely, and they are met with distrust, they tend to elaborate , in order to convince their accusers.

I wouldn't have thought so, Richard.

I'd envisage the opposite reaction - clamming up and being very brief and guarded with their answers the moment a whiff of "distrust" is detected, although I see little indication that Abberline put Hutchinson on the immediate defensive like that. Unless the former had a particularly poor interrogation technique, he would have sought to put Hutchinson at ease at the outset.

It does not warrant a '' Guilty'' of lying conviction

In the absence of proof either way, no, it wouldn't.

But that doesn't mean the police could not have maintained suspicions that Hutchinson lied, and that appears to have been the case.

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

Hi Sally,Mr Hutchinson was almost certainly up to no good himself by hanging round that area he was running the risk of being mugged or worse.He must have come forward because he thought he had been seen by someone in the area or purely to make some money from the press .The police at the time must have thought him a strange witness so they must have investigated him properly and come to the conclusion he was a time waster.The whole thing for me though is why did he hang round for nearly an hour after Kelly took punter back to her room very strange behaviour.

Hi Pink - yes, both plausible explanations for his coming forward. The second is self-explanatory, requiring no further elaboration - and indeed, the possibility that Hutchinson was 'merely a publicity-seeking time-waster is not untenable in my view.

The first - that he thought he'd been seen by somebody - seems rather likely considering that he came forward almost immediately the inquest was finished - and this has been covered many, many times on Casebook.

It is true to say that his late appearance, and the timing of that appearance was thought dubious by some at the time - contemporary press reports are not without criticism in that respect.

Another possibility is that his appearance, and story, were simply fabricated to put the spotlight on the 'well-dressed foreigner' suspect type - and thus away from Kelly's midnight drinking companion.

Perhaps his non-attendance at the inquest was due to his not actually being 'George Hutchinson' at all; but A.N.Other who might well have been recognised at that inquest.

Or perhaps he was the killer after all.

Whatever the case, it is difficult (for me, at least) to accept Hutchinson's tale at face value. Even if he only made up a little bit of what he said, his account just doesn't quite add up.

[Sally]

Yep, to all Sally said.

Oh, that was nothing.

Just wait until you see what I have to say about Isaacs..

[richardnunweek]

Hi ,
I would say that if Hutchinson's tale was fabricated, it was for self preservation, and not to either profit from it , or to protect anyone, but himself.
Lets put it all into prospective.
If the meeting between Hutchinson, and Mary. took place as stated, and there was no well dressed man nearby, it is quite conceivable that it was he that solicited Kelly, even without cash upfront, she may have owed him a debt, after all it was his own admission that he helped her out with a shilling or two on previous occasions.
He may simply have accompanied Kelly back to Dorset street, she allowing him back to the shelter of her room , until he could return to his lodgings at daybreak.
He may have given her a kiss, she may have asked him for his handkerchief, a red one[ no wonder how he could describe it as red], they may have laughed, and stood talking opposite the passage before going to her room.
It could have been simply a case of Hutchinson spending a few hours in her room , and leaving without his handkerchief.
Did not a court resident hear a man leave the court around 6,15 am which would be ideal for the Victoria home opening its doors.?
But if he was not a killer, it means that when he left the room at daybreak, she was alive, yet to Hutchinson's horror, the medical time of death was when he was still in her room.
What if he was seen?
What if the handkerchief was traced to him , he had not got his , maybe he always had one on display ?
So why come forward with his statement?
He was paranoid that he was seen with Mary , maybe entering the court, so he invented a person dressed like the bogey man, carrying a long cloth type parcel, and he supplemented his own words onto the stranger, complete with the handkerchief exchange.
He even supplemented the man standing opposite the court [ Lewis's man] as himself...it could have been that person that sparked off his fears. he possibly witnessed him with Mary Kelly., before they went down the passage.
He could never admit ,along with Mr Blotchy. or A man [ if he existed] that he was in the room during the night, and came forward with the famous A man.
Speculation friends..but would give us all another viewpoint.
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

why doesn't all that show up in the family history. What does show up is that he was paid for his information.

Mike

[Michael W Richards]

Oh, that was nothing.

Just wait until you see what I have to say about Isaacs..

Quite possibly an interesting contender for Hutch's Astrakan Man...and the beauty of him is that we know he moved into digs a short walk from Marys place earlier in the week and disappeared he night of Marys murder...leaving I believe a violin bow among other things behind in his room.

The "Joe" Mary referred to may have been assumed to be Joe Flemming by those who she told, and many others since then,....but it may have been a different Joe. And there was an "Issacs" mentioned at Berner Street, who most assume was Issac Kozebrodski, but close study reveals that Issac K stated he was sent out alone for help within 1 hour of the murder....so he wasnt the "Issac[s]" that many assume left with Diemshitz.

Tenuous, but interesting.

Cheers