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

[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]

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]

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,

[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.

[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

[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.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben.
It was always intended to be rather tongue-in-cheek, Obviously heaven forbid, if I ever found myself in Hutchinson's shoes , I would never act in a hesitant manner.''
Why this ''silly exercise'' ?
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.
With respect Ben, you look upon this witness as being unreliable, for reasons that may include time wasting, or a desire to profit, or even an act of self preservation .
I could never discount any one of these , however the statement may well have been the absolute truth, given by a rather reluctant witness, as in my 21st century character .
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

I also was not thinking about the situation logically , I had lost my wallet, my cash . my cards, and my house key, and I never considered hailing a cab to my daughters house, it was late , and that never crossed my mind..it would have been no good taking a taxi to my house , without a key , and knowing there was no spare cash inside anyway.

I don't believe you, Richard.

(Obviously, I intend no offense in saying so. Yours is a fictional, invented scenario after all!)

I find the above very unconvincing, and the defense that you weren't thinking logically doesn't quite cut it for me. It simply doesn't convince me that you'd miss out a whole night's sleeping walking in excess of 13 miles home just because it never occurred to you to hail a cab. Similarly, the claim that you never entertained the idea of going to your daughter's house - where, at the very least, you knew someone was staying there, as opposed to your own house, which you knew was empty - makes no sense whatsoever.

But then you're inventing a scenario that attempts to explain the behaviour outlined in Hutchinson's very probably invented, and certainly discredited account, so it's little wonder you're encountering problems.

I remained outside the flats , simply because I was tired of walking, and just a bit apprehensive in the guys manner

But how would remaining outside the flats have assuaged that apprehension? You'd be useless as a preventative manner in the event of the man attacking your daughter's friend, and it's a silly to hover there in the cold and rain when you were so close to your own house.

With sincere respect, Richard, isn't this a bit of a silly exercise generally? If your intention is to demonstrate that Hutchinson's account wasn't invented, is creating an invented account of your own really the way forward? All you're doing is drawing further intention to the implausible elements in Hutchinson's account. I don't accept for one moment that you'd ever really behave as you've outlined in your fictional narrative.

All the best,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
I should have mentioned that personally I do not carry a mobile [ since I have retired], and my daughters house is further away from mine in the wrong direction I was walking, and further more I do keep as a rule my single house key in my wallet.
I also was not thinking about the situation logically , I had lost my wallet, my cash . my cards, and my house key, and I never considered hailing a cab to my daughters house, it was late , and that never crossed my mind..it would have been no good taking a taxi to my house , without a key , and knowing there was no spare cash inside anyway.
I remained outside the flats , simply because I was tired of walking, and just a bit apprehensive in the guys manner, albeit not enough to be suspicious.
My situation was extremely innocent, and just bad luck on my part, but initially the fear of involving myself in a investigation , and possibly putting myself and family in the spotlight, I refrained from doing the right thing.
But finally I did right, and after discussing it with my family , I visited the police, and was entirely honest with my statement.
Of course there is always a chance that I may have acted suspiciously, and some may feel that I have may hidden motives for coming forward, as it has come to light that a woman entering the flats[ unseen by me] stated a man was watching the entrance.
I have only just become aware of such a witness..
There you go Ben .
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Its not suspicious unless you want it to be, in fact, as I already pointed out, it happens more often than you think.

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.

Mrs Kennedy was detained along with Sarah Lewis, neither of whom were tenants in Millers Court

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, rather than a thieving magpie who stole from the evidence of Lewis, who was a genuine witness, and who was detained in the court, having spend the night of the murder there.

On the contrary, your Star, 10th Nov. reported the account of Mrs Kennedy quite faithfully, and confirmed that she was interviewed by police - so 'fake' she was not.

It reported Kennedy's claim to have been interviewed by the police.

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.

[Wickerman]

Moreover, he had opportunity to come forward at any point after the inquest, and yet suspiciously, he came forward as soon as it finished.

Its not suspicious unless you want it to be, in fact, as I already pointed out, it happens more often than you think.

Mrs. Kennedy was not detained within Miller's Court because she was not a tenant of Miller's Court, temporary or otherwise.

Mrs Kennedy was detained along with Sarah Lewis, neither of whom were tenants in Millers Court. Being a tenant had no bearing on being detained.

Mrs. Kennedy was a fake witness who attempted to parrott off Sarah Lewis' account as her own experience before being her antics were discovered by the police and reported on by the Star.

On the contrary, your Star, 10th Nov. reported the account of Mrs Kennedy quite faithfully, and confirmed that she was interviewed by police - so 'fake' she was not.
To their credit however, the press were able to dismiss other claims of hearing a cry of 'murder' - this being the only story being repeated.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

how about we put all of the Hutchinson saga into a modern day prospective?

But you don't know Hutchinson's true role in the saga, so all you're doing is inventing a scenario based on your interpretation of that role. Ironically, what you've done is invent a story that offers an "innocent" explanation for your proximity to a crime scene at around the murder victim's time of death, which is precisely what I contend Hutchinson may have done in 1888, after discovering that he'd been seen loitering there.

Your explanation for your super-jaunt hope is just as implausible as Hutchinson's. Did you lose your phone when you lost your wallet, which inexplicably and unusually contained your front door key? Or don't you use one? In either case, what was preventing you from popping into a phone box and making a reverse-charge call to your house (or a friend's house, if there was no answer)? Or, failing that, there was the option of hailing a cab and then resolving the payment issue once safely at home or at a friend's house. Why didn't you do that?

Recently there had been in my area a spate of unsolved murders of a foul nature, which had not been solved

Yes, so there was.

And the implausible explanation you've just given for walking all the way home conveniently places you slap bang in the middle of that murder district at a time when the murderer was known to be active.

I was not concerned, I never connected the incident with anything , but I remained opposite the flats for about half an hour, before moving on and spending the rest of the night closer to my house..

I'm sorry, but this is slightly hilarious.

You've walked back all the way (13 miles in the small hours of a cold and rainy night, like Hutchinson?), but you don't then make any attempt to gain access to your house? You just spend the rest of the night "near it"? Your cleverest move would have been to head straight for the house in which your wife was babysitting your grandson. And if you know there was a series of brutal prostitute murders occurring on your doorstep, why harbour no concern at all when you saw your daughter's prostitute friend take a stranger home? And why, if you harboured no concern at all, did you remain "opposite the flats for about half an hour".

This is weird, weird behaviour, Richard, and suspicious to boot.

As the weekend progressed, I wrestled with my guilt , and finally informed my family, my daughter whose friend it had been was adamant I should inform the police, regardless of my being hesitant.
I finally relented three days after, and paid the local police a visit.

And if you were anything like Hutchinson you would have come forward immediately after the termination of the public inquest, immediately after it had been publicly disclosed that someone had been seen loitering opposite, and with an apparent fixation with, "the flats" where your daughter's friend lived.

I had to identify the body as the girl I had seen, and gave a description of the young man, and the clothes he was wearing.

And if you were anything like Hutchinson it would have been a highly sensational and impossibly detailed description.

All in all, your fictional account appears transparently so - full of holes, implausible claims, and odd behaviour. To a modern investigator, you would be an obvious suspect. In 1888, you'd probably receive the same treatment as Hutchinson and find yourself discarded as a publicity/money-seeker.

I could just as easily, and more convincingly, create a scenario that places Hutchinson in the killer's role and weave a "modern day prospective (sic)" around that.

All the best,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Just to get my pennyworth in,.. how about we put all of the Hutchinson saga into a modern day prospective?.
Lets say that I am Richard Nunweek a person that had just walked home from a day out in a town a few miles away, my luck was not in, as not only had I missed the last bus/train, but it would not have mattered anyway as I had no money, because I had dropped my wallet somewhere , which not only contained cash and cards, but my front door key.
I knew as my wife was out babysitting my grandson[ several miles away], that I could not gain access to my house until the morning when she returned.
But at least I could make my way back to the area I lived , and pass the night away[what was left of it] the best I could.
Recently there had been in my area a spate of unsolved murders of a foul nature, which had not been solved, but that was not on my mind as I reached my district,
As I was walking through a housing estate near my home, I noticed a friend of my daughters walking towards me, she stopped to say ''Hello' and said she could not sleep, and business was quiet[ She was known in the area via gossip as being a prostitute] I said watch how you go, and she walked away from me.
I then noticed a guy stop her[ he stepped out from a side road, they laughed, and she turn back towards me with the young man, who was respectably dressed, and walked back pass me.
I looked at him , he looked sternly at me, but said nothing, and I followed on, and watched them as they walked into a block of flats [ where the girl lived].
I was not concerned, I never connected the incident with anything , but I remained opposite the flats for about half an hour, before moving on and spending the rest of the night closer to my house..
The following afternoon, I had heard that a murder had been committed in those flats, and the girl that was killed was indeed the person I had seen.
I was shocked , and soon realized that I had no alibi for the previous night, and was a bit apprehensive to involve myself, I knew that my family would believe me,but it was not them I was worried about, and furthermore if the killer was the man i saw her with , he saw me, and it was best to say nothing.
As the weekend progressed, I wrestled with my guilt , and finally informed my family, my daughter whose friend it had been was adamant I should inform the police, regardless of my being hesitant.
I finally relented three days after, and paid the local police a visit.
I had to identify the body as the girl I had seen, and gave a description of the young man, and the clothes he was wearing.
The police were also anxious that I should patrol the area in a police car, to see if I could spot the man, who was then a prime suspect, but I saw nobody.
I have attempted to place the above, in a modern day prospective, and how it could relate to one George Hutchinson.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

One point often repeated but to some degree a bit of a red herring is this observation from your quote in the Echo:

Phil's quote from the Echo is most assuredly not a red herring. It is an irrefutably accurate representation of the contemporary police's view of Hutchinson a day after he gave his statement. The same paper reported the following detail in the very same article, and unquestionably after consulting the police directly:

Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?

It was reported the next day - and after further consultations with the police - that Hutchinson's statement had been "considering discounted" because it had not been offered in the inquest and in a "proper manner". Thus, contrary to your claim, the police were disposed to look rather less favourably on witnesses who allow three crucial days to elapse before recounting their oh-so-crucial evidence, especially when the witness in question lived yards from the crime scene, claimed to have known the deceased, and claimed to have have seen her in the company of a stranger of the night of her death.

Clearly there were no mitigating circumstances that would "innocently" account for Hutchinson's no-show at the inquest and late presentation of his evidence, or else these reasons wouldn't have been cited by the police (via the Echo) for his "very reduced importance" and ultimate discrediting. And no, I'm, not talking about about Abberline's initial face-value impression of Hutchinson as communicated a mere hour or so after first meeting him. Moreover, he had opportunity to come forward at any point after the inquest, and yet suspiciously, he came forward as soon as it finished. That''s obviously not a coincidence. Nor is Hutchinson's claim to have stood outside Miller's Court as soon as it became knowledge from the inquest that someone stood outside Miller's Court. Logic and rational inference forcefully asserts otherwise, in both cases.

Among the 53 witness statements you refer to will no doubt be that of Mrs Kennedy, who, detained within Millers Court along with all the other tenants did, as reported in the press, give her statement to the police.

Mrs. Kennedy was not detained within Miller's Court because she was not a tenant of Miller's Court, temporary or otherwise. Mrs. Kennedy was a fake witness who attempted to parrott off Sarah Lewis' account as her own experience before being her antics were discovered by the police and reported on by the Star. That is why she did not appear at the inquest, and certainly not because her evidence was too similar to Lewis' (eerily, implausibly and suspiciously similar). It is nonsense to assert that if two witnesses tell near identical accounts, the coroner will only call one and give two fingers to the other. On the contrary, if Kennedy wasn't a discredited plagiarist, her evidence would offer some much needed corroboration for Lewis' claims and would have been a crucial inquest inclusion for that reason. Indeed, if anything, Kennedy would have been the better choice given that she claimed to have seen Kelly (which Lewis never alleged) and at a later time in the morning.

That is, if Kennedy's narrative wasn't an obvious re-working of Lewis' account.

[Wickerman]

Hi Phil
(If you are still with us )

Yes, Mr Picky went by the name of Macdonald. It was part of his job to be picky and only select those witness statements which would assist him in establishing the Who, the Where, When, Why & By what means, of this untimely death.

One point often repeated but to some degree a bit of a red herring is this observation from your quote in the Echo:

"Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses."

Hutchinson gave his statement to the police, regardless of the timing with reference to the Inquest, the police would by default believe him so long as he passed the interrogation. And in this case we know he did.

So the police investigate the story in so far as they are able, and police investigators today will tell you that witnesses quite often are late showing up. Many will not come forward at all but wait to be located by the police.
So Hutchinson's late arrival at Commercial St. is not so unusual as we are led to believe, even honest witnesses will have reservations about such a move.

The police are already conducting a murder enquiry, the Coroner's Inquest was more of a formality in this case. The police already knew the identity of the victim, how she died, where she died, and by what means. The finding of 'murder' was a foregone conclusion.

Among the 53 witness statements you refer to will no doubt be that of Mrs Kennedy, who, detained within Millers Court along with all the other tenants did, as reported in the press, give her statement to the police.
Within this statement was one of these "suspicious men" - the Britannia Man.

Because Mrs Kennedy & Sarah Lewis were interviewed in the same place, at the same time, the police had the opportunity to compare and evaluate their similar statements, and as such, would have been in no doubt that they were different people who arrived at Millers Court approx. half an hour apart.

Macdonald would not select two witnesses who essentially had the same story to tell, so he chose Sarah Lewis. Had he chosen Mrs Kennedy we might have a different take on events that night, as one press account suggests Mrs Kennedy saw Mary Kelly with the Britannia-man at about 3:00am that morning.

Although we cannot be sure, one of the determining factors in choosing Lewis over Kennedy is that Macdonald may have been swayed by Dr Bond's report on the estimated time of death at between 1:00-2:00am.