Hutchinson reading the Times?

[Carrotty Nell]

I was just re-reading an early account of the Kelly murder in the Times (10th November) and found this account from an un-named witness:

There are conflicting statements as to when the woman was last seen alive, but that upon which most reliance appears to be placed is that of a young woman, an associate of the deceased, who states that at about half-past 10 o'clock on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset-street, who said to her that she had no money and, if she could not get any, would never go out any more but would do away with herself. Soon afterwards they parted, and a man, who is described as respectably dressed, came up, and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money. The man then accompanied the woman to her lodgings...

I was struck by the similarity with Hutchinson's account, Kelly talking about her financial problems, a well-dressed stranger offering her money and then walking with her to her room.

Hutchinson gave his statement on the 12th. Although I cannot imagine an out of work Eastender reading the Times I guess if the story came from a local witness, it must have been in oral circulation.

IF Hutchinson made his story up... could this be his source?

[Carrotty Nell]

Another intriguing possibility...

The story is actually, basically true. It just wasn't Hutchinson who was the witness. He cashed in on someone else's story and embellished it with his own colourful details. The real witness was an unknown female friend of Kelly's.

[Adam Went]

It's an interesting point, although none of that answers why Hutchinson would effectively place the noose around his own neck by placing himself at the scene of the crime, as the last person besides the killer to see the victim alive, and as a personal acquaintance of the victim. It just does not make any sense....

Further to that, this report states that the witness saw her at about 10.30 PM, whereas Hutchinson gave his time as about 2 AM the next morning, which is much more in keeping with the estimated time of death. Anything could have happened in that 3 1/2 hours in between....

And, once again, it's a press report.....grains of salt, anyone?

Cheers,
Adam.

[Mycroft]

For me an un-named witness isn't really good enough. Why couldn't the reporter name his source?

[Pinkerton]

It seems to me that people often "insert" themselves into newsworthy crimes. You WOULD think they would be foolish to "place their head into the noose" as you say, but they seem to do it nonetheless. I think some people just want notoriety so much that they are willing to do just about anything to get it.

Albert Bachert is a perfect example. He seems to do everything he can to get his name in the newspaper! Most of his "claims" appear to be made up as far as I can tell. For one I seriously doubt he was even AT the Trafalgar Square riots. And of course his Ripper related claims are appear to be equally ridiculous. And then of course there is Tumblety who seems to be cut from the same mold. And you can include about 5-10 other characters related to the Ripper case.

[Adam Went]

Pinkerton:

Some good points there. Although if Hutchinson was interested only in making a name for himself (a bit like Matthew Packer, eh?), he could just as easily have given a generic description and not admitted to being a personal acquaintance of the victim, or standing outside their lodgings for a period of time, and he still would have had quite a bit of attention lavished on him.

If you're going to be an attention seeker, best to do so in a reasonable way, not to the point where you could potentially be ridiculed as a liar and possibly even a killer. Anyway, if that was the case, Hutchinson got what he wanted.....we're still talking about him 122 years later!

Cheers,
Adam.

[Observer]

I was just re-reading an early account of the Kelly murder in the Times (10th November) and found this account from an un-named witness:

There are conflicting statements as to when the woman was last seen alive, but that upon which most reliance appears to be placed is that of a young woman, an associate of the deceased, who states that at about half-past 10 o'clock on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset-street, who said to her that she had no money and, if she could not get any, would never go out any more but would do away with herself. Soon afterwards they parted, and a man, who is described as respectably dressed, came up, and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money. The man then accompanied the woman to her lodgings...

Hi Carroty

Wouldn't Mary Kelly have been in the company of Blotchy at this time, i.e. 10:30 p.m.? She returned with him to her room at 11:45 p.m. Would there have been time for Kelly to have serviced the well dressed man, met Blotchy had a drink with him buy some ale and return to her lodgings by 11:45 p.m. ? In effect an hour and a quarter. I think the above report is a garbled description of George Hutchinson's account.

all the best

Observer

[DVV]

IF Hutchinson made his story up... could this be his source?

Hi Carrotty,

sounds possible to me.
I would say one of the sources, though.

Hi Obs,

I don't think it's likely.
I don't think Hutch had already made up his story... and I don't believe anybody but him had ever seen Mr Astrakhan.

Amitiés,
David

[Debra A]

Another possible press article influence?

I don't know if this has been posted before (apologies if so) but the mention of the Ripper (albeit in Southport!) as well dressed and also sporting a gold Albert chain with pendants in early Nov. 88 stuck out for me.

Saturday 10 November 1888 , Manchester Courier and Lancashire General

[Wickerman]

I was just re-reading an early account of the Kelly murder in the Times (10th November) and found this account from an un-named witness:

There are conflicting statements as to when the woman was last seen alive, but that upon which most reliance appears to be placed is that of a young woman, an associate of the deceased, who states that at about half-past 10 o'clock on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset-street, who said to her that she had no money and, if she could not get any, would never go out any more but would do away with herself. Soon afterwards they parted, and a man, who is described as respectably dressed, came up, and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money. The man then accompanied the woman to her lodgings...

I was struck by the similarity with Hutchinson's account, Kelly talking about her financial problems, a well-dressed stranger offering her money and then walking with her to her room.

Hutchinson gave his statement on the 12th. Although I cannot imagine an out of work Eastender reading the Times I guess if the story came from a local witness, it must have been in oral circulation.

IF Hutchinson made his story up... could this be his source?

If you look you'll probably come up with this story across several (five?) newspapers not just the Times, and when you read the whole paragraph (below) you can see it contains so many factual errors that the whole story is basically useless.


"Kelly appears to have tenanted a top room in one of Mrs. M'Carthy's houses. She had a little boy, aged about six or seven years, living with her, and latterly she had been in great poverty, so much so that she is reported to have stated to a companion that she would make away with herself, as she could not bear to see her boy starving. There are conflicting statements as to when the woman was last seen alive, but that upon which most reliance appears to be placed is the statement of a young woman, an associate of the deceased, who says that at about half-past ten o'clock on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset-street, and that Kelly said to her that she had no money, and if she could not get any she would never go out any more, but would commit suicide. Soon after they parted, and a man, who is described as respectably dressed, came up and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly, and offered her some money. The man then accompanied the woman home to her lodgings, which are on the second floor, and the little boy was removed from the room, and taken to a neighbour's house."

What is there really that Hutchinson could use to any advantage, a well-dressed man was already seen that same Friday morning by both Sarah Lewis and Mrs Kennedy, so that was no great revelation.
The story could be an accumulation of unrelated facts associated with other people put together by an agency as one story or, it refers to another woman entirely.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Hi Carroty

Wouldn't Mary Kelly have been in the company of Blotchy at this time, i.e. 10:30 p.m.? She returned with him to her room at 11:45 p.m. Would there have been time for Kelly to have serviced the well dressed man, met Blotchy had a drink with him buy some ale and return to her lodgings by 11:45 p.m. ? In effect an hour and a quarter. I think the above report is a garbled description of George Hutchinson's account.

all the best

Observer

The other 'well-dressed man' sighting, by McCarthy, has been mentioned over on JTRForums....

"At eleven o'clock on Thursday night she was seen in the Britannia public-house, which is situated at the corner of this thoroughfare, with a young man with a moustache. She was then intoxicated. The young man appeared to be very respectable and well dressed."
I.P.N. 17 Nov.
P.I.P. 17 Nov.
Daily News 10 Nov.
Morning Advertiser 10 Nov.
Man. Guardian 10 Nov.

The fly in the ointment seems to be that "unverified" sighting of Blotchy (and his unique appearance) by Cox.


Mrs Kennedy gives a very similar description of the man she saw Kelly(?) with about 3:00 am Friday morning.

"...There was a man - a young man, respectably dressed, and with a dark moustache, talking to a woman whom she did not know, and also a female poorly clad and without any headgear."

How many well-dressed young men loitered around the Britannia that night?

Regards, Jon S.

[Robert]

Hi Debs

It's a strange report - there's hardly any detail about the man's physical appearance, only his chain. That seems to have been the only thing the witness was interested in, though I guess if he was a would-be mugger, he wouldn't have gone to the police.

If GH had seen this item, wouldn't he at least have put in something about an American accent when the man spoke to Kelly? Sort of like, "Yo dude, you'll be swell for what I've told you."

[lynn cates]

vernacular

Hello Robert. How about, "Mary, I have some news that's totally awesome!"

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

Hey, that's massive, boss. That's just what he would say, innit.

[lynn cates]

vernacular, part 2

Hello Robert. Thanks.

"Hey, that's massive, boss. That's just what he would say, innit."

Quite.

Or else, "Hey Mary, I was like . . . and she was like . . . so I went . . . and she went . . . ."

Cheers.
LC