The Red Handkerchief...

[GUT]

Sorry Jon

I meant the murder.

[harry]

It would have taken Hutchinson no more than 10 minutes,to have contacted a policeman or walked to a police station,upon hearing of Kelly's murder.He was in the immediate area,and had been since the Saturday morning,But no matter where he was,a policeman would have been available. No matter if Kelly knew 300 male persons,Hutchinson's concern would have been did they know of his acquaintance or were they capable of finding out.He was a witness against himself,and the best defence was to put someone else in Kelly's company,and at the same time explain his presence outside Crossingham's.

[curious]

Hutchinson's reluctance can be readily seen in his own words, that it was a fellow lodger who advised him to go to the police. The inference from that is that he had no intention of going himself - he had to be talked into it, possibly due to him not seeing it as important.



Ok, lets just rationalize this.
Nichols was murdered about 3:30 am, so what was she doing at 8:30 pm the night before, and why is it important to her murder?

Chapman was murdered about 5:30 am, so what was she doing at 10:30 pm, the night before, and why is it important to her murder?

Hutchinson's sighting is as important as that, in his mind.
A lot can happen in seven hours..

Hi, Jon,

I think this is might be the answer to the Hutchinson riddle. If he saw her at 2 a.m. and she was killed at 9:30 or 10 a.m. -- what he saw was of no real importance. Except to himself. It was the last time he had seen her or spoken with her.

When people die, don't other people often think of the last time they saw or spoke to the deceased? If it's a sudden death, don't people say things like, "I ran into her in the grocery store just before she was killed." (say a car accident on the way home) People I know think and talk like that. That may not be true of everyone and everywhere.

But perhaps, as people talked about the murder, Hutchinson was telling his story about seeing her just hours before her death. He trotted it out on numerous occasions and as such stories seem to do, it grew. Perhaps it was embroidered and added to with each telling.

Then, from the inquest it began to appear that MJK was killed much earlier than had first been believed. Therefore, Hutch's sighting might be relevant. Friends and other lodgers began to urge him to go to the police.

By that time, his story was so embroidered that it was almost unrecognizable. But he went to the police only because it was beginning to appear that his story might be important.

Wonder if the original version would have been.

Just maybe.

curious

[Wickerman]

It would have taken Hutchinson no more than 10 minutes,to have contacted a policeman or walked to a police station,upon hearing of Kelly's murder.

But even when he did do this on Sunday morning, he has been called a liar. Hutchinson just can't win.

No matter if Kelly knew 300 male persons,Hutchinson's concern would have been did they know of his acquaintance or were they capable of finding out.

The fact that he knew her does not make him a suspect.

He was a witness against himself,and the best defence was to put someone else in Kelly's company,and at the same time explain his presence outside Crossingham's.

Mary Cox had already provided that story, so why confuse the issue by creating another individual instead of just collaborating Cox's story?

Even if Sarah Lewis had seen him (about 2:30) all he needs to say was that he saw Blotchy leaving Millers court, not someone else entering.
Unless, of course, Sarah Lewis had actually seen Kelly & this new client also entering Millers Court just as described by Hutchinson, which puts a whole different complexion on the matter.

[Wickerman]

But perhaps, as people talked about the murder, Hutchinson was telling his story about seeing her just hours before her death. He trotted it out on numerous occasions and as such stories seem to do, it grew. Perhaps it was embroidered and added to with each telling.

Hi Curious, yes Hutchinson may have told many people about his final liaison with Kelly, we should not assume he kept it a secret. And yes, the story may have grown with each telling.

Then, from the inquest it began to appear that MJK was killed much earlier than had first been believed. Therefore, Hutch's sighting might be relevant. Friends and other lodgers began to urge him to go to the police.

That, I think, is precisely how it played out. Hutchinson only realized the importance (or it was impressed on him), once the story spread from the conclusion of the Inquest.

The reason Hutchinson did not come forward is only hinted at here..
"...He afterwards heard of the murder, but for certain reasons which it would be imprudent to state he did not immediately put himself in communication with the police." Morning Advertiser.

From this we can rest assured Hutchinson had explained his actions, or lack thereof, to the police. But the police had no intention of sharing that reason with the press.

[harry]

Jon,
What did he do on Sunday morning?.Where is there information that he contacted a policeman then.?What fellow lodger did he tell,and what is it that he told this fellow lodger? Cox does not place another person in Kelly's room at the time Hutchinson says he(HUtchinson)was outside Crossingham's.I have not stated that simply knowing her makes him(Hutchinson ) a suspect.Lewis does not state she saw a male and female,her testimony is that there was a male outside Crossinghams at about 2.30.He could not collaborate Cox's evidence,because,by his admission he was at the time on his way back from Romford. The facts,Jon,supply the facts,you are so busy telling others to do so.

[Wickerman]

Jon,
What did he do on Sunday morning?.Where is there information that he contacted a policeman then.?What fellow lodger did he tell,and what is it that he told this fellow lodger?

Fair enough, so when you asked:

It would have taken Hutchinson no more than 10 minutes,to have contacted a policeman or walked to a police station,upon hearing of Kelly's murder.

Tell me, when did he hear of Kelly's murder, and what time was she murdered?

Cox does not place another person in Kelly's room at the time Hutchinson says he(HUtchinson)was outside Crossingham's.

That is not the issue.
Blotchy was first seen with Kelly about 11:45 pm. Cox still heard Kelly singing about 1:00 am. Hutchinson was seen outside Crossingham's shortly after 2:00am.
Blotchy could easily have been occupied with murder & mutilation for one hour, so Hutchinson could have claimed to have seen Blotchy leaving Millers Court. No need to invent another character, the already accepted suspect "Blotchy" was what we might call, "low hanging fruit" - easy pickings, served up on a platter.

If Hutchinson learned the case from the Inquest (which I doubt), the obvious choice is to piggy-back on the Blotchy suspect by claiming to have intended to visit Mary, but after hearing (through the broken window) that she was occupied with another client (Blotchy), he waited across the road for him to leave.
That is where Sarah Lewis saw him.
Hutchinson clears himself of suspicion and cements Blotchy as the prime suspect.

Lewis does not state she saw a male and female,her testimony is that there was a male outside Crossinghams at about 2.30.

Well actually Sarah Lewis does say she saw a male & a female, as well as this loiterer.

He could not collaborate Cox's evidence,because,by his admission he was at the time on his way back from Romford.

No, no Harry.
The suggestion is that he told lies, precisely what he lied about is not agreed upon by anyone because they all have different theories to promote.
One suggestion being that Hutchinson was somehow involved in this murder and that he created Astrachan as a diversion, and that he learned what each witness said from the inquest, then concocted a suitable alibi for being there.
That being the case, the most obvious choice is to claim to have seen Blotchy leaving, not Astrachan entering.

It might help if those who doubt Hutchinson could get their heads together and come up with one viable theory.

[harry]

Jon,
I have no idea when Hutchinson heard of Kelly's murder,but I would imagine well before he arrived at the police station.It had been common knowledge for three days.
Blotchy could equally have left at any time before 2.30. without doing a thing.
Hutchinson could have said many things,for his being at Crossinghams,but what he did claim was to have followed Kelly and a male person to Millers court.What he didn't say,was why he stayed.
Now SArah Lewis does not say she saw them at the same time.Of course there is a claim that Hutchinson lied.About Kelly being on the street at about 2AM,meeting Hutchinson then a male person,and taking this male person to her room.
Now what seems to be factual,is that Kelly and a male entered her room about midnight.That Sarah Lewis entered Millers court about 2.30AM,and at that time there was a male person standing outside Crossinghams.George Hutchinson,by his own admission,claims to have been that person.
A bit jumbled up, so read it slowly.

[GUT]

G'day Harry

What he didn't say,was why he stayed.

You don't think the police would have quizzed him about this?

[harry]

Greetings Gut,
I wouldn't take it for granted that Hutchinson was asked about why he stayed,
but nothing in his statement,or Aberlines report indicate a reason was given.It is however reasonable,even at this time,to question why he should have remained for about 45 minutes.What was to be gained?

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
The best way forward is not to complicate matters..
If we take the statement as a truthful account of events,given voluntary by Hutchinson,regardless of the date it was presented , we have a very simple explanation .
Mary Kelly was accosted by a man in commercial street, dressed respectable, and observed by the witness proceed, together to the woman's lodgings., the witness then explained he was loitering to see what events may have occurred, but added, he felt no danger was imminent to the woman.
The question is then a case of.
a] Was this client the killer of Mary Kelly?
b] Was he not the killer of Mary Kelly..?
It really is that simple.. to complicate matters involving the witness is simply ignoring the obvious,
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Let's just dismiss a couple of impossible scenarios that have been advanced here, one of which is that Hutchinson somehow remained oblivious to news of the Kelly murder until the 12th November. There is no possibility - and I don't exaggerate: no possibility - of that being that case. Oh wait, perhaps if Hutchinson woke up at the Victoria Home a few hours after calling it quits on his inexplicable "walking about all night" perambulations, stuck his fingers in his ears, darted out of the premises with eyes closed and screaming "LA LA LA, I'm not listerning!", and headed straight for the countryside, where he shoved his head down a rabbit hole for three days...THEN we'd have an argument for Hutchinson missing the news of the murder.

Otherwise, just forget it.

Go with what’s realistic instead.

Realistically, he wouldn't have had a chance to leave the building on the morning of the 9th before he heard news of another 'orrible Jack the Ripper murder, this time in Dorset Street. He would have heard the gossip, and he would have seen the morbid crowds making their way towards the murder site.

The other "explanation" we're obliged to discard as impossible is the one asserting that Hutchinson didn't think his evidence was "important" because he had been led to believe that Kelly was killed considerably later in the morning.

Nuh-uh.

(a) The early morning time of death was covered far more extensively than the Maxwell/Lewis version, and the papers made clear the fact that the former was considered indicative of the likely time at which the victim was murdered (i.e. at a similar time to other ripper-attributed victims), as opposed to the latter, which was only offered in the spirit of reporting all available witness evidence. There is simply no way that Hutchinson remained oblivious to the cry of "murder", Kennedy etc (and only spotting the “later morning” rumours, IF he was reading the newspapers.

(b) What sort of tit-head decides for himself - after reading in the newspapers that several times of death had been suggested for Kelly - that despite his small-hours sighting being utterly crucial to one of those suggested TODs, he irrationally picks another as the correct one, and uses his irrational adherence to this minority-reported time of death as an excuse for sitting on his arse and assuming his experience must be irrelevant and completely unimportant (which is a ludicrous assumption even if he did read only the “later morning” versions).

Again, people can come up with as many bad excuses as possible and attempt to justify them on the grounds that they’re only offering “possibilities” to combat the supposed certainties of those pesky Hutch-hasslers, but this one doesn’t even come close to cutting it. It doesn’t explain why he came forward almost immediately following the release of the inquest details, with the remarkable coincidence of his alleged location and activity that night corresponding perfectly with an inquest witness’s description of a potentially suspicious individual. “Oh, it’s suddenly just dawned on me that I might be inexplicably wrong about the time of the murder, which means my sighting might actually be important! I must go to the police…just after the closure of the inquest”. It’s all awfully convenient, and relies on a troubling degree of naïve face-value acceptance of the patently questionable.

Now – calm down – I’m not saying this automatically warps into a serial killer, but I am saying that these so-called coincidences (which are obviously nothing of the kind), present a clear case for Hutchinson taking pre-emptive measures to “explain” his presence at a crime scene.

Let us also dispense with idea that a lying Hutchinson would have been better off “using” Blotchy instead of the fictional Astrakhan. The whole purpose of Hutchinson’s decision to come forward – in the scenario we’re currently exploring – was to legitimise his loitering presence outside the crime scene whilst deflecting suspicion away from himself. Using Blotchy would have defeated this purpose, considering that he was an ostensibly working class local, just like Hutchinson himself, was not tall but stout, just like Hutchinson himself, and wore a wideawake/billycock hat, just like Hutchinson himself. Moreover, there was every chance that Blotchy – being a real person, and not a fictional one – might come forward and informe the police that he left the room much earlier than Hutchinson claimed to have seen him. A fictional character, by contrast, would never come forward (or get discovered) with his own version of events that drastically undermined Hutchinson’s, and all the better to make that character the well-dressed Jewish bogeyman that everyone wants him to be.

“He didn't go, they came to him, at the Victoria Home.
So Hutchinson was not chasing publicity.”

Evidence, Jon?

Where is it stated that the press tracked down Hutchinson at the Victoria Home, as opposed to being sought out by Hutchinson himself?

And do let’s avoid reviving that out-of-date nonsense printed by the Morning Advertiser, as apparently supplied to them by the Press Association. It contrasts so markedly with what all the other more reputable papers were saying that very day that it may be swiftly discounted. You’ve got to chuckle at their assertion that Hutchinson’s name had been withheld for his “own safety”, when their journalistic betters were supplying the name of “George Hutchinson”. Do keep up, Morning Advertiser.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

"If we take the statement as a truthful account of events,given voluntary by Hutchinson,regardless of the date it was presented , we have a very simple explanation"

If we take the statement "I saw a pig fly" as a truthful account of events, given voluntarily by me, regardless of the date it was presented, we have a very simple explanation: a pig flew. It had wings, it took off, and became airborne. It's all perfectly simple. What's the problem? Why do we have to come up with "complicated" scenarios involving people lying about it?

It might be "simple" to embrace the highly improbable at face value, but that doesn't make it a sensible approach. You have to examine the evidence with a critical eye, even if the result of that critical assessment is a recognition that the "evidence" originated from someone who told a lie to cover him bum...which is an extremely simple premise.

Regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
You are taking an example that is not at all plausible, and using it to shoot down a far more realistic suggestion.
My point, is in the official records, being the form of a signed statement, and it is from a person who was interviewed/interrogated , by the investigating police force., we have no official reason to dispute this statement, where is the police suggesting it was a fabrication in written form?
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

What if Blotchy was Hutchinson?

No wonder he had to invent an astonishingly 'Isaacs'-like figure to take his place.

Now it all makes sense.