The Red Handkerchief...

[Sam Flynn]

Just the usual correction, though. He is a member of "a" Hutchinson family, not "the" Hutchinson family.

"The" Hutchinson family being... was it established during my sabbatical from the boards, Ben?

[Ben]

Human nature being what it is, and if Hutchinson did care anything about Mary, our expectation is that he will dismiss the conflicting press stories and go straight to Dorset St

If Hutchinson was the squeaky-clean truth-teller you want him to have been, then yes, this is a reasonable possibility. But if you were reading my posts properly, you'd realise that this was never my objection. What I objected to was the baseless notion that a saunter into Dorset Street would have resulted in Hutchinson being bombarded by Caroline Maxwell spreading her "gossip" to all and sundry, and shoving her late-morning sighting of Kelly down the throat of every passer-by. This quite clearly didn't happen.

The ongoing problem here is that you routinely attempt to diminish the importance of actual legitimate witnesses who were called to the inquests, and who were considered truthful by the police. Whenever a Lawende thread pops up, for instance, you're the only person who attempts to undermine the credibility of his evidence, despite the vast majority of contributors recognising how seriously his evidence was taken, and how strong a suspect his "red neckerchief" man ought to be considered by virtue of the fact that he was seen with the probable victim just ten minutes before the discovery of her body. You do the same with Mary Cox. Of all the dodgy press "witnesses" whose bogus evidence you could have criticised for derailing the Kelly investigation, out come your daggers for one of the few witnesses whose evidence was considered important by the police.

Any evidence that points in the direction of a shabby local man gets thumbs down, it seems.

It is all for the purpose of defending a hopelessly outdated "Gentleman Jack" theory, and here we see these mucky tactics at work with Maxwell. The fact that her evidence was given an inquest airing despite it being at odds with other witnesses is as indication that her credibility didn’t come under question, even if she was considered wrong. She was obviously a respectable and seemingly honest woman. Had she been a noisy attention-seeking gobshyte who blabbed to anyone within earshot AND her evidence differed materially from everyone else’s with regard to Kelly being alive in the late morning, she would NOT have been called to the inquest. It is quite clear that she was not the “gossip” you want her to be, but rather a witness whose existence the police heard about via her husband, who was a lodging house deputy.

If you want an example of a proven blabbermouth, look no further than your favourite plagiarising magpie, "Mrs. Kennedy". Yes, she was a parroter of Lewis. Yes, she was quickly exposed as such, and yes, that is why she didn’t appear at the inquest, and yes, I look forward to going through this Kennedy argument all over again with you if that’s what you’re after.

"Try promise me that one day you will research 19th century journalism for yourself. If you choose to argue about it you need to know about it from the professionals.”

But you need to adopt a balanced perspective. Yes, the Star had their flaws, but they also had their qualities. It isn’t all about black versus white.

“Claiming less was more fails to impress, you don't have the numbers because they do not exist. The 'later sightings' far outnumber any earlier conviction of murder - you have seen it for yourself, and so has everyone else, who can count.”

This is such a dreadfully weak and unsuccessful attempt at scoring those evidently sought after points. It’s not about “counting”, for effing out loud. It’s about recognising the extent to which the reported witness sightings were taken seriously. No, I haven’t “counted”, and I doubt many people who recognise the obvious reality that the early time of death received more coverage have “counted” either. It is shocking simple – the later time of death accounts were merely reported, i.e. “this witness said this, that witness said the other”, whereas for those witnesses whose evidence indicated a time of death in keeping with other ripper victims (i.e. early morning), the report was invariably accompanied by the observation that it indicates the probable time of death. You need to take a pause from “must battle Ben at any cost!” mode and ponder to yourself why nobody besides yourself has ever suggested that Hutchinson’s delay can be explained by his supposedly being heavily influenced by reports of a later time of death.

[GUT]

G'Day Ben

Sorry to but into a private argument but you said:

The fact that her evidence was given an inquest airing despite her evidence being at odds with other witnesses in as indication that her credibility didn’t come under question.

Any claim that a witnesses credibility was not in question just because they gave evidence is pure rubbish. If that was true we would never have needed Courts because every witness who gave evidence would be credible.

Again sorry to interupt, back to the corners and come out fighting.

[Ben]

I understand that, Gut, but the claim has been made that Maxwell was a blabbermouth gossip out for attention, who somehow made it her business to let the entire street know about her alleged late-morning sighting of Kelly. The reality, however, is that if every annoying attention-seeking nuisance was called to the inquest, it would never have ended and no progress would have been made.

[GUT]

G'Day Ben

I sort of follow your argument but it does not make her more, or for that matter less, credible. Credibility is of itself difficult to establish based on the written records.

Even today when appeal Courts have word for word transcripts, they are loathe to disturb finding of credit.

We don't have anything approaching word for word transcripts, ie every word spoken, so credibility is all but impossible at assess.

[Ben]

Hi Gut,

A perceived good "credibility" is even more essential if the evidence of the witness differs materially from that presented by other witnesses. It would have been all too easy for the police to cast Maxwell aside on the assumption that her claim to have seen Kelly later in the morning was too heavily at odds with Prater, Lewis et al, and yet she appeared at the inquest. That doesn't mean that she was credible, necessarily, but it establishes at the very least that she created a good impression, which she would not have done if she'd shouted the street down with noisy attention-seeking gossip.

Cheers,
Ben

[Ben]

was it established during my sabbatical from the boards, Ben?

Would that it were so, Gareth!

It was Richard, though, who claimed to have identified "the" Hutchinson family.

All the best,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
I am not a member[ used to be] of Howard's forum, but I am sure that a member could pose a question or two to Rob..
Regards Richard.

[GUT]

G'Day Ben

I've been reading the various Hutchinson threads and I think I get your arguments about:

1. Edwards being Fleming in spite of the height.

2. That being Kelly's Fleming, n spite of the age difference and different occupation.

3. Hutchinson being an unreliable witness.

I don't necessarily agree with you but see where you're coming from.

What I don't get is your argument that Joe and Hutch are one and the same.

Can you please explain in simple terms for a poor half dumb country lad.

[GUT]

Just realised I can't type or think, Edwards should of course read Evans.

[caz]

Hi All,

I just followed the argument between Ben and Jon concerning what an innocent Hutch could have learned from the various press stories about MJK's TOD. Surely the answer must be any time after he saw her heading to her room (assuming he did see her doing so) and before 10.45 am when her body was discovered.

That means Hutch would have been confused about how relevant or important his sighting might be; he couldn't simply assume anything either way. If it turned out she had been killed hours later, after being seen alone by other witnesses, his sighting would take on a much reduced importance (although someone killed her, so it would have been possible that the man he saw went back for more); however, it could have turned out that she was killed even while Hutch was waiting for the man to emerge - Hutch would have been trusting that wasn't the case by relying on any of the news reports. So why is it so hard to understand why he played a waiting game, to see what facts might be established before putting his head above the parapet?

Conversely, if Hutch was the killer, he must have wanted to kiss Carrie Maxwell and her ilk, for "seeing" MJK alive, if slightly unwell, long after he had left her lifeless and ripped to shreds. All the while stories like this continued to appear in the papers (especially any referring to Maxwell's apparent honesty and certainty), would it really have mattered that much if he had stayed away and trusted to luck that Lewis wouldn't recognise him again and tell the police? If she had done so, he could then have made his excuses on the basis that he believed Maxwell, and assumed that he had nothing to tell the police himself.

I just don't see Hutch being clued up enough, immediately after the inquest, on what the police did or didn't know, to feel comfortable coming forward with his account, and then blabbing it to the papers, if he killed MJK himself, not long after being seen by Lewis, and not long after he admitted being there.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Lewis would probably have been ushered into the courtroom by the police or other officials. It would, at the very least, have been extremely obvious to the crowds that gathered around Shoreditch Town Hall which individuals were to be used as witnesses at the inquest. And while the crowd would have scrutinised those witnesses, they were very unlikely to have been scrutinised back. Think of it like a high profile trial today – the principle witnesses would be ushered into the building, often with the press being snap-happy all around them, and while the focus of the crowd would be very much on those witnesses, the witnesses themselves are very unlikely to be in the frame of mind to return fire and pay particular attention to individuals immersed in that crowd. If Hutchinson was one such crowd member, the chances of him being clocked again by Lewis were equally slim.

Hi Ben,

So are you saying here that Hutch must have seen Lewis clocking him as he was waiting to enter the room and kill MJK, and been able to commit her facial features to memory, so that when (not if, surely?) he turns up in the crowd to scrutinise the inquest witnesses, he recognises her again as she is 'ushered' in by the authorities and his worst fears are confirmed that she will be giving evidence against him?

Or have you since realised this sounds so unlikely that you have changed the scenario to one whereby Hutch actually enters the small but crowded courtroom as a member of the public, and gets to see and hear Lewis giving him the bad news in person?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Abberline wanted to know just what the hell were you doing outside of the murdered woman's apartment. That question doesn't change depending on whether this was an interview or an interrogation or whether he was considered a witness or a suspect. The question remained the same and Hutchinson needed to have a damn good answer.

I agree entirely, c.d.

The 'official' explanation given by Hutch, that he was 'curious' to see a man like that in MJK's company, doesn't even begin to address why he would have waited nearly an hour to see him again. No way would any half competent East End copper have left it at that and considered himself satisfied that Hutch was being entirely truthful. Makes no sense whatsoever, and never has done.

However, a bit more probing could well have revealed that Hutch was hoping to share MJK's bed, now Joe had recently quit the scene, but hadn't wanted to admit it at first. I'm sure Abberline must also have wondered if Hutch was hoping to rob the man, even if Hutch wouldn't admit that much, or denied a direct accusation. Nothing to add to the report if Hutch's answers rang true because they showed a natural reluctance to admit why he was really there, while still admitting he was there. If he wasn't even there at all, and was merely a time-waster, or was there to commit murder, I strongly suspect his answers would have been of a very different nature - and would have come across that way to Abberline.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I think that most would agree that IF George Hutchinson was actually Marys friend, and IF George Hutchinson was a man of at least average intelligence, he would have realized that his "experience" and his sighting would be very important to the investigation into her death. Perhaps crucial.

Same goes for the police, Michael, if they were of at least average intelligence, and if Hutch thought his presence near the scene, and his sighting, might perhaps be crucial.

So if his delay in coming forward is seen today as suspicious, callous, dishonest or anything else (assuming his claim to know MJK was truthful), why then would it not have caused equally raised eyebrows back then? In fact, if we could have believed what the papers said at the time, the police apparently did raise their eyebrows and ask themselves why Hutch came late to the party, just after the inquest had closed. Yet we are meant to believe they never bothered to ask Hutch, or at least they asked and got no satisfactory explanation, so they merely shrugged, admitted to the papers that because they were still asking themselves about his (unexplained?) delay in coming forward, they were now attaching a much reduced importance to the story itself. And what's more, the police committed none of this to paper, since we are so often told that what we have is all that was written, and no reports were misfiled, destroyed or went missing.

Funny how Ben wants it both ways - he wants a report if Hutch admitted to anything 'dodgy' while being questioned, but doesn't worry that there is no report concerning his discrediting, or the reasons for it being passed on to the press.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

Hello Caz,

That is where we get into this notion that the police at the time were so dazzled by the fact that he voluntarily came forward that they forgot basic police procedures and quite frankly common sense. Now I am prepared to accept the idea that they were originally so star struck that he was treated politely and addressed as Mr. Hutchinson. But his story still needed to jive. In other words, if he told them that he had not seen Mary in over a year and they questioned residents of Millers Court who told them he was there last week visiting Mary then those star struck eyes are going to be opened very quickly.

c.d.