Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Phil Carter]

Hello Richard,

Nail on the head that one. Mrs Maxwell shouldn't have been there, as she had nothing to actually report if she didn't actually see Mary Kelly. But she was there, and under pressure, insisted that she had seen Kelly. Not once, but twice.

She wasn't the only one who saw MJK that morning either. Two more people got the day wrong, the person wrong, the identification wrong. Had Maxwell been the only person to have seen MJK, mistaken identity is far more plausible. But another independant witness? Two more independant witnesses? (Mauice Lewis and an unnamed woman mentioned in the Times)

Walter Dew said she was on the level, but still didn't believe Maxwell's story.
The inquest gets closed double quick time with indecent haste without all the legally required evidence presented about the cause of death, time of death and all injuries made, and finally neither the Coroner nor the jury's signatures appear on the Inquest Certificate. And the infamous George Hutchinson, witness extraordinaire, chooses to turn up with his statement after the Inquest is closed.
I get the distinct feeling the police were happy to see this inquest go away very quickly...
I also get the distinct feeling the police didn't want Maxwell's evidence at that Inquest...and they didn't even get Lewis in on it, nor chase down the third person talked of in the Times.
I also get the distinct feeling that the Hutchinson evidence did a remarkable job in limiting and then deflecting the Maxwell evidence into the realms of mistaken identity, in the minds of the public. Almost, although not provable, seemingly planted, and very convenient. Then again, I am a suspicious person.

best wishes

Phil

[Sally]

Hi Observer

With the hope of some money?

Yep, that's it.

A bit vague, could you elucidate?

A money making opportunity. How would I know what that was, exactly? If it was the case, it's probably lost to us now. The man was out of work, according to him. Yet clearly he did make money, if we accept that he was living at the Victoria Home - otherwise how did he pay for that? No regular employment - means he took what he could get.

And even if he was chasing some money the odds tip in the favour of being recognised in his pursuit of said money than they do should he remain "invisible".

I'm not sure I see this, Observer.

To recieve some money in Romford would mean someone would have to give him the money wouldn't it?

Yes, but that doesn't imply that they knew who he was. Casual labour is, well - casual. You know, no questions asked, cash in hand. That sort of thing, I imagine.

Regarding his option whether to walk back to the East End or no. It could be that Hutchinson totally underestimated the time it would take to get back to Spitalfields. As he set off he might well have felt confident that he could have made it back to the Victoria Home before it closed.

Possible, but probably not if he did the journey regularly.

I would again state there's more chance of him being seen by someone that to have remained anonymous.

I genuinely don't know why you think so, sorry. I think that depends entirely on what he was doing. And we don't know what that was. You seem to think somebody must have known him whilst in Romford, or at least that he must have identified himself whilst there - why?

Funny I get the distinct feeling that your being a tad condescending.

I'm not.

Anyhow, meeting freinds, or family, finding work, doing a job of work. And now name one instance whereby he would have remained "invisible".

See above.

I'm pretty sure that he went down to Romford on the 8th and returned on the 9th, and that he had booked his nights lodging before he left to go to Romford.

I'm not sure about any of that. Really, I'm not that concerned with what he was doing there. Perhaps the police checked out what he was doing in Romford and found he was visiting friends. Perhaps they checked out what he was doing in Romford and nobody remembered him. Perhaps they didn't bother. He wasn't a suspect, was he? Maybe they just took his word for it.

[Hunter]

I'm sorry Phil, but the inquest did fulfil its legal obligations as to the cause of death, which was all that was required. It was left up to the jury to decide whether to continue or not. They decided not.

The names of the jurymen do appear on the inquest certificate as reproduced in 'The Ultimate'.

We really don't know if Maxwell's testimony was dismissed by the police. There is no mention of it either way in the surviving documents. That Abberline believed Hutchinson does not suggest that they didn't check Maxwell's story out.

What dismisses all of the statements that Kelly was seen out and about on the morning of the 9th is the forensics themselves. There were five physicians involved in this investigation and not one placed her murder at such at late stage. She had food in her stomach, believed to have been eaten at least a couple of hours before death.

One paper that did report on the day of the murder was the Echo. It is not available here, on Casebook, but makes interesting reading as to the confusion and hysteria that took place that day... including the statements of those very people that said they saw Kelly that morning. News reports and witnesses are interesting, but do not trump actual forensic evidence.

[Observer]

If he took casual work in Romford he would have been in contact with other workers, the man who employed him etc, then his story could have been been checked by the police.

We don't know if he travelled to Romford regularly, and never will, he might of been in the habit of using public transport both ways though.

Wasn't a suspect? He tells a **** and bull story regarding a man he saw with Kelly on the morning of her murder i.e. Astrakhan, is disbelieved by the police regarding this sighting, yet is stood opposite Millers Court on the morning of the murder, indeed within an hour of her probable TOD, and he wasn't a suspect?

Observer

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

How about Lawende? He saw his suspect face on. Are you saying that Abberline disregarded his sighting also

No. Lawende described a man younger than "thirty-five or forty", whereas Abberline was referring specifically to those witnesses who had described men from that age-bracket - observing that they had only seen the man's back. The omission of any mention of a witness who had described a frontal view of a man fitting this age-group is conspicuous, unless Hutchinson was discredited as reported in the 1888 papers, and remained so until 1903.

It is clear from Abberline's comments in the same article that he considered Lawende a viable witness. I'm thinking specifically of his suggested comparison between Severin Klosowski and and a suspect seen wearing a "P&O" cap - an obvious reference to Lawende's description of a man in a cap with a "sailor-like" peak.

On the Romford issue, I agree with Sally. Hutchinson could have come up with any number of false reasons for the non-confirmation of his presence in Romford; that we went there seeking work only to find the establishment closed; that he went there to meet up with family only to find nobody home, and so on and so forth. In such a scenario, the police were powerless to contradict him.

It is unlikely in the extreme that he "accidentally" left it too late for his lodgings. The Victoria Home closed its doors to non ticket-holders at 12:30am, and it just isn't likely that he'd misjudge the journey by one and a half hours.

I'm pretty sure that he went down to Romford on the 8th and returned on the 9th, and that he had booked his nights lodging before he left to go to Romford.

But if he'd booked in advance, he wouldn't have had any trouble gaining entry to the Victoria Home at any hour of the day or night.

All the best,
Ben

[Chris]

Lawende described a man younger than "thirty-five or forty", whereas Abberline was referring specifically to those witnesses who had described men from that age-bracket - observing that they had only seen the man's back.

No - he's not referring to any specific group of witnesses, but simply to "the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another." Of those people, he says both that they "state that he was a man about thirty- five or forty years of age" and that they "state that they only saw his back ..."

Obviously Abberline's recollection of the witnesses' descriptions was incorrect in at least two respects.

[Ben]

Of those people, he says both that they "state that he was a man about thirty- five or forty years of age" and that they "state that they only saw his back ..."

Indeed, and my point was that Hutchinson claimed to have acquired a frontal view of a man belonging to that age-group. If Abberline knew he was in a position to bolster his eyewitness/Klosowski case with a reference to a witness who described a foreign-looking man who he saw his suspect from the front, and was aged between 34 and 35, he'd doubtless have leapt at the chance - that is, of course, unless Hutchinson was no longer considered a viable witness, at least not one who was likely to have seen the murderer.

[Observer]

Hi Ben

Abberline stated that


“…the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another state that he was a man about thirty-five or forty years of age. They, however, state that they only saw his back, and it is easy to misjudge age from a back view”

The people who alleged they saw Jack the Ripper. For the life of me I can not see why Lawende has been left out of this, Abberline does not specify that he refers to the 35 to 40 year age group in the above statement.

Should Hutchinson have returned from Romford on the night of the 8th November it's quite possible that he only just missed the 12 30 closure time, for he did not specify his time of arrival, merley stating that he saw Kelly at 2: 00 a.m.

Regarding the Victoria Home, I think it's time for another perusal of the rules of house.

Observer

[Garry Wroe]

Nail on the head that one. Mrs Maxwell shouldn't have been there, as she had nothing to actually report if she didn't actually see Mary Kelly. But she was there, and under pressure, insisted that she had seen Kelly. Not once, but twice.

But that’s the issue, Phil. Whereas she insisted that she had seen Kelly, the police clearly felt otherwise. And neither can I concur with the suggestion that her story must have been true merely because she was called before the inquest hearing and remained steadfast under cross-examination. If such criteria are to represent the benchmark for honesty or reliability, then it must be concluded that Mary Malcolm was indeed the sister of Liz Stride.

She wasn't the only one who saw MJK that morning either. Two more people got the day wrong, the person wrong, the identification wrong. Had Maxwell been the only person to have seen MJK, mistaken identity is far more plausible. But another independant witness? Two more independant witnesses? (Mauice Lewis and an unnamed woman mentioned in the Times)

There were many more besides, Phil, such that several newspapers openly complained that they were being overrun with bogus or genuinely mistaken information. But that doesn’t alter the fact that medical opinion was unanimous in stating that Kelly was long dead when these daylight ‘sightings’ were said to have occurred.

Walter Dew said she was on the level, but still didn't believe Maxwell's story.

For what it’s worth, I believe that Carrie Maxwell was an honest witness. Unfortunately, I also think it highly likely that the woman she believed to have been Kelly was someone else entirely.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

I agree, it does seem rather unusual for Abberline to have omitted Lawende, or rather the key particulars of his description. As I mentioned, though, he does make up for this omission by drawing parallels between Klosowski's sailor hat and the one described by Lawende. His evidence was at least alluded to, which is more than can be said for Hutchinson, whose description would have been far more suitable for Abberline's task of inferring similarities with Klosowski - that is, if it was still considered reliable by that stage. My contention, of course, is that it wasn't.

Should Hutchinson have returned from Romford on the night of the 8th November it's quite possible that he only just missed the 12 30 closure time

He later made clear to the press that he returned at about 2.00am though, and claimed to have noted the time from the clock of St. Mary's Whitechapel, which would have been enroute for anyone heading from the Romford direction to the vicinity of the Victoria Home. Sticking with the Pall Mall Gazette, this time from the 14th November 1888:

On Thursday I had been to Romford, and I returned from there about two o'clock on Friday morning, having walked all the way. I came down Whitechapel road into Commercial street.

Best regards,
Ben

[Roy Corduroy]

Good evening Ben and congratulations on your article,

I like the final exclamation point you included, the excerpt from the the Evening Star. I assume the evening edition of the Star. Seems like a new clip which I've not heard before. Any help would be appreciated.

Happy holidays to you and yours,

Roy

[Ben]

Cheers, Roy! Glad you enjoyed it.

Here's the excerpt in question:

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/evening_star/881114.html

It's from the 14th November 1888 edition of Washington DC's Evening Star.

Hope you had a great Christmas Day.

All the best,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi Garry,
Again you state that Maxwell proberly got the wrong person, also adding that she was proberly a honest witness.
But no mention of the speech impediment?
That would be the gem in identification would it not.
If Carrie was adamant in that , and all the others had not noticed that in kelly, then not only the police , but the good woman herself, would have known instantly wrong person ....full stop.
Not to mention Kellys distinctive hair, and the fact that she had all weekend to realize her error, yet.
a] she was still called to the inquest
b]she was still sworn under oath....even if she was describing a completely different person to all the others.
I cannot buy that Garry.
The only other alternative is wrong day.
Does anyone on Casebook really believe that?
It would be nigh impossible, she stated she was returning plates when she talked to kelly, which the police verified on that very same day.
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

If he took casual work in Romford he would have been in contact with other workers, the man who employed him etc, then his story could have been been checked by the police.

Yes, quite correct. But 'could have' isn't the same as 'would have', is it? I started off by assuming that Hutchinson's story - the Romford bit in this instance - would have been checked out by the police as a matter of course. Now I'm not sure of that - lazy thinking, you see. Actually, checking out Hutchinson's story of travelling to, and doing whatever he said he was doing in Romford might have involved quite a lot of effort - although how much is dependent on a set of circumstances to which we do not have access. At worst, he walked there, interacted with people there who he did not know personally (but who might have got his name from him). The police would most likely have had to go themselves to check out the story - a lot of effort at a very busy time. If he took the train on the way down, maybe the ticket inspector remembered him, etc.

We don't know if he travelled to Romford regularly, and never will, he might of been in the habit of using public transport both ways though.

Well, it makes sense that he did travel to Romford regularly - for whatever reason. This was not a special trip. As far as I know, his reasons for going were never once commented on anywhere. I think this is probably because the trip, and his reasons for taking it, were mundane and attracted little attention.

Wasn't a suspect? He tells a **** and bull story regarding a man he saw with Kelly on the morning of her murder i.e. Astrakhan, is disbelieved by the police regarding this sighting, yet is stood opposite Millers Court on the morning of the murder, indeed within an hour of her probable TOD, and he wasn't a suspect?

No, Observer, as far as we know, he wasn't a suspect. The police thought he was a time waster, like the other 50 odd people who turned up between the 9th and the 13th November with stories of 'witness' sightings. There's safety in numbers, you know.

Regards

Sally

[Sally]

Hi Ben.

It is unlikely in the extreme that he "accidentally" left it too late for his lodgings. The Victoria Home closed its doors to non ticket-holders at 12:30am, and it just isn't likely that he'd misjudge the journey by one and a half hours.

But if he'd booked in advance, he wouldn't have had any trouble gaining entry to the Victoria Home at any hour of the day or night

.

Is that so?

Well then, how curious. We must presume that, although he lived at the Victoria Home, he had not booked in advance on this occasion.

Perhaps that was because he had no money - hence the trip to Romford to get some! And yet, that money-making trip (if such it was) seems to have gone badly, since he had no money at all when he saw Kelly. Not even the sixpence he would have needed to get a decent bed at his usual place (if it had been open, that is).

Why did he choose to walk back from Romford, when presumably he know he wouldn't get a bed for the night when he got back? It would have taken him, assuming average walking pace, about 4 hours - 5, maybe. So he set off at 9pm, 10? I'm assuming he didn't stop on the way - but other than the pub, where would he have stopped on the way? In any case, he said in his statement to the police that he hadn't had a drink all day, didn't he?

A mystery. He could have stayed where he was - I bet he'd have had more chance of securing a bed for the night if he had. Now, I do think the police might have asked him why he walked back at all that night. Whereas what he was doing in Romford might have been of little interest, what he was doing in Dorset Street at 2.30am in the morning of the 9th surely was - and why he was there at that particular time.

The decision to take the journey back from Romford when he did, in poor weather conditions, would probably have required an explanation by the police, I think. What do you think he told them?

Best.

Sally