Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Sally]

Hi Sally

Hi Obsever

Hutchinson was residing in Spitalfields, wouldn't a trip down to Romford a distance of about 13 miles suggest that he was intending to visit someone?

Woud it? Well it might, yes, but equally, it might suggest some other purpose - perhaps he went with the hope of some money. I think that could actually be suggested by his self-attested statement to Kelly that he spent all his money going down to Romford - perhaps he took the train. Do you think he expected to have no money on the return trip? Who would have chosen to walk those 13 or so miles in the cold, wet night unless there was no better option?

It's conjectural, naturally - at the end of the day it could have been for any reason that he went down to Romford, assuming that he was telling the truth about going.

I can think of far more scenarios whereby he was seen by, or contacted someone who knew him, than I can whereby he would be all but invisible

.

Oh good. Would you mind enlightening me? I don't mean that insincerely - I really can't think of 'far more scenarios' whereby his presence could have been confirmed. It is possible that it was, of course.

Of course all the police had to do was ask him what his business was in Romford, they would have asked this question wouldn't they?

Oh, I'm sure they did, Observer, and I'm sure he gave a good answer. As I said though, I don't know how important his day trip to Romford would have appeared. A more interesting question might have been - and certainly should have been - why he chose to set off for London so late in the day? Particularly without any money to secure a night's lodgings when he got there. He would have been able to answer that one too, I expect.

I have decided that I really don't think he got the nght wrong in his statement to the police.

Regards

Sally

[harry]

If on checking Hutchinson's story,and finding elements of that story true or false,would not Aberlaine have then appraised his seniors in his report of that night,or at a later time,that he had found his opinion of honesty to be confirmed.Perhaps he didn't,because he couldn't,as there had been no checks.
Conjecture is alright,we can all use it,but when did it replace verification as the solution to an opinion.
The most funny bit Mike,is that after urging a moving of these Hutchinson posts from a thread where you were fed up with Hutchinson and wanted posters to p#ss off as you wanted no part of it,here you are.
Hilarious.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
All we know is that a man named George Hutchinson made his statement on the Monday evening [12th], we can assume that it was an honest interpretation of what he saw.
But wait a minute..
What if, the police had reason to believe that the deseased my have met her end during daylight hours, what if they had a solid base when it came to believing Maxwell.
I have found it somewhat unusual for the police force[ of any era] to discredit their own police doctors, and in this case they did, by allowing Mrs Maxwell to give evidence ...under oath, which they knew fully well would contridict medical opinion.
Why did they believe Mrs Maxwell, and doubt the medical evidence.?
With this in mind would it not be possible for the police to fabricate a description, and recruit young GH in, as the witness to the fabrication.
For what aim?
To give the killer a false sense of security...in believing that the authorities were looking for a Astracan clad man, who may have committed the act in the middle of the night.
What if... the police believed that Mrs Maxwell saw the killer around 845am on the morning of the 9th, and it was for this man they were after... not the evidence of a fabricated statement.
Some will say .
How come the GH statement was forwarded to Abberlines superiors then?
Answer.. Why not, they would have been intrested in what H division were attempting to achieve wouldnt they?
I would say a lot of cummunication was going on, between all sorts of parties, that we will never be aware of.
This might explain why any payment was paid to Hutchie, he could be trusted in assisting the police, and done his bit in the deception.
OK.
If Hutch was Topping...how come he repeated the fabricated story in later years?
Not only, would he then admit to being part of a lie statement, but in the 1920s/30s the killer could be still very much alive.
Regards Richard.

[Garry Wroe]

I have found it somewhat unusual for the police force[ of any era] to discredit their own police doctors, and in this case they did, by allowing Mrs Maxwell to give evidence ...under oath, which they knew fully well would contridict medical opinion … Why did they believe Mrs Maxwell, and doubt the medical evidence.?

It is abundantly clear from the evidence, Richard, that investigators attached no credence whatever to Carrie Maxwell’s claim of having seen Kelly alive in the hours immediately preceding Bowyer’s discovery of the body in Miller’s Court. And neither did they ‘allow’ Maxwell to present her story at the inquest hearing. The fact of the matter is that jurisdiction over inquest proceedings lay with the Coroner, and it was the statutory obligation of the police to provide him with the details of anyone whose evidence might shed light on the death under investigation. It was the Coroner, therefore, who decided who would and who would not appear at the hearing. The police were merely agents of the court.

Bearing this in mind, Carrie Maxwell’s appearance at the Kelly inquest hearing should in no way be taken as confirmation that investigators believed her story, nor that the story itself led to a police dismissal of the medical evidence provided by Phillips and Bond. Indeed, we have overwhelming evidence that investigators trusted the medical evidence and mistrusted that provided by Maxwell.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[lynn cates]

warned

Hello Garry. In fact, wasn't Mrs. Maxwell warned at the inquest to be careful since her testimony was different from the rest?

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

Indeed, we have overwhelming evidence that investigators trusted the medical evidence and mistrusted that provided by Maxwell

Because they were in contradiction, and the medical evidence was considered to be scientific evidence - and so more objective than the subjective account of a witness.

There will always be conspiracy theories - clearly this case lends itself to them. I don't see any immediate need to discount contemporary opinion in this case, myself.

All the best.

Sally.

[Hunter]

Thank you Garry, for clarifying the witness proceedure at an official inquest. That is exactly correct. One only has to look at the inquests that Baxter held to see that the police were not often happy about what surfaced there. They were fortunate that MacDonald was a more 'by the book' coroner and was dealing with a hostile jury that didn't want to be there to start with.

There's one observation I'd like to throw in... a possible clue as to what the police eventually thought about Hutchinson's veracity. In 1903, in an interview with the Pall Mall Gazette Abberline metioned that he thought JTR was of foreign appearance. So, of course, was Hutchinson's man. What do some of you think about that statement of Abberline's?

[Garry Wroe]

In fact, wasn't Mrs. Maxwell warned at the inquest to be careful since her testimony was different from the rest?

Absolutely, Lynn. But for all of that she stuck to her story steadfastly. The significant factor in Kelly’s rise from the dead, I believe, lay in the description provided by Maxwell defining Kelly as short, dumpy and afflicted by a speech impediment. Contrast this with the description provided by Mary Ann Cox – tall, attractive, and with lily-white skin – and it is fairly self-evident that Maxwell and Cox were describing different women. It is for this reason, therefore, that I have long believed Maxwell confused Kelly with another female resident of Miller’s Court. And for Carrie Maxwell, read also Maurice Lewis.

There's one observation I'd like to throw in... a possible clue as to what the police eventually thought about Hutchinson's veracity. In 1903, in an interview with the Pall Mall Gazette Abberline metioned that he thought JTR was of foreign appearance. So, of course, was Hutchinson's man. What do some of you think about that statement of Abberline's?

Well, of course, Hunter, the ‘foreign appearance’ could have been influenced by Elizabeth Long’s description of the man purportedly seen with Annie Chapman in the moments immediately preceding the Hanbury Street crime. But the link to Astrakhan is less tenuous when one considers Abberline’s suspect of choice. Whenever I see a photograph of Chapman, I cannot help but be struck by the resemblance to Astrakhan. There again, we have no way of knowing why Abberline believed Chapman to have been the Whitechapel Murderer, nor indeed what his eventual opinion of Hutchinson might have been. As with many areas of the case, informed opinion is often frustrated by the lack of official documentation.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Garry,
You are correct of course, with the police having a 'duty' to bring to the inquests attention, all those that may have a bearing on the case in question.
But that does not mean.. that Abberline did not have reasons for believing Caroline Maxwell, and privately felt her evidence ought to be heard.
You are giving the impression that the investigators[ which included Abberline] attached no credence to her sighting, I was always under the impression that Abberline remarked. that 'He could not break the woman', which obviously does not necessary suggest 'belief', but the very fact that Maxwell stood her ground against authorative figures such as the latter gentleman , and the coroner, would speak favourably for her character.
even the press had her as respectable, and level headed.
I feel we use the term 'Mistaken' too freely on Casebook, when we come against a problem that has no easy solution.
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Garry,
Mrs Cox also described kelly as wearing completely different clothing then she was wearing that night, she also described to her neice , she was with a 'fine looking gentleman' , which hardly depicts Blotchy.?
She states that she followed kelly and companion into the court, then again she was waiting at her door, for her drunken husband.
Mrs Maxwell stated a speech impediment, which would have been noticeable to other court residents, who would have able to verify such , making the wrong identification impossible.
Wrong day... her movements were checked, and verified has having occured on the morning of the 9th.
Mary kelly was described as having a pronounced false tooth, which may have accounted for a speech impairment.
We are all making excuses.
Regards Richard.

[Garry Wroe]

You are correct of course, with the police having a 'duty' to bring to the inquests attention, all those that may have a bearing on the case in question.
But that does not mean.. that Abberline did not have reasons for believing Caroline Maxwell, and privately felt her evidence ought to be heard.

But if these were Abberline's private thoughts, Richard, how is it that you are privy to them? How do you know that Abberline believed Maxwell and doubted the medical evidence? I'm intrigued.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

Many thanks indeed for the kind words about my article, Garry, and for your generous encouragement when putting it together.

For what it’s worth, I agree entirely with your view that Maxwell was likely to have confused the identity of the woman rather than the date of the encounter.

Hi Hunter,

“In 1903, in an interview with the Pall Mall Gazette Abberline metioned that he thought JTR was of foreign appearance.”

Very true, although even more significant is Abberline’s next observation:

“…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”

As far as Abberline was concerned, therefore, the only witnesses still being considered as such who described a man of that age group were only able to obtain a rear view, and since Hutchinson described a man from this age-bracket and claimed a full-on frontal view, he can’t have been considered a potentially ripper-spotting witness at this stage. He is effectively ruled out by Abberline’s criteria.

All the best,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi Garry,
Patently I am not privy to the thoughts of anyone, especially someone living in 1888, I was just making the point that if an experienced officer such as Abberline 'could not 'break the woman'. one would presume, that he would imagine that she was telling the truth.
With regard to the right day,.. wrong woman. would that not have been easy to check.?
Police officer to J Barnett. Did the deseased speak with a lisp etc..?
police officer to McCarthy .Did the deseased have a speech impediment?
police officer to several court residents the same question.
Answer no.
Mrs Maxwell you have got the wrong lady ..honest mistake.
Police to inquest.
A Witness stated that she saw the deseased after the medical T.O.D, but it was not the deseased, so does not appear at this inquest.
But guys she did attend.
So explain that?
Regards Richard.

[Observer]

Romford

Hi Obsever

Woud it? Well it might, yes, but equally, it might suggest some other purpose - perhaps he went with the hope of some money. I think that could actually be suggested by his self-attested statement to Kelly that he spent all his money going down to Romford - perhaps he took the train. Do you think he expected to have no money on the return trip? Who would have chosen to walk those 13 or so miles in the cold, wet night unless there was no better option?

With the hope of some money? A bit vague, could you elucidate? 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". To recieve some money in Romford would mean someone would have to give him the money wouldn't it? 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.

It's conjectural, naturally - at the end of the day it could have been for any reason that he went down to Romford, assuming that he was telling the truth about going.

Of course it is, but I would again state there's more chance of him being seen by someone that to have remained anonymous.

.

Oh good. Would you mind enlightening me? I don't mean that insincerely - I really can't think of 'far more scenarios' whereby his presence could have been confirmed. It is possible that it was, of course.

Funny I get the distinct feeling that your being a tad condescending. Anyhow, meeting freinds, or family, finding work, doing a job of work. And now name one instance whereby he would have remained "invisible".

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.

Regards

Sally[/QUOTE]

[Observer]

“…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”

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben

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

Observer