Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Tom_Wescott]

Would the individuals that have chosen to conduct a personal diatribe beyond the intended discussion of this thread please do so in the future through the PM option so the train of discussion on this subject will not be interfered with or other posters be unnecessarily exposed to such behaviour.

Hi Hunter. Our posts crossed or I just missed yours, but I agree with what you say. I felt the criticism of Fish's essay was pretty mean from the start, and when I commented, I became the target for this vitriol. I guess that's my Xmas present to Fish. LOL. But yeah, I'm pretty much bored with them any way.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[richardnunweek]

Hi Conspiracy lovers,
How about taking the word of GH
How about taking the word of Cox,
Ditto with Prater,
Ditto with Mrs Lewis,
Ditto with Maurice Lewis,
Ditto with Caroline Maxwell.
And uncle Tom C and all.
What have we got?
Who lied, who was mistaken, who got the wrong day/time?
The clues have been recorded for us, but we are not doing to well are we?
Personally.
I believe in Hutchinson.
I believe in Prater.
I believe in Mrs Lewis.
I partially believe in Mr M Lewis.
I do not believe in Cox,
I absolutely believe Maxwell.
Taking all, into account.
I admit ,I can only speculate.
Is it possible, that there were two people involved in the kelly murder.?
Did Botchy exist.?
Did a toff exist.. as via Coxs version to her neice?
Did Mr Lewis actually see Mjk at any time in daylight on the 9th.?
Did a woman named as. Mrs Goode ever exist?
How could Maxwell be so positive, when it would have been so much simpler not to have been.?
My mind hurts guys...
Regards Richard.

[Garry Wroe]

Perhaps this will help, Richard.

The Star, 13 November, 1888:-

As to the time of the murder, it is now generally admitted that Kelly could not, as some have stated, have been alive on Friday morning. The police have come to the conclusion that the woman who made the most positive statement to this effect must have been mistaken as to the day. Dr. Phillips's evidence, together with that of Mary Ann Cox, Elizabeth Prater, and others, proves that the murder was committed SHORTLY AFTER THREE O'CLOCK …

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[babybird67]

Babybird,

You must be a parrott because your post read like a poor mimic of things Hatchett had already said.

Squawk! Haha. And no answers to the points either. Priceless.

Now be a good girl and get us some drinks.

Because you're too lazy or incompetent to get your own? Nahh. Too busy standing up for research based on TRUTH and HONESTY in my mean ole ways to lower myself to serve the poor excuse for a man you seem to be.

A wonderful New Year to you both.

And to you!

Sorry Hunter but i cannot let comments like that pass. The Westcott has done nothing but insult me since he joined this thread...and i hadn't said anything to insult him first. Have to have right of reply. Apologies just skip our posts.

[Hatchett]

Well considering that there are no answers coming, and that there has even been the attempt to turn the reason for the debate into a sort of martydom,
there is no point in continuing.

[Hunter]

Hi Babybird,
I think your signature quote is most profound.

"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."

Happy New Years everybody... and don't drink moonshine unless you know where it came from.

[harry]

Phil,
That reporting must have been in error.Kelly could not have spent the latter part of Friday in the Ringers,because,unless I am wrong she was killed in the early hours of that Friday morning.
Another point.As is most likely the report is describing Hutchinson,if Hutchinson's identity and involvement is not as in the report he made to police,how was this to be covered when the inquest was resumed(the inquest had only been adjourned),as surely Hutchinson could not escape being called if and when the Inquest was resumed.

[Sally]

Hi Conspiracy lovers,
How about taking the word of GH
How about taking the word of Cox,
Ditto with Prater,
Ditto with Mrs Lewis,
Ditto with Maurice Lewis,
Ditto with Caroline Maxwell.
And uncle Tom C and all.
What have we got?
Who lied, who was mistaken, who got the wrong day/time?
The clues have been recorded for us, but we are not doing to well are we?
Personally.
I believe in Hutchinson.
I believe in Prater.
I believe in Mrs Lewis.
I partially believe in Mr M Lewis.
I do not believe in Cox,
I absolutely believe Maxwell.
Taking all, into account.
I admit ,I can only speculate.
Is it possible, that there were two people involved in the kelly murder.?
Did Botchy exist.?
Did a toff exist.. as via Coxs version to her neice?
Did Mr Lewis actually see Mjk at any time in daylight on the 9th.?
Did a woman named as. Mrs Goode ever exist?
How could Maxwell be so positive, when it would have been so much simpler not to have been.?
My mind hurts guys...
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard - sorry I didn't get around to replying to your last post, I'll reply to this one instead.

I'm afraid I don't believe Hutchinson, and I don't think he got the night wrong, either, on reflection. I'm sure you've had this conversation many times before, and are probably sick of it - but if Hutchinson was telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so to speak, then why did the police perform such a spectacular U-turn in a matter of a day? They appear to have gone from having total faith in his story to having absolutely none.

I'm sorry to say I have to believe that was because they thought he was making it up - the clues, as you say, are there.

Exactly why that was? Well, he might have lied for many and various reasons about which we are free to speculate.

As to getting the night wrong? No, I don't think so. The 9th was the day of the Lord Mayors Show. Not any ordinary day, but a day of major local celebration, a highlight in the year of the londoner, when countless people lined the streets. It wasn't just a Friday. Perhaps the show was the reason Hutchinson wanted to get back from Romford, even though he must have known he wouldn't have a place to stay when he got there - he may have had plans of his own on this special day. Mistaken the night? Unlikely.

As I have said before, lying doesn't equate to murder. It makes people suspicious though, that's the thing. So rightly or wrongly, it appears that several people do suspect Hutchinson of doing more than telling a few porkies.

Personally, I don't favour conspiracy so much as a rule - I don't need a special explanation for unexplained events. In this case, assuming that Hutchinson was not the murderer of course - the most likely explanation is that he lied for a mundane reason.

Regards, Richard, and Happy New Year to you!

[Sally]

For the sake of the comment only, which some may find interesting, allow me to follow the possibility a little?

"George Hutchinson" is either...

a) a Metropolitan policeman wearing plain clothes
b) a police informant
c) a vigilance member
d) a private detective

Hi Phil.

You have an intriguing set of possibilities here, in my view. For what it's worth, I think if Hutchinson had been a or b we would need to explain why his activities were ever made public in the first place. And if a or b, why would Hutchinson have spoken to the press on the 13th?

I can see it as more plausible if he was c or d, although if d, what was he doing on Dorset Street? Would him being d imply that somebody had paid him to be there? If so, who?

Most likely perhaps is if he was c, a vigilance member. This is an interesting possibility which I would like to think about further.

Thank you, Phil, for putting forward your ideas, most intriguing.

Regards

Sally

[jason_c]

Hi Phil.

You have an intriguing set of possibilities here, in my view. For what it's worth, I think if Hutchinson had been a or b we would need to explain why his activities were ever made public in the first place. And if a or b, why would Hutchinson have spoken to the press on the 13th?

I can see it as more plausible if he was c or d, although if d, what was he doing on Dorset Street? Would him being d imply that somebody had paid him to be there? If so, who?

Most likely perhaps is if he was c, a vigilance member. This is an interesting possibility which I would like to think about further.

Thank you, Phil, for putting forward your ideas, most intriguing.

Regards

Sally

Some interesting suggestions Phil. Your idea that he may have been a member of a vigilance group jumped out at me.

Even if he wasnt a member, we are told the area was teeming with such individuals. Is it then surprising that Hutch briefly became a private sleuth(after witnessing a suspicious occurence) for half an hour during a period when 100's of such characters watching the area.

[Hatchett]

Hello Sally and Jason C.

It is an interesting theory. But a point against it as far as I can see is that if he had been a member of a Vigilance Committee then surelly he would have told the police at his interview and it would have been put in his statement. Also, you would have thought that he would have mentioned that to the press. Another edge to his publicity.

Also you would have thought that Abberline would have been interested in that.

Dont want to put a damper on things, but just alternative thinking.

Best wishes.

Hatchett.

[babybird67]

Hi Babybird,
I think your signature quote is most profound.

"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."

Happy New Years everybody... and don't drink moonshine unless you know where it came from.

absolutely Hunter....but forgiveness doesn't mean rolling over and letting them abuse you and fling unchallenged and offensive sexist comments at you. Of course I forgive Tom his ignorance. It's not his fault he was dragged up without being taught the common courtesies of social intercourse with women is it?

Happy new year to you too.

[Hatchett]

Bravo Baby Bird!

Have a Great New Year.

x

[babybird67]

it is just not feasible

that Hutch got the day wrong. Too many different and unusual things happened on that day for him to mistake it...the trek back from Romford, the fact that it was the Lord Mayor's Day, the unsual sighting and following of the unusual suspect etc. It is crazy to suggest he could have been mistaken, especially if you are basing that on a misinterpretation, wilful or otherwise, of a weather report.

Everybody knows the night was one of showers and dry spells. That has been known for a long time. Therefore nothing has changed. There's no new information to hang a new theory on. That doesn't prevent anyone from suggesting new theories, however it does not mean those new theories have to be lauded as if they are as worthy as other theories which have evidence behind them to back them up.

I cannot see one single piece of evidence which suggests Hutch was mistaken in the day, nor that anyone believed that Hutch was mistaken about the day at the time he gave his statement. That a retired officer writing his recollections of events long past might suggest it as one possible reason for the anomalies in the statement is not evidence that this was true; it is just as likely that Hutch was lying about aspects of his statement, but that he was at Miller's Court on that night.

I find Ben's argument positing Hutch as potential killer, with the excellent examples of the modern phenomenon of such killers inserting themselves into the investigations, a very credible counter theory. And one given with no liberties taken with primary sources either! Well done Ben.

[babybird67]

Bravo Baby Bird!

Have a Great New Year.

x

and to you Hatchett!