Innocent, By George!

[Monty]

Again,

What is the issue with Hutchinson coming forward after the inquest.

An inquest which was rapidly arranged.

Monty

[The Good Michael]

What is the issue with Hutchinson coming forward after the inquest.

A hastily arranged, politically exclusive, unannounced publically, and quickly shut down inquest? Because.... well Hutchinson is guilty of something damn it! Just because we've no evidence doesn't mean it isn't true.

-A Sofa Sleuth-

[Fleetwood Mac]

talk at the Home must have been of little else but the Kelly murder.

No, it might not have been.

I'm not sure what you're imagining in your head - cheerful, chirpy Cockneys, all mates and chattering all night?

Perhaps those who used the home were the worse for wear when they returned at night and wanted no more than to get their heads down for the night, and perhaps their existence meant they weren't particularly sociable. 'Must' Hutchinson have been in the gossip circles, or could he have been a loner who didn't care to mix with others?

And, by Hutchinson's own account he walked the streets all night, so perhaps any conversation taking place about the murder was over by the time he returned?

It is not a must, it's a possibility!

[DVV]

Hi FM

It is not a must, it's a possibility!

No, I'm afraid it's even not a possibility.
What about the newsboys ?
What about the crowds in Dorset Street ? (People came from all parts of London).

Unless Hutch was both deaf and blind, how can you consider this a "possibility" ?

[The Good Michael]

I wanted to go back to Monty's post from several pages back in which he quotes Abberline saying he finished interrogating Hutchinson that evening and is convinced....so on and so on. Abberline does not say there that Hutchinson came in because the inquest was closed.

Again I pose the question, bearing in mind the above idea, where do we have irrefutable (reasonably speaking) documentation that says the inquest closed and then Hutchinson went to the police? I would suggest that had Hutchinson gone to the inquest, he would have been sent to the police as the inquest was about being brief and going home and not about bringing in new witnesses and statements.

We know that first a policeman took Hutchinson's information and then Abberline interrogated him. Presumably, this process went on for hours followed by the thorough chekcing of Hutch's alibi. Hutchinson wouldn't even have known about the inquest. Is it possible that he went to the police while the inquest was on, bearing in mind the above process that would have lasted hours.

Again, where does it say that Hutchinson went to the police because the inquest has ended?

Mike

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi FM

No, I'm afraid it's even not a possibility.
What about the newsboys ?
What about the crowds in Dorset Street ? (People came from all parts of London).

Unless Hutch was both deaf and blind, how can you consider this a "possibility" ?

What are you imagining here? The films? A hive of activity everywhere?

How many people could actually crowd into Dorset Street? I'd imagine a tiny percentage of London's population - so it in't exactly 'all parts of London' rushing to the scene.

The newsboys - "another murder in Whitechapel" - perhaps Hutchinson was on his way to the pub, and thought: "I'll read about that later". Are you assuming people rush to buy a newspaper when they hear of a murder? Why would you assume that?

If you sat and thought about it for 10 minutes you could come up with 10 plausible explanations as to why Hutchinson hadn't heard of Kelly being the murdered woman until a few days later.

Perhaps it's different in your country and when a murder is committed everyone is talking about it. That's not the case here.

[DVV]

Sigh.....read a bit before posting.

[Lechmere]

It must have become known that the inquest was talking place as a crowd gathered outside Shoreditch Town Hall.

I was wondering once about the 6 pm time for Hutchinson’s appearance at Commercial Street Police Station, and I can’t remember how now but I did satisfy myself that it was likely. The time may even be recorded somewhere. It could be on the statement taken by Sergeant Badham – not in the body of evidence but in the docket section. I have never looked at the original of that particular statement. However I have copies of other statements and the time isn’t recorded on any of them.

It is unlikely Hutchinson crashed out on Friday after being up all night as the bed spaces were not usually available in the day time. It is more likely that he popped in perhaps to warm up and then went straight out to look for work on autopilot. Kelly's murder was not announced until the early afternoon. If he went to work in the morning he would not have heard about it at the earliest until he got back to the Victoria Home.
Hutchinson would have got back dead tired and may have gone to bed early. It is fairly easy to make a case that he didn’t hear about it till Saturday. Then there is the mysterious reason alluded to in the press as to why he didn’t come forward sooner. An alternative reading of that was that when he told the policeman, he was given bad advice.

The reason why the police couldn’t have checked Blotchy was that they had no idea who he was. This comes back to the observable tendency of bureaucracies since time immemorial. Once you have put yourself in their view, and become a known quantity, then they open a figurative ‘file’ on you. They have your card marked. You are in their spotlight. They know you.
If you are a naughty person and do not pay your TV licence then if you enter into communication with the licensing authorities when they write to you – curtains.
If you get a parking ticket and don’t pay but get letters and respond to them – curtains.
When the old Community Charge /Poll Tax was going, if you just ignored every summons you got away without paying. If you wrote disputing it and making u a fuss – curtains.
If you lose a library book and just ignore every letter you would get away without paying for it. If you send some garbled explanation to them - curtains.

I am saying this from the perspective of someone who used to collect rather than someone who used to offend I hasten to add. Honest.
Blotchy will have slipped through the net. The police had nothing to go on. He was just one of very many suspicious characters that populate the story. Hutchinson was a flesh and blood name.

[The Good Michael]

Lechmere,

I'm with you that it seems likely that Hutch showed up at 6 pm and after the inquest. I just have always taken it for granted and if doubt can be cast upon that particular item, it's worth looking at alternatives. What I remember is a 5 pm closing and a 6 pm visit to the police, but I can't find hard evidence. And why would Hutchinson even go to an inquest? He wouldn't have. He would have gone to the police first of course and they wouldn;t have sent him tio the inquest because they were interrogating him. Barnett had already gone through an interrogation and passed muster, so of course he was part of the inquest.

Hutchinson's description of Keely and A-Man and the time, seems to have been connected by the police to Lewis and the scary man she saw. If there wasn't a corroboration of sorts on a suspect, why would Abberline suddenly become in love with Hutchinson's story. We all (many of us) suggest that the A-Man description is too detailed, and they (the police) would have thought similar thoughts unless... unless they had another report that seemed similar enough to them to make a connection.

Just my musings, but things are not far-fetched here.

Mike

[FrankO]

I was wondering once about the 6 pm time for Hutchinson’s appearance at Commercial Street Police Station, and I can’t remember how now but I did satisfy myself that it was likely. The time may even be recorded somewhere. It could be on the statement taken by Sergeant Badham – not in the body of evidence but in the docket section. I have never looked at the original of that particular statement. However I have copies of other statements and the time isn’t recorded on any of them.

Hi Lechmere,

It's in the official police statement. It reads:
"At 6 pm 12th George Hutchinson of the Victoria Home Commercial Street came to this Station and made the following statement...."

Best,
Frank

[Ben]

It seems that the dreaded “coincidence” bug has infested this thread too.

The Lech of Mere,

“It is unlikely Hutchinson crashed out on Friday after being up all night as the bed spaces were not usually available in the day time.”

I’d be interested to see your sources for this assertion. It is unthinkable that Hutchinson should have returned all the way from Romford on-foot in the certainty that he could not have slept at his unusual lodgings, only to do more walking about in anticipating of looking for work in the not-quite-so-small hours, which entailed even more walking. If Hutchinson was poor and out of regular work, it is even less likely that he embarked on an all-night footslog to somewhere he couldn’t even sleep, followed by hours more unnecessary walking, enforced energy-sapping and sleep deprivation – the type that would seriously hamper his ability to seek and embark upon labouring work the next day.

The idea that Hutchinson did not hear of the murder until Saturday or Sunday is so unutterably outlandish that it makes me wonder why people bother spending precious moments of their lives arguing such nonsense on message boards. Even if he ventured miles out of London, it is not plausible that he managed to find a mysterious location where he didn’t learn of the murder until Saturday or when he found himself on Petticoat Lane on the Sunday after the murder. Even the Manchester Guardian had got wind of the murder and reported on the subject in time for the morning of the 10th, and it wasn't just rumours of another ‘orrible murder either, it referred specifically to Mary Jane Kelly of Dorset Street, Spitalfields.

Even if we accept that he returned to the Victoria Home after "walking about all night" on the morning of the alleged Miller’s Court episode, he must have emerged from it at some point, and when he did, it is inconceivable that he did not hear the gossip in the nearby streets and in the building itself at some point relatively early on Friday. There’s the rest of that day, the whole of Saturday and the early part of Sunday in which to discover news of the murder.

But this was all discussed and demolished on earlier threads that I encourage you to read.

If we’re advancing some “outside possibilities”, at least confine them to the vaguely possible, as opposed to the barely possible.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The idea that Hutchinson did not hear of the murder until Saturday or Sunday is so unutterably outlandish that it makes me wonder why people bother spending precious moments of their lives arguing such nonsense on message boards. Even if he ventured miles out of London, it is not plausible that he managed to find a mysterious location where he didn’t learn of the murder until Saturday or when he found himself on Petticoat Lane on the Sunday after the murder. Even the Manchester Guardian had got wind of the murder and reported on the subject in time for the morning of the 10th, and it wasn't just rumours of another ‘orrible murder either, it referred specifically to Mary Jane Kelly of Dorset Street, Spitalfields.

Posters keep saying he must have known but don't bother to go into the specifics.

Even the Manchester Guardian? You're a bright fella, Ben, so you must realise that the MG sells news, whereas GH is a recipient of news; in other words, the MG would make it their business to report this, but GH may have had other things to occupy his time for a few days - the MG was obligd to report this, GH was not obliged to read a newspaper.

A mystery location? Dear god, perhaps it was no more than he didn't read the newspapers? Plenty of people don't.

[Ben]

There may be many reasons for witnesses coming forward late, but there are very few reasons for witnesses timing their approach to police to coincide with the termination of the inquest. There are very few reasons for allowing three days to elapse since the murder, and only coming forward as soon as the opportunity to be quizzed in public, and under oath, has passed. This is what Hutchinson did, unless we accept the ludicrous suggestion that Hutchinson’s appearance at the police station so soon after the termination of the inquest, was just random coincidence. Hutchinson could have come forward at any time between the murder being discovered and the termination of the inquest. He could have come forward at any time after the termination of the inquest. And yet he chose to come forward just after the termination of the inquest - just after it was publicly divulged that Sarah Lewis had seen a man “waiting for someone to come out” of Miller’s Court, “coincidentally” tying in perfectly with his account of his own behaviour and location at that time.

This non-coincidence tells us that he learned of Lewis’ evidence through some channel. He wouldn’t have needed to absorb Lewis’ testimony in any great detail. It could have resulted from word of mouth – the type that allowed details of Leather Apron and John Pizer to spread like wildfire. In addition, there were reportedly crowds in Shoreditch that threatened to overwhelm the coroner’s office, and it could simply have been a case of somebody noting that Sarah Lewis was one of the witnesses about to give evidence. But the sheer implausibility of the “random coincidence” explanation should be sufficient to nullify the suggestion that he did not learn of her evidence before he contacted the police.

If he did attend the inquest, or hovered outside observing the witnesses coming and/or going, he wouldn’t have been sacrificing any work-related opportunities, and it is annoyingly silly to suggest that he would have done. Hutchinson was without regular work, which meant that he probably didn’t miss any work-related commitment. Besides which, we know that there were crowds were so large that they threatened to overwhelm the coroner’s office. Are we to assume that this group was comprised exclusively of out-of-work vagabonds who were in a worse financial predicament than Hutchinson?

“While the police’s experience of serial killing was slim, they had experience of crime and criminals sometimes come forward as witnesses to their own crime.”

Yes, we know that this happens now.

But do we have any shred of evidence that the police knew about this in 1888?

There is no evidence that Hutchinson was ever considered in the capacity of a suspect by the 1888 police. That does not permit us to conclude that he was investigated and ruled out as one, because he almost certainly wasn’t.

[The Good Michael]

Posters keep saying he must have known but don't bother to go into the specifics.

Mac, it's because Hutchinson suspectology is faith based. There are no arguments. It's like arguing about God with someone. Science cannot win over faith because faith doesn't need reason.

MMike

[DVV]

There are no arguments.

What a crap. I'd like to hear your arguments in support of FM unbelievable ignorancy.

It's like arguing about God with someone. Science cannot win over faith because faith doesn't need reason.

The last time I heard such a platitude must date back to the XVIIIth century. Or was it at primary school ?