Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Batman]

Let's not first forget that Hutchinson's statement which requires heaps of faith in Hutchinson to accept, completely omits any description of Mary Jane Kelly and he doesn't offer a shred of evidence that he knew her, where exactly she live, etc.

Her ears were mutilated, it was her hair & eyes.

Where are you getting that from?

Evans and Rumbelow, p. 177 - Identified by Barnett recognised her by "the ear and the eyes" Okay, so its ear singular and not plural but it doesn't say hair.

If that is good enough from Barnett, then it is equally good enough from anyone else.

McCarthy was pretty sure it was her, but then he was doing business with her as her landlord and we can only guess what else. Barnett had an intimate relationship with MJK. The point of eyes and ear is that these provided the most obvious evidence for Barnett because he had looked at them plenty of times but to say any stranger who may have seen her could identify the remains is a stretch.

But he wasn't asked to identify the body as "Mary Kelly", he was taken to the mortuary to confirm the body was the woman he met that morning, there is a difference.
Hutchinson doesn't have to give a clinical identification, all he has to say is "ay, that looks like her, whats left of her".

Surely the point is that he knew her well enough to be able to make an ID like Barnett? They knew she was MJK by the time that ID was made, right? BTW - How do we know this other than Hutchinson making the claim to the papers that he was going to see the body/shown the body?

[Abby Normal]

Wow. Now we're debating on whether or not hutch was staying at the Victoria house? What possible relevance could that have for the anti hutch crowd?

[Sally]

Wow. Now we're debating on whether or not hutch was staying at the Victoria house? What possible relevance could that have for the anti hutch crowd?

Oh, this was started a while ago - last year sometime? I can't remember exactly when. I think it probably came from Fisherman originally.

It's silly, really - a non-starter or an argument. I suppose it's another attempt to paint Hutchinson in an honest salt-of-the-earth light.

[Abby Normal]

Oh, this was started a while ago - last year sometime? I can't remember exactly when. I think it probably came from Fisherman originally.

It's silly, really - a non-starter or an argument. I suppose it's another attempt to paint Hutchinson in an honest salt-of-the-earth light.

Thanks Sally
But how? I don't get it.

[Sally]

Hi Abby - have to say I'm not entirely sure on that one.

It's all a bit moot in any case, since Hutchinson's statement given to Badham on 12th November begins with the following words:

H Division

12th November 1888

At 6pm 12th [inst.] George Hutchinson of the Victoria Home Commercial Street came to this station and made the following statement

The address is also on the endorsement.

It would appear that George Hutchinson was already living at the Victoria Home when he rocked up to the cop shop on the 12th. Perhaps this explains why any recent 'alternative' reasoning has received little attention?

[Wickerman]

Jon,
You claim Aberlines interrogation paperwork has not survived.What paperwork would that be.

The same paperwork that is a legal requirement should a trial ever be forthcoming. That, is why these interrogations are put in writing and then signed by the witness.

[Wickerman]

Really? This is the outcome of careful thought? As already outlined by others Jon, this is not a safe conclusion given the known facts.

By all means, tell me what these facts are.

Like so very many minor details in the past, absolute proof is lacking either way; but the simpler explanation is that Hutchinson was already living at the Victoria Home when Kelly was murdered and continued to live there afterwards. There is no evidence to the contrary.

The 'simple' interpretation is that he was talking about two different locations, how can that possibly be 'difficult'?
Although I can see the difficulty for anyone who believes they are the same.

If you want simple, then just accept what is written, "here" is not the same location as "the place where I usually sleep".
They are either both "here", in which case he would have said so. Or, he is identifying two separate locations.
But then his "usual place" was closed, and the Vic. did not close.
What other evidence is there?

[Wickerman]

Thanks Sally
But how? I don't get it.

The issue is, that Hutchinson told the Central News reporter that, " I told one of the lodgers here about it on Monday,.."

The question then arises, where is here?
To date, the location has been certainly promoted by 'some' that "here", was the Victoria Home, due to the fact this address was given by Hutchinson to Badham on the night of the 12th.

If that is the case, then where was his 'usual place'?

In that same interview with the Central News reporter Hutchinson goes on to explain that, " After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed."

If this interview was being conducted at the Victoria Home, then this is a strange reply, he would naturally say "because this place was closed", but he did not, his reference is clearly to some other location.

Hutchinson makes a clear reference to 'his usual place' being at another location on the night of the murder, and, that this 'usual place' was also closed, but the Victoria Home did not close, so it was not the Victoria Home.
So, where was his 'usual place'?

[Wickerman]

Hi Abby - have to say I'm not entirely sure on that one.

It's all a bit moot in any case, since Hutchinson's statement given to Badham on 12th November begins with the following words:



The address is also on the endorsement.

It would appear that George Hutchinson was already living at the Victoria Home when he rocked up to the cop shop on the 12th. Perhaps this explains why any recent 'alternative' reasoning has received little attention?

Here's a suggestion, why don't you brush up on what the debate is about before you continue to 'chip-in'.

[Wickerman]

Let's not first forget that Hutchinson's statement which requires heaps of faith in Hutchinson to accept,...

Not by those who actually met him, and these are the opinions that matter.
There isn't anything in his statement that requires "heaps of faith" to someone who lived at the time.
I can easy understand modern theorists raising questions, but these stem more from ignorance than any suitable knowledge of the times or the place. Abberline had both, we today have neither.

...completely omits any description of Mary Jane Kelly and he doesn't offer a shred of evidence that he knew her, where exactly she live, etc.

No-one knows what he told Abberline, the interrogation record has not survived, so how can you say "what he didn't say", you have no idea what he said.

Where are you getting that from?

Evans and Rumbelow, p. 177 - Identified by Barnett recognised her by "the ear and the eyes" Okay, so its ear singular and not plural but it doesn't say hair.

Her hair was her most distinguishing feature, not her ear.
True, the court record does read 'ear', but the court record is not always correct. Half the press wrote "ear", and half wrote "hair".
In the same court record we read of Kelly wearing a velvet "body", when the actual word should be "bodice".
We also read of Sarah Lewis living at "Great Powell" St., when the correct address is Great Pearl St.
The errors are all phonetic errors, simply mishearing words that's all, 'ear' and 'hair' are phonetically similar especially when spoken with a Cockney accent.
So, don't tell me if it is written in the court record then it must be correct, we have proof otherwise.

McCarthy was pretty sure it was her, but then he was doing business with her as her landlord and we can only guess what else. Barnett had an intimate relationship with MJK....

Precisely, so Abberline did not need Hutchinson to identify the body as Mary Kelly, they already knew that.
He wanted Hutchinson to confirm that the body was the woman he saw that morning, regardless what her name was.

[harry]

Jon,
Where do you substanciate that a written record of interrogation was submitted.Badham records in writing the witness statement.Aberline further details additional information given by Hutchinson ,in a personnel report to superiors.Neither is lost.Where is this further lost written record that you hint at?Who wrote it,signed it and submitted it?
Sure Aberline speaks of an interrogation.No one states it was recorded in writing,and was different in content,than the two reports I have mentioned.There is no lost content.

[Sally]

The issue is, that Hutchinson told the Central News reporter that, " I told one of the lodgers here about it on Monday,.."

The question then arises, where is here?
To date, the location has been certainly promoted by 'some' that "here", was the Victoria Home, due to the fact this address was given by Hutchinson to Badham on the night of the 12th.

If that is the case, then where was his 'usual place'?

In that same interview with the Central News reporter Hutchinson goes on to explain that, " After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed."

If this interview was being conducted at the Victoria Home, then this is a strange reply, he would naturally say "because this place was closed", but he did not, his reference is clearly to some other location.

Hutchinson makes a clear reference to 'his usual place' being at another location on the night of the murder, and, that this 'usual place' was also closed, but the Victoria Home did not close, so it was not the Victoria Home.
So, where was his 'usual place'?

Ah! Fantasy Ripperology at it's best!

So just to be clear, the entire 'argument' that you're endorsing here rests on your personal interpretation of what Hutchinson is reported to have said? You think that because he didn't say what you think he ought to have said, this must mean that he was staying somewhere else on the 9th?

You persist in this idea that the Victoria Home didn't close - although it's been pointed out to you that it did, if one wasn't in posession of a weekly pass. Maybe as a 'regular' Hutchinson assumed that he could get in but found on arrival - Oh No! no weekly pass! He was refused entry! Or perhaps he lost it on the long walk back from Romford? Who knows?

This is another of your pet theories, I think - you know, like the one in which the alleged Joseph Isaacs is really Astrakhan Man? Even if you feel the need to keep hold of that one, let this one go. There's no tangible evidence that Hutchinson was living anywhere else other than the Victoria Home on the 9th November.

Incidently, I know what the 'debate' is about - but as I said to Abby, it's a non-starter in my view. I don't see the point of pursuing it - there's nothing there.

[Batman]

Hutchinson made a claim to the papers that he was going to see the body/shown the body. Yet this is suspect because we know she wasn't in any recognizable state to strangers with precise ID involving eyes and an ear (note: ear singular not plural, hence why it wasn't some sort of court error which would have written eyes and 'ears' not eyes and ear). The reason why some people push for a hair identification is to support some sort of position that it would have been recognizable because she wasn't wearing a hat. She was naked except for a chemise. What did they do after stiching her up? Dress her up also? Its suspect that Hutchinson made this claim and as far as I can tell, once again, its faith in Hutchinson that he viewed the body. There appears to be no investigative corroboration in the accounts. Not surprising for someone who never once describes MJK in his post-inquest witness testimony. Not one single quantum of anything that tells us he even knew her. All this information about viewing bodies and seeing MJK only comes from one person - Hutchinson, no one else.

I also agree with the criticism that attributing anamolies in Hutchinson's statements to 'missing files' isn't very plausable given that the explanation he was a faux witness is warrented.

1. He never described MJK, has nobody else to witness his knowing her either.
2. He didn't describe where she lived exactly, only that she went down a passage with the man he saw.
3. He didn't describe seeing Lewis who claims she saw a man standing there.
4. There is an omission of what Hutchinson even looks like. We don't even know if he matches her description.
5. Even though he claimed a face to face encounter with JtR after the hysteria has died down in the coming weeks, he is longer used as a witness at all. Nowhere do we see mention of him by the investigators and instead they use Lawende (city) and quite likely Schwartz too (metro).

The most parsimonous solution is that we have a faux witness. Abberline bought into it for the weeks that followed and then like Hutchinson, Abberline faded away. Swanson stayed the course and had absolutely no use for Hutchinson at all by his investigative team when doing witness identification parades.

If we want to put this down to missing files, that Hutchinson was still valid and Abberline was on the right track, then the investigation must have blundered because the sort of character Hutchinson described would stick out like a sore thumb in such an area.

Are we really to believe in the hypothesis that JtR was this pantomime-like Jewish badguy? Its theatrical and nothing more than the invention of an anti-semitic wave that had proposed the mad jew connection since Pizer.

Actually having said that, it must have been completely ridiculous for JtR to have dressed up like that Pantomime Jew in Dorset St., at that hour. I doubt even MJK in her intoxicated state would have 'serviced' such a client looking like that. Probably scream JtR instead!

[Ben]

If this interview was being conducted at the Victoria Home, then this is a strange reply, he would naturally say "because this place was closed", but he did not, his reference is clearly to some other location.

But if the interview wasn't conducted at the Victoria Home - and we have absolutely no evidence that it was - then your problem goes away, doesn't it Jon? It is only your problem, as you'll no doubt have noticed. As Sally points out, there is no mutual exclusivity between "here" and "the place where I usually sleep". It would have required Hutchinson to clarify that they referred to the same place, of course, but the indifferently educated part-time labourer might not have bothered with "the place where I usually sleep; that is to say, here". In essence, your argument that Hutchinson "usually" slept at a different lodging house to the Victoria is dependent on the following conditions being met:

1) The police were hideously incompetent in failing to record the name and location of the place Hutchinson intended to stay that night (with the direct bearing it had on his alleged "story").

2) The press interview must have occurred at the Victoria Home.

3) Hutchinson must have expressed himself in a way that Jon considers correct and appropriate.

Trouble is, we have no evidence for any of these things being true, which leaves us with a pretty poor case for the "usual" place being anywhere other than the one named in the official record - the Victoria Home.

Not by those who actually met him, and these are the opinions that matter

In other words, the opinions of those who discredited the account shortly after it was first made public because of doubts about its credibility, and doubts about the author's motivation for coming forward so long after the murder. Yes, those opinions matter alright.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Jon,
Where do you substanciate that a written record of interrogation was submitted.Badham records in writing the witness statement.Aberline further details additional information given by Hutchinson ,in a personnel report to superiors.Neither is lost.Where is this further lost written record that you hint at?Who wrote it,signed it and submitted it?

Because neither of these documents are suitable for use at a trial.

Sure Aberline speaks of an interrogation.No one states it was recorded in writing,and was different in content,than the two reports I have mentioned.There is no lost content.

How long would you expect to last as an Inspector if your interrogation was not committed to writing?
Abberline gets creamed by a carriage the next day, so now what happens to the information in his head?

Interrogations are committed to writing - that's a 101 in, Interrogations for Dummies.