Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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?

[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]

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]

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?

[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?

[Sally]

It doesn't matter which way you look at it Sally, Hutchinson referred to two different establishments, where he lives now at the time of the interview, and where he used to live until the night of the murder.

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

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.

[harry]

Jon,
You claim Aberlines interrogation paperwork has not survived.What paperwork would that be.I'm sure it would have been a verbal interview between Aberline and Hutchinson,followed by a written statement by Sgt Badham.The later report by Aberline would be an inclusion of statements by Hutchinson not deemed necessary in the official statement taken by Badham.
I do not think anything of importance is missing.
The impression given,is that Kelly took a male person to her room about 2.15 AM,November 9,1888.Hutchinson was being honest or he was lying.
I believe he was lying about that particular item,but not about being a resident of the Victoria Home.

[Ben]

I am sure there are many who would continue to charge the police with gross incompetence, but serious researchers already know that Abberline's interrogation paperwork has not survived.

Yes, it has.

Abberline forwarded Hutchinson's statement to his bosses with an accompanying report, and we're very lucky that has survived. If you're expecting full transcripts to have been made of the entire dialogue that occurred between Abberline and Hutchinson (which then got conveniently bombed by the Nazis, as usual), then you're dreaming again, I'm afraid.

Agreed, but that does not tell us he was living at the Victoria Home on the night in question

Yes, it does.

As accepted by everyone for decades.

It was the responsibility of the police to record the name and location of Hutchinson's lodging house if it differed from the one on the official record, especially as the establishment in question had a direct bearing on his movements that night. The fact that only the Victoria Home is mentioned tells us either that it was Hutchinson's intended lodgings on the night of the murder, or that the police were revoltingly negligent. Your call, but I know what 99.9% of "ripperologists" reckon.

Find me an "alternative" lodging house that made sense of Hutchinson's alleged route that night, and which closed at 2.00am.

[Wickerman]

If the police neglected to record Hutchinson's place of residence on the night of the murder (which played such a pivotal role in his narrative), they would have been guilty of gross incompetence. We can either admonish them accordingly or accept - as researchers have accepted, logically, for a century - that the establishment recorded on the statement, the Victoria Home, was where he attempted to seek lodgings on the night of the murder; the place where he "usually" slept.

I am sure there are many who would continue to charge the police with gross incompetence, but serious researchers already know that Abberline's interrogation paperwork has not survived. The minute details of Hutchinson's story are now lost, which includes his address on the night in question.

Where is the evidence to suggest the press interview took place at the Victoria Home?

Nowhere.

I know Ben, but you and your compadre's have all promoted this as if it were a fact.
Unless of course, you now feel the need to back away from this perceived certainty?

If the press agency interviewed him at the Princess Alice pub over the road, for instance, Hutchinson could have told a fellow Victoria Home lodger about the Kelly encounter* at the Princess Alice, making sense of his statement that he told a fellow lodger about it "here".

Agreed, but that does not tell us he was living at the Victoria Home on the night in question. I have had plenty of time to think of alternatives myself.
Not so much a certainty anymore, is it?

Perhaps now you can appreciate how the 'mainstream' thought process works - unless you have tangible evidence promoting an idea as a certainty becomes foolish.
Howzabout a tête-à-tête with your compadre's to see if you can arrive at a consensus before you make any rash decisions?

[Ben]

If the police neglected to record Hutchinson's place of residence on the night of the murder (which played such a pivotal role in his narrative), they would have been guilty of gross incompetence. We can either admonish them accordingly or accept - as researchers have accepted, logically, for a century - that the establishment recorded on the statement, the Victoria Home, was where he attempted to seek lodgings on the night of the murder; the place where he "usually" slept.

Where is the evidence to suggest the press interview took place at the Victoria Home?

Nowhere.

If the press agency interviewed him at the Princess Alice pub over the road, for instance, Hutchinson could have told a fellow Victoria Home lodger about the Kelly encounter* at the Princess Alice, making sense of his statement that he told a fellow lodger about it "here".

The Victoria Home closed its doors to those not in possession of a pre-paid ticket at 12:30am or 1.00am, whereas most other doss houses in the locality were far more relaxed about entry rules.

All the best,
Ben

*Or lied about it.

[Wickerman]

I think that's a bit strong Jon. It's hardly been 'shown false'

It doesn't matter which way you look at it Sally, Hutchinson referred to two different establishments, where he lives now at the time of the interview, and where he used to live until the night of the murder.
That is why Ben's steadfast attempt to defend the indefensible, is false.