Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[John Winsett]

John Winsett:

"I probably would have gone home, since MJK did not seem to be in danger and I really had no reason to suspect the man she was with of being a killer."

But if you DID think that the man may have been the killer? Then what?

The best,
Fisherman

I think the question you should ask is what would be the trigger for me to think she would be in danger. If Hutchinson really thought MJK was in danger why not bring a cop to Millers Court that night? Why not wait until the guy left and make sure MJK was ok?

[Fisherman]

John Winsett:

"I probably would have gone home, since MJK did not seem to be in danger and I really had no reason to suspect the man she was with of being a killer."

But if you DID think that the man may have been the killer? Then what?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Frank:

"Although I think it would have been better to go to one of the 3 nearby police stations, I don’t think it would have been illogical to approach a PC."

Exactly. I agree on both counts.

"There are some posters who’ve suggested that the PC approached by Hutchinson might not have done so for a variety of reasons. That’s what I’ve reacted to, because, even though it’s possible, I don’t think it’s the most likely explanation for why nothing seems to have come from the alleged encounter between Hutchinson and this PC."

Admittedly not. But I really think that the streets would have been teeming with "tips", most of them completely wrong or useless. And that would - to an extent - affect the standards of the job the PC:s put in.
But we also must consider that all this talk about how strange it is that the PC never caried the news further, is grounded on the fact that we have no such report. But who is to say that it was not there at the time? We know that the squads that research high-profile murder cases today are swarmed with material, often having mountains of tips and comment to sift through. If the PC:s generally noted down all they were told and left it to their superiors to decide about it, then it would have been like looking for a needle in a haystack.
The report may have been there, Frank. It is not as if we knew it never was.

"I have to admit that I struggled with how to put it myself. On second thought, it would have been better if I’d used something like ‘discouraged’."

You know my answer to that one, Frank: Who can tell that he was discouraged? How do we know that the PC did not say "Thank you very much, Sir, I´ll make sure this reaches the approipriate people!"

There is no mentioning anywhere about any attitude at all on behalf of the Sunday morning PC, which is why I very much wish to leave that issue as open as possible.

"1. the PC made note of GH’s account, but didn’t do anything with it.
2. the PC advised GH to go to the police station, where they could take his statement, but as GH found that too much trouble, he was discouraged and didn’t follow through at that point.
3. the PC wasn’t helpful and told GH to take a hike, which obviously discouraged him, so he left it at that."

I´d opt for number one here, if I had to choose. But i prefer number four, the one I mentioned before: It was reported, but got lost in the heaps of inflowing material. It may also have been formulated in a manner that made it less clear, we just can´t tell.

"Where did I write or suggest that GH knew earlier about the murder than Sunday morning?"

Since you ask, you probably never did. Then again, it´s not a bad guess on my behalf, is it? Still, sorry about that!

"So, in this case ‘as soon as’ means Sunday morning, when we quite safely assume that he did know about Kelly’s brutal murder."

... and then we DO have him contacting the police, quite possibly believing that he had done enough. Who knows, maybe the PC even assured him that he would be hearing from them? Sort of don´t call us, we´ll call you?

"Well, then it's a good that I aint claiming he ‘must have known’ before Sunday morning, Fish. If he left the area again on Friday morning, after he’d first returned to his lodgings, I think there would still be a good chance that he came to know it before Sunday, but that’s not claiming he ‘must have known’. If he remained in the area, I think the chances that he didn’t know earlier than Sunday would be very slim indeed."

See, Frank? This is why I like to post against you - you take all possibilityies into account, and present a fair case at all times. I agree with this to a very large extent. Of copurse, it should be weighed in that once he got wind of it, the message may have been less than full, omitting for example the name, or even faulty, for example giving the wrong name. We know that this mistake appeared in the papers. But on the whole, yes if he was in place, the absolutely best bet would be that he had heard about it before Sunday morning.
Turning it around, though, one may do some thinking about what lies behind a person turning to the police in errands like these. The overwhelming majority of people who do so, do it because they want to help with the investigation, right? And if the investigated phenomenon is the murder of an aquaintance of yours, then so much more reason to be as fast and as accurate as possible! Therefore, people who are in this situation will normally approach the police at the first possible occasion.
Analogically, if we work from the assumption that Hutchinson was what Dew asserts us that he was - a man with the best of intentions - then the reasonable thing to assume, emiprically and statistically, would be that George Hutchinson DID approach the police at the first possible occasion. And if that is true, the he was unaware that Kelly had been killed until late in the process.
It´s all about perspectives, I guess. And when there are more than one potentially functioning perspective around, one needs to take a close look at all of them.

And you do just that, Frank, thankfully!

The best,
Fisherman

[John Winsett]

John Winsett:

"Actually I was saying Hutchinson made it all up. The only reason anyone gives credence to Hutchinson is Abberlines opinion he was being truthful. I think Abberline was fooled, and desperate for any break he could get."

All very interesting, I´m sure. But that was not what you posted about, was it? You posted that nobody who had walked 14 miles, and who was tired and pennyless, would make an observation of somebody´s eyelashes. That´s why I put my scenario to you. And that is why it would be nice to hear what role you think you would have played in such a scenario - would you have gone home, or would you try and get a good look at the guy?

The best,
Fisherman

I probably would have gone home, since MJK did not seem to be in danger and I really had no reason to suspect the man she was with of being a killer.

[Fisherman]

John Winsett:

"Actually I was saying Hutchinson made it all up. The only reason anyone gives credence to Hutchinson is Abberlines opinion he was being truthful. I think Abberline was fooled, and desperate for any break he could get."

All very interesting, I´m sure. But that was not what you posted about, was it? You posted that nobody who had walked 14 miles, and who was tired and pennyless, would make an observation of somebody´s eyelashes. That´s why I put my scenario to you. And that is why it would be nice to hear what role you think you would have played in such a scenario - would you have gone home, or would you try and get a good look at the guy?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Bob Hinton:

" If you are saying he was so concerned about her safety he followed MJK and the stranger, how come all his concern seems to have evaporated after he found out she was dead?"

"Seems" being the key word here, right? I have over and over again pointed to the important factor that people are claiming things on behalf of George Hutchinson that really only can adher to the public on the whole.

You seemingly (popular word, that!) think that Hutchinson knew about the killing from Friday morning, but did nothing. There is, however, no evidence to back such a thing up with, is there? The simple truth is that neither you nor me can tell how long Hutchinson had known the full story when he approached the policeman on Sunday morning. He could have known it for two full days, and he could have had ample opportunity to sound the alarm, but refrained from it.
But he could also have heard about it from somebody in the market on Sunday morning, realized the potential impact of his sighting, turned round, seen the PC, and thereafter approached and spoken to him.

You are welcome to join the others who see Hutchinson as the culprit, and start speaking of probabilities and such, but I must warn you that so far, it has not impressed me all that much! For I don´t think that we can estimate the probabilities as such (though others may think that they are cut out to do just that with exactitude), and even if we could, all of us should understand that they would still leave us with one "for" and one "against" option.

I could go into a longish discussion about how I think that other parameters must be weighed in before we make any sensible call in all of this, but I will resist that temptation for now ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

It was certainly current when I first took an interest in Hutchinson in the mid-Eighties, Ben. I'm fairly sure that Colin Wilson and Robin Odell made the connection in their Summing Up and Verdict, and I think that Don Rumbelow referred to it even earlier.

Hi Garry

This got my attention and begs the question:

Who was the first person to make the connection between Sara Lewis's loitering man and Hutch being one and the same?

I think that person should be commended heartily for their keen perception.

[Garry Wroe]

As far as I’m aware, the possibility that Hutchinson and Lewis’ loiterer were the same person was first mooted in the mid or late 1990s, over a hundred years since the murders were committed.

It was certainly current when I first took an interest in Hutchinson in the mid-Eighties, Ben. I'm fairly sure that Colin Wilson and Robin Odell made the connection in their Summing Up and Verdict, and I think that Don Rumbelow referred to it even earlier.

[Garry Wroe]

[I]magine yourself walking a long stretch, arriving in your home town late at night. And there, in the street, you notice a very good woman friend of yours. And as you see her, a man walks up to her and starts speaking to her, grabbing her around the shoulders and walking away with her. He wears a nice suit and looks quite respectable ... Then, all of a sudden, you remember that the newspapers have been writing about a well-dressed man, wearing a suit, that has been seen in the company of a number of women that have subsequently turned up dead or missing. And you realize that the man with your friend may just be that man.

This is where people tend to become confused, Fish. Hutchinson in fact claimed to have harboured no suspicion whatever regarding Astrakhan. He was quite explicit in this context, and stated, 'I did not think he would harm another.' His interest in Astrakhan, he maintained, was stimulated as a consequence of Astrakhan's well-to-do appearance. Nothing more.

[FrankO]

Excuse me for butting in here, Frank, but I would like to comment on your suggestions!

No problem, Fish!

I fail to see why it would be in any way illogical to tell the story to a PC.

Although I think it would have been better to go to one of the 3 nearby police stations, I don’t think it would have been illogical to approach a PC.

It would seem that most people on this thread are of the meaning that any discerning PC would have acted upon it accordingly and immediately,…

That’s just it! There are some posters who’ve suggested that the PC approached by Hutchinson might not have done so for a variety of reasons. That’s what I’ve reacted to, because, even though it’s possible, I don’t think it’s the most likely explanation for why nothing seems to have come from the alleged encounter between Hutchinson and this PC.

I´m at a loss here languagewise, Frank, so you are going to have to help out: What does "buffed by" mean? Does it mean that he was put off by the PC, or something such?
What he said to the papers was: "I told one policeman on Sunday morning what I had seen, but did not go to the police station", and as far as I can make out, nothing at all is said about the policemans reactions. Where does the "buffing" come in?

I have to admit that I struggled with how to put it myself. On second thought, it would have been better if I’d used something like ‘discouraged’.

It seems that, if the alleged meeting between GH and the PC took place, it wasn’t taken any further than that. I see 3 possible explanations for that:
1. the PC made note of GH’s account, but didn’t do anything with it.
2. the PC advised GH to go to the police station, where they could take his statement, but as GH found that too much trouble, he was discouraged and didn’t follow through at that point.
3. the PC wasn’t helpful and told GH to take a hike, which obviously discouraged him, so he left it at that.

With what I wrote, I was referring to options number 2 and 3.

But how soon was "as soon as"?
How do we know that he could have come forward earlier?
How do we establish the point of time when he knew what had happened to Kelly?
How can we be certain that he was in a position to come forward any earlier than he did?

Where did I write or suggest that GH knew earlier about the murder than Sunday morning? Yes, I would find it odd that he wouldn’t have known what happened to Kelly until Sunday morning if he’d not left the district since his return from Romford, but I haven’t alluded to this in my post to Lechmere and wasn’t writing from that viewpoint. So, in this case ‘as soon as’ means Sunday morning, when we quite safely assume that he did know about Kelly’s brutal murder.

I will not settle for any claim that he "must have known". Of course he must not - to deduct that would be to make a deduction for a specific person from what we suppose (logically!) to be true for the general public. And we can´t do that.
It is not and can never be a case of Hutchinson having had to have known because a certain - unestablishable - percentage of the population on the whole would have known.

Well, then it's a good that I aint claiming he ‘must have known’ before Sunday morning, Fish. If he left the area again on Friday morning, after he’d first returned to his lodgings, I think there would still be a good chance that he came to know it before Sunday, but that’s not claiming he ‘must have known’. If he remained in the area, I think the chances that he didn’t know earlier than Sunday would be very slim indeed.

All the best,
Frank

[Ben]

“If us Ripperologists, amateurs in crime that most of us are, can make the connection quicker than you can say Jack Robinson”

But we didn’t, Fisherman.

That’s not what happened.

As far as I’m aware, the possibility that Hutchinson and Lewis’ loiterer were the same person was first mooted in the mid or late 1990s, over a hundred years since the murders were committed. This "delay" was probably the result of an uncritical approach to Hutchinson that had persisted for decades. The computer age has also enabled the curious to access case-related documents for free and digest and stew over them at leisure, and over months and years that the officers on the ground at the time did not have available to them. It cannot be gainsaid either that with our increased knowledge of serial crime came a more criminological approach to the study of these crimes, and this could also have altered our perspective of Hutchinson.

“You were frankly very annoyed when I did it the first time too, Ben.”

No, not at all. Have a look at my first reaction to your article on the “wrong night” thread. Not much evidence of “annoyance” there – quite the contrary. I just don’t get on at all well with your “wear ‘em out” approach to debating the issue. Take the lead in agreeing to disagree occasionally, and avoid the temptation to engage in relentless repetition of done-to-death topics, and I can guarantee a more respectful and less hostile exchange.

“That´s just YOUR opinion. It would make far better sense if you presented something - aside from "I don´t think he messed up the days" argument - to show WHY it is not a good suggestion."

This is the sort of thing I’m talking about. You know absolutely full well that others have provided specific reasons for doubting the “date confusion” hypothesis, and yet you pretend that they haven’t, and that their criticisms have been limited to “I don’t think…” with nothing of substance beyond this. Unless you suffer from a particularly severe case of selective memory, you know full well why people reject your proposal. The overwhelming probability that Hutchinson was the man Lewis saw on the morning of the 9th November for one. Then there’s the obvious reality that what you outline as anomalies (such as walking around all night on a cold, wet night) can far more logically be chalked up to fabrication than “date confusion”. In fact, the more you draw attention to these incongruities, the more weight you lend to the premise that he lied.

In addition, it is quite clear that Hutchinson would not have confused so significant a date – one that involved the brutal murder of a three year friend/acquaintance, a mammoth 14-mile trek from Romford, and the Lord Mayor’s Show. All the events took place on a date which you contend he muddled, and I consider that implausible in the extreme. Not nauseating or vomit-inducing, just very implausible. This does not mean we shouldn’t explore the possibility further – indeed, I wish you all the very best with that endeavour, but bear in mind that “exploring the possibility” does not consist of endless repetition of previously challenged contentions.

“What I did was to couple it with a number of other parameters, and test how it held up. And it held up admirably, although YOU won´t admit that.”

It is for the readers of your article to judge that, Fisherman, not you. I’m not interested in hearing how you think your ideas "hold up", and nor should anyone be. It counts for nothing. You wouldn’t write a novel, read it, and then write “Wow, what a captivating read that was! Had me spell-bound it did!”. You are simply fantasizing if you believe I secretly think that “date confusion” was a credible proposal, but won’t "admit" it. This is an intolerably arrogant delusion on your part, and not the way to ensure friendly debate in the future. I swear on everything I have ever held dear in this world, Fisherman, that I don’t consider “date confusion” to be a credible explanation.

“Translation: As long as you adjust to my rules, everything is fine. The moment you displease me, though, I will make you regret it.
Thanks, but no thanks.”

So in other words, you know precisely what annoys me, and that desisting from it would ensure a hostility-free exchange, but would prefer to carry on being antagonistic. Okay…

“To me, that represents a very good reason not to enter any, hrrrm, "stamina war". Would you not agree?”

I would agree, yes, but it seems you’re eager for a stamina war anyway. Of course it is unproven that Hutchinson was the wideawake man, but it remains highly probable.

“Hutchinson MAY well have told Abberline that he was never on the Crossingham side throughout.”

But there’s no evidence whatsoever for this, and it would be an odd detail to include. “Please understand, sir, that I was never on the Crossingham side. Heavens above, no!” How incredibly weird and unnecessary would that be? It’s quite obvious that you need a lot of very bizarre and unnecessary questions and answers to have flitted between Hutchinson and Abberline to cement him to the specific location you want him to have stood at. If we’re realistic about this, it is overwhelmingly likely that when Hutchinson stated that he stood "there", Abberline was happy to settle for that parameter rather than requesting him – like an odd, odd lunatic – to pinpoint his location with exactitude. Why the blinking heck would Abberline have asked Hutchinson "And you are positive that you never crossed the street?". What difference would it make?

Hutchinson did not commit himself to ANY side of the street.

“The reoccurring exchanges between you and me will have been seen by hundreds, perhaps thousands of persons.”

“Seen”, yes, but not scrutinized and followed with intensity. You are obviously very aware of an “audience” out there…

“Oh! So it is not strange that a woman at an inquest can furnish a description of a man that she claimed that she could tell nothing at all about when speaking to the police initially?”

No, it’s not strange, and as we discovered on a previous thread that you’re not about a dredge up (because you’re aware that life’s too short), you were in the extreme minority of opinion when attempting to cast doubt on her evidence. The addition of such mundane details of “not tall, but stout” and “wore a wideawake” pales in comparison to the whole array of details that Hutchinson miraculously noticed and memorized.

“Choosing, are we?”

Yes, I choose: Lewis was a genuine witness and was recognised as such. Hutchinson was a liar and discredited as such. Bad-a-bing.

“What I wish to do, is to point out that Lewis´SECOND testimony has been used over her first one generally, something that swears very much against normal procedure.”

It does nothing of the kind, and I question your knowledge of “normal procedure”. If anything, an earlier witness statement is likely to be less reliable, especially if s/he was an unwitting or unwilling participant in an extremely traumatic affair such as Lewis would have been in the morning of 9th November, after a harrowing discovery and a sleepless night. Again, nobody rejected Lewis’ testimony, then or now, nor has anyone asserted – until you showed up – that her police statement invalidates her inquest testimony.

“But I DO think you are often unnecessarily and improductively spiteful. And I AM hoping for improvement on that score.”

Well you know just what to do to ensure this, or rather what NOT to do.

We’ll just have to see…

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi John,

I agree entirely with your observations. The extent to which Abberline was beleaguered and anxious for any sort of tangible lead may well have played a part in his being taken in, initially, by Hutchinson.

All the best,
Ben

[John Winsett]

John Winsett:

"A man who walked from Romford, tired, no money, notices eyelashes and such? "

Okay, John - imagine yourself walking a long stretch, arriving in your home town late at night. And there, in the street, you notice a very good woman friend of yours. And as you see her, a man walks up to her and starts speaking to her, grabbing her around the shoulders and walking away with her. He wears a nice suit and looks quite respectable.

Then, all of a sudden, you remember that the newspapers have been writing about a well-dressed man, wearing a suit, that has been seen in the company of a number of women that have subsequently turned up dead or missing. And you realize that the man with your friend may just be that man.

What do you do?

Of course - you are too tired to bother and you go home to get some sleep. Naturally.

The best,
Fisherman

Actually I was saying Hutchinson made it all up. The only reason anyone gives credence to Hutchinson is Abberlines opinion he was being truthful. I think Abberline was fooled, and desperate for any break he could get.

[Bob Hinton]

John Winsett:

"A man who walked from Romford, tired, no money, notices eyelashes and such? "

Okay, John - imagine yourself walking a long stretch, arriving in your home town late at night. And there, in the street, you notice a very good woman friend of yours. And as you see her, a man walks up to her and starts speaking to her, grabbing her around the shoulders and walking away with her. He wears a nice suit and looks quite respectable.

Then, all of a sudden, you remember that the newspapers have been writing about a well-dressed man, wearing a suit, that has been seen in the company of a number of women that have subsequently turned up dead or missing. And you realize that the man with your friend may just be that man.

What do you do?

Of course - you are too tired to bother and you go home to get some sleep. Naturally.

The best,
Fisherman

But you can’t have it both ways. If you are saying he was so concerned about her safety he followed MJK and the stranger, how come all his concern seems to have evaporated after he found out she was dead?

[Fisherman]

John Winsett:

"A man who walked from Romford, tired, no money, notices eyelashes and such? "

Okay, John - imagine yourself walking a long stretch, arriving in your home town late at night. And there, in the street, you notice a very good woman friend of yours. And as you see her, a man walks up to her and starts speaking to her, grabbing her around the shoulders and walking away with her. He wears a nice suit and looks quite respectable.

Then, all of a sudden, you remember that the newspapers have been writing about a well-dressed man, wearing a suit, that has been seen in the company of a number of women that have subsequently turned up dead or missing. And you realize that the man with your friend may just be that man.

What do you do?

Of course - you are too tired to bother and you go home to get some sleep. Naturally.

The best,
Fisherman