Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[Phil Carter]

You really do have a chip on your shoulder Monty.. try reading the back up post which shows the post under yours was NOT sarcasm.. it was showing a legitimate point... about the legitimacy of the Hutchinson story. If he was there seen loitering.. outside the place Kelly was killed, then PC L63's testimony to having seen that person would have been very important.


Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor
Exactly. But Hutch didn't give them a chance. And seeing how interested and involved he was before and after makes me think that he would not have missed that inquest for anything (unless he had something to hide).

I personally think he had something to hide that was the fact that his whole story was a total fabrication.

Color of eyelashes, color of stone in big seal all seen clearly in the dark.

Hutchinson must have have had cats eyes

[Monty]

In yet another amazing act of negativity I go outta my way to provide a source with regards assisting a thread.

The response oozes sarcasm.....and I'm the negative one.

It only enforces.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hello Bob,

Would not a policeman's testimony that he saw a man loitering around that street across from the deceased's habitat be significant testimony? In which case, I would have thought he would have been called.

Now because he wasn't called , can we presume he saw nothing? Because if he saw nothing, or as in the IPN "heard nothing" (PC L63), then how does Hutchinson's statement stand then?

Surely a policeman on duty would notice someone loitering around at that time of night at that venue relating to that murder site, perhaps for that long?

kindly

Phil

[Phil Carter]

No.. and no doubt PC L63 never saw anyone either.. even though they were hanging around Dorset Street for 45 mins, loitering.

Of course, the records are missing.. etc etc etc..

Shame, because L63 must have seen Hutchinson unless he walked very very slowly up and down Dorset Street.


Phil

[Monty]

The Dorset Street Bobby

It seems PC L (Lambeth) 63 patrolled Dorset Street that night. Looks like he was drafted in. He states he did not hear a sound.

This from IPN 24 November 1888.

Monty

[Ben]

Never mind Ben, at the very least you have entertainment value

So you do, Jonny-poops, you old rippersaur, you!

I see the Morning Advertiser is doing the rounds again. It's obviously time to flick through the archives. This particular newspaper was claiming that the the author of the statement had been withheld for reasons of his own safety (to prevent that naughty, nasty Mr. Astrakhan using his American-cloth wrapped knife on him presumably!) on the same day that the vast majority of more mainstream and reputable papers were reporting an interview that took place with Hutchinson himself, which naturally included his name. The Morning Advertiser - a rag for the pub trade - were obviously considerably behind the times. They also made the dubious claim that it had been "conclusive proved" that Kelly had spent the evening of her death in Ringers' pub, and that some residents of Miller's Court had sworn statements to the effect that Kelly was out and about in Dorset Street between 2.00 and 3.00.

They were dealing in old news and wrong news.

As for the police registering nothing suspicious about his motives, I really wouldn't rely on the Morning Advertiser for that. The Echo approached the police directly and obtained from them the detail that his statement had been considerably discounted owing to his failure to come forward and present his evidence earlier.

Incidentally, why would any attempt have been made to find the policeman who allegedly walked past the Commercial Street end of Dorset Street when Hutchinson was keeping vigil? He hadn't done anything remotely wrong, unlike the alleged policeman from Sunday who, were are expected to believe, ignored a witness of Hutchinson's potential significance. As Bob points out, if the Commercial Street policeman didn't see or hear anything significant, of course they weren't likely to have been called to the inquest to state as much. That would be pointless. The same is true for any policeman whose beat encompassed Dorset Street.

Incidentally, it was Flower and Dean street where the policeman were apparently accustomed to patrolling it in pairs.

[Bob Hinton]

Where were they? Why were they not called at the inquest when a murder occured on 'their' beat?

Regards, Jon S.

You're obviously ignorant of the reasons for an inquest, here they are:

“The coroner's jurisdiction is limited to determining who the deceased was and how, when and where they came by their death."

If a police officer or anyone else for that matter, saw nothing and knew nothing that would assist the coroner, why would he or she attend an inquest? Or are you expecting the entire population of London to attend just so they could say they saw nothing?

[Wickerman]

Ben – all you have actually done is put up counter arguments based on nothing more than your own imagination to by arguments based on my imagination. There is no actual evidence for either set of propositions. In my opinion, my suggestions are more commonplace and therefore have a greater likelihood of being accurate. You may well not agree but it amply demonstrates that your case is based on effectively making a whole load of things up. Things which have quite credible and alternative explanations.

Boy, did you ever hit the nail on the head!
(Trouble is, it won't make any difference)

Never mind Ben, at the very least you have entertainment value

All the best, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Hi Everyone.
Everyone asks '' Why did Hutch delay in coming forward?'', the explanation was known by the police, but was not released for reasons best known.
I believe the term ''Prudent'' was used, so I will assume that Hutch was acting on the side of caution , and refrained from presenting his account, which included being very close to the murder site, at a time when the murder may have taken place.

Richard.
I think the quote you are looking for is:
"He afterwards heard of the murder, but for certain reasons which it would be imprudent to state he did not immediately put himself in communication with the police."

This was a press release by the Press Association and printed in The Morning Advertiser, 14 Nov. 1888.
Very likely it is not the Morning Advertiser who is being prudent, neither the Press Association. They only publish what they have been given. The likey source is the police, it is they who are prudently withholding the reason that Hutchinson gave them for not coming forward sooner.
Regardless of all the waffle you are likely to read after I post this, we can take this as a reasonable clue that the police saw nothing suspicious about his motives.

Look at it this way, if the papers were making this up it would mean they were intentionally covering for a witness as opposed to exposing an explosive alternative which would certainly sell them more copy. It does not make financial sense to cover something which would make them profit.
So, we can take it verbatim that the police knew the reason and judged it prudent to withhold the details.

I have never seen any mystery in Hutchinson's account, and prefer to accept that he was initially an important witness, that failed to progress as hoped, thus faded away, along with all the others.
Regards Richard.

Exactly, we have enough true mysteries in this case without inventing more.
That said, there are several points about his situation that require more research, and thats all anybody can say.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Of course some officers were dismissed but that isn’t the point- the point is that apparently no attempt was made to find this officer.

Bob, apparently no attempt was made to find the officer who passed along Commercial St. while Hutchinson was in Dorset St. Even if you were to claim that Hutchinson may have made this up too, there certainly were police on duty through Commercial St.
We don't hear anything from them, about what they might have seen, but I don't see that as strange.
Likewise, the footsteps Mary Cox heard in the court whom the Coroner asked:

[Coroner] Then he must have walked up the court and back again?
[Cox] Yes.
[Coroner] It might have been a policeman ?
[Cox] It might have been.

Which raises a few questions.
Not to mention the frequency of the policeman's beat, and why no policeman was heard or seen earlier in the court. Add to this the tradition that police would only patrol Dorset St. in pairs, the fact no mention is made of anyone (Cox, Lewis, Prater, Hutchinson) seeing a policeman in Dorset St. between 2:00am & 3:00am when Hutch left.

Where were they? Why were they not called at the inquest when a murder occured on 'their' beat?
We can, Bob, make conjectural suspicions over a number of issues where police should have been called upon to testify. Why be selective? - could it be because you are trying to exaggerate a situation as 'suspicious' when it was nothing short of 'typical' ?

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

I do wish people wouldn't keep saying that the "popular" belief on Saturday was to the effect that Kelly had been killed later in the morning. This wasn't remotely the case. The press reports suggesting she had been murdered in the early hours were far greater in number and enjoyed far more widespread circulation that the minority-endorsed 9.00am theory. There's the Times of 10th November, for instance:

During the early hours of yesterday morning another murder of a most revolting and fiendish character took place in Spitalfields.

The Star from the same date:

there is very little to doubt that the murderer entered the murdered woman's house late on Thursday night or early on Friday morning

There may have been the odd article or two that opted for later time of death, but to claim that it constituted "popular opinion" amongst everyday folk is completely without foundation. This time of death business remains of questionable relevance anyway. If Hutchinson was the honest-to-goodness witness that some people astonishingly claim he was, there was absolutely no incentive for him to have withheld his evidence purely on the assumption that it did not pertain immediately to the time of death. It would have been crucial information, irrespective of what time of the morning the murder was committed. Hutchinson would have realised this, if honestly motivated, and certainly there would have been no police officer worthy of that title who deliberately ignored Hutchinson's account on the assumption that the minority-endorsed press reports about Kelly being killed around 9.00am were correct.

If uncertainty existed over the time of death, which we know it did, it was even more essential to record any eyewitness evidence that related to Kelly's movements on Friday morning. Certainly, it was not the responsibility of the bobby on beat to make personal guesses as to which of the variously given death times was correct, nor was it his call to decide which witnesses he wanted to take seriously.

[Wickerman]

By Sunday there were very few people in London who had not heard of Kelly's murder.

Bob, it is the nature of what was known which is important.
May I suggest you review the press releases over Friday evening through Saturday so you will appreciate the confusion over Kelly's time of death.
As you know, one common opinion, with supporting witness was, that Kelly was seen alive in the late morning and therefore likely murdered after 9:00am. This was a popular belief on Saturday, and obviously, Sunday.

Hutchinson stated that he had no suspicions that the man he saw was the murderer. This becomes quite justified because the local rumor-mill will only repeat what was written by the press, and speculated times of death varied from around midnight to as late as 9:00am in the morning.

Logically then, the general public, the press, the police & Hutchinson would all have been aware that Kelly may have died as late as 9:00am, a full 6 hours after Hutchinson left Dorset St. No wonder he justifiably thought the man he saw (Astrachan) was not her killer.

Equally, the policeman he spoke with on Sunday morning would have been of the same opinion. Everybody was aware of this possibility.
Only after the conclusion of the Inquest on Monday afternoon(?) was it determined that Kelly likely died nearer to the time of the scream. (3:45am?)
Therefore, we now have good reason for Hutchinson realizing, after the inquest, that his sighting might have had more value than first thought. So, off he goes to the police.

So, what was Hutchinson doing in Petticoat Lane on Sunday morning? Hutchinson was a labourer, he was out of work, he was pennyless. What would be more natural than a man in his position to seek work in a market on Sunday morning?

The possibility exists that Hutchinson was working (moving carts, lifting crates) when he saw someone in the crowd who resembled Astrachan. He may have called the nearest policeman on his beat, or one stationed in the market on point duty.
At this point though, no-one knew when Kelly had died so Hutchinson was not overly concerned and neither was the policeman, 6 hours is a wide margin to account for when Kelly could have met up with any number of different men after seeing Astrachan.

I think all your concerns about the Sunday morning policeman incident can be accounted for by the very fact that popular opinion (on Sunday) suggested that Kelly may have been murdered after 9:00am, therefore neither the constable nor Hutchinson went out of their way to take their meeting any further.

Regards, Jon S.

[Abby Normal]

You can be summoned to attend an inquest if you have material evidence to give and the court wishes to hear that evidence.

Hi Trevor
Exactly. But Hutch didn't give them a chance. And seeing how interested and involved he was before and after makes me think that he would not have missed that inquest for anything (unless he had something to hide).

[richardnunweek]

Hello Bob,
It was stated in a report, that Hutchinson did not come forward because of circumstances [ I will attempt to find exhibit] that were not disclosed.
If memory serves me correct the word Prudent many have been in that report, which suggests cautiousness .
If anyone remembers reading that, please assist.
So what I am implying, he had what seemed to him [ Hutch] a reason which prevented him from contacting the police over the weekend, and I guess made that available to the police at his interview on the Monday evening.
Regards Richard.