Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[Ben]

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.

To an extent, Lechmere, but there is one crucial difference. My arguments are based on the rejection of random coincidence of the order that you have to embrace if you accept that Lewis' description did not apply to Hutchinson, and/or that he didn't approach the police station after discovering he'd been seen. The striking similarity between the wideawake man and his own alleged movements, and the fact that he came forward so soon after the inquest suggests very much that his hand was forced. This is not a product of my imagination, but the recognition of an evidential link.

[Monty]

"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."

Apparently being the key word there.

Lechmere,

Bob is quite correct in is description of the transfer of beat duties. However I noted you said Constables may have been approached whilst they were on their beats.

This did happen and we have evidence of this also. Thererfore your point is a valid one, even if the exacts of procedure was erronous.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Babybird
No there is not and yes by his own mouth he knew of the murder by sunday since he told a PC.


I think we can safely assume that hutch talked to the press quite extensively and the things he told them appeared in there pages as direct quotes-so I doubt the newspapers were making this up.

Hutchinson, went through the trouble of following Aman and MK, noting very many details about the man and his encounter with MK, said this man caught his attention, followed them back to her place, stood out side for 45 minutes.

Later he says he thought the man lived in the area, looked for him, thought he saw him again. He hears of the murder at least by Sunday where he says he then told a policeman. And then does-Nothing.

He took such an active interest in A-man and MK before he even hears of the murder, but after he hears of the murder all he does is casually mention it to a PC on the street? This does not seem to be the likely action (or non-action) of a man who got involved to such an extent before he even hears she was murdered.

And once he does come forward after missing the inquest once again he really gets involved-walks into the station, accompanies police on a search, goes to the newspapers. So lets not use the excuse that he did not want to "get involved".

The only logical reason why George Hutchinson was not at that inquest that I can think of is that he did not want to be there.

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

[Bob Hinton]

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.

Regards Richard.

I'm sorry Richard but this is nonsense. If the police did not release the reason then how do you know about it and what was it?

[Bob Hinton]

Do you suppose that policemen on their beat – or returning to the station from their beat – were never accosted by passers-by with tales that they knew who the Ripper was or that they had some vital clue?
.

That wasn’t the way it worked. Up to quite late, possibly early sixties, officers were marched to their beat in formation. On arrival the relieved officer reported to the sergeant and then fell in. The officer taking over the beat fell out and commenced his duties.

Officers didn’t just wander to and from the nick.

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.

Also you have failed to provide a viable reason why GH didn’t go to the police on hearing of the murder which would in all likelihood be on Friday morning.

[Abby Normal]

The more I think about this aspect of Hutchinson's account the less it makes any sense to me.

We all know he did not come forward until after the close of the Kelly inquest. There have been some arguments put forward that he may not have known about Kelly's death until the close of the inquest, and this is put forward as a viable reason for his delay.

However, that cannot be so, because otherwise why would he be alerting a Policeman on Sunday as to the possible presence of Astrakhan in Petticoat Lane? What was he going to ask the officer to do? Arrest Astrakhan on suspicion of being in the company of his friend, which was surprising to him? As far as I know that isn't a crime.

I seem to remember reading somewhere on casebook as well, that Hutchinson spent the night of the 12th walking around looking for Astrakhan. Again, why? Why would he do this if he did not know that Kelly had been murderered and that Astrakhan would be suspect number 1.

Are there any real reasons to delay coming forward with such pertinent informaiton and can we safely assume that at least by Sunday Hutchinson had heard of Kelly's murder?

Hi Babybird
No there is not and yes by his own mouth he knew of the murder by sunday since he told a PC.


I think we can safely assume that hutch talked to the press quite extensively and the things he told them appeared in there pages as direct quotes-so I doubt the newspapers were making this up.

Hutchinson, went through the trouble of following Aman and MK, noting very many details about the man and his encounter with MK, said this man caught his attention, followed them back to her place, stood out side for 45 minutes.

Later he says he thought the man lived in the area, looked for him, thought he saw him again. He hears of the murder at least by Sunday where he says he then told a policeman. And then does-Nothing.

He took such an active interest in A-man and MK before he even hears of the murder, but after he hears of the murder all he does is casually mention it to a PC on the street? This does not seem to be the likely action (or non-action) of a man who got involved to such an extent before he even hears she was murdered.

And once he does come forward after missing the inquest once again he really gets involved-walks into the station, accompanies police on a search, goes to the newspapers. So lets not use the excuse that he did not want to "get involved".

The only logical reason why George Hutchinson was not at that inquest that I can think of is that he did not want to be there.

[Lechmere]

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.

[Ben]

“Do you suppose that policemen on their beat – or returning to the station from their beat – were never accosted by passers-by with tales that they knew who the Ripper was or that they had some vital clue?”

No, of course not, Lechmere, but the policemen in question were obliged to investigate any clue that pertained to the murders. Assessments as to credibility were not their calls to make, even if they did feel a sense of “Here we go again”. I would have been tough luck. They could not have afforded to dismiss any informant out of hand on the on the-spot assumption that it wasn’t worth bothering about. As I’ve also mentioned, even if the coppers in question were inclined to be negligent, they would not have risked dismissing a potential informer, as they knew they could be reported and tracked down accordingly. There seems to be this double-standards approach to the police here. One moment any criticism of the police’s opinion and decisions is wholly unacceptable, but then all of sudden, it’s perfectly okay to posit the existence of a illogically negligent copper who ignored a potentially crucial witness just on Hutchinson's discredited word.

The thought-process seems to be that as long as Hutchinson comes out smelling of roses, the police can be lauded or criticised wherever appropriate in order to suit that argument.

“It was held very speedily. The murder was on Friday, the Inquest on Monday. He may not have known it was talking place so soon.”

This is irrelevant, because it doesn’t address the issue of his failure to alert the police as soon as he learned of the murder. As it happened, he only came forward just after the inquest, which was hardly a random coincidence of timing. There is no use comparing Hutchinson to people who didn’t come forward at all. It is the fact that he came forward so soon after the inquest and identified himself, in essence, with one of the individuals described by a witness at the inquest. These non-coincidences suggest very strongly that Hutchinson would probably never have come forward at all had he not been seen near the crime scene.

The other people you refer to, such as the man from Settles Street, probably didn’t come forward for the reason you outline – they didn’t wish to admit to consorting with a prostitute. However, they would not have felt compelled to come forward because they knew that if they were identified in the streets and hauled in for questioning, they could easily account for their movements. If Hutchinson didn’t have that opinion and couldn’t account for whereabouts at the time of the murders, there was obviously a stronger incentive for getting his story in as a witness first to prevent the outcome of being identified as Lewis’ loiterer and having no alibi.

“Or as has been pointed out – various people said they saw Kelly in the morning. This would clear the A-man, and maybe Hutchinson had heard these rumours.”

Probably not, Lechmere.

The “rumour” that Kelly was killed in the small hours was far more popular and widely circulated. Hutchinson was likely to have heard this rumour, if any. Even if he hadn’t, it is unlikely that he would withhold information from the police purely on the assumption that the minority-endorsed rumour might be correct, and that his sighting didn’t apply to the time of death.

“The proposition that Hutchinson heard about Lewis’s testimony somehow on the grapevine, when it was one of the least commented on aspects of the Inquest must be regarded as being exceptionally unlikely.”

No it mustn’t.

You have no idea of the extent to which Lewis’ testimony was discussed by people on the streets. Had it been discussed extensively, we’re hardly likely to know about it. In fact, it is clear that Lewis’ evidence was doing the rounds even before the inquest, and was parroted by a few false witnesses.

“If this was the case then surely he would have waited until the press reports of the Inquest were available to see what she actually said. In other words next day.”

This doesn’t stand to reason at all. If he registered Lewis’ presence at the inquest, he might well have considered that time was very much of the essence in getting his “I was there because…” explanation to the police. If he was worried about the possibility of being identified as Lewis’ man, another day passing with no such explanation being provided might well have been considered too risky.

“His appearance on the evening of the Inquest is consistent with him finding out the Inquest had taken place and going to the police station after work. This is also the most likely answer.”

According to who – you? That’s reassuring. Hutchinson could have come forward at any stage over the days prior to the inquest, or at any stage after the termination of the inquest. As events transpired, however, he came forward just after it – just after the opportunity to be quizzed in public had passed forever, and just after the release of Lewis’ tale of a man loitering opposite the crime scene in a wideawake hat.

All the best,
Ben

[harry]

Now didn't the police of that day have sergeants visiting beats,whose responsibility was not only to make sure beat officers were where they should be,and carrying out duties properly,but to gather any information of note,and didn't beat officers have note books into which they could enter information of importance.Didn't beat officers occasionly liase with officers on adjoining beats,to whom they could pass information,and didn't officers have to report back to their station at end of shift.One would think that instead of
lack of vigilance,that sunday at least,every police officer would be aware of a need for increased vigilance,and reporting.

[richardnunweek]

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.
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.

[Lechmere]

Do you suppose that policemen on their beat – or returning to the station from their beat – were never accosted by passers-by with tales that they knew who the Ripper was or that they had some vital clue?

Do you think that if they were so accosted that they reported every incident?

Do you think that every policeman was efficient and reliable and that none were ever dismissed for drunkenness or for lack of attention to their duty?

Do you think that every policeman in Whitechapel and Spitalfields knew the area well and was keen to be there - and hadn’t been grudgingly seconded from a more salubrious area of London?

As for why Hutchinson wasn’t at the Inquest...

It was held very speedily. The murder was on Friday, the Inquest on Monday. He may not have known it was talking place so soon.
He may have had work to do – that is the most likely explanation as to why he turned up at Commercial Street Police Station in the early evening.
There are press reports about people (e.g. Robert Paul) pressed into appearing at Inquests and their annoyance at losing pay and only getting one shilling in expenses. See Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper Sunday, September 30th, 1888.

Why didn’t Hutchinson come forward on Saturday (besides a possible desire to avoid the Inquest for financial reasons)? Well read the accounts of the various murders. There are lots of people near the scenes of crime who didn’t come forward. What about ‘blotchy’? (presuming he didn’t do it as the Hutchinsonites would certainly believe?). What about the various couples seen about? The man outside the pub on Berner Street (presuming he wasn’t an accomplice). The man Stride was with at the Bricklayer’s Arms. The list could go on and on.
People often had good reason not to want to come forward. Firstly there was something of a tradition in the East End of not assisting the police. This is often commented on in the press at the time. Also the case involved prostitutes. Many people probably didn’t want to make it known that they were wandering around streets frequented by prostitutes.

Or as has been pointed out – various people said they saw Kelly in the morning. This would clear the A-man, and maybe Hutchinson had heard these rumours.

The proposition that Hutchinson heard about Lewis’s testimony somehow on the grapevine, when it was one of the least commented on aspects of the Inquest must be regarded as being exceptionally unlikely. Making that the most probable reason for his attendance at Commercial Street Police Station is one indication that the Hutchinson case is weak.
The alternative version is that he mingled with the crowd outside Shoreditch Town Hall and saw Lewis going in or coming out and feared what her testimony might have been (meaning that he recognised her from the fleeting apparition going in to Miller’s Court). If this was the case then surely he would have waited until the press reports of the Inquest were available to see what she actually said. In other words next day.

His appearance on the evening of the Inquest is consistent with him finding out the Inquest had taken place and going to the police station after work. This is also the most likely answer.

[Bob Hinton]

I'm one of those people who's unsure about Hutchinson and his motive(s) and/or veracity. However, I think it's perfectly plausible that he approached a constable who just couldn't be bothered with any more 'sightings'--particularly if he was on his way home or off to do something else (and the whole thing slipped his mind until he realised it was too late to report without him getting into strife--it's not a question of him breaking the most famous case in history--it's one of having a multitude of people who have 'sighted' the Ripper, whose neighbour is the Ripper, who saw a man with a ten inch knife-shaped parcel, whose workmate bays at the moon et cetera ad nauseum).
I also think that Hutchinson may well have known that the inquest was due, and may have presumed that what was revealed there would make his 'information' superfluous or irrelevant. When he discovered it did not, then he may have been further motivated to come forward. He certainly would not be the first or last person to suppose that their information was not relevant to a case. We must also recall that the press were inconsistent in their reporting about time of death, and that the Spitalfields' grapevine would have amplified any misconceptions--it's possible that Hutchinson believed others had seen this chap, or that Kelly was seen much later, alive.
Perhaps he did weave a tapestry of lies. But I admit that it is equally plausible that he was being as honest as he could have been--the more I hear that he couldn't possibly have been being honest, the more I tend to consider the possibility that he was.

But you still haven't given a plausible reason why he waited so long before telling anyone about what he claims he saw?

Kelly is murdered early Friday morning, he doesn't approach anyone until two days later. Then having been rebuffed he doesn't do anything until Monday evening? It is totally illogical. If he had gone to the police on Friday and told them the whole story I would be more inclined to believe him, but the timing suggests very strongly that something happened which forced him to go to the police.

The only thing of any note that happened between MJK's murder and Hutchinson going to the police was the inquest and at that inquest someone said they had seen a man waiting opposite Millers Court - a person who Hutchinson admitted was himself.

The facts are quite clear and simple. Kelly is murdered on Friday morning - Hutchinson does not pop up until after the inquest on Monday - this is a fact, not open to discussion. If you have an explanation as to why this is - an explanation more logical than mine then let's hear it.

Don't forget that no-one came forward to say 'Oh Yes GH told me about this on Sunday, I told him to go to the police'. The first, the very first we hear all this is after the inquest.

[claire]

I'm one of those people who's unsure about Hutchinson and his motive(s) and/or veracity. However, I think it's perfectly plausible that he approached a constable who just couldn't be bothered with any more 'sightings'--particularly if he was on his way home or off to do something else (and the whole thing slipped his mind until he realised it was too late to report without him getting into strife--it's not a question of him breaking the most famous case in history--it's one of having a multitude of people who have 'sighted' the Ripper, whose neighbour is the Ripper, who saw a man with a ten inch knife-shaped parcel, whose workmate bays at the moon et cetera ad nauseum).
I also think that Hutchinson may well have known that the inquest was due, and may have presumed that what was revealed there would make his 'information' superfluous or irrelevant. When he discovered it did not, then he may have been further motivated to come forward. He certainly would not be the first or last person to suppose that their information was not relevant to a case. We must also recall that the press were inconsistent in their reporting about time of death, and that the Spitalfields' grapevine would have amplified any misconceptions--it's possible that Hutchinson believed others had seen this chap, or that Kelly was seen much later, alive.
Perhaps he did weave a tapestry of lies. But I admit that it is equally plausible that he was being as honest as he could have been--the more I hear that he couldn't possibly have been being honest, the more I tend to consider the possibility that he was.

[Bob Hinton]

You obviously have little experience of the big wide world, the eccentricities, stupidity, crassness and illogicality that real people evidence all the time. But then you really are into stereotyping aren't you? If you had seen some of the stupid actions and behaviour of policemen I have seen sacked you wouldn't even have posted what you have above.

but that still doesn't answer the point about no-one being able to find this police officer. If Hutchinson told the police that he approached the officer on Sunday then surely some effort would have been made to find this constable, and yet there is nothing in the records, nothing in the papers and no record anywhere of any attempt being made to verify Hutchinson's statement.

In any case the point is moot. You have to ask why he waited until Sunday to approach the police. What was wrong with Friday, what was wrong with Saturday, why didn't he go to the police station? What was he doing that was so important he apparently waited until two days after the murder before going to the authorities with this information?

Yes of course you can go on making up convoluted scenarios about him having temporary amnesia, or being kidnapped by some martians and taken to the planet Zog for internal examination or you could say that this doesn't ring true and is one more piece of evidence that Hutchinson was telling porkies!

[Bob Hinton]

Greetings.

Babybird makes a very valid point.

As for the other comments perhaps I can clarify.
Spe says:

“It is a huge presumption to claim that it 'proves Hutchinson lied.' All I can say is that you don't demand much by way of proof.”

That isn’t actually what I said, what I said was:

“The Sunday story is one piece of evidence that proves Hutchinson lied”

My meaning was that it was one piece of evidence amongst many pieces of evidence, my apologies if that was not clear.

Of course we can look at the case put forward by Spe, which if I understand it is basically this. Bobby on the beat in the middle of the most famous crimes of the last hundred years is approached by a man with vital information. This information could lead this humble bobby to being the most famous police officer of all time ‘ The Cop that Caught Jack the Ripper’, fame would reach to the very highest echelons of power, the Queen would knight him and give him a massive pension and a mansion to live in. He would be given the keys to Scotland Yard – but hang on, it’s almost his break time and he want his pie and chips at Mrs Miggins pie shop.

Yeah of course that works – or it could be that Hutchinson lied about this meeting – which do you think is the more likely?