Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[Stewart P Evans]

Obviously...

...
It amazes me how anyone can posit the imaginary existence of some monstrously negligent policeman, and present this scenario as a better explanation than Hutchinson simply having lied about it. The latter is irrefutably more plausible, since this detail didn’t even appear in the police statement, and was evidently an element that Hutchinson added later.

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.

[babybird67]

I agree Ben

surely someone who would be alerting a Policeman to the presence of a man he saw in Kelly's company so shortly before she was murdered would be the star witness at any inquest.

If it is true, that Hutchinson alerted an officer, why wasn't Hutchinson at the Inquest? If he was aware of the importance of his sighting at that point, which he would have to have been, otherwise why would he be alerting anyone?

[Ben]

As Bob correctly points out, the police in those days patrolled a delineated beat. Hutchinson had only to state the time and location of the sighting in order for the policeman to have been identified and questioned accordingly about this alleged sighting. The idea that such a policeman, if he existed, would not have taken the matter any further when faced with a witness who appeared to provide evidence relating to the most brutal murder in London’s history, and in a by-then established pattern of serial murder, is quite clearly nonsense. Had the police tracked this duty-dodging copper down and discovered that he behaved in such a manner, he should have been hauled over the coals and booted off the force for shocking negligence. The policeman in question would clearly have expected this outcome, and clearly would not have risked such eccentrically negligent behaviour for this reason, if not any other.

It amazes me how anyone can posit the imaginary existence of some monstrously negligent policeman, and present this scenario as a better explanation than Hutchinson simply having lied about it. The latter is irrefutably more plausible, since this detail didn’t even appear in the police statement, and was evidently an element that Hutchinson added later.

[Heinrich]

....
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?

No there isn't a single reason to explain Hutchinson's delay in spinning his yarn and there is no way such a self-confessed inquisitive fellow would not know what everyone else did about Mary Kelly's murder.

[Monty]

"The Sunday story is one piece of evidence that proves Hutchinson lied."

How so?

This is the reason I'm a dull boy. Misleading statements like that, and from a Magistrate too.

Come on Bob, tha knows better.

Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

Hutchinson's claim...

By Sunday there were very few people in London who had not heard of Kelly's murder.
The Sunday story is one piece of evidence that proves Hutchinson lied. If Hutchinson had really approached a police officer on any day, because of the beat system it would have been comparatively easy to identify the officer concerned.
There is no mention anywhere of any attempt by the police to identify this officer, therefore we can assume with a 95% certainty that GH was lying.
Second point if GH had done as he said, why didn’t he just go to the local nick after being rebuffed?
Don’t forget the Sunday story only arrived after GH came forward on Monday evening, it is obviously an attempt by GH to forestall any queries as to why he didn’t say anything beforehand. He didn’t mention this to anyone on the Sunday or on the Monday until it was necessary for him to come forward with his tale.
Bob

We obviously do not know exactly what was done in relation to Hutchinson's Sunday claim. We do not have the contemporary police records and we are, again, relying on press reports. 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.

However, a much more likely scenario is that Hutchinson did approach a police officer. In giving the story he would obviously know that his claim could be readily checked by the police and shown to be untrue if it was. Quite likely Hutchinson would not have been able to pinpoint the officer he saw, it could have been one of many returning to the station off their beats, or one on another errand altogether.

And it would be almost certain that if any officer was approached and asked about this he would deny seeing Hutchinson. After all, if he admitted he had been approached by Hutchinson about this important case but then failed to take his details and take him to the station he would have been in deep trouble. He, simply, would not be able to admit his action.

For his part Hutchinson, at that time, may not have been too keen to get involved and may have been influenced by the officer's attitude to not bother, later re-thinking his position. That is, if the police officer remembered his approach and did mention it, Hutchinson had better go to the station of his own accord which he did on the Monday night.

[Bob Hinton]

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

The Sunday story is one piece of evidence that proves Hutchinson lied. If Hutchinson had really approached a police officer on any day, because of the beat system it would have been comparatively easy to identify the officer concerned.

There is no mention anywhere of any attempt by the police to identify this officer, therefore we can assume with a 95% certainty that GH was lying.
Second point if GH had done as he said, why didn’t he just go to the local nick after being rebuffed?

Don’t forget the Sunday story only arrived after GH came forward on Monday evening, it is obviously an attempt by GH to forestall any queries as to why he didn’t say anything beforehand. He didn’t mention this to anyone on the Sunday or on the Monday until it was necessary for him to come forward with his tale.

Bob

[babybird67]

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?