Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[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?

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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!

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.