Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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.