Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[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?

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Phil Carter]

Hello Trevor,

Totally agree. Was he actually there at all?

kindly

Phil

[Phil Carter]

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

And it is gratefully received from this part. Or I suppose you think THAT comment is sarcasm as well I suppose. Good grief.

Phil

[Monty]

No, no chip Phillip,

Its more likely PC63L didn't see anyone suspicious rather than not seeing anyone at all.

That's if Hutchinson wanted to be seen by a PC.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Are you seriously suggesting that a trained policeman would NOT have noticed a man loitering around the very area where a murder took place afterwards and not have reported it? That is was not of note? Outside the very place the murder took place at the very time he was there?.. Was this policeman blind? Or just apparently using only his ears?

All hell kicked off because of this murder Monty. PC L63, the DUTY POLICEMAN in Dorset Street, would have been grilled for everything and everyone he saw.

So if dear PC L63 "heard nothing".. and presumably by dint of no known report or not being called to the inquest, surely it is logical to presume...
Hutchinson's story is plausibly figmentation. Now you suggest Hutchinson is playing hide and seek with the policeman?

Phil

[Monty]

We do not know who PC63L is, his record or his ability.

We do know the lighting situation along Dorset Street means visability was most likely poor.

We do not know how many other persons were about in the street that night (though it seems there wasn't many at that time) nor do we know if Hutchinson avoided the Bobby.


Whilst I agree that a vigilant PC should have noted Hutchinson there is no guarantee he did. After all, all Bobbies were corrupt or incompetent weren't they Phillip?

Now are you saying Hutchinson playing hide and seek is beyond reasonable doubt?

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Whilst I agree about the lighting. PC L63's eyes would be attuned to said light.

Who PC L63 is, or what his name is makes no difference.. unless it happens to be "Hutchinson"..which I doubt.

The simple point is that ANY policeman, on duty that night, when the murder occurred, and when being asked (he surely would have been) to RECALL sightings of anyone hanging around opposite 13 Miller's Court during any point during the night.. he would have said if he saw someone or not. Now I don't know exactly the length of that particular beat, or what others roads.. maybe you do.... but I do know that Dorset Street wasn't THAT long.

And taking the p*ss about my thoughts on SENIOR policemen(not bobbies on the beat) shows your inability to defend the fact that there is serious doubt as to whether Hutchinson was there at all! Therefore..

if your last line is serious.. why in heaven's name would an INNOCENT man, with no agenda, want to play hide and seek with the police?

L 63's work the day after was reporting on observation and noting and reporting anything. If he didn't do this, and missed Hutchinson, or mis-remembered.. that's different. He was plausibly incompetent in his duty.

I suggest that if he wasn't incompetent, didn't miss a blip and remembered perfectly....

then Hutchinson was most probably not there.

Either that..or Hutchinson wasn't the neutral observer.. as I have suggested a long time ago. Vigilance man? Under-cover, CID or Special Branch policeman, maybe from another force? Maybe even murderer (which I don't agree with).

Now pack up the p*ss taking. It's childish and pathetic, in my opinion of course.

Your life-long all out defence of the people that represented in 1888 the same type of work you once did, policing, whilst quaintly admirable, is crystal clear and looks rather silly. In my opinion, of course.

But then again.. I am not an ex-policeman so my views count for nothing.
Haven't got the experience you see. Never been trained for noting things. Never been trained for seeing the unusual in things. Never been trained to distinguish between the ordinary and the bleedin' obvious.

Shame. I'll stick to being a non-person who's opinions are not valid. That way I am open to all possibilities, and not patently blinkered by some form of quaint loyalty.

Phil

[Wickerman]

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."

Obviously?
Can we take this as another example of how you jump to conclusions without duly researching the issue at hand?

For your & Ben's benefit, I had already pointed this out to Ben back in May

"The Coroner's Inquest is not a trial, no-one is looking for information to identify the murderer. In fact we know from other instances that describing the presumed murderer this early might confound the subsequent murder enquiry.
The Coroners task is to find the cause of death, and by what means, thats is all."

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=176616&postcount=328

Point proved?

Your use of 'obviously' when it is actually quite the opposite can be duly noted by everyone.

Thankyou, Jon S.