Hutch evidence

[caz]

I just wondered what kind of street lighting: until recently this would be sodium based where all cats are ginger toms. Hutch would be in gas light, which depends on the mantel used, but from my recollection of the Wandsworth Ram Inn (ouch) during the 1970s blackout (where they still had gas lights!) is that gas gives very accurate colouring.

I have no view on Hutch, but there does seem to be (in general) a view that he was just an ordinary chap, and as bosses tend to think, all chaps are interchangeable. In fact some chaps have undiscovered talents, and it is possible that Hutch had what used to be called a photographic memory, able to see an image in his mind. (Certainly I used to be able to do this, which I found to great advantage in my English Lit O level, being able to read off vast wodges of MacB. )

Oh my goodness, Dupin, I lived within walking distance of the Ram in Wandsworth from 1963 to 1973! I also had a bit of a photographic memory up to at least 1970, which is the only reason I got an A in my Latin O level that year! I learned translations off by heart the evening or two before the exam, then promptly forgot everything the day after I needed it, which freed up my memory banks for the next exam. It almost felt like cheating.

We did the Scottish play for English Lit O level in 1970, and it's the one I can still quote from more than any other.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Conjecture, lets not make it up as we go along !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You may have missed that little word 'if' in my post, Trev, signalling to everyone else that it was conjecture, rather than just making stuff up.

Here you go:

There is also the point that if Hutchinson was being truthful about his powers of observation, he probably did know MJK as well as he claimed, in which case he was much more likely than any random witness to have paid attention to her encounter with this Flash Harry and commit his description to memory. Not because it dawned on Hutch at the time that she might be in danger, but from natural curiosity concerning someone he knew and the man she was picking up.

If, on the other hand, Hutch was just making stuff up, he probably lied about his relationship with MJK too.

You're welcome.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Hutchinson had only a fleeting glance of a few seconds under the light of the Public house.There after he had only the back of the person in sight,for those who believe him.No five minutes , no other close proximity,and no other direct lighting.Just a case of a person(Hutchinson) making up a story without first checking the possibilities.My opinion.

I think the most interesting part of all this is that by coming forward with a story that places him in Wideawakes shoes, he is risking being seen as complicit. To my eye there is no other justification for the issuance of the Pardon for Accomplices than Wideawakes presence there, established by witness Sarah Lewis's statement, and since this is the first murder that they chose to use that pardon offer to lure out confessions, they thought that it was likely more than 1 man was involved there. Which is significant when considering that all that late Fall they seemed content with the premise that they were looking for a lone killer.

Do we see that premise carried forward, that a lone killer was at large? I think they did. Which makes that pardon offer suggestive of the authorities belief that in Mary Jane Kellys murder it was probable that 2 or more men worked together.

So...why is she still on a lone killers list of victims?

[Wickerman]

Good post, Jon.

There is also the point that if Hutchinson was being truthful about his powers of observation, he probably did know MJK as well as he claimed, in which case he was much more likely than any random witness to have paid attention to her encounter with this Flash Harry and commit his description to memory. Not because it dawned on Hutch at the time that she might be in danger, but from natural curiosity concerning someone he knew and the man she was picking up.

Love,

Caz
X

PS: Miller's Court passage

I wrote "Mitre Square passage"? - what the hell was I thinking?

Hi Caz, yes I agree.
Hutch had this man in view for several minutes from his first eye contact, to Kelly & the man disappearing up the passage, so he had plenty of time to take it all in. I also think Hutch might have been a little ticked-off by this character effectively stealing a potential night of refuge with a friend. Although he claimed he couldn't afford her offer, to see her scooped away essentially from between his fingers by some foreigner might have raise his ire to some degree.

Loitering as he did for so long raises a question of intent on his part. It is always possible he considered mugging this foreigner as he came out following the liaison. However, although he said he had known Kelly for 3 years, we might be wrong to assume he knew Millers Court was her address. He may have assumed it was where the stranger lived, and was waiting for Kelly to leave.

[caz]

Good point, Jon.

We have always simply assumed Hutch knew Kelly was taking Flash Harry back to her gaff, when he could have thought it was the other way round - until news of her murder reached his ears or eyes. Either way, Hutch could hardly have tried to interrupt their liaison, so he must have decided after nearly an hour that neither of them was going to show, so he may as well leave the court. But why then did he claim he was waiting to see the man again? Was it because it would have been unwise to admit it was the murdered woman he was waiting for?

How I wish we knew what else Abberline asked him!

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

....... But why then did he claim he was waiting to see the man again?

Caz
X

I don't see that Caz.

In his police statement, Hutch said this about the man.
They both then went up the court together. I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away.

In his press statement he said the same thing.
I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for threequarters of an hour to see if they came down again, but they did not, and so I went away.

I don't see anywhere that Hutch implies he was just watching for the man. Not until after he had spoken to police.

[Curious Cat]

I wrote "Mitre Square passage"? - what the hell was I thinking?

Hi Caz, yes I agree.
Hutch had this man in view for several minutes from his first eye contact, to Kelly & the man disappearing up the passage, so he had plenty of time to take it all in. I also think Hutch might have been a little ticked-off by this character effectively stealing a potential night of refuge with a friend. Although he claimed he couldn't afford her offer, to see her scooped away essentially from between his fingers by some foreigner might have raise his ire to some degree.

Loitering as he did for so long raises a question of intent on his part. It is always possible he considered mugging this foreigner as he came out following the liaison. However, although he said he had known Kelly for 3 years, we might be wrong to assume he knew Millers Court was her address. He may have assumed it was where the stranger lived, and was waiting for Kelly to leave.

BIB 1 - Hutchinson and Mary Kelly had already mutually parted company, without any discussion of him seeking a refuge for the rest of the night, before anyone else took up her companionship.

BIB 2 - Miller's Court was out of sight from Dorset Street unless directly viewed down the passage. Hutchinson says he stayed on the corner of Dorset Street before Mary Kelly and the man went into Miller's Court. They would've been in her room by the time he went into the court yet he knew which one of the residences to check for light or noises. He knew where she lived, but then, he only came forward with his statement after her residence had been plastered all over the press. Everyone following the news of the murder would know where 13 Miller's Court was when Hutchinson gave his statement.

[TheTypeWriter]

I agree with this. I posted on another thread about officer Donald Fouke's description of a suspect (the zodiac) at night time in the Presidio heights area of San Fran in the 1960s. He description was detailed but no way as detailed as Hutch. The difference being is that Fouke was an experience police officer (Hutch is not. He's a Victorian labourer), it was a well lit area with modern lighting (compared to the dark Millers court/commercial road) and his patrol car headlamps were on. Fouke was on the look out of a suspect as Paul Stein's murder had been recently committed in that area. I have run Hutch's suspect description past a few friends who are serving police officers. Their responses were "this is absolute BS", "i've been working homicide for 4 years and usually when we hear stuff like that it sends up a big red flag"

Yes it's just too vivid to be taken seriously. The first time I read it I thought it sounded too good to be true. He was certainly lying, in my opinion, but I wonder why? Was he seeking the limelight like Packer or was there more to it? He seems a suspicious bloke altogether.

[harry]

Why he came forward is argueable,what isn't argueable is the time Hutchinson has to study his frontal features.It is a few seconds as the stranger passed beneath the light under which Hutchinson stood.Hutchinson makes that clear in his statement.Except for the time it took for Kelly to reach the stranger,for them to talk and then move towards Dorset street,all observation was of the Strangers rear.
Now Hutchinson states the stranger hung his head as he passed,the inference being he didn't want to be recognised.So why then,with Hutchinson being clearly outlined in the light,didn't the stranger steer Kelly to the other side of the road,outside the cone of light? Well one could find a good reason for someone making up the tale.If one couldn't see the features clearly, then one couldn't describe him as Jewish. Which to me had to be an essential part of Hutchinson;s fabricated story.

[caz]

I don't see that Caz.

In his police statement, Hutch said this about the man.
They both then went up the court together. I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away.

In his press statement he said the same thing.
I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for threequarters of an hour to see if they came down again, but they did not, and so I went away.

I don't see anywhere that Hutch implies he was just watching for the man. Not until after he had spoken to police.

Ah, okay, Jon. Thanks.

But didn't he also say the man appeared to be a cut above Kelly's usual clients? Was that not his excuse for hanging around to see them again?

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

Ah, okay, Jon. Thanks.

But didn't he also say the man appeared to be a cut above Kelly's usual clients? Was that not his excuse for hanging around to see them again?

Love,

Caz
X

He did, which then begs the question of just how often had he seen her? How familiar was he with Kelly's more recent activities?
We don't even know the context of his remark that he had known her for three years. Does he mean frequently over the past three years, or that he was friendly with her about three years ago?

Interestingly, (I'm sure you recall), Kelly was living in Breezer's Hill three years prior (c.1885?). At the time No.1 Breezers Hill was owned by Stephen Maywood, who moved out in 1886 when John McCarthy took over the house, Kelly rented a room from the McCarthy's.
Maywood was fined for ill treatment of a horse in Romford in 1886, witnesses against him was a PC and a Groom. So we might ask if Maywood owned or ran a stable in Romford?
And, if so was Hutchinson a Groom for Stephen Maywood, in Romford?
Still an open line of enquiry, if I recall correctly.

[caz]

Yes, an intriguing possibility there, Jon. If Hutch had been a witness in that Romford case of 1886, I presume this could have come out during Abberline's questioning, helping to confirm he was telling the truth about his Romford trip and also that he had known Kelly since 1885 when she was living in Breezer's Hill.

By rights, if Hutch had invented his entire account, you'd think there would be no potential supporting evidence for Abberline to find, and that his enquiries would probably have shown him to have lied in one respect or another, leading him to be suspected of something worse than loitering with no apparent intent.

Love,

Caz
X

[MrBarnett]

He did, which then begs the question of just how often had he seen her? How familiar was he with Kelly's more recent activities?
We don't even know the context of his remark that he had known her for three years. Does he mean frequently over the past three years, or that he was friendly with her about three years ago?

Interestingly, (I'm sure you recall), Kelly was living in Breezer's Hill three years prior (c.1885?). At the time No.1 Breezers Hill was owned by Stephen Maywood, who moved out in 1886 when John McCarthy took over the house, Kelly rented a room from the McCarthy's.
Maywood was fined for ill treatment of a horse in Romford in 1886, witnesses against him was a PC and a Groom. So we might ask if Maywood owned or ran a stable in Romford?
And, if so was Hutchinson a Groom for Stephen Maywood, in Romford?
Still an open line of enquiry, if I recall correctly.

Hi Wick,

Where does the suggestion that Maywood moved out of Breezers Hill in 1886 come from? I believe he was still there in 1887. At the time it was suggested that 1, BH was a brothel and its occupier was a ‘drover’.

I find Maywood a very interesting character. Among other things, he was a horse dealer and he came from Essex not far from Romford.

https://jtrforums.com/showthread.php...hlight=Maywood

Personally, I’m not convinced that Kelly actually lived in Breezer’s Hill itself.

Gary

[Wickerman]

Hi Wick,

Where does the suggestion that Maywood moved out of Breezers Hill in 1886 come from? I believe he was still there in 1887. At the time it was suggested that 1, BH was a brothel and its occupier was a ‘drover’.

Ah, thankyou for that.

I was using Sheldon and the paragraph began:
"Sometime between October 1886 and April 1888, Maywood moved his family out of No.1 Breezers Hill to 94 Cornwall street". - I can't read the page number.

(I had to salvage the book with screen-shots of each page from an Ipad, as the kindle would not load on my main computer)

Two screens before that a paragraph begins with:
"From 1883 to 1887 a couple called Stephen and Mary Millwood lived at No.1 Breezers Hill".

So yes Gary, you could be right.

[Wickerman]

Yes, an intriguing possibility there, Jon. If Hutch had been a witness in that Romford case of 1886, I presume this could have come out during Abberline's questioning, helping to confirm he was telling the truth about his Romford trip and also that he had known Kelly since 1885 when she was living in Breezer's Hill.

By rights, if Hutch had invented his entire account, you'd think there would be no potential supporting evidence for Abberline to find, and that his enquiries would probably have shown him to have lied in one respect or another, leading him to be suspected of something worse than loitering with no apparent intent.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes Caz, and it is highly unlikely the police would still be investigating his story on the 19th, a full seven days after the interview, if they had found him out to have lied about anything.
It would only take them hours to check the relevant parts of his story.