Hutch evidence

[Wickerman]

If they believed Hutch's story, which they appear to have done for a while anyway, then his role in this is as Marys friend...looking out for her. If they eventually suspected his story was false, which to me words like "discredited" indicates, then he is not off the hook.

As the 'discredited' story did not come from an official source, but the Star newspaper published on the 15th, how is it in your view that the subsequent newspaper report on the 19th, where the police continue to investigate, didn't 'discredit' the Star report?
Clearly, Hutchinson's story was not discredited, yet you stick to this 'discredited' Star report - that is a mystery in itself.
It's been proven wrong, yet you blindly continue to repeat it.

He is still there, not provably in Marys best interest. He is the man that pulled a Pardon offer for Accomplices from the highest ranks within the police. At the very least he becomes a stalker, he could also be seen as an accomplice to her murder.

But again, that is only an interpretation you prefer to believe, without any supporting evidence.

Its curious that he is not discussed in later crimes, or used as a witness in an id, and also that they didnt take a hard look at this man and try and get hard evidence to support his story.

Right, there are lots of curious issues in this entire case, but all of them result from a lack of information - missing police files. We don't know what the police eventually found.

I dont recall seeing anything that might have come from such an investigation. He should have become a Person of Interest in the Kelly murder. Yet nobody mentions him in that way. Curious.

Right, and one of those solutions is, that the police confirmed Kennedy's story that Kelly left her room about 3:00am, thereby taking the pressure off Hutchinson. Leaving the police with no leads, just a vague description of the man outside the Britannia.
So, isn't that the simplest solution?

[Michael W Richards]

If they believed Hutch's story, which they appear to have done for a while anyway, then his role in this is as Marys friend...looking out for her. If they eventually suspected his story was false, which to me words like "discredited" indicates, then he is not off the hook. He is still there, not provably in Marys best interest. He is the man that pulled a Pardon offer for Accomplices from the highest ranks within the police. At the very least he becomes a stalker, he could also be seen as an accomplice to her murder.

Its curious that he is not discussed in later crimes, or used as a witness in an id, and also that they didnt take a hard look at this man and try and get hard evidence to support his story. I dont recall seeing anything that might have come from such an investigation. He should have become a Person of Interest in the Kelly murder. Yet nobody mentions him in that way. Curious.

[Wickerman]

But the police had two options tell the press his story was made up, or even if they believed it was false they had no choice other than to run with it because they had nothing to go on with the murders up until that time. so anything was better than nothing for the benefit of the press and the public.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor.
The police are not in business to ingratiate the public, or the press.
I can't believe you are saying the police will waste time on a story, just to save face.
Thats just totally untrue and I suspect you know it.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Deleted

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

But the police had two options tell the press his story was made up, or even if they believed it was false they had no choice other than to run with it because they had nothing to go on with the murders up until that time. so anything was better than nothing for the benefit of the press and the public.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

Hi Gary.
I'm intrigued. Can I ask what makes you doubt Kelly lived in Breezers Hill, or do you mean she lived close by?
Incidentally, thankyou for the link.

Hi Jon,

It seems most likely that she lived at 79, Pennington Street, on the corner with Breezer’s Hill. That had once been the Old Red Lion pub and some maps show it and 1, BH as the same building. The address of the pub was occasionally given as BH, but that was when 1,BH and 79, PS were joined. By the time Kelly was living there, they were two distinct addresses again.

There is no evidence that the John and Mary McCarthy living at 1, BH in 1891 were there in 1885/6. In fact they didn’t marry until 1887. But there was a Mary Ann McCarthy living at 79, PS in 1887. She married a man named Woodhouse and the Woodhouses and Maywoods turned up in the same street in Limehouse a few years later, a few yards away from ‘Morganstone’ and ‘Buki’ from 79, PS. And when Maywood moved on from Limehouse, the Noddings from Station Place/Cornwall Street moved in.

[Wickerman]

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

Hi Gary.
I'm intrigued. Can I ask what makes you doubt Kelly lived in Breezers Hill, or do you mean she lived close by?
Incidentally, thankyou for the link.

[MrBarnett]

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.

The Cornwall Street address is very intriguing. There seems to have been some to-ing and fro-ing between the folks in Breezers Hill/Pennington Street and Cornwall Street and nearby Station Place which was the domain of a notorious family of brothel-keepers named Nodding or Noding.

It’s quite an involved story, but one interesting factoid is that it seems that Maria Harvey may also have been connected to them.

Did Shelden say Maywood’s wife’s name was Mary? It was Sarah Mack/MacNamara.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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.