A closer look at George Hutchinson

[Michael W Richards]

Whoa, Michael, hold your horses a minute.
Your suggestion George & Mary were friends is the very basis of your claim that he should have gone to police as soon as he heard about the murder.

Thats not what I said or inferred Jon, I said IF Hutchinson was a friend as he had represented himself, he would have come forward immediately. See, this is why interpretation is vital, you misread or misunderstood something and immediately pounced on it thinking you caught me double speaking. When in fact Im expressing my own disbelief of that aspect of his story, in fact I dispute that his overall intentions by telling this story...had anything to do with a "friend" helping an investigation...that boat had clearly sailed after 4 days. Hence, suggesting he was a friend of hers when juxtaposed with this then unacceptable delay of days before reporting it, is most likely fabrication.

But now, above, you claim Hutchinson cannot be proven to have known Mary AT ALL.

I think now you might see where you made a wrong turn on the point being made. The whole point of the statement is to infer my mistrust and disbelief in his suggestion that he knew Mary from several casual meetings and sometimes gave her money.

Aren't you just a little embarrassed, when you show everybody that you don't actually have a viable theory to sell?

I think its clear who of the 2 of us should be slightly embarrassed, suggesting Ive doubled back on my suggestion that Hutchinsons story is full of embellishments and details he provides zero proof of.Ive been consistent on my feelings about Hutchinsons statement as far back as I can remember, Im sure if you doubt that you could find a number of posts that state that very position.

So.....yeah. Bad call Jon.

If someone misreads or misinterprets something I post Im glad to straighten them out, but the manner in which you assumed something... that you can now see was an error on your part,... then attacked, is tacky Jon.

[Sunny Delight]

Sunny, you can interpret what youve read in whatever way makes you feel comfortable, and you can suggest that simply following the evidence and known data is going down a rabbit hole all you like. The fact is that you are defending a man whose story was reported as being discredited, a man who cannot be proven to have known Mary at all, someone who claims to be standing where a man was seen standing, and reported as such, days earlier, and someone who provided zero proof he was anywhere near Romford on that day.

So...you are just taking him at his word...which is probably the minimal effort you care to expend while studying the crime. Just accept stuff. Not a good policy for an investigator, but youve already proven its not something you excel at. Interpreting evidence is essential,.. the real story isnt just in the actual evidence, its also how it fits together. But Hutchinson didnt really give evidence anyway did he? He submitted a statement.

Some, like you, think its evidence concerning "the story". Any Investigator can clearly see that providing a minutia laden detailed description 4 days after the crime and after an Inquest into that crime had completed is not representative of someone whose motive was to aid the investigation. If he had that information all weekend, he effectively negated any investigative value it would have by waiting 4 days. So....its abundantly clear he was not motivated by a true desire to help the police catch his "friends" killer. He gave that statement for other reasons...Ive suggested one or 2.

OK so now I am confused by the point you are making. On the one hand you castigate me for defending someone who took 4 days to come forward with information on what you term his 'friends' murder. Then in the next breath you state that I am defending someone who can't be proven to have known her at all. This is what I mean by your hypothesis becoming confusing and convoluted.

I am also not taking Hutchinson's word on face value. I think I and others like me can be confident that Hutchinson is somewhat vindicated by Sarah Lewis. I also believe that Abberline's interrogation and questioning of Hutchinson where he believes his story has some importance. One press report stating his story had been subsequently discredited is not particularly useful on it's own. It merits further investigation. We have nothing official to state Hutchinson was discredited and dismissed.

You continue to look for conspiracy. None exists.

[c.d.]

George Hutchinson must have been credible if Abberline thought he was...

That would constitute an Argument from Authority which is a Logical Fallacy. Far different from simply saying I respect the opinion of Abberline and I give it weight. And as has been stated before we don't know the extent of his belief or if he eventually came to change his mind.

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

Sunny, you can interpret what youve read in whatever way makes you feel comfortable, and you can suggest that simply following the evidence and known data is going down a rabbit hole all you like. The fact is that you are defending a man whose story was reported as being discredited, a man who cannot be proven to have known Mary at all, someone who claims to be standing where a man was seen standing, and reported as such, days earlier, and someone who provided zero proof he was anywhere near Romford on that day.

So...you are just taking him at his word...which is probably the minimal effort you care to expend while studying the crime. Just accept stuff. Not a good policy for an investigator, but youve already proven its not something you excel at. Interpreting evidence is essential,.. the real story isnt just in the actual evidence, its also how it fits together. But Hutchinson didnt really give evidence anyway did he? He submitted a statement.

Some, like you, think its evidence concerning "the story". Any Investigator can clearly see that providing a minutia laden detailed description 4 days after the crime and after an Inquest into that crime had completed is not representative of someone whose motive was to aid the investigation. If he had that information all weekend, he effectively negated any investigative value it would have by waiting 4 days. So....its abundantly clear he was not motivated by a true desire to help the police catch his "friends" killer. He gave that statement for other reasons...Ive suggested one or 2.

Again, another excellent post


IMO it is Abberline who makes things a whole lot worse regarding Hutchinson.

There has always been a sense of loyalty when it comes to Abberline; over the years, the man given the role of heroic protagonist in movies and various books.

But what if Abberline's judgement wasn't as savvy as we have all been spoon fed to believe it was?

I imagine Abberline having an interview with Peter Sutcliffe... the man who fooled just about every police officer who interviewed him.
Would Abberline have made the same mistake?

I think its likely

It has always felt like a taboo subject to question the judgement and integrity of Abberline; and perhaps its that sense of the untouchable that by proxy lets Hutchinson off the hook.

George Hutchinson must have been credible if Abberline thought he was...

I don't believe that for a second.



RD

[Wickerman]

.... The fact is that you are defending a man whose story was reported as being discredited, a man who cannot be proven to have known Mary at all,...

Whoa, Michael, hold your horses a minute.
Your suggestion George & Mary were friends is the very basis of your claim that he should have gone to police as soon as he heard about the murder.

But now, above, you claim Hutchinson cannot be proven to have known Mary AT ALL.

Aren't you just a little embarrassed, when you show everybody that you don't actually have a viable theory to sell?

Then, you say...

Interpreting evidence is essential,.. the real story isnt just in the actual evidence, its also how it fits together.

Or, how you choose to manipulate the evidence?

Which is it Michael, did they know each other, as friends, or not?

[Michael W Richards]

Its the same with Stride, she is described as being dressed in good evening wear, with a fresh flower on her bosom and mints to freshen her breath

Except that this point only addresses the beginning of the evening and does not consider possible effects of time passing so that her circumstances might have drastically changed. What if her date didn't show up? What if they had an argument and he left? What if he became sick? Now what?

It's like looking at the numbers on Wall Street just minutes after the opening bell and concluding that those numbers will remain consistent up until the closing bell.

despite the fact that no-one sees her soliciting,

And people would be able to determine that she was soliciting how exactly?

c.d.

I think in reality its you who uses your imagination far more than I do here cd, although I certainly have been accused of it.

"..does not consider possible effects of time passing so that her circumstances might have drastically changed. What if her date didn't show up? What if they had an argument and he left? What if he became sick? Now what?"

It seems you are not encumbered by the notion that something you want to suggest should have some basis in the known evidence? Like...do you have a reference for that supposition...did you read Liz was stood up for a date then decided to solicit since she was out and dressed nicely already?

As for your Wall Street analogy, why would we have to rely on an opening bell when we already know how it turns out? We know exactly what happened and when and where. Its the Who and Why that are tricky.

As for how we would know a woman was soliciting, is the phrase "want a date" foreign to you? Surely soliciting involves the street walker verbally encouraging intimacy with a stranger. And we know several of the strangers she met that night. Any of them say she solicited them? Anyone?

[Michael W Richards]

I think you continually look for conspiracy where none exists and send yourself down rabbit holes. So you dismiss the information provided by Hutchinson based on the fact it was told 4 days later, you assume the lighting conditions were not conductive to a detailed description of the perpetrator. In your view Hutchinson comes forward because he had heard Sarah Lewis detailing an incredibly vague description of a man in a wideawake hat who was stout loitering opposite Millers Court at about 2:20am. Hutchinson had learned this critical information not 3-4 hours previous as he was either in the room where the Inquest was held or heard Lewis testimony as part of the crowd outside. He concocted a story within a few hours and went to the Police in order to point the blame at Aman, who didn't actually exist.

Or alternatively Hutchinson did meet Kelly at 2am and followed her and an accomplice back to Millers court where he is seen by Sarah Lewis- she sees him where he said he was, when he said he was. She even stated he looked like he was waiting on someone. After the murder which he hears or reads about over the weekend he thinks about going to the police. However he like many others before and since is reticent to come forward. On Sunday morning at Petticoat Market he thinks he sees the man again prompting him to tell a fixed duty Policeman. Unsure if that information actually got to CID he spends much of Monday at work thinking on it again. He goes back to his lodging house where he confides in a friend. The friend tells him he must go to the Police. Hutchinson just needing that extra push agrees and at 6pm walks into the station to give his information.

I will let the readers decide which is more likely.

Sunny, you can interpret what youve read in whatever way makes you feel comfortable, and you can suggest that simply following the evidence and known data is going down a rabbit hole all you like. The fact is that you are defending a man whose story was reported as being discredited, a man who cannot be proven to have known Mary at all, someone who claims to be standing where a man was seen standing, and reported as such, days earlier, and someone who provided zero proof he was anywhere near Romford on that day.

So...you are just taking him at his word...which is probably the minimal effort you care to expend while studying the crime. Just accept stuff. Not a good policy for an investigator, but youve already proven its not something you excel at. Interpreting evidence is essential,.. the real story isnt just in the actual evidence, its also how it fits together. But Hutchinson didnt really give evidence anyway did he? He submitted a statement.

Some, like you, think its evidence concerning "the story". Any Investigator can clearly see that providing a minutia laden detailed description 4 days after the crime and after an Inquest into that crime had completed is not representative of someone whose motive was to aid the investigation. If he had that information all weekend, he effectively negated any investigative value it would have by waiting 4 days. So....its abundantly clear he was not motivated by a true desire to help the police catch his "friends" killer. He gave that statement for other reasons...Ive suggested one or 2.

[Michael W Richards]

With Mary, people like to imagine she entertained clients in that room...despite the fact that Joe was living there until Tuesday and didnt want her out on the street and there is no evidence she brought any man other than Joe to that room before Blotchy...

That statement seems to be perilously close to being a No True Scotsman Fallacy. Mary never brought clients to her room. Then what about Blotchy? Then he couldn't have been a client.

And if Hutch was telling the truth (yes, yes I know) then Mary was expecting a client.

And even if we can establish with 100% metaphysical certainty that Mary had never brought clients to her room before it only tell us one thing -- that she had never brought clients to her room before. Could she have started doing so for reasons known only to her? Absolutely. What would have prevented her from doing so?

c.d.

Im not familiar with a No True Scotsman Fallacy cd, but you will note I did say "until Blotchy". And since she was heard singing for over an hour, its hardly likely he was paying for sex. Unless it was while she was singing, in which case Mary was one talented lady.

As for Hutch and truth, I dont believe they were very well acquainted based on his story.

As for your insistence that Mary may have begun doing so, and that she may have made an "appointment" with Astrakan, funny then that she would go out drinking first and come home smashed and singing...and that the room was dark and silent by 1:30am...had she intended to entertain her "appointment", why would she leave the room at all? Why would she need to douse the light? Why not just wait for him to arrive?

I can answer that for you....there was no "appointment", Blotchy is the only man she brought to the room and she was heard singing for him, there was no Mary on the streets after 11:45pm Thursday night, and suggesting that Mary started that night doing what she hadnt done since living there is really just you grasping at straws to explain how Hutch might be telling the truth.

[c.d.]

With Mary, people like to imagine she entertained clients in that room...despite the fact that Joe was living there until Tuesday and didnt want her out on the street and there is no evidence she brought any man other than Joe to that room before Blotchy...

That statement seems to be perilously close to being a No True Scotsman Fallacy. Mary never brought clients to her room. Then what about Blotchy? Then he couldn't have been a client.

And if Hutch was telling the truth (yes, yes I know) then Mary was expecting a client.

And even if we can establish with 100% metaphysical certainty that Mary had never brought clients to her room before it only tell us one thing -- that she had never brought clients to her room before. Could she have started doing so for reasons known only to her? Absolutely. What would have prevented her from doing so?

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

Thats not what is neccesarily indicated by saying that he knew her very well, having been in her company several times, and he occasionally gave her some money. I understand that some feel the need to apply some kind of a Street Prostitute filter to any information provided about someone we know did solicit on the street, but these are humans, not mechanical whores. They have stories, they have friendships, and some even have relationships with non-paying men. And some went out for fun. Some didnt work some nights.. by choice. And only Mary, among all these Unsolved murder cases, was a woman who had a rented room in her name.

With Mary, people like to imagine she entertained clients in that room...despite the fact that Joe was living there until Tuesday and didnt want her out on the street and there is no evidence she brought any man other than Joe to that room before Blotchy........and some would like to imagine she felt compelled to work the streets after already arriving home very inebriated hours earlier....despite the fact that we know she hadnt been working regularly and was in arrears almost 3 weeks of rent. Its the same with Stride, she is described as being dressed in good evening wear, with a fresh flower on her bosom and mints to freshen her breath...yet some would like to imagine thats how she normally decked out to work the streets....despite the fact that no-one sees her soliciting, and she had already earned her doss before ever leaving her lodgings. And she was sober...so imagining she was an alcoholic and solicited to feed that habit, like perhaps Polly did, isnt supported by known evidence.

Excellent post Michael, completely concur with your summary here



RD

[Sunny Delight]

Im simply pointing out Sunny that with the Police Investigation technologies available in 1888 to catch a criminal, 4 days is enough to have the suspect literally almost anywhere in the world. In pragmatic terms, a detailed and certainly embellished description of the suspect as was provided is essentially useless 4 days after the fact. When you reference modern investigations and a 35 year old crime, thats part of the technology evolution of criminal detection. For example we can test DNA. Makes anyone traceable really.

What caused me to look hard at Hutchinson were 2 aspects of his story that seem to me couldnt be debated,.... that he knew and spoke with Mary occasionally and the minutia level details of Mr A. No-one could identify him or confirm they were aware Mary ever knew him...the Inquest had just ended. Anyone who knew Mary or lived there was gone. And the details of Mr A are for me the clincher. In the middle of the night, on a dark street, from a slight distance...re-read it for yourself. It strains credulity. But interestingly it does bear remarkable similarity to someone named "Joe"......(recall Mary was seeing 2 Joes?)..who a few days earlier had moved into a dwelling right around the corner from Mary and then disappeared from his lodgings the night she is killed. Leaving personal belongings behind.

Based on the above Ive said that I believe its quite likely Hutchinson came in because he, or someone, wanted to deflect any suspicions about Wideawake Hat man. Who in my opinion was the catalyst for the department to finally offer a Pardon for information by an Accomplice. In effect Hutchinson caused them to be less concerned about what happened with Blotchy Face as well. The likely threat then was Astrakan Man for a bit.

I believe the template for Hutchinsons description is possibly a local jewish man Joseph Issacs, an Astrakan trim wearing chap from around the area. And it isnt lost on me that in the Stride investigation, there is some question as to who the "Issacs" was that Louis refers to leaving for help with. Because Issac Zozebrodski is interviewed that night and said he was "sent" out BY Louis or some other member. Just a little synchronicity I like finding in these cases. Cause Ya never know.

I think you continually look for conspiracy where none exists and send yourself down rabbit holes. So you dismiss the information provided by Hutchinson based on the fact it was told 4 days later, you assume the lighting conditions were not conductive to a detailed description of the perpetrator. In your view Hutchinson comes forward because he had heard Sarah Lewis detailing an incredibly vague description of a man in a wideawake hat who was stout loitering opposite Millers Court at about 2:20am. Hutchinson had learned this critical information not 3-4 hours previous as he was either in the room where the Inquest was held or heard Lewis testimony as part of the crowd outside. He concocted a story within a few hours and went to the Police in order to point the blame at Aman, who didn't actually exist.

Or alternatively Hutchinson did meet Kelly at 2am and followed her and an accomplice back to Millers court where he is seen by Sarah Lewis- she sees him where he said he was, when he said he was. She even stated he looked like he was waiting on someone. After the murder which he hears or reads about over the weekend he thinks about going to the police. However he like many others before and since is reticent to come forward. On Sunday morning at Petticoat Market he thinks he sees the man again prompting him to tell a fixed duty Policeman. Unsure if that information actually got to CID he spends much of Monday at work thinking on it again. He goes back to his lodging house where he confides in a friend. The friend tells him he must go to the Police. Hutchinson just needing that extra push agrees and at 6pm walks into the station to give his information.

I will let the readers decide which is more likely.

[c.d.]

Its the same with Stride, she is described as being dressed in good evening wear, with a fresh flower on her bosom and mints to freshen her breath

Except that this point only addresses the beginning of the evening and does not consider possible effects of time passing so that her circumstances might have drastically changed. What if her date didn't show up? What if they had an argument and he left? What if he became sick? Now what?

It's like looking at the numbers on Wall Street just minutes after the opening bell and concluding that those numbers will remain consistent up until the closing bell.

despite the fact that no-one sees her soliciting,

And people would be able to determine that she was soliciting how exactly?

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Yes, he seems to be saying he had been a customer of hers several times, while not suggesting a close friendship.

Thats not what is neccesarily indicated by saying that he knew her very well, having been in her company several times, and he occasionally gave her some money. I understand that some feel the need to apply some kind of a Street Prostitute filter to any information provided about someone we know did solicit on the street, but these are humans, not mechanical whores. They have stories, they have friendships, and some even have relationships with non-paying men. And some went out for fun. Some didnt work some nights.. by choice. And only Mary, among all these Unsolved murder cases, was a woman who had a rented room in her name.

With Mary, people like to imagine she entertained clients in that room...despite the fact that Joe was living there until Tuesday and didnt want her out on the street and there is no evidence she brought any man other than Joe to that room before Blotchy........and some would like to imagine she felt compelled to work the streets after already arriving home very inebriated hours earlier....despite the fact that we know she hadnt been working regularly and was in arrears almost 3 weeks of rent. Its the same with Stride, she is described as being dressed in good evening wear, with a fresh flower on her bosom and mints to freshen her breath...yet some would like to imagine thats how she normally decked out to work the streets....despite the fact that no-one sees her soliciting, and she had already earned her doss before ever leaving her lodgings. And she was sober...so imagining she was an alcoholic and solicited to feed that habit, like perhaps Polly did, isnt supported by known evidence.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman

I agree completely with your overall assessment but feel I should add that Hutchinson to the press stated: “I met the woman Kelly, whom I knew very well, having been in her company a number of times.”

So still not “friend” but a bit more info than what Abberline wrote.

Yes, he seems to be saying he had been a customer of hers several times, while not suggesting a close friendship.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Wickerman

I agree completely with your overall assessment but feel I should add that Hutchinson to the press stated: “I met the woman Kelly, whom I knew very well, having been in her company a number of times.”

So still not “friend” but a bit more info than what Abberline wrote.

Obviously I appreciate you pointing that out. At times I just casually refer to things assuming that everyone is on the same page in terms of in depth knowledge of these cases. The suggestion of a casual friendship with Mary Kelly is also present in Mrs Maxwells statement, having Mary refer to her by a nickname or stylized version of her given name.

Its an interesting element that you can find in a few recorded cases, witness with reasonably important information who offer no tangible evidence they even knew the victim in passing. Mrs Maxwell, by the little we know of her, would be more likely to sneer out her window through parted drapes about street walking girls than befriend one.