Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hutchinson and Blotchy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fleetwood Mac
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    Yes, I'd likely have more luck if I looked for written examples.

    "Some streets have presented, even to those familiar with them, quite a desolate and deserted appearance after nightfall. But the nine-days’ wonder has passed, the effect of the shock has visibly subsided, and people are beginning to move freely again. Turn down this side street out of the main Whitechapel Road. It may be well to tuck out of view any bit of jewellery that may be glittering about; the sight of means to do ill-deeds makes ill-deeds done. The street is oppressively dark, though at present the gloom is relieved somewhat by feebly lighted shopfronts. Men are lounging at the doors of the shops, smoking evil-smelling pipes. Women with bare heads and with arms under their aprons are sauntering about in twos and threes, or are seated gossiping on steps leading into passages dark as Erebus. Now round the corner into another still gloomier passage, for there are no shops here to speak of. This is the notorious Wentworth Street. The police used to make a point of going through this only in couples, and possibly may do so still when they go there at all."
    3 Nov. 1888.
    https://www.casebook.org/victorian_london/autumnev.html

    The streets are just a buzz with activity, and this long after nightfall, as the report states.
    We tend to think those backstreets were empty, so Hutchinson mentioned only three people, plus a constable, yet we know Mary Cox came in about 3:00, and Sarah Lewis passed by sometime between 2:00 - 2:30, Hutch mentioned neither of them. Which has caused some to think he's making it up, yet when we study the night life it is abundantly clear the streets are alive with activity.
    The key that many hold on to is where he says he saw one man enter a lodging-house, but "no one else". He's talking about "suspicious men", that is what Badham is concerned with. Not aimless drunks, or women of the streets, or children running here and there.
    I'd disagree with your conclusion, Jon.

    While the people in your article are either talking with one another or lounging around, Hutchinson is doing neither. Hutchinson is keeping vigil for the best part of an hour. Nowhere does it state in the article that there 'are men making a specific point of working out what is going on in a court and what is going on in the surrounding streets'. Of course there were people around at that time of night, we know that to be true, but it doesn't follow that it was a Victorian habit of scouting the area for the best part of an hour for no reason other than they saw a 'well dressed man'. 'Lounging around' is not the same as Hutchinson's activity. Hutchinson has a mission whereas people idly sitting around don't.

    As for Hutchinson's statement, I'm at a loss as to how you have concluded Hutchinson was talking specifically of suspicious men. In fact, Hutchinson makes a point of saying when his suspicions were aroused.

    One policeman went by the Commercial-street end of Dorset-street while I was standing there, but no one came down Dorset-street. I saw one man go into a lodging-house in Dorset-street, and no one else.

    There is absolutely nothing in that statement to suggest he was merely noting suspicious men. Reasonably, Hutchinson is talking of anyone he saw. So, the reality of that night is that people weren't 'hanging around talking' nor 'lounging around'. But, even in the event they were, it doesn't change the fact that Hutchinson offers no reasonable motive for spending the best part of an hour watching the court and surrounding streets. That cannot be explained away simply by the presence of a 'well dressed man'.

    As for Mary Cox, they could reasonably have missed one another by a few minutes.

    As for Sarah Lewis, well, we're in the realms of guesswork again. 'Many possibilities here. My reading of Hutchinson's statement given to The Times, 14th November, is that he didn't actually go into the court and so he was in Dorset Street. Sarah Lewis's man was stood by a lodging house in Dorset Street. From those positions, it's difficult to argue Hutchinson may have simply missed her, particularly as Lewis claimed the man was looking up the court and Lewis herself entered the court/passageway.
    Last edited by Fleetwood Mac; 07-28-2022, 06:33 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

    A good effort all the same, Jon!
    Yes, I'd likely have more luck if I looked for written examples.

    "Some streets have presented, even to those familiar with them, quite a desolate and deserted appearance after nightfall. But the nine-days’ wonder has passed, the effect of the shock has visibly subsided, and people are beginning to move freely again. Turn down this side street out of the main Whitechapel Road. It may be well to tuck out of view any bit of jewellery that may be glittering about; the sight of means to do ill-deeds makes ill-deeds done. The street is oppressively dark, though at present the gloom is relieved somewhat by feebly lighted shopfronts. Men are lounging at the doors of the shops, smoking evil-smelling pipes. Women with bare heads and with arms under their aprons are sauntering about in twos and threes, or are seated gossiping on steps leading into passages dark as Erebus. Now round the corner into another still gloomier passage, for there are no shops here to speak of. This is the notorious Wentworth Street. The police used to make a point of going through this only in couples, and possibly may do so still when they go there at all."
    3 Nov. 1888.
    https://www.casebook.org/victorian_london/autumnev.html

    The streets are just a buzz with activity, and this long after nightfall, as the report states.
    We tend to think those backstreets were empty, so Hutchinson mentioned only three people, plus a constable, yet we know Mary Cox came in about 3:00, and Sarah Lewis passed by sometime between 2:00 - 2:30, Hutch mentioned neither of them. Which has caused some to think he's making it up, yet when we study the night life it is abundantly clear the streets are alive with activity.
    The key that many hold on to is where he says he saw one man enter a lodging-house, but "no one else". He's talking about "suspicious men", that is what Badham is concerned with. Not aimless drunks, or women of the streets, or children running here and there.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fleetwood Mac
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    Do you know how hard it is to find a photo of a man standing alone in a dark east end street?

    It was the best I could do in the time I had.
    A good effort all the same, Jon!

    Leave a comment:


  • Fleetwood Mac
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    An enquiring mind like Abberline's, under interrogation?

    As I said yesterday, we don't have the luxury of questioning Hutch about his motivations or any holes in his account, but Abberline did, and we don't know what he heard, from which he concluded that the witness had been truthful.

    Why wouldn't Hutch have hung about for Mary's paying customer to emerge, if he didn't already have a place to sleep? She may have owed him a favour or a bob or two from previous borrowings, and she could hardly claim to be penniless if the well dressed man had just paid well for her services.

    Robbery of the man himself wouldn't need to come into it in that case. Robbers tend to avoid the cops; they don't walk in willingly and give statements which are bound to invite awkward questions.

    Not guilty!

    Love,

    Caz
    X


    Hi Caz,

    Whatever Hutchinson's motive for undertaking a vigil, he felt it expedient to keep it to himself. You would have to infer that he deemed it to not be in his interests to disclose that motive.

    Another interesting (well at least to me anyway) Hutchinson statement given to the Pall Mall Gazette is: "I had no suspicion he was the murderer". Does Hutchinson inadvertently give away his intention of painting the 'well dressed man' as the Whitechapel murderer here? Ultimately Hutchinson does state: ".....he was the murderer".

    As for 'Not Guilty', Caz, I think it would be bad manners to claim George Hutchinson is a murderer and mutilator of several women based on that which is known. On the other hand, I can understand exactly why researchers have invested a lot of time to find out more about him.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    hey wick
    lol. thats like saying cause of death was because the heart stopped beating. cmon wick. it was a lame non reason and you know it.
    "...I stood there for about three-quarters of an hour to see if they came out, they did not, so I went away".

    Thats his reason, he just doesn't say 'why' he choose to wait, what were his intentions? Thats why we speculate...
    We don't know.

    ......if this is true-Bowyer would have said so at the inquest.
    He needs to be asked, if you recall at the inquest Blotchy became the suspect.
    Who cares whether another man was in the court at 3:00?

    Witnesses only answer questions, if the coroner doesn't ask, then the witness stays quiet.
    Bowyer's statement to police only concerned the fact he discovered the body, this is why the coroner only asked him questions concerning the discovery.
    He was asked one other question, when did he last see the victim alive?
    Nothing about seeing another man at any time that night.

    Yes, we've been over this, but still you seem to think Bowyer was free to talk about anything he chooses, he wasn't.


    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    Yes Abby, we all have our different view, but Hutch did give his reason, he was watching to see if they came out, after 45 mins, he went away.
    It's just I think some expect he needs some other reason, but he doesn't.




    but it isn't just Hutchinson's word, if you recall, Bowyer saw him too.

    It was about 3:00, he went for water in the yard, then "early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer".
    This was on the 14th, by then the description of the "supposed murderer" was the one given by Hutchinson.

    Mrs McCarthy also speaks of one of her customers seeing "such a funny man", up the court early on Friday morning. Not forgetting Sarah Lewis seeing a man & woman enter the passage while Hutch stood opposite.
    hey wick

    but Hutch did give his reason, he was watching to see if they came out,
    lol. thats like saying cause of death was because the heart stopped beating. cmon wick. it was a lame non reason and you know it.

    but it isn't just Hutchinson's word, if you recall, Bowyer saw him too.

    It was about 3:00, he went for water in the yard, then "early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer".
    This was on the 14th, by then the description of the "supposed murderer" was the one given by Hutchinson.
    if this is true-Bowyer would have said so at the inquest. its worthless newspaper tattle.

    Mrs McCarthy also speaks of one of her customers seeing "such a funny man", up the court early on Friday morning
    too apocryphal and triple hearsay for me.


    Not forgetting Sarah Lewis seeing a man & woman enter the passage while Hutch stood opposite.
    only one paper reports this way-all others say pass by or up the road.

    however weve been over this a million times, and no need to rehash here. at least for my sake. but i do concede that the BGB could have killed kelly, so Ill throw you that bone. : )
    Last edited by Abby Normal; 07-27-2022, 05:19 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Losmandris View Post

    Am I right in thinking the police would move on anyone they found sleeping in the street at night. Something Jack London talks about quite a bit in the people of the abyss. The homeless would all congregate in the parks during the day for a kip. This could explain people just hanging around.
    Thats what we read yes, the constable was supposed to keep them moving.
    If you notice, Hutch claims to have "walked around all night", if he actually fell asleep for an hour or so on some steps, he can't admit to trespass.
    I think the lodging-houses opened about 5:30 or so, so he wasn't walking "all night" anyway, only two or more hours.

    When I was there in the early 70's Spitalfields Church Yard was full of sleeping tramps, laid across the tombs & benches.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by The Macdonald Triad View Post

    Ok but without knowing the questions before they're asked, I find it hard to believe Hutch could be that savvy and detailed unless he was telling the truth because he was going to mug the guy and scoped him out completely, or he's lying because he was Astrakhan and knew what he was wearing.
    Well, he did say he had seen that same guy hanging around the markets, so perhaps he knew how he looked anyway.
    I just accept he was telling the truth, but I don't care what his reason was, maybe he had criminal intent, I don't know, this was the East End after all.

    I am also suspicious of the verbal exchange between MK and Astrakhan where she burst out laughing. To me that says she knew the guy and found it hilarious he was dressed like a ponce.
    It's part of her job to make the client feel he is her friend, make him feel at ease, comfortable. That doesn't mean she couldn't have known him, no-one has suggested he was a complete stranger, in fact it's the contrary, if Hutch is telling the truth.

    If he had wanted to be helpful he would have immediately reported what he knew, not wait until he realized someone IDd while he was watching the Miller's Court.
    Why would he?
    The first papers reported she was murdered after 9:00 that Friday morning, how could he help by telling police he met her at 2:00, seven hours before she was killed?
    No-one published a time of death until Sunday, and that was a limited account.
    For all day Friday, all of Saturday, and most of Sunday Hutch (along with the rest of the public) would have been under the impression she had died late Friday morning.

    Leave a comment:


  • Losmandris
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    Yes Abby, we all have our different view, but Hutch did give his reason, he was watching to see if they came out, after 45 mins, he went away.
    It's just I think some expect he needs some other reason, but he doesn't.




    but it isn't just Hutchinson's word, if you recall, Bowyer saw him too.

    It was about 3:00, he went for water in the yard, then "early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer".
    This was on the 14th, by then the description of the "supposed murderer" was the one given by Hutchinson.

    Mrs McCarthy also speaks of one of her customers seeing "such a funny man", up the court early on Friday morning. Not forgetting Sarah Lewis seeing a man & woman enter the passage while Hutch stood opposite.
    Hanging around certainly gave Hutchinson something to keep himself occupied. What else are you going to do if you can't get back into your lodging until the morning?

    Leave a comment:


  • Losmandris
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    Do you know how hard it is to find a photo of a man standing alone in a dark east end street?

    It was the best I could do in the time I had.

    That said, there are a few written accounts by journalists & other writers who walked the streets of the east end during these murders. They tell us how people stood around at all hours of the night, mostly in doorways, or sat on doorsteps. Some with kids, others trying to sleep, it wasn't the empty vacuum some authors try to make out.
    Even today, on returning from some late night out I can drive passed many a homeless person just standing around, in a doorway, or sat by himself.
    There doesn't have to be any real 'intent', Hutchinson had nowhere to go, and all night to get there.
    Am I right in thinking the police would move on anyone they found sleeping in the street at night. Something Jack London talks about quite a bit in the people of the abyss. The homeless would all congregate in the parks during the day for a kip. This could explain people just hanging around.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    sorry wick
    i dont buy it. he standing there waiting watching the court" as if waiting for someone to come out". he wasnt lollygagging around for tje hell of it. he obviously had keen interest in mary and or aman....
    Yes Abby, we all have our different view, but Hutch did give his reason, he was watching to see if they came out, after 45 mins, he went away.
    It's just I think some expect he needs some other reason, but he doesn't.


    ......and since aman was probably fake imho, then just mary.
    but it isn't just Hutchinson's word, if you recall, Bowyer saw him too.

    It was about 3:00, he went for water in the yard, then "early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer".
    This was on the 14th, by then the description of the "supposed murderer" was the one given by Hutchinson.

    Mrs McCarthy also speaks of one of her customers seeing "such a funny man", up the court early on Friday morning. Not forgetting Sarah Lewis seeing a man & woman enter the passage while Hutch stood opposite.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Macdonald Triad
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    You're correct, with the former.

    The officer sits down opposite the witness, and either by knowing the form off by heart, which is quite possible, or reading from the questions, he writes down the answers from the witness.
    The officer keeps questions down to a minimum, mostly only for clarification on a point, so as not to distract the train of thought of the witness.
    At the end the statement is read back to the witness, thats when any corrections are made, then all present sign the statement, meaning the witness and any officers present.

    Thats it in a nutshell.

    What we don't have is the notes of Abberline's interrogation of Hutchinson which were taken later that night.

    That would be where all the detailed questioning would take place, Abberline would use that initial statement to interrogate Hutchinson.

    By the way, I should have said "type" of form used by Badham. The one I posted dates from that time, but we also have an example with Annie Chapman's physical details on it, and the form is slightly different, but equally detailed.
    The Met. & Scotland Yard may have used the same form, or different versions of it.

    The point I was trying to make is that the reason for the detailed replies (from Hutchinson) is partly due to the detailed questions on the interview form.
    Ok but without knowing the questions before they're asked, I find it hard to believe Hutch could be that savvy and detailed unless he was telling the truth because he was going to mug the guy and scoped him out completely, or he's lying because he was Astrakhan and knew what he was wearing. I am also suspicious of the verbal exchange between MK and Astrakhan where she burst out laughing. To me that says she knew the guy and found it hilarious he was dressed like a ponce. If he had wanted to be helpful he would have immediately reported what he knew, not wait until he realized someone IDd while he was watching the Miller's Court.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    Do you know how hard it is to find a photo of a man standing alone in a dark east end street?

    It was the best I could do in the time I had.

    That said, there are a few written accounts by journalists & other writers who walked the streets of the east end during these murders. They tell us how people stood around at all hours of the night, mostly in doorways, or sat on doorsteps. Some with kids, others trying to sleep, it wasn't the empty vacuum some authors try to make out.
    Even today, on returning from some late night out I can drive passed many a homeless person just standing around, in a doorway, or sat by himself.
    There doesn't have to be any real 'intent', Hutchinson had nowhere to go, and all night to get there.
    sorry wick
    i dont buy it. he standing there waiting watching the court" as if waiting for someone to come out". he wasnt lollygagging around for tje hell of it. he obviously had keen interest in mary and or aman. and since aman was probably fake imho, then just mary.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

    I think the two are incomparable, Jon.
    Do you know how hard it is to find a photo of a man standing alone in a dark east end street?

    It was the best I could do in the time I had.

    That said, there are a few written accounts by journalists & other writers who walked the streets of the east end during these murders. They tell us how people stood around at all hours of the night, mostly in doorways, or sat on doorsteps. Some with kids, others trying to sleep, it wasn't the empty vacuum some authors try to make out.
    Even today, on returning from some late night out I can drive passed many a homeless person just standing around, in a doorway, or sat by himself.
    There doesn't have to be any real 'intent', Hutchinson had nowhere to go, and all night to get there.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

    I think the two are incomparable, Jon.

    Hutchinson wasn't watching the world go by, he was looking up the court and in the surrounding streets as a result of one 'well dressed man' whom he couldn't even see for the best part of an hour.
    His 'world' at that time was; a man entering a doss-house, a couple opposite walking up the court, a policeman on his beat on Commercial st., etc. He gave us what he saw, or at least what Badham thought was relevant.

    On the whole, I tend to agree with your general approach in that it's easy for us to find inconsistencies in witness statements, given that we're looking for them, and with a modern eye/mind and we don't have all of the source information at our disposal; some of which may corroborate said witness statements. I imagine that in the event we poured over witness statements relating to any murder that's ever been committed, we could find what appear to be problems with the statements.

    On the other hand, however, these are Hutchinson's words. He has the chance to flesh out his account given to the police. He takes that chance and says a lot to the press. By comparison, John Richardson gives more details as to why he was sure Annie's mutilated body was not in the yard.

    Hutchinson, however, does not explain his motive for watching the court and the surrounding streets, and it's difficult to lend him a hand and fill in the blanks because there appears to be no viable motive unless of course we take a leap of faith and deduce robbery or some such was the motive. An enquiring mind would certainly want to know why exactly Hutchinson felt it necessary to stake-out the place for the best part of an hour, and 'watching the world go by' simply wouldn't wash.

    I think what we have here is a genuine hole in Hutchinson's account, which is not driven by a desire to find problems.
    As I mentioned previously, when giving a statement the witness is not required to offer reasoning or justification, that comes later when he is interrogated. All the questions members here expect him to answer are what Abberline would have asked him, but any written record of that interview/interrogation has been lost.

    A voluntary statement is one where the witness offers the details of what he saw & heard. It never does contain every single detail that an investigating officer would want to know. That is why the witness is further interrogated, and the statement is used by the interrogating officer as a prompt with which to question him.
    The coroner uses the same statement for the same reason, in court.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X