Hutchinson and Blotchy

[Wickerman]

..... What is known is his witness statement, and by any reasonable reading of this it is unlikely that Hutchinson was telling the truth in all aspects of his statement.

Hi FM.

Over the years we've been fortunate to have ex policemen on here who have taken many witness statements. Stewart Evans of course in earlier times, and Bridewell in later times. Neither one had any significant problems with Hutchinson's statement, nor his eye for detail.
What yardstick should we use when attempting to determine what is reasonable?

[Losmandris]

Is it worth noting that Hutchinson does not say 'it was unusual' or that he was shocked to see someone so well dressed in his statement? Where people dressed like Astrakan more common than we think?

[Losmandris]

For years I was wary of accepting the presence of Astrakhan Man for the usual reason - no one would have walked into Dorset Street dressed like a Duke unless they were insane, but I’m not so sure about that these days. Anyone well-dressed to any extent would have stood out amongst people who would have dressed as Hutchinson did. A well-to-do local businessman could have fit the bill as you say. Someone doing a bit of slumming who’s friend might have gone off with another woman perhaps? It’s also possible that Hutch simply exaggerated a bit about AM’s finery? Perhaps he was a guy who had seen better days but in that light Hutch couldn’t make out that his clothes were a little ‘past their best?’ Lewis strongly suggests for me that things might have occurred as Hutchinson said they had. I still think it’s weird that he said that he’d stopped down to look into his face though. Perhaps he just wanted to cement his position as star witness?

This is my point. The dark can hide a lot of imperfections!

[caz]

In terms of Hutchinson's statement, the following is not guesswork: by his own admission he watched Millers Court, he watched Dorset Street and adjoining streets, he makes it clear in his statement he has no motive for doing this beyond seeing a 'well dressed man' with his friend.

Hutchinson says a lot in his statements to the police and the press, and so it is unlikely he simply forgot to mention a purpose that could be deemed to be reasonable.

By Hutchinson's own admission, he does not suspect a murderer has walked past him. Let's say the 'well dressed man' walks back down the passage at 2.50am, Hutchinson's own words must mean that Hutchinson's intention is simply to watch the 'well dressed man' walk past him again and then leave the area.

I don't think it's reasonable to accept that he spent the best part of an hour watching the area for no other reason than the hope the 'well dressed man' would walk past him again; and I'd conclude Hutchinson's statement is, at the very best, not a wholly accurate version of events and what he was thinking.

What we don't know is how Abberline reached his conclusion, after 'interrogating' Hutch, that he was being truthful.

One of the questions put to Hutch might very reasonably have been to ask why he waited for so long just to see this well dressed man again, if he had no reason to think he meant MJK any harm. Giving up and walking away would be consistent with his claimed lack of suspicion about the man's intentions, but it wouldn't easily explain why he had been hoping to see him again, just because of his attire.

Incidentally, I suspect the man was more Del Boy than toff - an East End man-about-town who bought his clobber and bling from the second hand clothes stalls on Petticoat Lane [also known as the Jews's Market].

I also suspect Abberline was not a naive copper, and may have winkled out of Hutch that he was hoping Del Boy would emerge before too long, leaving a vacancy for himself - to doss down with this woman who had previously "borrowed" money from him, or even to have 'sloppy seconds' with her. Either might have been a powerful motivator for Hutch to wait 45 minutes, but when the room was still occupied he was forced to admit that the well dressed man was probably able to afford a fair bit more than a thrupenny knee tremble or sixpenny tumble, and was bedded in for a two and six all-nighter. A cut above Kelly's usual catches would have been about right.

There would have been a ring of truth about all the above, which Abberline would have appreciated if Hutch admitted to something of the sort: from an initial reluctance to spit it all out, and the long wait for the man to leave, to the better than average clothing which implied he could pay for a longer than average session.

In this context, the whole Astrakhan story would hang together rather well if it was made up of whole cloth.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fleetwood Mac]

Agreed, Fleety. But it was another poster's use of the word 'alibi' that threw me, because admitting to be immediately outside the murder room [as Hutch did when he told/sold his story to the newspaper] is about as far as you can get from giving yourself an alibi! He even admitted that he was waiting for another man to come out, which would have allowed for Hutch to have entered and committed the murder if MJK was still alive when the man emerged. It was essentially his word against a phantom.

Your point about there being no way to link Hutch to the crime just because he was in the court is a good one, but it actually makes it harder to see why he would have come forward in that case if he was the killer. Why provide a tangible link to the latest victim, inviting the police to look more closely at his recent whereabouts and making it too risky to try his luck again in the near future?

The argument tends to be that if Hutch was the ripper, his voluntary witness status would explain why there were no more similar murders after MJK, at least until the following summer. He couldn't risk drawing any more attention to himself.

Of course, the opposite psychology would need to be applied to Lechmere as the ripper, who didn't give a toss and took the same risks all over again the very next weekend!

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I have my own ideas on the type of person this was, but I'd concede that I could quite easily be miles off given my views are subject to the way I think. I know I'm stating the obvious here, but people react differently in times of crisis.

Assuming George Hutchinson was the murderer, which I've never really considered by the way, the description of a short, stout man outside Miller's Court, which Hutchinson knew to be him; could well have been sufficient to lead him to come forward and place someone else there. On the other hand it might not have been sufficient: it really depends on his thought process.

It's clear to me that the murderer took significant risks. Take Miller's Court, I've had a look at the layout and this is a small court with lodgings on top of one another and people coming and going during the night. I suppose it could be argued he only took risks in order to satisfy his lust, and going to the police station is another matter entirely; on the other hand, it could be argued it's a pointer towards the way he thinks and that he is someone who takes risks in risky situations.

My conclusion on Hutchinson is that at the very best he wasn't relaying a wholly accurate version of events and what he was thinking that night, and I think he gives that away in his own words in his own statements. But, in the absence of more evidence, anything beyond that is too much of a stretch and really is just gut feel and hunch.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi FM.

Well, it's really guesswork at this point.

I do think Hutch had other intentions, I don't think he was Digby Do-good, maybe he thought about mugging Astrachan after he left Millers Court ?
I suspect this is why they paused at the entrance, Astrachan & Kelly stood there for a few minutes, maybe Astrachan had noticed this laborer following them he may have suspected a trap. It's all speculation, there 's nothing substantial to go on, but it would fit with what we read.

My main contention is, does anything suggest he told lies about that night, and I still maintain there is nothing to suggest that.
Even Sarah Lewis says she saw a man loitering (Hutchinson?), while a couple walked on ahead and passed up the court. So, there was a man with Kelly that night, Astrachan is not an invention. Whether he was dressed the way Hutchinson described is another matter, but I can't see why not.
There were several 'wealthy' businesses up Commercial St. (according to Booth's map) where Astrachan first appeared, so he could have just being going home before he met Kelly.

For years I was wary of accepting the presence of Astrakhan Man for the usual reason - no one would have walked into Dorset Street dressed like a Duke unless they were insane, but I’m not so sure about that these days. Anyone well-dressed to any extent would have stood out amongst people who would have dressed as Hutchinson did. A well-to-do local businessman could have fit the bill as you say. Someone doing a bit of slumming who’s friend might have gone off with another woman perhaps? It’s also possible that Hutch simply exaggerated a bit about AM’s finery? Perhaps he was a guy who had seen better days but in that light Hutch couldn’t make out that his clothes were a little ‘past their best?’ Lewis strongly suggests for me that things might have occurred as Hutchinson said they had. I still think it’s weird that he said that he’d stopped down to look into his face though. Perhaps he just wanted to cement his position as star witness?

[Fleetwood Mac]

I have a couple of theories about Astrakan man. First is that he could have looked posher/richer than he actually was at least from a distance. The though being the closer you got, the lighter it was comes the realisation that the coat is old and worn, the gold chain is fake and the shoes falling appart etc. Sure there were plenty of people like that around.

Secondly was Astrakan man known to the police? Hence why Hutchinson is quickly dismissed. Was he some just local character or some upclass gent sluming it in the area? In either case the police would not necesserily make a big deal of it. Certainly no need to mention it to the newspapers. Indeed if the latter was the case they may have intentionally not done so to avoid any potential scandal?

In terms of Hutchinson's statement, the following is not guesswork: by his own admission he watched Millers Court, he watched Dorset Street and adjoining streets, he makes it clear in his statement he has no motive for doing this beyond seeing a 'well dressed man' with his friend.

Hutchinson says a lot in his statements to the police and the press, and so it is unlikely he simply forgot to mention a purpose that could be deemed to be reasonable.

By Hutchinson's own admission, he does not suspect a murderer has walked past him. Let's say the 'well dressed man' walks back down the passage at 2.50am, Hutchinson's own words must mean that Hutchinson's intention is simply to watch the 'well dressed man' walk past him again and then leave the area.

I don't think it's reasonable to accept that he spent the best part of an hour watching the area for no other reason than the hope the 'well dressed man' would walk past him again; and I'd conclude Hutchinson's statement is, at the very best, not a wholly accurate version of events and what he was thinking.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

I'm not saying i agree with the proposition, but I think I'm right in saying that in those days you would need to have been more or less caught red-handed. As a consequence, I'm not convinced a murderer implicates himself by volunteering that he was in the court (being in the court would not be sufficient to lead to a conviction as there was no way to link him to the crime through DNA and the like).

Agreed, Fleety. But it was another poster's use of the word 'alibi' that threw me, because admitting to be immediately outside the murder room [as Hutch did when he told/sold his story to the newspaper] is about as far as you can get from giving yourself an alibi! He even admitted that he was waiting for another man to come out, which would have allowed for Hutch to have entered and committed the murder if MJK was still alive when the man emerged. It was essentially his word against a phantom.

Your point about there being no way to link Hutch to the crime just because he was in the court is a good one, but it actually makes it harder to see why he would have come forward in that case if he was the killer. Why provide a tangible link to the latest victim, inviting the police to look more closely at his recent whereabouts and making it too risky to try his luck again in the near future?

The argument tends to be that if Hutch was the ripper, his voluntary witness status would explain why there were no more similar murders after MJK, at least until the following summer. He couldn't risk drawing any more attention to himself.

Of course, the opposite psychology would need to be applied to Lechmere as the ripper, who didn't give a toss and took the same risks all over again the very next weekend!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

It's gone unnoticed that the Star, which came out mid afternoon, on the day of the inquest published a paragraph entitled - The Murderer Described, where the testimony was given by Cox concerning Blotchy with Kelly.
Hutchinson, or any friend of his could have made him aware of this and he would instinctively know they had it wrong. That he had seen her with another man 2 hours later......so, doing the right thing, he came forward to help the police.

Hi Jon,

By the same token, if Hutch had been the ripper and read this, he could have saved himself the bother - and the risk - of coming forward to explain his own movements post-Blotchy! He could have kept a low profile and let the police continue to seek a man of Cox's description.

Love,

Caz
X

[Losmandris]

I have a couple of theories about Astrakan man. First is that he could have looked posher/richer than he actually was at least from a distance. The though being the closer you got, the lighter it was comes the realisation that the coat is old and worn, the gold chain is fake and the shoes falling appart etc. Sure there were plenty of people like that around.

Secondly was Astrakan man known to the police? Hence why Hutchinson is quickly dismissed. Was he some just local character or some upclass gent sluming it in the area? In either case the police would not necesserily make a big deal of it. Certainly no need to mention it to the newspapers. Indeed if the latter was the case they may have intentionally not done so to avoid any potential scandal?

[Losmandris]

I've just been going over the inquest and, there is a clue that Cox may have exaggerated Kelly's condition.

Cox does say she first saw Kelly in Dorset street, that she followed her up the passage, but it was only when she spoke to Kelly that she noticed she was drunk.
So, apparently Kelly was walking fine, not staggering or bouncing off the walls of the passage as she walked down.

Cox said: "I did not notice the deceased was the worse for drink until I said 'good night' to her".
The Standard, 13 Nov. 1888.

So perhaps that "very much intoxicated" was nothing more than slurred speech?

I often wonder if Kelly was 'putting it on a bit' for her clients when it comes to how drunk se was. By appearing more drunk maybe it was easier to attrach a client? This would certainly explain the inconsistancies. As a hardened drinker I am sure her tolerance could have been through the roof.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi FM.

Well, it's really guesswork at this point.

I do think Hutch had other intentions, I don't think he was Digby Do-good, maybe he thought about mugging Astrachan after he left Millers Court ?
I suspect this is why they paused at the entrance, Astrachan & Kelly stood there for a few minutes, maybe Astrachan had noticed this laborer following them he may have suspected a trap. It's all speculation, there 's nothing substantial to go on, but it would fit with what we read.

My main contention is, does anything suggest he told lies about that night, and I still maintain there is nothing to suggest that.
Even Sarah Lewis says she saw a man loitering (Hutchinson?), while a couple walked on ahead and passed up the court. So, there was a man with Kelly that night, Astrachan is not an invention. Whether he was dressed the way Hutchinson described is another matter, but I can't see why not.
There were several 'wealthy' businesses up Commercial St. (according to Booth's map) where Astrachan first appeared, so he could have just being going home before he met Kelly.

What is interesting, Jon, is that by his own admission, as reported by The Times, 14th November; he watched who went up and down Dorset Street and adjoining streets also, and in which direction they went and which property they entered into in Dorset Street.

So, in the event we leave aside all of the bits and pieces 'round the edges and the padding out of the statement, the following is the crux of the statement that Hutchinson delivered to the police and the press:

I followed Mary and another man to Miller's court, I watched the court for 45 minutes and I watched Dorset Street and adjoining streets also.

Furthermore, he could not give a reasonable motive for doing this, as by his own admission he had no suspicion of murderous intent on behalf of Mary's associate.

[Fleetwood Mac]

My main contention is, does anything suggest he told lies about that night, and I still maintain there is nothing to suggest that.

Hi Jon,

At this juncture, it is going to be nigh on impossible to prove those witness statements still being debated are a pack of lies.

But, there is plenty there to suggest Hutchinson's statement is off: the vigil due to a man being well-dressed when by Hutchinson's own admission he had no discernible reason to do that, the extravagant detail, the possible amalgamation of snippets of previous witness testimony. When you put these together, I think it must be deemed unlikely that Hutchinson is recalling an accurate version of events.

There is always the possibility that Hutchinson embellished his story out of fear, however. Perhaps he was there, perhaps he did see Mary and a man, perhaps he was suspicious of the man's intentions, i.e. possible murder, perhaps he did wait 45 minutes, perhaps he embellished/fabricated parts of his story because of the possible repercussions, i.e. having a chance to prevent a murder and help catch the Whitechapel murderer that he didn't take.

But, the above is getting into the realms of guesswork. What is known is his witness statement, and by any reasonable reading of this it is unlikely that Hutchinson was telling the truth in all aspects of his statement.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I've just been going over the inquest and, there is a clue that Cox may have exaggerated Kelly's condition.

Cox does say she first saw Kelly in Dorset street, that she followed her up the passage, but it was only when she spoke to Kelly that she noticed she was drunk.
So, apparently Kelly was walking fine, not staggering or bouncing off the walls of the passage as she walked down.

Cox said: "I did not notice the deceased was the worse for drink until I said 'good night' to her".
The Standard, 13 Nov. 1888.

So perhaps that "very much intoxicated" was nothing more than slurred speech?

Possible, but then perhaps Cox wasn't taking much notice of Kelly walking. Mind you, I appreciate that the passage is narrow and not long. I believe there are other reports of Mary being drunk between the hours of 11pm and midnight.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I know you're well read on these things so perhaps you could fill in a few blanks for me.

From what I can tell from the reports I've read, Hutchinson was suspicious of this man because he was 'so well dressed' and he had no suspicion he was the murderer.

What exactly did he think the man was going to do? By his own admission, murderous intent did not cross his mind, so what does that leave: did he think the well dressed man was going to rob his friend Mary of her last slice of bread? What on earth was he assuming the man was capable of that demanded waiting around and actively looking for them? Not only that, but a policeman went down the street as he stood there: Hutchinson was suspicious enough to keep a 45 minute vigil, but not suspicious enough to mention his suspicions to a nearby policeman.

Furthermore, Hutchinson claimed his suspicious, well-dressed man lived in the neighbourhood. Why would he be suspicious of his attire in that location when he had seen this man in the neighbourhood previously?

Thanks in advance.

Hi FM.

Well, it's really guesswork at this point.

I do think Hutch had other intentions, I don't think he was Digby Do-good, maybe he thought about mugging Astrachan after he left Millers Court ?
I suspect this is why they paused at the entrance, Astrachan & Kelly stood there for a few minutes, maybe Astrachan had noticed this laborer following them he may have suspected a trap. It's all speculation, there 's nothing substantial to go on, but it would fit with what we read.

My main contention is, does anything suggest he told lies about that night, and I still maintain there is nothing to suggest that.
Even Sarah Lewis says she saw a man loitering (Hutchinson?), while a couple walked on ahead and passed up the court. So, there was a man with Kelly that night, Astrachan is not an invention. Whether he was dressed the way Hutchinson described is another matter, but I can't see why not.
There were several 'wealthy' businesses up Commercial St. (according to Booth's map) where Astrachan first appeared, so he could have just being going home before he met Kelly.