Hutchinson and Blotchy

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

Edited to add:

A correction, Hutchinson stated this in his statement to The Times:

I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house or hear any noise

Still, it couldn't reasonably be argued that Hutchinson may not have seen Lewis had he been in the court when Lewis walked into it.

[Wickerman]

Hi Abby.

Earlier, you made this response....

.....if this is true-Bowyer would have said so at the inquest. its worthless newspaper tattle.

What exactly did you mean by "newspaper tattle"?
I took it you meant it was 'made up', but I thought maybe if I posted the whole thing, you might have a different opinion?

...Bowyer, the young man in Mr. McCarthy's employ was out at different times up Miller's-court on the Thursday night for the purpose of getting water from a tap there-the only available supply.Indeed, Bowyer visited that spot as late-or, rather, as early-as three o'clock on the morning of the murder. This early visit to the water-tap is by no means an unfrequent thing, as Mr. Mccarthy's shop, which supplies the wants of a very poor and wretched locality, whose denziens are out at all hours, late and early, does not at times close until three o'clock in the morning,while occassionally it is open all night. Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer. Bowyer has, he says, described this man to Inspector Abberline and Inspector Reid. Bowyer, who is known as "Indian Harry" has travelled a great deal, and formerly lived in India. He said to an Echo reporter this morning. "The murderer couldn't have come to a worse place (for escaping) than this court. There is only this narrow entrance, and If I had known he was there when I went to the water tap at three o'clock, I reckon he wouldn't have got off."
The Echo Wed. Nov. 14 1888

I don't think this (above) has anything to do with Bowyer's statement on the Friday of the murder, it appears it came as a result of the sudden appearance of Hutchinson on the 12th. As a consequence of which Scotland Yard decided to re-interview the residents of Millers Court, which is what we read in another article of the same date.

The Press Association:
"Although no evidence was produced at the inquest as to her having left her room after one o'clock, at which time she was heard singing, the police have obtained statements from several persons who reside in Millers Court, that she was out of her house and in Dorset street between two and three o'clock. It appears almost certain that her life was taken about the last named hour".
Morning Advertiser (plus 4 others), Nov. 14 1888.

So, both articles appear in the press on the same day (14th), referring to the police having to re-interview everyone at Millers Court.
Different papers providing mutual supportive accounts referring to the same incident, not the easiest thing to 'invent' between newspapers?

[Wickerman]

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'.

I think it was your post #49 where we started down this path. Your summary statement suggested Hutchinson didn't give a reasonable motive:

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.

I have been trying to point out that he was not required to give a motive, that people stood around regularly, especially those with no-where to go. Abberline didn't seem to question him standing around for no apparent reason.
That said, Hutch actually did justify his loitering, both to police & the press:

"....he was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch them."

And..

"My suspicions were aroused by seeing the man so well-dressed, but I had no suspicion that he was the murderer."

So it does look like Hutch thought that Kelly didn't normally attract that sort of clientele, not that he was thinking she was in any danger from a murderer.
Whether he thought he might get back some of the money he had given her in the past, or mug the fancy dressed customer, when he leaves is open to question.

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

That is because I am looking at his police statement from a policeman's point of view.
With the press it is different, a little bit of colour, or embellishment from either party might benefit both the interviewer & interviewee, this is not the case with the police.

Sgt. Badham is looking for specifics the police can use, never mind how many coffee carts are on their way to the main road, or street-sweepers passing along here & there, maybe a drunk or two who can't grasp what time of day it is, or loose women shuffling along. Badham is only interested in suspicious characters who might be responsible for this murder. At no time do the police give any serious consideration to a woman as a suspect, Badham doesn't care how many women passed along.
Which is why we only get a passing remark about the two men, the one with Kelly, and the other entering a lodging-house.
There was no-one else who looked suspicious - "no one else".

[Fleetwood Mac]

I think it was your post #49 where we started down this path. Your summary statement suggested Hutchinson didn't give a reasonable motive:



I have been trying to point out that he was not required to give a motive, that people stood around regularly, especially those with no-where to go. Abberline didn't seem to question him standing around for no apparent reason.
That said, Hutch actually did justify his loitering, both to police & the press:

"....he was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch them."

And..

"My suspicions were aroused by seeing the man so well-dressed, but I had no suspicion that he was the murderer."

So it does look like Hutch thought that Kelly didn't normally attract that sort of clientele, not that he was thinking she was in any danger from a murderer.
Whether he thought he might get back some of the money he had given her in the past, or mug the fancy dressed customer, when he leaves is open to question.




That is because I am looking at his police statement from a policeman's point of view.
With the press it is different, a little bit of colour, or embellishment from either party might benefit both the interviewer & interviewee, this is not the case with the police.

Sgt. Badham is looking for specifics the police can use, never mind how many coffee carts are on their way to the main road, or street-sweepers passing along here & there, maybe a drunk or two who can't grasp what time of day it is, or loose women shuffling along. Badham is only interested in suspicious characters who might be responsible for this murder. At no time do the police give any serious consideration to a woman as a suspect, Badham doesn't care how many women passed along.
Which is why we only get a passing remark about the two men, the one with Kelly, and the other entering a lodging-house.
There was no-one else who looked suspicious - "no one else".

By his own admission, Hutchinson didn't suspect the man was a murderer and so what is he doing there? It doesn't follow that he's just idly watching the world go by, given that he specifically states he was watching the court as a result of seeing the 'well dressed man'. What does Hutchinson have to gain from staking out the court? Just to watch the 'well dressed man' walk past him again? Surely that beggars belief.

It's not about what was required of Hutchinson, it's about Hutchinson voluntarily saying a lot, an awful lot, but at no point does he give a reason of any substance that explains why he was watching Miller's Court for the best part of an hour. He explains why he had no money; he explains why he was not in his lodgings that night; he explains why he and Mary had the initial conversation. He was not required to explain any of those things.

Hutchinson is clearly talking of the people he encountered as opposed to only 'suspicious' people. Let's agree to disagree on that one because in my view there's no way on this earth you can reasonably come to that conclusion, and that being the case we'll simply go 'round in circles.

[Wickerman]

By his own admission, Hutchinson didn't suspect the man was a murderer and so what is he doing there? It doesn't follow that he's just idly watching the world go by, given that he specifically states he was watching the court as a result of seeing the 'well dressed man'. What does Hutchinson have to gain from staking out the court? Just to watch the 'well dressed man' walk past him again? Surely that beggars belief.

I think we've already established he may have had his own motive, this was the East End after all.

It's not about what was required of Hutchinson, it's about Hutchinson voluntarily saying a lot, an awful lot, but at no point does he give a reason of any substance that explains why he was watching Miller's Court for the best part of an hour. He explains why he had no money; he explains why he was not in his lodgings that night; he explains why he and Mary had the initial conversation. He was not required to explain any of those things.

I would beg to differ there. Badham would need to know any verbal exchange between him and the victim. It could have been relevant if she had said something like, "can you walk with me Hutch, I think I'm being followed...." also, whatever passed between the potential suspect and the victim may be of interest.
Badham might have wondered why Hutch was even there, so that reply is also quite reasonable.

Hutchinson is clearly talking of the people he encountered as opposed to only 'suspicious' people. Let's agree to disagree on that one because in my view there's no way on this earth you can reasonably come to that conclusion, and that being the case we'll simply go 'round in circles.

Thats fine, but let me just add. Everything the police do with regard to collecting evidence, which includes taking statements, is with a view that what they find will be used at a future trial. The police will not take the type of colourful statement that we see in the press. Any coroner/judge would ridicule the police for such embellishments, police need to keep the information relevant, often quite terse.
Which again, is why we do not read of a wide variety of people passing up and down Dorset street.

Also, worthy of consideration is the number of people who live in & off Dorset St. One press article (Times) informs us that one lodging-house has more than 260 beds, and several others have over 200 beds, leaving aside all the other smaller houses with rooms to rent. A figure of close to a thousand people having cause to come & go from Dorset St. makes it all the less likely that in any given 45 minutes only three people (one man + one couple) would be seen in the street.

[Fleetwood Mac]

He may have been alibiing himself against the unknown or Sarah Lewis since it took him so long to come forward.

I'm going to suggest it is unlikely he came forward as a result of Sarah Lewis's statement. The reason being he mentions the people he saw during his vigil for the best part of an hour, and Sarah Lewis isn't one of them even though, according to Sarah Lewis, the short stout man is looking up the court as Sarah Lewis walks up the court.

[Wickerman]

No, he didn't come forward because of Sarah Lewis.

Either, he learned of the opinion published by the Star, late Monday afternoon, that the inquest believed Mary Cox had seen the murderer, which he knew to be false.
Therefore, his fellow lodgers urged him to come forward to tell the police he had seen Kelly out on the streets after 2:00 am.

Or, the account in Sunday's Lloyds Weekly that the medical conclusion of the autopsy was that the murder occurred no later than 3:00am.
After which he was urged by his friends to inform the police that he had seen Kelly with another man just prior to 3:00 am.

Those who think Hutch was not being honest have come up with other reasons.

[Sunny Delight]

I personally don't think the length of time to come forward is suspicious, experience tells us that does happen often.

But, there is known evidence which is at odds with Hutchinson's statement. According to Mary Cox, she was very intoxicated at midnight, and other statements from people who saw her in the hour leading to midnight have Mary as drunk also. Blotchy has ale, I'd imagine Mary has some of that. How does she transcend to not drunk in the space of two hours?

Hutchinson actually said she was a bit 'spreeish". If you look up that definition it says, "given to indulgence in sprees; slightly intoxicated."

[Sunny Delight]

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.

On what basis? Hutchinson claims to have met the deceased at a time- 2am which cannot be ruled out by any other witness or circumstance. He claims to have been loitering opposite the Court between say 2:15am and 3am. Sarah Lewis described a man standing opposite the Court at 2:30am looking up the court as it'll waiting for someone. Hutchinson describes a man dressed rather elegantly. However Booth's man shows us that there were indeed areas of 'middle class- well to do' people and therefore the description is not the wild abnormality sometimes portrayed. Hutchinson stated he confided in a friend at the Lodging house what he had seen before going to the Police. His friend had encouraged him to come forward. Why did he wait for 45 minutes opposite the Court. That is up for debate. Maybe he was suspicious of the man as to see someone so well dressed with a woman of Mary Kelly's status was suspicious? Maybe he as others suggest wanted to mug this obviously well to do patron? He did seem to take great interest in his attire. We will never really know. I do know this however- Abberline must have asked him why he loiterered for so long when he interrogated him. He must have got a satisfactory answer.

[Fleetwood Mac]

On what basis?

On the basis that Hutchinson states he was suspicious of the 'well dressed man' and that he didn't suspect he was the murderer.

So, what exactly were Hutchinson's suspicions that demanded he watched the court and took notice of who was in Dorset Street and adjoining streets for the best part of an hour?

I do know this however- Abberline must have asked him why he loiterered for so long when he interrogated him. He must have got a satisfactory answer.

You don't know that all. You have no idea what was going through the minds of the police and how desperate they may have been or might not have been to jump at a lead. The Yorkshire Ripper investigation was thrown off course because they were desperate for a lead, they jumped at the man who sent the tapes even though a surviving victim was certain he spoke with a Yorkshire accent. You and I have absolutely no idea what was said off the record between Inspector Abberline and George Huthcinson. Hutchinson may have said something like: "look mate, I saw the pardon, and between you and me can we keep what I'm about to say off the record..........". Who knows.

What you do know is George Hutchinson's statement.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hutchinson actually said she was a bit 'spreeish". If you look up that definition it says, "given to indulgence in sprees; slightly intoxicated."

But not drunk.

[Sunny Delight]

On the basis that Hutchinson states he was suspicious of the 'well dressed man' and that he didn't suspect he was the murderer.

So, what exactly were Hutchinson's suspicions that demanded he watched the court and took notice of who was in Dorset Street and adjoining streets for the best part of an hour?



You don't know that all. You have no idea what was going through the minds of the police and how desperate they may have been or might not have been to jump at a lead. The Yorkshire Ripper investigation was thrown off course because they were desperate for a lead, they jumped at the man who sent the tapes even though a surviving victim was certain he spoke with a Yorkshire accent. You and I have absolutely no idea what was said off the record between Inspector Abberline and George Huthcinson. Hutchinson may have said something like: "look mate, I saw the pardon, and between you and me can we keep what I'm about to say off the record..........". Who knows.

What you do know is George Hutchinson's statement.

If it occurs to me that the best thing to do would be to ask Hutchinson why he was loitering I am quite certain that it occured to Abberline when he was questioning him too. He asked him why he watched Kelly and AK man. He asked how long he knew her. He must have asked why she asked him for sixpence as he said he had given her a few shillings in the past. This tells me Abberline was going through Hutchinsons statement and clarifying aspects of it. It surely is beyond credible belief that he would not have asked why he stood loitering. I would be confident the Police were desperate for a lead but Abberline in his own words 'interrogated' Hutchinson. He was no fool. He looked into the man's eyes, saw his demeanor, interrogated him. And ultimately believed him.

The Yorkshire Ripper case was derailed by a hoax true. However that was ultimately for very different reasons. The Police felt the letters and tapes showed knowledge only the killer could know. They had blood groupings which linked the Preston murder of Joan Harrison claimed in the letters to the person who had actually licked the envelopes of the hoax letters and tape. Only 6% of the population were of that group. The Police were putting 2+2 together and getting 5. The really sad thing is despite so much criticism of the Police the system actually worked. Peter Sutcliffe was interviewed nine times. They were onto him. Some officers had even written up reports on him as a prime suspect. The Police discarded these due to the fact he wasn't a Geordie. But they were basing their beliefs on false information. Joan Harrison hadn't been killed by the Ripper and all the information in the letters and tapes was in the public domain. Its a completely different scenario.

There is one similarity for me though. Jack the Ripper must have been spoken to by the Police. He must have been someone whose name is buried in files long lost to us now. He may even have been interviewed a few times even if it was just as part of house to house enquiries. The system may have worked then as well but without computers what chance did they have then or even in the 1970's to be totally fair.

[Sunny Delight]

But not drunk.

Yeah but a bit tipsy. The fact Kelly had some food partially digested means she had a bite to eat at some stage. She was very drunk at midnight. There is no evidence she took anymore drink but she did eat and met Hutchinson two hours later. That to me adds up.

[Fleetwood Mac]

If it occurs to me that the best thing to do would be to ask Hutchinson why he was loitering I am quite certain that it occured to Abberline when he was questioning him too.

You may be certain, but that does not equate to it being certain. Clearly you're pouring over the statements with time on your hands, not under pressure and not being on the spot. Who knows what was of greatest concern to Inspector Abberline and associates in their situation.

Regardless of all of that speculation, there is nothing on record which explains Hutchinson's vigil of the court and surrounding streets. All we have on record is the glaring contradiction: Hutchinson does not suspect the 'well dressed man' is the murderer but he feels the need to watch the court for the best part of an hour. That is illogical and suspect. You can of course aim to explain this away by claiming this must have been asked of Hutchinson and Inspector Abberline was convinced with the response, but you don't know that: you're surmising. What you do know is that George Hutchinson says a lot, explains his actions in large parts of his statements, but he does not explain why he was at the court for the best part of an hour. My conclusion is that there is a hole in his statement here. In terms of the reason, it could be one of countless possibilities.

There is one similarity for me though. Jack the Ripper must have been spoken to by the Police. He must have been someone whose name is buried in files long lost to us now. He may even have been interviewed a few times even if it was just as part of house to house enquiries. The system may have worked then as well but without computers what chance did they have then or even in the 1970's to be totally fair.

'Quite possible but not a certainty. I've never been fully sold on the idea he must have lived in the immediate area.

[Sunny Delight]

You may be certain, but that does not equate to it being certain. Clearly you're pouring over the statements with time on your hands, not under pressure and not being on the spot. Who knows what was of greatest concern to Inspector Abberline and associates in their situation.

Regardless of all of that speculation, there is nothing on record which explains Hutchinson's vigil of the court and surrounding streets. All we have on record is the glaring contradiction: Hutchinson does not suspect the 'well dressed man' is the murderer but he feels the need to watch the court for the best part of an hour. That is illogical and suspect. You can of course aim to explain this away by claiming this must have been asked of Hutchinson and Inspector Abberline was convinced with the response, but you don't know that: you're surmising. What you do know is that George Hutchinson says a lot, explains his actions in large parts of his statements, but he does not explain why he was at the court for the best part of an hour. My conclusion is that there is a hole in his statement here. In terms of the reason, it could be one of countless possibilities.




'Quite possible but not a certainty. I've never been fully sold on the idea he must have lived in the immediate area.

It may be that Hutchinson was suspicious of the man but not 100% sure he was a killer but rather it was in the back of his mind. He may have felt after 45minutes he had waited long enough to be fairly sure he wasn't. It could be that he did not want to admit this to the press. Fearful of criticism maybe? You could have stopped him if you were suspicious? We will never know but is is possible. His claim that to see such a well dressed man with Kelly may just have aroused general suspicion? Who is he and what does he want with her? That's unusual to see there must be something up? This seems to be what he told Abberline he watched them for. Could he have loiterered for that same reason? You are correct I am surmising and I can't say for certain Abberline even asked him but going on what we have it seems Abberline was interrogating Hutchinson's statement almost line by line.

The Ripper lived in the area. Eddowes apron being dropped where it was showed his direction of travel right back into the heart of Whitechapel.