Hutchinson and Blotchy

[Sunny Delight]

According to Hutchinson, the 'well dressed man' is standing on the corner of Thrawl Street in the middle of the night. In terms of what he is doing there and how long he has been there, we don't know. For every guess you offer, you could offer an alternative such as he had been there for a while looking for a willing woman. Who knows, and it's a redundant debate because it can't be proven either way and nor does it detract from the following: supposedly a man is standing on the corner of Thrawl Street at 2 in the morning on his own looking like he has something worth taking in an area well known for petty crime.




I don't dispute the phenomenon known as 'slumming'. It doesn't follow that it was usual for 'well dressed men' to be in and around Dorset Street and Thrawl Street on their own in the middle of the night, however.

Thanks for the link by the way, Jon. I'll have a look.

I agree that it would have been a risk but he isn't standing the middle of Thrawl Street and the way Hutchinson describes it he is standing at the corner more or less on the thoroughfare in Commercial Street. A look at the map shows this to be an area housing those of the middle class. So well dressed men in that locality would not have been the wild anomaly sometimes portrayed. We don't know as you rightly say but if AK man was sticking to main thoroughfares and loitering at Street corners now and again to see who came along then he may have felt safe enough. Don't forget either that if he was the Ripper he would have been armed with a long sharp knife. He may have felt this offered an adequate degree of protection.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I think the most likely is that Hutchinson was stood opposite the Court at 2:30am as he said. Lewis saw him standing looking up the court as if waiting on someone. Why he didn't mention Lewis is unclear, Lewis also mentioned a man and a woman further on. Hutchinson doesn't mention these two either and I don't subscribe to the theory she is describing Kelly and AK man. Why again is unclear. If only Abberline's notes had survived I am sure lots of these questions would have been answered. He may have told Abberline he did see Lewis and this was a reason why Abberline very much believed him. What would be interesting would be comparing what Kelly was said to be wearing earlier in the night and comparing it to Hutchinson's description of what she was wearing.

George Hutchinson's statement is, at its heart, a rejection of Sarah Lewis's statement. He claims to have been there and did not see Sarah Lewis nor the other people Sarah Lewis claimed to have seen. I'm not claiming one is more believable than the other, I'm merely pointing out the obvious.

In the event we found some evidence tomorrow which proved Hutchinson wasn't actually in Dorset Street that night, then the question would have to be asked: why did he provide a statement which could only possibly discredit Sarah Lewis's statement? One obvious possibility is that Hutchinson knew nothing of Lewis's statement and so was unaware she was in Dorset Street at that time. Another possibility is that he had read Lewis's statement, and then the question would have to be asked why did Hutchinson suggest Lewis wasn't there and the 'respectably dressed man' was a figment of Lewis's imagination.

Hutchinson's statement serves to ensure the 'respectably dressed man' is taken out of the spotlight. I'm not saying there is any proof that was Hutchinson's intention, but his statement does serve that purpose.

[Sunny Delight]

George Hutchinson's statement is, at its heart, a rejection of Sarah Lewis's statement. He claims to have been there and did not see Sarah Lewis nor the other people Sarah Lewis claimed to have seen. I'm not claiming one is more believable than the other, I'm merely pointing out the obvious.

In the event we found some evidence tomorrow which proved Hutchinson wasn't actually in Dorset Street that night, then the question would have to be asked: why did he provide a statement which could only possibly discredit Sarah Lewis's statement? One obvious possibility is that Hutchinson knew nothing of Lewis's statement and so was unaware she was in Dorset Street at that time. Another possibility is that he had read Lewis's statement, and then the question would have to be asked why did Hutchinson suggest Lewis wasn't there and the 'respectably dressed man' was a figment of Lewis's imagination.

Hutchinson's statement serves to ensure the 'respectably dressed man' is taken out of the spotlight. I'm not saying there is any proof that was Hutchinson's intention, but his statement does serve that purpose.

The simplest explanation is usually the right one. Why Hutchinson would read or hear about Sarah Lewis stating she saw a man standing opposite the Court at 2:30am and think- here is my chance to gain a few quid, here is my chance to take the limelight off BGB or here is my chance to get my name into the papers defies logic. Within a few hours he rushes off to the Police station to declare he is the man Lewis described so vaguely. Or alternatively Hutchinson really saw what he did. He hears about Kelly's death over the weekend and on the Sunday morning thinks he sees the man again at Petticoat Market. He tells a fixed duty Policeman. After obviously thinking on it further he confides in a friend at the Lodging house what had happened and what he had seen. The friend encourages him to go to the Police and he does. I know which one sounds more logical and plausible.

It is unclear why he didn't mention Lewis. In the Police statement that is probably understandable why he doesn't mention her. Abberline you would imagine would have clarified all this with him. It is the clarification in his press statement that is problematic. However it may Hutchinson is being asked specific questions and his answers written as part of a continuous statement. For instance:

Pressman: Did you see any Police around?

Hutchinson: One policeman went by the Commercial-street end of Dorset-street while I was standing there, but not one came down Dorset Street.

Pressman: Did you see any other men around?

Hutchinson: I saw one man go into a lodging-house in Dorset-street, and no one else. I have been looking for the man all day.

That is speculation but you get my point. The Press would not have been interested in any women he had seen as they wouldn't have been a possible murderer.

[Darryl Kenyon]

So in order to pass himself off as the man Lewis referred too he doesn't mention seeing her. Also he comes forward at 6pm on the Monday night- Lewis gives her testimony that morning. It isn't as if there was a journalist tweeting from inside the courtroom giving an up to date account of what was going on and Hutchinson was able to check his twitter account to see it.

I take your point SD but I would just like to point out extracts from The Star 10 Nov - The desire to be interesting has had its effect on the people who live in the Dorset-street-court and lodging-houses, and for whoever cares to listen there are

A HUNDRED HIGHLY CIRCUMSTANTIAL STORIES,
which, when carefully sifted, prove to be totally devoid of truth. One woman (as reported below) who lives in the court stated that at about two o'clock she heard a cry of "Murder." This story soon became popular, until at last half a dozen women were retailing it as their own personal experience. Each story contradicted the others with respect to the time at which the cry was heard.

About one o'clock in the morning a person living in the court opposite to the room occupied by the murdered woman heard her singing the song, "Sweet violets," but this person is unable to say whether any one else was with her at that time. Nothing more was seen of the woman until yesterday morning
LAST SEEN ALIVE
There are conflicting statements as to when the woman was last seen alive, but that upon which most reliance appears to be placed is that of a young woman, an associate of the deceased, who states that about half-past ten o'clock on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset-street, who said to her that she had no money and, if she could not get any, would never go out any more, but would do away with herself. Soon afterwards they parted, and

A MAN, RESPECTABLY DRESSED,
came up and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money.

Now this is two days before Hutch came forward. He resided a couple of hundred yards from the murder site. He would know people from that area. News of the murder and the rumours about it would have spread like wildfire. He could easily have picked up on any of the above stories , or parts of them, waited till after the inquest [ when he thought it might be safer ], and amalgamated parts of the above into his own.

Now I know that none of the above mention a man seen watching the court but he could have got that snippet of info from all the gossip before or after the inquest [ public gallery maybe ].
The fact that he doesn't mention seeing Sarah Lewis is perhaps evidence that he didn't know the full facts and was relying on what he was told or heard.
He could also have waited till after the inquest to see if wideawake man had come forward.

Regards Darryl

[Sunny Delight]

I take your point SD but I would just like to point out extracts from The Star 10 Nov - The desire to be interesting has had its effect on the people who live in the Dorset-street-court and lodging-houses, and for whoever cares to listen there are

A HUNDRED HIGHLY CIRCUMSTANTIAL STORIES,
which, when carefully sifted, prove to be totally devoid of truth. One woman (as reported below) who lives in the court stated that at about two o'clock she heard a cry of "Murder." This story soon became popular, until at last half a dozen women were retailing it as their own personal experience. Each story contradicted the others with respect to the time at which the cry was heard.

About one o'clock in the morning a person living in the court opposite to the room occupied by the murdered woman heard her singing the song, "Sweet violets," but this person is unable to say whether any one else was with her at that time. Nothing more was seen of the woman until yesterday morning
LAST SEEN ALIVE
There are conflicting statements as to when the woman was last seen alive, but that upon which most reliance appears to be placed is that of a young woman, an associate of the deceased, who states that about half-past ten o'clock on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset-street, who said to her that she had no money and, if she could not get any, would never go out any more, but would do away with herself. Soon afterwards they parted, and

A MAN, RESPECTABLY DRESSED,
came up and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money.

Now this is two days before Hutch came forward. He resided a couple of hundred yards from the murder site. He would know people from that area. News of the murder and the rumours about it would have spread like wildfire. He could easily have picked up on any of the above stories , or parts of them, waited till after the inquest [ when he thought it might be safer ], and amalgamated parts of the above into his own.

Now I know that none of the above mention a man seen watching the court but he could have got that snippet of info from all the gossip before or after the inquest [ public gallery maybe ].
The fact that he doesn't mention seeing Sarah Lewis is perhaps evidence that he didn't know the full facts and was relying on what he was told or heard.
He could also have waited till after the inquest to see if wideawake man had come forward.

Regards Darryl

To show up so quickly after the murder and claim to be Sarah Lewis man would have been incredibly risky if hypothetically he did come forward as an attention seeker. He placed himself in the vicinity of the crime at around the time of death. He had no co-orboration of his story and if he wanted co-orboration he could have mentioned Lewis but he doesn't. Maybe he told Abberline to convince him- we will never know. Hutchinson waited a few hours after the Inquest closed- no where near enough time to see if anyone else came forward. He could have come forward at 6pm and the real man wearing the wideawake hat could have walked in at 8pm.

Hutchinson gives a compelling and believable story around the events leading up to his coming forward. He is interrogated by Abberline personally who looked into his eyes, saw his body language and heard his answers. He believed him. Years later Walter Dew remembered Hutchinson as an honest witness. I really find it difficult to ascertain a reason for him lying and his claim to know Kelly to me leaves a personal touch to it.

[Abby Normal]

Right, there may be more mileage in debating BGB/Britannia-man, but in your typical 'bull-in-a-china-shop' approach you've already dismissed one of the witnesses who may have seen the BGB man in the court, and that was Bowyer.
So, lets not be so anxious to cast every singular press report as "tattle", and instead just study what may have been going on in those hours leading up to the murder.


Re, Lewis & Hutch...
It appears you're not too clear on the events as they happened that night.

Lewis did NOT see Hutchinson in Dorset St. as she was walking along, NOT until she herself reached the passage - it was then she first noticed him standing opposite looking up the court.
So naturally she didn't connect his loitering to the couple that had already walked up the passage.

Lewis said there was a couple, on ahead, and they walked up the court.
She never mentioned seeing Hutch, not yet.

However long it took her to reach the court herself, a few seconds?, it doesn't matter, but she only saw Hutch looking up the passage when she reached it herself.
Lewis didn't connect him looking up the passage, and the couple walking, because they had disappeared before she herself had got there.
So she never said Hutch was already standing there looking up an empty passage before the couple got there, she never said that.

There's just no way a Tuesday morning paper is going to place a couple walking up the court (re: Lewis), a day and a half before the Wednesday evening press release Hutchinsons statement, which includes him watching Kelly & AK walk up the court.
They are independent sources released at different times.




After Lewis & Kennedy had been accosted on Wednesday evening, we read of a similar character in the court that evening, he's typically referred to as "Collar & Cuffs", but his presence was observed by Bowyer.

Harry Bowyer states that on Wednesday night he saw a man speaking to Kelly who resembled the description given by the fruiterer of the supposed Berner Street murderer. He was, perhaps, 27 or 28 and had a dark moustache and very peculiar eyes. His appearance was rather smart and attention was drawn to him by showing very white cuffs and a rather long white collar, the ends of which came down in front over a black coat. He did not carry a bag.
Western Mail, 12 Nov. 1888.

The question that should be asked is, was Kennedy followed home by this character, and that maybe where he first made acquaintance with Kelly?
The absence of a 'black bag' may rule him out, but we don't know what the passage of time was between the accosting in Bethnal Green Rd. and this appearance in Millers Court. He may have been somewhere else in between time especially as Kennedy tells us a Gentleman intercepted the BGB man which permitted the girls to make their escape. Maybe he dispensed with the bag after that?

perhaps. ive always been very intrigued by this dude, and we know he was out and about accosting women, frightening them. he sounds alot to me like marshalls man in that taunting, joking yet somewhat ominous manner. "you would say anything but your prayers". "something tje ladys dont like."

refresh my memory wick... you think the bgb is most likely the ripper correct?

[Wickerman]

Hutch came forward after the inquest Wick, you know that. Sarah Lewis's inquest testimony was already out there that she had seen a man standing opposite the court, but who she could not give a good description of.
Anyone could have come forward and said he was that person.
Regards Darryl

Only the Evening papers could have published anything on it.

If you check the Star, they didn't cover Lewis.
The London Evening News, didn't cover her story.
The Pall Mall Gazette didn't.

The Evening Post did, but do you know what time it was published?
The Echo also covered her story, but do you know what time that published?

It's quite possible Hutchinson was already in talking with police when those two evening papers hit the street.

Sarah Lewis's story was only thoroughly published in the morning papers, on Tuesday 13th.

[Wickerman]

According to Hutchinson, the 'well dressed man' is standing on the corner of Thrawl Street in the middle of the night.....

Ah, yes, my mistake. In the police statement he is already walking up Commercial St.
So, in the press statement he is standing on the corner of Thrawl St. while Hutch walks passed.
Do you think he is putting his safety at risk by standing there?
I guess I'm not sure why you think this a reason for doubting Hutchinson.

In terms of what he is doing there and how long he has been there, we don't know. For every guess you offer, you could offer an alternative such as he had been there for a while looking for a willing woman.

True, but I am not trying to justify his presence, I accept Hutchinson's account. I don't need to find a reason for Astrachan being there. To me it's not an issue.
Also, I accept Kennedy's statement that she saw Kelly about 3:00 am, outside the Britannia, so Astrachan can't be the killer to my way of thinking.

supposedly a man is standing on the corner of Thrawl Street at 2 in the morning on his own looking like he has something worth taking in an area well known for petty crime.

It's not much to go on if you're thinking is to make him into the killer. A man standing around all dressed up and nowhere to go. Would it be a wise thing for a killer to make such an exhibition of himself?
You may be right, if you recall the Yorkshire Ripper, one of the arresting officers looked at him and whispered something like; "he looks like a wimp, even effeminate".
Hutch did say he didn't look like he would hurt anyone.

But, as has been mentioned before. If he did kill Kelly, why do that with some local guy watching their every move. And, presumably they would hear Hutchinson's boots pacing up the court and standing outside her room, so the would know he hadn't left.
But, like I said, Kelly was alive & well, outside the Britannia about 3:00 am.

[Wickerman]

Hutchinson tells you whom he saw while keeping vigil. He did not see Sarah Lewis.

Hutchinson states:

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.

Sarah Lewis is clearly not mentioned by Hutchinson. According to Lewis, the man was looking up the court as Lewis went into the court. How does he not see her?

I think we've been down this path more than once.

If you can't accept Badham not being interested in hearing about loose women on the streets, I can't change that. Another poster offered the same conclusion, it's just a fact of life. That class of women didn't amount to much in the late 19th century, they were mostly just background noise, especially the lowest classes.
It's only obvious we cannot know the reason, but the omission isn't necessarily his choice, and it doesn't make his account suspicious.

You may be forgetting we are talking about a factual document entered into evidence. It's not an unverified story from the press. The police always investigate significant witness testimony. They already had Lewis's statement, they had the means to bring Lewis to Commercial St. to identify Hutch. They had police notebooks to review to see if any beat constable mentions seeing Hutch, or anyone he talked about at the time he claimed.
Hutch was with the police several hours, and the interrogation by Abberline has not survived. So we do not know the extent his statement was tested.

At the end of the day it was Abberline's conclusion Hutchinson was to be believed.

[Wickerman]

.....refresh my memory wick... you think the bgb is most likely the ripper correct?

The man outside the Britannia at 3:00 am (aka BGB), yes I think he is responsible.

[Wickerman]

The simplest explanation is usually the right one. Why Hutchinson would read or hear about Sarah Lewis stating she saw a man standing opposite the Court at 2:30am and think- here is my chance to gain a few quid, .....

I asked the forum some days back, if anyone knew where this idea came from that police paid witnesses for their statements.
Alternately, where do we hear of the press paying a witness for a story?

I'm not talking about today, what is done now has no bearing on 130+ years ago.

The most I can see is a reporter might buy someone a drink, but that's it.

[Wickerman]

I take your point SD but I would just like to point out extracts from The Star 10 Nov - The desire to be interesting has had its effect on the people who live in the Dorset-street-court and lodging-houses, and for whoever cares to listen there are

A HUNDRED HIGHLY CIRCUMSTANTIAL STORIES,
which, when carefully sifted, prove to be totally devoid of truth. One woman (as reported below) who lives in the court stated that at about two o'clock she heard a cry of "Murder." This story soon became popular, until at last half a dozen women were retailing it as their own personal experience. Each story contradicted the others with respect to the time at which the cry was heard.

About one o'clock in the morning a person living in the court opposite to the room occupied by the murdered woman heard her singing the song, "Sweet violets," but this person is unable to say whether any one else was with her at that time. Nothing more was seen of the woman until yesterday morning
LAST SEEN ALIVE
There are conflicting statements as to when the woman was last seen alive, but that upon which most reliance appears to be placed is that of a young woman, an associate of the deceased, who states that about half-past ten o'clock on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset-street, who said to her that she had no money and, if she could not get any, would never go out any more, but would do away with herself. Soon afterwards they parted, and

A MAN, RESPECTABLY DRESSED,
came up and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money.

Now this is two days before Hutch came forward. He resided a couple of hundred yards from the murder site. He would know people from that area. News of the murder and the rumours about it would have spread like wildfire. He could easily have picked up on any of the above stories , or parts of them, waited till after the inquest [ when he thought it might be safer ], and amalgamated parts of the above into his own.

Now I know that none of the above mention a man seen watching the court but he could have got that snippet of info from all the gossip before or after the inquest [ public gallery maybe ].
The fact that he doesn't mention seeing Sarah Lewis is perhaps evidence that he didn't know the full facts and was relying on what he was told or heard.
He could also have waited till after the inquest to see if wideawake man had come forward.

Regards Darryl

What intrigues me about these 'what-ifs', is, if WE can see it, the police at the time can also see it.

They read the papers, they knew what the word was on the street. They also used the press, as did the press use the police.
None of these press stories are 'mind-blowing' clues.

Also, not that it matters much, but you say "He resided a couple of hundred yards from the murder site", the truth is we have no idea where Hutchinson lived leading up to the murder.
The idea he lived at the Victoria Home was taken from the address he gave on his witness statement. On that day yes he did, but in the press interview, which was presumably conducted at the Victoria Home, he says, on the night of the murder, "where I usually sleep was closed", which made him walk about. So he can't have been staying there at that time.

Where did he "usually sleep"?, he does not say.

[Joshua Rogan]

Also, not that it matters much, but you say "He resided a couple of hundred yards from the murder site", the truth is we have no idea where Hutchinson lived leading up to the murder.
The idea he lived at the Victoria Home was taken from the address he gave on his witness statement. On that day yes he did, but in the press interview, which was presumably conducted at the Victoria Home, he says, on the night of the murder, "where I usually sleep was closed", which made him walk about. So he can't have been staying there at that time.

Where did he "usually sleep"?, he does not say.

Given that his very next line is "I came in as soon as it opened in the morning" rather than "I went in...", doesn't this indicate that the interview was conducted in the place where he usually slept?

[Joshua Rogan]

I asked the forum some days back, if anyone knew where this idea came from that police paid witnesses for their statements.
Alternately, where do we hear of the press paying a witness for a story?

I'm not talking about today, what is done now has no bearing on 130+ years ago.

The most I can see is a reporter might buy someone a drink, but that's it.

Funnily enough, I was trawling through a load of press reports last night and came across an article suggesting a witness was well paid for their story. Unfortunately I was looking for something else entirely at the time so don't recall which paper or date it was from.
I'll try and find it again if I get the chance.

[Abby Normal]

The man outside the Britannia at 3:00 am (aka BGB), yes I think he is responsible.

now that i have no problem with!