Vetting Hutchinson

[Garry Wroe]

I am asking you to tell me that you can, with absolute certainty, exclude the possibility that he meant the Court at the back.

Here’s Thomas Bowyer as recorded by the Daily Telegraph, 13 November, 1888:-

‘By the Jury: When did you see her last alive ? - On Wednesday afternoon, in the court, when I spoke to her. McCarthy's shop is at the corner of Miller's-court.’

McCarthy’s shop was on Dorset Street adjacent to the interconnecting passage. Since Bowyer described it as ‘at the corner of Miller's Court’, it would be safe to assume that he, at least, regarded the passage as being part of the court.

The Daily News, 13 November, 1888, attributed the following to Carrie Maxwell:-

‘I know Mary Jane Kelly by the name simply of "Mary Jane" … I saw her standing at the corner of the court on Friday morning at about eight or half-past eight o'clock. I was then coming out of the house where my husband acts as a deputy ... I said, "Why, Mary what brings you up so early?" She said, "Oh, Carry, I do feel so bad." I asked her if she would have a drink, and she replied, "I have just had half-a-pint of beer and brought it all up again." I saw it in the road, about three yards from where she stood-on the pavement.’

So Kelly was standing ‘at the corner of the court’, ‘on the pavement’, about three yards from a pool of vomit lying ‘in the road’. In other words she was both on Dorset Street and standing at the corner of the court.

Produce as many maps as you like, Jon, but you are completely missing the point. The important factor here, the thing you are refusing to countenance, is not what a surveyor or cartographer would have made of the Dorset Street topography, it was the perception of the locals who knew and inhabited the district. Harry has already informed you of his direct experience of such matters, and the news reports leave no room for ambiguity. The entrance passage, sometimes referred to as ‘the entry’, was considered to have been part of Miller’s Court.

Extraordinarily, you are also expecting us to believe that police accepted what you insist was Hutchinson’s admission that he had stood outside Kelly’s room at a time critical to her death without any further questioning, without any further elaboration. As I’ve stated previously, you have a great deal to learn about police procedures both past and present.

So, in answer to your question, the evidence is overwhelmingly suggestive that when Hutchinson stated that he ‘went to the court’, both he and his police inquisitors understood that he meant he’d looked into the court whilst standing on Dorset Street at the mouth of the interconnecting passage.

Now, if you have any evidence to the contrary …

[Sally]

What
But whilst we're on the subject, I think it's time the Isaacs/Astrakhan [as you call it ] argument did 'just go away'

Otherwise, you'll have to explain how Hutchinson's account does not seem to have described the real Isaacs:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread....ghlight=isaacs

[#39]

Twenty years down the line and still trying his luck. This is the man you envision to be Hutchinson's Astrakhan Man?

And who was, as we know from his prison record from 1887 - you know, the one with the clarinet - a mere 5'3" tall; unlike Hutchinson's Astrakhan Man, who was a lofty 5'6"

Or perhaps Isaacs [flashy dresser that he was] was wearing his platform boots that night? Of course! That'll be it - silly me.

I'm always the last to catch on.

[Ben]

The day I claim that a "may-be" is a "proven fact", then you can claim I am no different to yourselves.
Such an accusation just shows how little attention you pay to what we discuss.

I'm relieved to hear you only consider it a "may-be" that Isaacs was Astrakhan and had an alibi for the Kelly murder, Jon. I'm afraid that doesn't always come across from your frequent and rather-too-confident assertions that the real Astrakhan man WAS found in December.

Yes, and you know this all too well. Yet to date, none of your vocal minority, including yourself, have ever offered anything like proof to contest the status quo of Abberline's written opinion of Hutchinson.

If you wish to ignore the sheer weight of evidence supporting the contention that Hutchinson was discredited, that is your perrogative, but don't keep repeating yourself in the naive hope that it won't be met with counter-repetition (life's just not that long, you know?). Unless you stop that "vocal minority" nonsense immediately, I'm afraid I will continue to draw attention to the extreme unpopularity of some of your views. You have produced not a scrap of evidence to demonstrate that those who doubt Hutchinson's statement are in any sort of "minority".

Any word on Isaacs lost court case yet?

I never suggested that anything has been "lost". "Missing reports" are your thing, not mine. I'm not looking for any "court record" for the simple reason that I accept the written contemporary evidence. If you want to challenge it you're more than welcome, but I'm afraid you're the one with the work to do. I can only reiterate the fruitlessness of using your "convictions calender" as any sort of guide for determining who was and wasn't in prison in 1888.

And, you have never yet shown how the Daily News coverage was "false", like everything else in these debates, its only your opinion.

It's just fortunate for that opinion that the Daily News report is contradicted by all other sources, including all other newspapers and Lewis's actual police statement. It's also interesting that my opinion is apparently shared by anyone who has ever studied the subject.

"If" this, "If" that. Since when was Ben Holme a professional on Police procedure?

He doesn't need to be. The matter is a simple one of overwhelming commonsense, or more specifically, not squirreling away critical information at the height of the largest manhunt London had ever witnessed for no good reason. Why would Abberline forward only the statement if he was sitting on a far more crucial document?

Merely a matter of asking the Landlord (or lodgers) if a man by that name had any connections with this house at the time Mary Kelly was there.

So you think Kelly was in the habit of divulging the names of potential clients to her landlord/lady and fellow lodgers? Or even it was a "friendship", is it really likely that identities would be disclosed? "Oh, what, this bloke? This is Mr. George Hutchinson, and he will be keeping me company this afternoon for tea and Mario Kart".

No.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Just as an aside note, is the map of Dorset Street/Millers Court drawn to scale?

If so, Mary Kelly's room seems very large compared to McCarthy's home & the rest of the tenement houses.
Regards,
Amanda

The sketch is not to scale Amanda. The top edge of the drawing is also not the property line.

[Wickerman]

Or perhaps Isaacs [flashy dresser that he was] was wearing his platform boots that night? Of course! That'll be it - silly me.

I'm always the last to catch on.

The prison record is measured, at 5ft 3 3/4, in stocking feet, with no hat.
Hutchinson was only guessing the height of a man, in boots, and wearing a hat.

The fact Hutch claims to have stooped down to look under the brim of the hat suggests Astrachan was short.

[Wickerman]

Here’s Thomas Bowyer as recorded by the Daily Telegraph, 13 November, 1888:-

I know Garry, but all these quotes are immaterial.
When he said, "I went to the Court", you have to eliminate the possibility that he meant the Court at the back. You have to establish, beyond any doubt that he could not have meant the Court at the back.

If you cannot find a quote that eliminates this possibility, then you are resigned to accepting that he could have meant precisely that.
Which means, he did not change his story.

Seeing as how there are two versions of his story by the press, how could Hutchinson have made changes in two versions?
Isn't it obvious the press had a hand in this?
You choose to blame Hutchinson when it is only the press rewording his story.

Produce as many maps as you like, Jon, but you are completely missing the point.

I'm not missing the point at all, I think you are avoiding the question.

The important factor here, the thing you are refusing to countenance, is not what a surveyor or cartographer would have made of the Dorset Street topography, it was the perception of the locals who knew and inhabited the district.

But Garry, the locals did not write Hutchinson's statement, Badham did.
It is Badham's perception that you might question, and he did not live in Dorset St. So your objection does not work.

Hutchinson told Badham what he did, and Badham wrote that he went to the Court. Did Badham mean "up into the Court", or did he mean "outside the Court"?
What evidence do you have to show which he meant?
If you have no certain evidence, then you are not able to claim he changed his story.

This is how the Echo describe the scene:
"The murderer couldn't have come to a worse place (for escaping) than this court. There is only this narrow entrance,..."
Clearly then, the Court is not the passage, it is the yard at the back.

Here is another reference, also by the Echo.
"Mrs McCarthy herself gives a slight clue as to a person who was seen in the court early on Friday morning, as one of her customers remarked to her – before the murder was known - “I saw such a funny man up the court this morning”.

In neither case are we reading about the passage.

Extraordinarily, you are also expecting us to believe that police accepted what you insist was Hutchinson’s admission that he had stood outside Kelly’s room at a time critical to her death without any further questioning, without any further elaboration.

Of course there will be further questions, that was Abberline's job.
As far as Hutchinson placing himself in jeopardy, it makes no difference whether he stood outside the passage, or walked up to the room. He is placing himself at the murder scene at the required time, and the police are going to be suspicious.

[harry]

Jon,
One last time.The court consists of a passage way,a court yard,and buildings enclosing the court yard. What you are insisting,is because the word court is printed in the court yard space,that area alone is the court.You are wrong.The whole is the court.The court yard is a part of the whole.A person is at the court if he is stood in Dorset street,adjacent the passage way.He is in the court if present in the court yard,the passage way,or a building.He is going UP the court if entering,and Down the court if leaving.
Hutchinson states he went to the court.Nothing about going up the court into the court yard,or being in the court yard.To me it indicates he went only as far as the court entrance.

[Scott Nelson]

That would be on Dorset Street. Yes, not going into the narrow passageway into the court. He stood opposite the passage on the other side of the street.

[Garry Wroe]

One last time.The court consists of a passage way,a court yard,and buildings enclosing the court yard. What you are insisting,is because the word court is printed in the court yard space,that area alone is the court.You are wrong.The whole is the court.The court yard is a part of the whole.A person is at the court if he is stood in Dorset street,adjacent the passage way.He is in the court if present in the court yard,the passage way,or a building.He is going UP the court if entering,and Down the court if leaving.

Precisely, Harry.

Hutchinson states he went to the court.Nothing about going up the court into the court yard,or being in the court yard.To me it indicates he went only as far as the court entrance.

It would appear that Badham saw it that way too, Harry, otherwise Hutchinson would have been asked if he'd heard sound or seen light emanating from Kelly's room. Had he perceived either there is no doubt that this information would have been included in the witness statement.

At least, that's the way it works in the real world.

[Garry Wroe]

That would be on Dorset Street. Yes, not going into the narrow passageway into the court. He stood opposite the passage on the other side of the street.

Hutchinson appears to have been sighted by Sarah Lewis, Scott, as he stood on the southern footway of Dorset Street peering down the passage as though 'looking or waiting for someone'. His witness statement implies that he then crossed the road, halted at the mouth of the interconnecting passage, then looked into the court in the hope of seeing Kelly and/or Astrakhan.

His press statements, on the other hand, tell a different story. Now he wanders down the passage and stands directly outside Kelly's room for a couple of minutes where he claims to have discerned neither light nor sound.

The point I've been attempting to make is that this latter claim was of such evidentiary value that it would have been included and elaborated upon in his official police statement had it been made in the presence of investigators. The fact that it wasn't is sufficient to tell us that it was never mentioned. And this, in turn, means that Hutchinson gave differing accounts to the press and police - something Jon insists never happened.

Draw your own conclusions.

[Garry Wroe]

I'm always the last to catch on.

Not quite the last, Sally. That JTRF link you provided led to some information I'd never come across before: Astrakhan was well known in the Dorset Street area.

Makes you wonder why Abberline never identified him.

Oh, sorry ... now I remember ... he did.

Old 'slummer' Isaacs - the richest vagrant on Dorset Street.

[Garry Wroe]

I know Garry, but all these quotes are immaterial.

Which is why, Jon, I find it impossible to engage you in intelligent debate.

I'll leave it there and allow others to draw their own conclusions.

[Batman]

Hutchinson appears to have been sighted by Sarah Lewis, Scott, as he stood on the southern footway of Dorset Street peering down the passage as though 'looking or waiting for someone'.

Exactly. It was lewis who placed a man there in that position. I don't think Hutchinson made the claim at all... Nor seeing lewis go into the court either.

[Wickerman]

Which is why, Jon, I find it impossible to engage you in intelligent debate.

I'll leave it there and allow others to draw their own conclusions.

Which, when translated actually means that you are unable to justify your assertion that going "to the Court", can ONLY mean to stand outside the Court (your take), as opposed to walking into the Court (my take).

If you were being honest you would admit the actual distinction is impossible to determine from a singular statement. It could be either.

Likewise, the second point, that seeing as how two different versions of his interview appear in the press, how could he be responsible for different changes in both statements?
The answer, which you avoid admitting is, that it is unlikely, and any differences must be due to press rewording.

Those are the problems you choose to ignore.

[Fisherman]

Hutchinson appears to have been sighted by Sarah Lewis, Scott, as he stood on the southern footway of Dorset Street peering down the passage as though 'looking or waiting for someone'. His witness statement implies that he then crossed the road, halted at the mouth of the interconnecting passage, then looked into the court in the hope of seeing Kelly and/or Astrakhan.

Draw your own conclusions.

Thank you; I will! I dislike the passage "His witness statement implies that he the crossed the road..."

His witness statement implies nothing of the sort. There is no mentioning at all about him crossing any road. Not a iot. There is no mentioning or implication whatsoever that he was ever on the south side of Dorset Street.

This so called implication only enters the stage if we accept that the man Lewis spoke of was Hutchinson. It is thus as circular a reasoning as we are ever going to see on Casebook. It does not allow for the alternative take that the loiterer was somebody else. It MUST have been Hutchinson, the reasoning goes, since Hutchinson himself said he was around at the pertinent hour.

Enter Walter Dew. Dew says that Hutchinson was not a man he would reflect on. Dew is very clearly of the meaning that Hutchinson was not any liar or any timewaster - Dew thinks he was honestly mistaken, and he thinks he was mistaken as to "date and time". Clearly, Walter Dew thinks that Hutchinson muddled the days.

What does Hitchinson say about his vigil? Does he say "I went to Crossinghams, and then I went to the corner of the court"? No, he does not. So there is no "implication" that you are correct in your suggestion that he started to look for Kelly and Astrakhan man from a vantage point across the street. Neither can any logical reason for him doing so be discerned.
What Hutchinson very clearly says is that he went "to the court" and looked to see if he could spot Astrakhan man and Kelly, which he of course could not do.
He then says that he stood "there" - arguably meaning at the entrance to the passageway" - for three quarters of an hour.
And when he finally leaves, he says he left "from the corner of the court".

This means that he firmly places himself on the northern side of Dorset Street throughout, and says nothing about ever having been on the southern side.

The one reason and one reason only to surmise that he was the man that stood outside Crossinghams is Sarah Lewis. She seems to offer corroboration for Hutchinson´s story, but for one detail - she has her man on the other side of the street. The wrong side, that is.

Unfortunately for those who accept that Lewis´ man and Hutch were one and the same, Hutchinson himself says nothing about Lewis having passed him and gone into the court. This in spite of how he witnessed abot a lodger he saw and a PC in the distance. Hutchinson also very clearly says that these people were the only ones he saw.

So we have three reasons to think that Hutchinson was not Lewis´man: Dew´s assumption that Hutchinson had muddled the dates, Hutchinson´s own admittance to have stood on the north side of Dorset Street and his failure to say anything about having stood on the southern side at any stage, and Hutchinson´s failure to acknowledge Lewis having passed into the court.

There is also a fourth reason: The press report saying that the police belief in Hutchinsons story had "suffered diminution" and "a very reduced importance".
Both of these wordings have in common that neither is any discarding of the evidence - they both represent a diminished importance being attached to the Hutchinson story, and not a lost interest.
Diminished - NOT lost!

Now we can speak of implications, Garry - and the implications are that Dew was correct. Hutchinson seemingly muddled the days. And when the police realized this, the importance of his story was of course diminished - Astrakhan man was of course of interest, but not at all of the same interest as would have been the case if he had been with Kelly on the murder night.

Can we sum this up in any way? Yes, we can: Your version of events hinges on Hutchinson NOT having muddled the days. If he did not, then he must have been the loiterer. And he must have left out Lewis from his version or forgotten her - while remembering the lodger and the PC.

If this was so, then why would Abberline disbelieve a man who was proven to have been in place?
You say "because he gave an impossibly detailed description of Astrakhan man". But luckily, we have it on record that Abberline believed that Hutchinsons story was truthful. And we have many papers reporting about how Hutchinson was severely questioned but could not be shaken.

What kind of people are most likely to muddle the days? Well, if we ask psychologists, they will say "people who live a vagabonding life and who are deprived of sleep". Which is a precise description of the kind of life Hutchinson seemingly led.

And what was it Lewis said in her first report to the police? Yes, that´s true: she said that she could not comment on any features of the man outside Crossinghams at all. She only noticed that he was there, but could not describe anything about him, appearancewise or behaviourwise.
Later, though, at the inquest, she suddenly remembered his clothing and his behaviour in a very detailed manner.

If we ask a witness psychologist about such a thing, Garry, what do you think the psychologist would say?

Exactly - that people invent things, many times out of a supressed wish to please. And that information that surfaces after no information at all, is information that we should take with a scoop of coarse salt.

The whole Hutchinson as the Ripper-scenario is about as sound as a Pakistani textile factory. You know, the ones that are built in concrete, but where cheating building contractors have mixed way too much sand into the material.
And so, after having seemed strong for many years, one day the buildings crumble and fall, and everything that is left is a cloud of dust.

And a number of casualties that nobody seems to care about.

I will not venture further into this business. I have made my point, since it is a point that needs to be made. I have - as you recommended - drawn my own conclusions. They are that the loiterer Lewis spoke of was not George Hutchinson. She saw a man outside Crossinghams for a few fleeting seconds. And on the murder night, Crossinghams was a lodging house cowing in the wind and rain. Any lodger who stepped out of it´s door at the point in time when Lewsi arrived, would do well to stop for a second and peer out into the miserable night before venturing out into Dorset Street.

Not Hutchinson though - HE said that after leaving Dorset Street he spent the hours leading up to his lodgings opening up for the morning walking the streets.

In THAT weather...?

Nope - in the weather of the night before - a very nice and calm night, with little wind, reasonably warm temperatures and not a drop of rain.

The kind of night when people walk the streets.