Vetting Hutchinson

[Wickerman]

Well, Jon, I think that effectively ends THAT discussion!

I should say so Christer, what did Swanson say about Packer?

Packer,....has unfortunately made different statements.......any statement he made would be rendered almost valueless...

Still true today, only the name has changed...

[Wickerman]

But if the man that Lewis claims to have seen wasn't Hutchinson then who was he? He was described as looking up the court as if waiting or looking for someone, so his behaviour might be regarded as suspicious.

There is more to this event than what was described in the Court records.
If we compare the various press accounts, collectively, with the Court version our view of events will expand a little.

I have collated all the principal newspaper accounts of the Kelly inquest and added what is known from the brief Court version.
All the comments by Sarah Lewis are in response to questions, it was not a continuous narrative. Unfortunately we do not know what all the questions were.

With respect to the testimony given by Sarah Lewis, we read in the press that she made other observations not entered by the Coroner's Secretary.

The Court version gives brief mention of another couple in view.

"-- another young man with a woman passed along
-- The man standing in the street was looking up the court as if waiting for some one to come out,..."

In the Daily Telegraph we read:
"The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink. There was nobody in the court."

Where this other man and woman were is not explained, but as you can see, the Daily Telegraph have provided us with two extra details.
- That the female of the couple was "in drink", and..
- That nobody was in the Court.

The reply that "nobody was in the court", must have been in response to that specific question. The implication therefore is, that this couple must have passed up into the court. To which the Coroner may have assumed that they either lived there or, that they went up there for some kind of liaison. Sarah Lewis can only tell the Coroner that nobody was in the Court, implying that this couple must have gone indoors.

Hutchinson would later come forward and tell his story that Astrachan & Kelly walked up the court, and naturally, went inside No. 13.

Then, in the Daily News we find a little more detail.
"He was looking up the court as if he was waiting for some one. I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."

We know from the testimony of Mary Cox that Kelly had no hat on that night, and again, above, we have confirmation that the female was "the worse for drink".

So, in collating these press accounts we now learn that at the time this loiterer was standing in Dorset St. looking up the court, there was another man & woman in view - as attested by Hutchinson.

- That this man & woman passed up into the court - as stated by Hutchinson.

- That the woman was the worse for drink - as stated by Hutchinson.

- That the woman had no hat on, as confirmed by Mrs Cox.

Only two people apparently, knew about this couple, that was Sarah Lewis & George Hutchinson.

Sarah Lewis, being a family friend of the Keyler's, did not know Mary Kelly by sight, and because nowhere do we read exactly where she first saw this couple, it is quite possible that she only saw them from behind as they turned to pass up into the dark passage ahead of her.
By the time Lewis got to the passage, the Court was empty.

There is sufficient here to see that George Hutchinson's basic story that he stood watching a man & woman go to Millers Court is confirmed by Sarah Lewis.

[harry]

Fisherman,
In reply to your last post to me.
No Fisherman,what I ask myself is do people remember important events three days afterwards.Not mundane,repeated.routine events.but unusual,infrequent,sensational events.Why do they remember.I would say by association of different experienced involvement in those events.Plus other related topics such as the weather.Yes I can give evidence of such remembrance.January 17th,1947.November16,1948.September17,1945 as starters..Hutchinson had to remember just three days afterwards.The associations as an aid to him.A wet and cold night.,a marathon walk to Romford,a night locked out of his lodgings,the lord mayors show,a person who drew his attention because of his attire,and last and most important,the most notorious crime, in a series of crimes,
involving an acquaintance.
So you can believe he mistook the day,you just cannot be convincing.

[John G]

There is more to this event than what was described in the Court records.
If we compare the various press accounts, collectively, with the Court version our view of events will expand a little.

I have collated all the principal newspaper accounts of the Kelly inquest and added what is known from the brief Court version.
All the comments by Sarah Lewis are in response to questions, it was not a continuous narrative. Unfortunately we do not know what all the questions were.

With respect to the testimony given by Sarah Lewis, we read in the press that she made other observations not entered by the Coroner's Secretary.

The Court version gives brief mention of another couple in view.

"-- another young man with a woman passed along
-- The man standing in the street was looking up the court as if waiting for some one to come out,..."

In the Daily Telegraph we read:
"The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink. There was nobody in the court."

Where this other man and woman were is not explained, but as you can see, the Daily Telegraph have provided us with two extra details.
- That the female of the couple was "in drink", and..
- That nobody was in the Court.

The reply that "nobody was in the court", must have been in response to that specific question. The implication therefore is, that this couple must have passed up into the court. To which the Coroner may have assumed that they either lived there or, that they went up there for some kind of liaison. Sarah Lewis can only tell the Coroner that nobody was in the Court, implying that this couple must have gone indoors.

Hutchinson would later come forward and tell his story that Astrachan & Kelly walked up the court, and naturally, went inside No. 13.

Then, in the Daily News we find a little more detail.
"He was looking up the court as if he was waiting for some one. I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."

We know from the testimony of Mary Cox that Kelly had no hat on that night, and again, above, we have confirmation that the female was "the worse for drink".

So, in collating these press accounts we now learn that at the time this loiterer was standing in Dorset St. looking up the court, there was another man & woman in view - as attested by Hutchinson.

- That this man & woman passed up into the court - as stated by Hutchinson.

- That the woman was the worse for drink - as stated by Hutchinson.

- That the woman had no hat on, as confirmed by Mrs Cox.

Only two people apparently, knew about this couple, that was Sarah Lewis & George Hutchinson.

Sarah Lewis, being a family friend of the Keyler's, did not know Mary Kelly by sight, and because nowhere do we read exactly where she first saw this couple, it is quite possible that she only saw them from behind as they turned to pass up into the dark passage ahead of her.
By the time Lewis got to the passage, the Court was empty.

There is sufficient here to see that George Hutchinson's basic story that he stood watching a man & woman go to Millers Court is confirmed by Sarah Lewis.

Hello Wickerman,

Thanks for the very informative reply. Considering that Hutchinson is often challenged on the ground that his account was too detailed, do you think that his description could have been a composite of the man he saw Kelly with in Miller's Court and the possible sighting in Petticoat Lane, where he said he believed he had seen him on Sunday morning? This might be an understandable if you take the view that he was eager to give as much detail as possible.

[Fisherman]

John G: Hello Fisherman,

But the fact that no alternative to Lewis' man appears to have been found surely means that, at the very least, Hutchinson could not be completely discounted.

Of course! That goes withhout saying - what we are discussing here is different possibilitites. I favour that he was out on the days, but it is no proven thing.

What I also find interesting is that in his statement he said: "I believe that he lives in the neighbourhood, and I fancied I saw him in Petticoat Lane on Sunday morning, but I was not certain."

Now, considering the weather, poor lighting conditions, and brief sighting of the suspect, it is clearly remarkable that Hutchinson recalled so much detail, particularly as he took several days to come forward, so his memory wouldn't have been fresh. This, of course, casts suspicion on his detailed account- although Lawende's account was also detailed for a man who claimed to see very little. However, is it possible, because he would have been understandably eager to give as much information as possible, that he simply amalgamated what he recalled about Petticoat Lane man with what he remembered of the Miller's Court suspect, at least subconsciously?

Possible? Yes, of course it is possible. I have thrown this suggestion forward myself at times, here on thse boards. Hutchinsonīs saying that he believes the man lived in the neighbourhood points to him knowing the man by sight from before, so he could have gotten some of the details from there.
I donīt discount, however, the possibility that he could have manged it all on the night. I am convinced that Hutchinsom was Toppy Hutchinson, and Reg Hutchinson said about his father that he was able to take one look at a working site, identify what tools and materials he needed, and then he could go get those things without having written them up. That is quite a feat, and it says a lot about his powers of remembering things. Some people are very good with these matters, some are very bad. Clearly, Hutchinson the witness was either lying, embellishing, banking on earlier metting with Astrakhan man - or he had a very good memory. Or he offered a mixture of these things. If it was all up to a good memory, I think Reg Hutchinsons statement tells us that his father fit the bill perfectly.

Of course, it's suspicious that he didn't come forward for several days, but then if he wasn't Lewis' man then Lewis' man didn't come forward at all, which is even more suspicious! So maybe he didn't come forward for one of the reasons you noted in your previous post... proximity to the crime, not being able to read, not wanting anything to do with the police, but then his conscience got the better of him... I mean, clearly what applies to an alternative Lewis Man must, logically, equally apply to Hutchinson!

Before we know what these men were about - if they were different men - we must keep an open mind, that is true.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
In reply to your last post to me.
No Fisherman,what I ask myself is do people remember important events three days afterwards.Not mundane,repeated.routine events.but unusual,infrequent,sensational events.Why do they remember.I would say by association of different experienced involvement in those events.Plus other related topics such as the weather.Yes I can give evidence of such remembrance.January 17th,1947.November16,1948.September17,1945 as starters..Hutchinson had to remember just three days afterwards.The associations as an aid to him.A wet and cold night.,a marathon walk to Romford,a night locked out of his lodgings,the lord mayors show,a person who drew his attention because of his attire,and last and most important,the most notorious crime, in a series of crimes,
involving an acquaintance.
So you can believe he mistook the day,you just cannot be convincing.

Snooker champion Neil Robertson mistook the day he was supposed to play in the Snooker Grand Prix in 2009. It was the perhaps most important day of his carreer.

Robert Falcon Scott mixed up the days on his polar expedition.

In 2012, Jessica Ridgway went missing in USA. Hereīs a snippet about that affair:

That morning, Jessica had called a neighbor boy at 8:25 a.m., asking whether he would be walking to school that day. The two usually walked down Moore Street and through an open space every morning to Witt Elementary.

The boy said he would wait for Jessica. But as the minutes went by, Jessica didn't arrive. Jessica's mother — who works the night shift — reported seeing her daughter leave the house at about 8:30 a.m. wearing a black-and-pink jacket, blue jeans, purple eyeglasses and fuzzy boots and carrying a backpack with the word "Victorious" etched on the back.

At 8:40 — 10 minutes before the school bell rings — Jessica had not arrived. The boy climbed into a car with his father and headed to school, according to dispatch tapes from Westminster police.

The mother reportedly slept through phone calls from the school that were intended to alert her about Jessica's unexcused absence. The mother later in the afternoon began searching for her daughter, going to relatives' homes and her daughter's frequent haunts before calling police at about 4:30 p.m.

Police first went to the family home. Officers went to Witt Elementary. They found the boy who usually walks with Jessica — who at first told officers that he had walked with her that day and saw her enter the school building. He later realized that he had mixed up the days.

So, hereīs this boy who normally walked to school with Jessica, and who was asked ON THE DAY SHE DISAPPEARED if he had walked with her, and answered "yes" - the very same day. But got the days muddled.

This has all been discussed before, Harry, and the last time over, I quoted a US police officer, who said that it was one of the commonest mistakes the police had to deal with. People DO mix the days.

As I said before, people do not normally get the days wrong. Statistically, you have a great point. But when it comes to individual cases, you donīt. There are countless examples of people who have gone to the police, offering information that has been based on a muddling of the days.

You choose to say that you donīt think that Hutchinson would have muddled the days. I can understand that, since it is the normal outcome.
But in the end, we KNOW that these things happen quite frequently, and I think that is where our discussion ends:

You THINK he didnīt do it. I KNOW he could have. And I also know that the case evidence is in line with such a mistake.

We will get no further that that.

[harry]

Fisherman,
The first two cases you mention have no similar elementally causes such as Hutchinson.
The case of Ridgway is different in that there were several witnesses giving information,the most telling that of the father who drove the boy to school.To be on a par with Hutchinson however,the boy would have had to be unsure of the whole day's events.Was he?
Yes police officers do frequently meet with claims of memory loss,but Hutchinson was not claiming such.
No we will not agree,you can fathom why.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
The first two cases you mention have no similar elementally causes such as Hutchinson.
The case of Ridgway is different in that there were several witnesses giving information,the most telling that of the father who drove the boy to school.To be on a par with Hutchinson however,the boy would have had to be unsure of the whole day's events.Was he?
Yes police officers do frequently meet with claims of memory loss,but Hutchinson was not claiming such.
No we will not agree,you can fathom why.

Yes, I can absolutely see why, Harry, no problems there! So we will have to differ.

I say that people can mix the days up.

You say that people can mix the days up.

Just not Hutchinson.

[Wickerman]

Hello Wickerman,

Thanks for the very informative reply. Considering that Hutchinson is often challenged on the ground that his account was too detailed, do you think that his description could have been a composite of the man he saw Kelly with in Miller's Court and the possible sighting in Petticoat Lane, where he said he believed he had seen him on Sunday morning? This might be an understandable if you take the view that he was eager to give as much detail as possible.

Hi John G.
I certainly do John, I recognised your point when I read it the other day. I have made the same argument myself. It is only natural that Hutchinson will supplement his overnight sighting with details observed on Sunday morning, when he believes he saw the same man, if dressed in the same attire.
We cannot possibly know he was dressed the same, but there is no reason that he shouldn't be, his description was not made public at that time.

[harry]

Fisherman,
I am not saying that Hutchinson couldn't get days mixed up,what I am saying is that on that occasion he didn't.I will even go as far to say I would believe you if you could give good reason why he did,and welcome it.There is only one reason I can think of for that state of affairs,and if it could be proven,then it would increase the chances of Hutchinson being the killer,not diminish it.Do you know that reason,does anyone?
For lets face it,it would be such an unusual and abnormal circumstance of substituting a whole day of one's life without knowing it ,that there must have been a reason.If it happened.

[Amanda]

Fisherman,
I am not saying that Hutchinson couldn't get days mixed up,what I am saying is that on that occasion he didn't.I will even go as far to say I would believe you if you could give good reason why he did,and welcome it.There is only one reason I can think of for that state of affairs,and if it could be proven,then it would increase the chances of Hutchinson being the killer,not diminish it.Do you know that reason,does anyone?
For lets face it,it would be such an unusual and abnormal circumstance of substituting a whole day of one's life without knowing it ,that there must have been a reason.If it happened.

Hi Harry,
There could be a whole host of reasons but, given the depravity and desperation in Whitechapel at the time, alcohol would be as good a reason as any.
I'd say that if Hutchinson was in the habit of getting blotto in the evenings, he could very easily get his days & times muddled up.
Amanda

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
I am not saying that Hutchinson couldn't get days mixed up,what I am saying is that on that occasion he didn't.I will even go as far to say I would believe you if you could give good reason why he did,and welcome it.There is only one reason I can think of for that state of affairs,and if it could be proven,then it would increase the chances of Hutchinson being the killer,not diminish it.Do you know that reason,does anyone?
For lets face it,it would be such an unusual and abnormal circumstance of substituting a whole day of one's life without knowing it ,that there must have been a reason.If it happened.

Substituting a whole day? Harry, if we get the days wrong, we get them wrong. If we think that it was Tuesday when we drove to Windermere, then we think it was Tuesday. And of course, the breakfast we had that day, the lunch we had in Windermere, the old friend we met there and the drive back will ALL be ascribed to the wrong day. It goes with the territory, and there is nothing at all strange with that.

Can I give you one good reason why he mixed the days? Yes, I can. And I have! He was a dayworker, switching inbetween works, never having a fixed life. And he was deprived of sleep. Psychologists say that there can be no better ground for mixing the days up. It is by far the best reason we could ever find. Top of the list! People with no fixed points in life and who are deprived of sleep are the most likely ones to muddle the days, and Hutchinson was seemingly just such a person.

There, you asked for a good reason, Harry, and now you have the best one there is.

You know quite well that he was never recorded as having mentioned Lewis. That is an excellent reason to suspect that he never saw Lewis. That is an excellent reason to think he was not there.

We also know, you and I, that George Hutchinson said that he sepnt the night walking the streets for a couple of hours. And we also know, you and I that the weather on the murder night was atrocious. Please explain to me why Hutchinson made the conscious decision to walk the streets, getting formidably soaked and chilled down, when he could easily have sought shelter?

How do you account for that? What is your explanation? Where is the logic in him missing out on Lewis and heading for a three-four hour walk in abominable weather conditions? If we accept that he had the day wrong - as suggested by a detective WHO WAS THERE AND WORKED THE CASE! - then canīt you see that these pieces fit?

This is my last post to you on this errand. If you want to believe that George Hutchinson could never have mistaken the day, in spite of how policemen all over the planet witness about how this is the perhaps most common mistake made by witnesses, then you are welcome to that approach. It is very open-minded.

[harry]

Fisherman,
Not good enough.
If an horrendous murder took place at Windermere while you were there,and you were stood outside the building it took place in for 45 minutes,and you knew and saw the victim enter in company with a possible suspect,then walked the streets of Windermere n the rain before retuning home, would that be forgotten three days later?
Hutchinson states he was unemployed. Why then would he be deprived of sleep or rest. What psycologists say unemployment is grounds for mixing up days.
I asked for good reasons,not untrue examples.
As I've said before,there is nothing to say he w asn't asked or stated he saw lewis.There is only evidence it was left out of the statement.Lewis was already on record as seeing Hutchinson.No need for duplication.
We know The weather was atrocious,we know he said he w alked the streets.
You know that my opinion is that he was lying about that.
Then we have two police officers who were there and were more more involved who accepted the ninth as the date in question,so what fits,to me,is that Hutchinson remembered it as the ninth.
Now policemen all over the world are quite correct in accepting that people are quite often mistaken.Only one policeman from 1888 is recorded as expressing a doubt about Hutchinson,and his doubt only goes as far as an assumption Hutchinson might have been mistaken.P
So there are my explanations.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
Not good enough.
If an horrendous murder took place at Windermere while you were there,and you were stood outside the building it took place in for 45 minutes,and you knew and saw the victim enter in company with a possible suspect,then walked the streets of Windermere n the rain before retuning home, would that be forgotten three days later?
Hutchinson states he was unemployed. Why then would he be deprived of sleep or rest. What psycologists say unemployment is grounds for mixing up days.
I asked for good reasons,not untrue examples.
As I've said before,there is nothing to say he w asn't asked or stated he saw lewis.There is only evidence it was left out of the statement.Lewis was already on record as seeing Hutchinson.No need for duplication.
We know The weather was atrocious,we know he said he w alked the streets.
You know that my opinion is that he was lying about that.
Then we have two police officers who were there and were more more involved who accepted the ninth as the date in question,so what fits,to me,is that Hutchinson remembered it as the ninth.
Now policemen all over the world are quite correct in accepting that people are quite often mistaken.Only one policeman from 1888 is recorded as expressing a doubt about Hutchinson,and his doubt only goes as far as an assumption Hutchinson might have been mistaken.P
So there are my explanations.

You start by saying "not good enough". I know - nothing ever seems to be.

Then you ask me if I would forget "If a horrendous murder took place at Windermere while you were there,and you were stood outside the building it took place in for 45 minutes,and you knew and saw the victim enter in company with a possible suspect,then walked the streets of Windermere in the rain before retuning home, would that be forgotten three days later?"

I think you need to accept, Harry, that the human memory consists of TWO parts - sequential memory and detail memory.

Of course I would not forget if I had been standing outside a house in Windermere and seen a couple enter the house I stood by, and if I then was stupid enough to walk the streets and get soaked for three or four hours.

I really, really, really hope that this is not what we have been discussing, Harry!

I would not forget all these things after three days only - but I could well muddle what day it happened!

The detail memory allows me to remember the things I have seen and done, but it is the sequential memory that is responsible for remembering WHEN I did and saw these things.

I think, Harry, that you can easily see the difference! You will remember when you met your friend X a week or two ago, what you spoke about, what he wore etcetera - but will you remember the exact day it happened?

You will be able to recall a very nice meal you had some time ago, all the flavours, how it wsa cooked, the ingredients, the nice conversation around the table - but can you pinpoint the day?

Can you list the vacations youīve had - in the correct order?

Can you tell me on what exact day the exchange between you and me began on this issue?

Much work has been done by psychologists on the concept of time. Put a man in a cave, with no access to the outside world, and in a very short time he will losse contact of time totally. People have come up from such caves thinking that they have spent a month there when in fact they have been there for nine days only. And vice versa.

That phenomenon owes to how they have not been able to distuingish day from night, Harry. And guess what? George Hutchinson was deprived of sleep, his days and nights floated together and he lived a vagabonding life with no fixed anochoring, as far as we can tell. So he too was deprived of the consistency that lies in having the days and nights dividing what you do in life.

The important point to keep in mind here, Harry, is the division between sequential and detail memory. Ask yourself the questions I outlined above, and then give the whole thing some fresh new thinking. Donīt forget about the people at old peopleīs homes, who can remember the exact cut and colour of a dress they wore when they were eighteen - but who think that friends from that time who have been dead for three decades are still alive. Their sequential memory function has taken leave of them totally, whereas they are sharp as a knife when it comes to detail memory.

When WAS it we started discussing all of this, Harry...? Sunday? Monday? Tuesday? Wednesday?

Surely you can pinpoint that without checking....?

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
You make a very strong case Fisherman.., you always do,but surely its just a question of subtraction for Hutchinson?
He gave his statement on the Monday evening, so that day would have been fresh in his mind.
He recalled going to Petticoat lane market on the Sunday, and he would have recalled he could not have seen Kelly that morning in the early hours, because she was dead, what about the early hours of Saturday morning.,,,same again she was dead..
So now we have the early hours of Friday morning?..as she was not reported dead before 1045 am..yes a possibility,it could not have been the Thursday morning,. otherwise, she would have been still alive that day , and he would not have had thought it important to say he saw her twenty four hours previous, with a man...
I struggle to accept, that he was that absent mindless, especially as he would have been positive in his own mind, before he even entered the police station , to give his statement on the Monday evening..
Regards Richard.