Vetting Hutchinson

[Ben]

I call it as I see it.

So do I.

And as I "see it" you are one of the few remaining adherents to the outdated Gentleman Jack theory, who regard the revival of Hutchinson's eividence as that theory's salvation, which it won't and never will be. I'm well aware that you don't "propose Astrakhan as the murderer", although your contention that Kelly was serviced by two successive well-dressed dandies carrying black packages that night - the second being her killer - is really quite unique, to couch it in polite terms.

Here we go again, as has been pointed out before, "we" do not know what he told the interrogating officer, the record has not survived.

Yes, "here we go again" - and again and again for as long as you fruitlessly persist - you cannot keep relying on "lost reports" to formulate an argument. It's the worst sort of cop-out, especially in this case, given the illogicality of the suggestion that Abberline deliberately withheld important details from his bosses when it was his duty to supply them at the earliest opportunity.

So lets judge Hutchinson on what we "know"

Yes, let's do precisely that (finally!).

Let's not invoke the spectres of "lost reports" (i.e. what we don't know).

As he says he, "stayed there a couple of minutes".
Then returned to the street for about 45 minutes - "to see if they came down again", so obviously, he was back in the street.

But where are these "couple of minutes" mentioned in police statement? It simply states that he waited "there" (i.e. wherever you want "to the court" to have been) for about three quarters of an hour before departing the area altogether - nothing about going anywhere else for a "couple of minutes". Do try to pay heed to the words you've only just typed: "let's judge Hutchinson on what we know". Okay, great approach, but unfortunately for your theories we know that:

A) Hutchinson provided the police with a single location for his 45-minute vigil outside, and referred to it as "to the court".

B) Hutchinson made clear to the press that he regarded "to the court" as the area on Dorset Street in front of the Miller's Court entrance, and "up the court" as entering the passage to the court itself.

I don't make the rules, I'm afraid.

[Ben]

If you read all Lewis's statements, she gives her arrival at the Britannia as 2:30, and elsewhere she says she arrived at the house at 2:30.

What?! You mean a whole 30-seconds discrepancy! Scandalous.

Fortunately, we know that Lewis used the clock of Christ Church to determine the approximate time of arrival at Miller's Court. So where, according to you, is Hutchinson at this time? At what point during this roughly 45-minute period did Hutchinson sneak in a 2-minute spying session outside Kelly's home, and why no mention of it in the police statement - you know, that important document that Abberline sent to his bosses as an accurate reflection of true events?

[harry]

We do not know Badham wrote the statement prior to Aberline's interrogation.It was obviously orally given to someone when Hutchinson entered the police station,and Aberline informed immediately.Had the statement been already taken in writing by Badham,it surely would have included,at least, a description of the man alledgedly in the company of Kelly, Hutchinson's trip to Romford,and the reason Hutchinson was in Commercial Street at 2AM.Badham would not have been that negligent surely.It would have been a complete record,covering the points that Aberline writes of,and negating the need for Aberline to repeat them.

The importance of Hutchinson''s information,is that it places a male person in her room with her,untill 3AM that morning,and infers,unless information was forthcoming,that he was the last person in her company before her death.An alibi of the other man present,not the only occasion it's been used.To eliminate Hutchinson as suspect,that persons existence would have to be established.It never was,and it raises the possibility that Hutchinson lied.

[John G]

Hi johnG
The motive is either lying for 15 minutes of fame or because your a killer.

At the very least hutch is a no good piece of **** liar who tried to cash in on a so called friends horrific murder and effed up the subsequent search for justice for the victim.

Hi Abby,

Thanks for the reply. Yes, that is all perfectly possible. The difficulty that I have is that many of the press reports of the period were unreliable and inconsistent. Take the Pall Mall Gazette, which I referred to earlier, for example: " I went to look up the court to see if I could see them but could not. I stood there for three-quarters of an hour to see if they came down again, but they did not, so I went away." Now that seems pretty similar to the police report to me, I.e he only went to "look up the court" not enter it.

I think it at least possible that Hutchinsons's account was embellished by a reporter, or by Hutchinson himself to make himself seem more heroic. Of course, we've had discussions on the other thread about inconsistencies in Schwartz's evidence! But, pf course, in that case the reference in the press account, to Pipeman rushing him with a knife, could have been a press fabrication-to make the account seem more exciting- or an embellishment by Schwartz to make himself seem less cowardly, I.e by running off, rather than intervening or calling for assistance.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
The most interesting part of Hutchinson's statement is the describing of the handkerchief , with the emphasis on the colour red..
'Oh I have lost my handkerchief' Kelly said, and the man handed her one.
This implies that the item accompanied the couple into Millers court, as it is not inferred that it was given back..
If Hutch lied then I believe it was self preservation , more then malice.
It has often been suggested by me, that Hutchinson,implanted his movements with Kelly, in the guise of Mr A, It was he that accompanied Kelly, back to Millers court, it was he that walked with his arm around her shoulder, it was he that stopped at the entrance to the court, and to him Kelly kissed, it was he she asked for a handkerchief., and it was he who spent a few hours in her room that night, leaving at around 6.15 am.
The handkerchief however was left in the room, when he realised this, on the Friday, Kelly's body had been discovered however and the poor man could hardly ask for his item back..
I believe he spent the early hours in Kelly's room, leaving the room around 6.15 to return to his lodgings , leaving Mary alive and well, when he heard of her murder, he was horrified, he realised that he may have been seen with Kelly in the street around 2.pm, and he realised that his red silk handkerchief would have been found in the room, so he spent the entire weekend inventing a person completely fictional, which could vouch for that item being in room 13..its entirely possible that Hutch was known for his appearance, maybe the Dapper Dan type, but now minus his trademark,,was concerned the police may believe he was involved with her death...
For the record I believe that Maxwell was being honest,,she saw Kelly, and Kelly had told her she had a glass of beer, and brought it up...the glass of beer was left for Kelly by the blotchy faced visitor carrying the quart can of beer,,,it was this Mary drank,and made her sick,not via a public house,
Speculation once again, but may explain, the account of the gent story relayed by the infamous George Hutchinson,,,
Regards Richard,

[DJA]

Worth reading the actual reports of Badham and then Abberline.

Ben has it nailed.

Mary Kelly and Astrakhan Man stood at the corner of the court for three minutes before going down it.

Hutchinson then went to the court to see if he could see them.He could not.

[Sally]

There are no satisfactory arguments available to condemn Hutchinson, so all that they have is to consistently try to make something out of nothing.
Time and time again we are exposed to the same irrational logic, still it's free, and good for a laugh.

Nah, I don't think so, Jon.

If I can't prove that made it all up, I'm confident that I can provide a strong case for it - with real actual empirical evidence and everything!

None of this wild speculative stuff involving unfortunate wannabe crime lords with a list of pseudonyms longer than your arm and a penchant for showing off. Yeah, it didn't end so well, that. Pity...

But I digress. Hutchinson. Time for something new, I think.

[Ben]

Take the Pall Mall Gazette, which I referred to earlier, for example: " I went to look up the court to see if I could see them but could not. I stood there for three-quarters of an hour to see if they came down again, but they did not, so I went away." Now that seems pretty similar to the police report to me, I.e he only went to "look up the court" not enter it.

Exactly, John.

On this point there is no discrepancy. In contrast to the police statement, however, press versions of his testimony have him entering the court itself and staying there "a couple of minutes".

As for consistency in press reports, the Pall Mall Gazette obtained their information from the Central News agency journalist who interviewed Hutchinson personally, and the same quote appears verbatim in various other newspapers who obtained their information the same way - the Star and the St. James Gazette amongst them.

Contrary to what I wrote last night, it appears the phrase "to the court" only appeared in the police statement:

"They both then went up the court together. I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not."

The distinction between "up" and "to" irrefutably separates the two locations in the police statement, whereas in press agency versions, Hutchinson looks up the court before going up it, again leaving the reader in no doubt that he was describing two different locations and vantage points.

Hi Richard,

Interesting theory, but if a red hanky had been found in the room, it would have been the very first thing Abberline would have mentioned in support of his "opinion that the statement is true".

While we're on the subject, though, I suppose I could always revive the red handkerchief thread. Now there's a naughty thought...

[John G]

Exactly, John.

On this point there is no discrepancy. In contrast to the police statement, however, press versions of his testimony have him entering the court itself and staying there "a couple of minutes".

As for consistency in press reports, the Pall Mall Gazette obtained their information from the Central News agency journalist who interviewed Hutchinson personally, and the same quote appears verbatim in various other newspapers who obtained their information the same way - the Star and the St. James Gazette amongst them.

Contrary to what I wrote last night, it appears the phrase "to the court" only appeared in the police statement:

"They both then went up the court together. I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not."

The distinction between "up" and "to" irrefutably separates the two locations in the police statement, whereas in press agency versions, Hutchinson looks up the court before going up it, again leaving the reader in no doubt that he was describing two different locations and vantage points.

Hi Richard,

Interesting theory, but if a red hanky had been found in the room, it would have been the very first thing Abberline would have mentioned in support of his "opinion that the statement is true".

While we're on the subject, though, I suppose I could always revive the red handkerchief thread. Now there's a naughty thought...

Hi Ben,

But isn't it the case that major contradictions in Schwartz's evidence-between the police and press reports- suggests that witnesses, or journalists, were prone to embellish/ dramatize accounts? I mean, as I've pointed out, in the press version Pipeman is transformed from a man lighting a pipe into a knife-wielding accomplice of BS man, who decides to rush him with the weapon.

And what about Harry Harris, who informed the press that neither of his companions saw more than he did? Considering he appears to have seen nothing of significance, it seems surprising that Lawende was subsequently able to identity at least one suspect!

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben..
For all we know that may be one of the reasons Abberline did believe Hutchinson.?..a red handkerchief was found in the room..just because nothing was said on record , does not disprove it..
The police in 1888, did not have the experience of police work as is in practise today.
Did the police find a glass in Kelly's room, that smelt of recent beer, or indeed a small quantity of beer in a glass,if they did, would they have used it as collaboration that Maxwell was being truthful?
There was most likely many clues present , that could have been found useful in today's policing,that was not considered at that time.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi John,

Oh yes, I don't dispute that embellishments can occur in order to dramatize accounts, and that both witnesses and journalists can be responsible for this. Unlike the the Star's knife-wielding pipeman, however, it cannot be said that Hutchinson's alleged two-minute visit into the court (where he reported nothing of interest) served the purpose of creating additional drama.

Hi Richard,

For all we know that may be one of the reasons Abberline did believe Hutchinson.?..a red handkerchief was found in the room

But we would know. Abberline had every reason - and was duty-bound - to cite the discovery of a red handkerchief in Kelly's room in support of his opinion that a story involving a red handkerchief was true. This is common sense, as opposed to just "police work". As for the beer container, it was reported that no such item was discovered in Kelly's room; the inference being that Blotchy took it away with him.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

Hi,
The most interesting part of Hutchinson's statement is the describing of the handkerchief , with the emphasis on the colour red..
'Oh I have lost my handkerchief' Kelly said, and the man handed her one.
This implies that the item accompanied the couple into Millers court, as it is not inferred that it was given back..
If Hutch lied then I believe it was self preservation , more then malice.
It has often been suggested by me, that Hutchinson,implanted his movements with Kelly, in the guise of Mr A, It was he that accompanied Kelly, back to Millers court, it was he that walked with his arm around her shoulder, it was he that stopped at the entrance to the court, and to him Kelly kissed, it was he she asked for a handkerchief., and it was he who spent a few hours in her room that night, leaving at around 6.15 am.
The handkerchief however was left in the room, when he realised this, on the Friday, Kelly's body had been discovered however and the poor man could hardly ask for his item back..
I believe he spent the early hours in Kelly's room, leaving the room around 6.15 to return to his lodgings , leaving Mary alive and well, when he heard of her murder, he was horrified, he realised that he may have been seen with Kelly in the street around 2.pm, and he realised that his red silk handkerchief would have been found in the room, so he spent the entire weekend inventing a person completely fictional, which could vouch for that item being in room 13..its entirely possible that Hutch was known for his appearance, maybe the Dapper Dan type, but now minus his trademark,,was concerned the police may believe he was involved with her death...
For the record I believe that Maxwell was being honest,,she saw Kelly, and Kelly had told her she had a glass of beer, and brought it up...the glass of beer was left for Kelly by the blotchy faced visitor carrying the quart can of beer,,,it was this Mary drank,and made her sick,not via a public house,
Speculation once again, but may explain, the account of the gent story relayed by the infamous George Hutchinson,,,
Regards Richard,

Hi Richard
Interesting.
I do think hutch mixed fact and fiction in his accounts that night. I think re Sarah Lewis he was there waiting and watching like he said, but I don't think he saw Mary Kelly out on the streets that night like he said and his account of the red hanky, as many of his detals to describe Aman was a combination of witness accounts that he read about in the papers. However, it's entirely possible the red hanky might have been hutches and he was afraid he left it there.

However, his press account of going into the court, being near her room, hearing no sound or seeing no light, I Beleive is true. Except he didn't follow her and Aman. After his 45 minutes vigil, waiting for blotchy to leave, he did this, scoping her place out a bit. The next occurrence was a gentle knock on her door by hutch or a hand quietly slipping through the broken window to unlock her door.

[Bridewell]

Hutchinson's trip to Romford,and the reason Hutchinson was in Commercial Street at 2AM.Badham would not have been that negligent surely.

Why would failure to include Hutchinson's trip to Romford and the reason for his being on Commercial Street constitute negligence on Badham's part? Hutchinson was giving a witness statement, not an alibi. What was included was what the statement taker deemed to be of evidential value. In that context Romford and the reason why he was on the street at 2am are irrelevant.

[Wickerman]

Make something out of nothing?

You show me where in the police statement hutch said he went up the court, stood there for a couple of minutes, and didn't hear any noise or sound coming from her house.

I already showed you.

He told the police & the Press the same story, that has been proven, in fact Ben referred to it just yesterday.
Lets do it again...

Item A - Police version:
"I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away."

Item B - Press version:
" I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for three-quarters of an hour to see if they came down again, but they did not, and so I went away."

Are you seriously trying to argue that those two sentences are completely different?
That they don't mean the same?

Anybody else want to explain how those two sentences are different?
Anybody want to join Abby?

So then we read that Hutchinson provides extra detail in the Press version which fully explains what he meant.

Item C:
" 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."

Seeing as how the Press version, Item B, is the same as the Police version, Item A, then once we have an explanation for one, we also have an explanation for the other.
Simple!

If you told two different people the same story, but, you then explain what happened in detail to only one of them, how is that lying?
How can you possibly be accused of lying to the other person - explain that.

[Wickerman]

Jon, this is over-simplistic. Detectives specialise in crime investigation but most crime is investigated and detected by uniformed officers.

It is, yes.
The original suggestion which initiated this exchange is becoming lost.

My response, to which you commented, was in reply to the suggestion that Dew was nothing more than a minor official and would not have been told, or would not have learned, why the hunt for Astrachan had ceased (assuming it did).

I can understand an ordinary beat constable not learning the complete details, but I expect that a Detective Constable would have more knowledge from the investigation side of the murder inquiry.
That essentially, is what the debate was about.