Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

An hypothesis about Hutchinson that could discard him as a suspect

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Garry Wroe View Post
    We shouldn't, Caz. Nor should we take anything he says regarding Kelly and Astrakhan at face value. The miraculously sobered-up Kelly is but one reason why I've long suspected that the Astrakhan story was pure fiction on Hutchnson's part. I'm not even convinced that he walked from Romford on the night in question. His police statement signatures also incline me to the view that he was operating under an assumed name. In fact, if Hutchinson was to tell me that my name is Garry Wroe I'd slip off to check my birth certificate before accepting him at his word.
    These are the types of queries about Hutchison which intrigue me. Would the police have been diligent enough to have checked his Romford story? I have often wondered if any "regional" Ripper files are still lying unfound in some dusty basement. I would assume at the very least inquiries were made to the Romford police to check Hutchison's story. Then again I may be giving the police too much credit.

    I do think it unlikely Hutchison spent his day in Whitechapel. I also think one aspect of Hutchison's story has a ring of truth; that is the length of time he waited on Astrakhan man emerging from Kelly's room. Fourty five minutes is more than the expected time a lady of the night would spend with a client. This doesn't help confirm or deny Hutchison's version of events, bit to me it does givbe his version slightly more credence. Hutchison was eager to get another look at Astrakhan for whatever nefarious or innocent puropse you wish to give him; but once the expected period of time elapsed he soon lost interest. Of corse this assumes we believe Hutchison in the first place.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Garry Wroe View Post
      Agreed, Abby. I also think it likely that Mrs Cox passed up the court as he was loitering to the rear of Kelly's room - hence his newspaper claim that he listened for activity there shortly before departing the scene at about three o'clock. Funny how he neglected to reveal such a detail whilst speaking to Badham and Abberline.
      yeah funny that.

      It not only puts him closer to the where the murdered woman was, but it shows that he knew exactly where she lived, something that is not clear from his police statement.
      "Is all that we see or seem
      but a dream within a dream?"

      -Edgar Allan Poe


      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

      -Frederick G. Abberline

      Comment


      • Where did the press statement originate from?
        I think the star said they'd received a statement and the times mentioned a new statement... No mention of interview so was he actually interviewed by the press?
        And as for the nonsense about not hearing a sound or seeing any light.... He must have found the window to 'see no light' and must have seen the gaping hole in the pane. Would he not have stuck his hand through had he been there for a few minutes
        You can lead a horse to water.....

        Comment


        • Originally posted by jason_c View Post
          Would the police have been diligent enough to have checked his Romford story?
          It would have been all but impossible to have done so by the time Abberline penned his report on the Monday evening, Jason. Remembering too that the Echo expressed doubts regarding Hutchinson's story in its Tuesday edition, it seems unlikely that the alleged day in Romford could have been verified - unless, of course, Hutchinson had claimed to have been at a specific location with a specific person. To my mind it seems most plausible that the Astrakhan story was discredited before the Romford element could have been properly verified. If so, it makes no sense to suppose that investigators would have wasted time and manpower on checking the movements of a witness who had already been sidelined.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by packers stem View Post
            Where did the press statement originate from?
            I think the star said they'd received a statement and the times mentioned a new statement... No mention of interview so was he actually interviewed by the press?
            Hutchinson was interviewed (I think) by the Press Association at the Victoria Home on the Tuesday evening, PS. Earlier in the day he'd viewed Kelly's remains and had then spent several hours in the company of detectives searching for Astrakhan. During this interview Hutchinson claimed that he'd first spotted Astrakhan on the corner of Commercial and Fashion Streets. He also maintained that he thought he'd seen Astrakhan on the Sunday and had reported details of the Astrakhan incident to a policeman. In addition, he stated that he'd wandered down Miller's Court and stood directly outside Kelly's room for a couple of minutes shortly before departing the scene at three o'clock. None of this, it might be noted, was contained in his official police statement nor revealed to Abberline under interrogation.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Ben View Post
              If it’s “by his own admission” it can’t be a fact, though, can it? I might claim to have seen a pig fly, but that's not the same as "admitting" to it. It’s just a claim, and claims can be both genuine and false. Since the police had no basis for accepting Hutchinson’s claim – not an admission, just a claim – to have been out and about on the streets of Spitalfields that morning, their first task was ascertain whether or not he was being truthful about that detail. Before they could even broach the question of “were you on the streets for murderous or non-murderous reasons” they had first to tackle “were you on the streets at all”.
              Hi Ben,

              That’s a very good point. So presumably they would have asked at the Victoria Home if anyone had seen Hutch around on the Thursday night/Friday morning in question? And this would be in the wake of Abberline’s early, unverified belief that the witness was telling the truth?

              Originally posted by Ben View Post
              Another important point is that any suspicions directed Hutchinson’s way were unlikely to be resolved to anyone’s satisfaction. “Where were you at the time Kelly was murdered, Hutchinson?”, “Walking about on my own sir”, “Ok, and what about your whereabouts for previous murders” “In my lodging house that sleeps 400 on an average night and doesn’t keep nightly registers of names from 5 weeks ago, sir”.
              But if the police checked at the Victoria Home no later than, say, 48 hours after he gave his statement to them on the Monday, it would still be less than a week since the night in question, yes?

              (Can you tell I’ve got an idea brewing?)

              Originally posted by Ben View Post
              The police had been deluged with fame seekers and money grabbers pretending to be in possession of helpful information to the ripper investigation, and the "interrogation" was for the purpose of assessing whether or not Hutchinson was another one of those. There was vast precedent for that type of behaviour, whereas there was no precedent at all for the most wanted man in the history of London waltzing into the police station.
              So they would have been used to the kind of questions that could trip up a witness and send him hurtling into the fame seeker/money grabber category, yes?

              Originally posted by Ben View Post
              Moreover, if subsequent investigation cast doubt on his story (as I argue it did in Hutchinson's case), it was not as if there was the option of him being dismissed as an attention seeker. His physical connection to the crime scene - which you often cite as a plus in favour of his culpability - also ensured that any inconsistency in his story would inevitably have resulted in suspicion that he might have been involved. Hutchinson had the option of being lumped erroneously into the same category as Violenia, whereas Cross did not.
              Yes, but you are assuming that if Hutch was lumped in with the attention seekers, it would have been erroneously, due to an inadequate assessment on the part of the police. We will never know how those ‘later investigations’ cast doubt on his story, but if we accept that they did, there must have been some concrete reason why they no longer believed he had any physical connection to the crime scene, unlike Cross. If it had been a case of doubting that Astrakhan was real, after Hutch failed to find him again, or hearing alarm bells when he blabbed to the press and appeared to be over-egging the pudding by adding new details, that would not have been enough to take him away from the crime scene, away from Kelly and right out of the equation. Would they not, at the very least, have tackled him again about their concerns and asked if he had anything to say about where he had really been at the time, if they now believed it was not in Commercial Street, watching Kelly with her unlikely customer? It might then have been in his best interests to claim (if he was the killer) or admit (if he was not) that he had made the whole thing up and had just spent the whole time “walking about” on his own.

              Originally posted by Ben View Post
              Goldstein specifically drew attention to the fact that Fanny Mortimer had seen a man carrying a black bag, and that he was the man in question (we don't know if his "elimination" was made complete by a concrete alibi). Hutchinson, by contrast, didn't even make reference to Sarah Lewis, which was rather a wise move if he wanted to conceal the fact that he had been spooked into coming forward by her evidence, and he certainly did not have an "alibi" for Kelly's murder.
              Now this is where my idea comes in…

              You appear to be basing Hutch’s ‘certain’ lack of an alibi on your belief that he told the truth about having a physical connection to the crime scene. Yet you also believe the police found reason to doubt his claim to fame along with any such connection. His entire story was somehow discredited and he was allowed to slip into total obscurity.

              Isn’t it therefore an intriguing possibility that those famous ‘later investigations’ had turned up the information that Hutch had not been “walking about” during the relevant hours of darkness, but was tucked up in dreamland at the Victoria Home the entire time, according to fellow inhabitants who knew him and had seen him there? Now that would not only have given him an alibi for Kelly’s murder, had he wanted or needed one; it would also justify a decision by the police to drop him as a credible witness without further ado. He would indeed have been just one more of those time-consuming fame seekers and money grabbers.

              It would certainly help explain his whole account being discredited with no further action being taken, which could only have come from a conclusion that he had not been near Miller’s Court that night.

              Have you a better suggestion for why the police would have been satisfied with this conclusion?

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


              Comment


              • Originally posted by Garry Wroe View Post
                In addition, he stated that he'd wandered down Miller's Court and stood directly outside Kelly's room for a couple of minutes shortly before departing the scene at three o'clock.
                Is this the same report covered by the Star, Garry? It's not that straightforward, and seems to be a mish-mash of Hutchinson's police statement and other material, possibly gleaned by a press-agency reporter, as you suggest. Given journalistic/editorial involvement, it's quite possible that some of this could have been added or the sake of narrative - padding out some bald statements to make them more readable, with good intentions, but ultimately confusing matters in the process.

                Whatever, the relevant passage is this: "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. I was out last night until three o'clock looking for him."

                Shortly before this, in the same report, we have: "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." (Note that this matches almost verbatim what Hutchinson told Sgt Badham. The only difference is that "came out" [police statement] has been substituted with "came down again" [The Star], but the rest is identical. I'm fairly convinced that this section of the Star report comes from the police statement.)

                These "went to [look up] the court" and "went to the court" {before he gave up} references quite feasibly relate the same event, especially if one reference came from Sgt Badham and the other from a Press Agency reporter. So, did he "go up" the court or "go UP TO" the court?

                Either way, in neither version does he state that he stood directly outside Kelly's room.
                Last edited by Sam Flynn; 03-06-2016, 04:41 AM.
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                  Is this the same report covered by the Star, Garry? It's not that straightforward, and seems to be a mish-mash of Hutchinson's police statement and other material, possibly gleaned by a press-agency reporter, as you suggest. Given journalistic/editorial involvement, it's quite possible that some of this could have been added or the sake of narrative - padding out some bald statements to make them more readable, with good intentions, but ultimately confusing matters in the process.

                  Whatever, the relevant passage is this: "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. I was out last night until three o'clock looking for him."

                  Shortly before this, in the same report, we have: "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." (Note that this matches almost verbatim what Hutchinson told Sgt Badham. The only difference is that "came out" [police statement] has been substituted with "came down again" [The Star], but the rest is identical. I'm fairly convinced that this section of the Star report comes from the police statement.)

                  These "went to [look up] the court" and "went to the court" {before he gave up} references quite feasibly relate the same event, especially if one reference came from Sgt Badham and the other from a Press Agency reporter. So, did he "go up" the court or "go UP TO" the court?

                  Either way, in neither version does he state that he stood directly outside Kelly's room.
                  Hi Sam
                  To me, they are completely different. one is forty five minutes, the other a couple of minutes. One is to the court, the other is up the court. And close enough that he didn't hear a noise or see a sound-so hes obviously pretty darn close to her house.

                  also, the press statement he KNOWS exactly where Mary lives, police statement he does not.

                  ive said many times before this change is classic lying criminal behavior.

                  as in-did someone see me after I went into the court and stood outside her house?? I better add that bit just in case.
                  "Is all that we see or seem
                  but a dream within a dream?"

                  -Edgar Allan Poe


                  "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                  quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                  -Frederick G. Abberline

                  Comment


                  • And yet, Abby, and yet...

                    ...the police, having read all this, concluded he was never there at all?

                    Does that sound in any way reasonable, even if they were totally unprepared for lying witnesses being potentially involved, whether it be directly or indirectly, for example if they were trying to supply an alibi for the real killer? The police were assuredly aware of the potential for the killer(s) to have an accomplice watching their back, even if they could not conceive of the actual killer ever daring to show his face in the guise of a witness.

                    If Blotchy killed Kelly, for example, Hutch's statement was an absolute Godsend, putting a very different customer in the room long after Mrs. Cox's sighting. And Hutch didn't need to be there to help Blotchy out in this way.

                    The difference between Hutch and previous witnesses, who lived or worked or had other legitimate reasons for being near the respective crime scenes, but were ditched as mere publicity seekers, is that without Astrakhan he had no apparent business being near the Kelly crime scene at all, never mind practically outside her window.

                    So what went on in police minds? Did they not even try to establish if he was elsewhere, doing something else entirely, when they decided he was just another publicity seeker? Was he still potentially at the crime scene, but they lost interest in what he might have been doing there when they no longer believed Astrakhan was?

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by caz View Post
                      And yet, Abby, and yet...

                      ...the police, having read all this, concluded he was never there at all?

                      Does that sound in any way reasonable, even if they were totally unprepared for lying witnesses being potentially involved, whether it be directly or indirectly, for example if they were trying to supply an alibi for the real killer? The police were assuredly aware of the potential for the killer(s) to have an accomplice watching their back, even if they could not conceive of the actual killer ever daring to show his face in the guise of a witness.

                      If Blotchy killed Kelly, for example, Hutch's statement was an absolute Godsend, putting a very different customer in the room long after Mrs. Cox's sighting. And Hutch didn't need to be there to help Blotchy out in this way.

                      The difference between Hutch and previous witnesses, who lived or worked or had other legitimate reasons for being near the respective crime scenes, but were ditched as mere publicity seekers, is that without Astrakhan he had no apparent business being near the Kelly crime scene at all, never mind practically outside her window.

                      So what went on in police minds? Did they not even try to establish if he was elsewhere, doing something else entirely, when they decided he was just another publicity seeker? Was he still potentially at the crime scene, but they lost interest in what he might have been doing there when they no longer believed Astrakhan was?

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X
                      The issue of whether a possible accomplice was suspected by the description given by Lewis is clear....made so by Warrens actions Saturday afternoon.

                      So the real issue here is why Hutchinson chose to assume that Wideawake role after that Pardon offer was made....since he isnt historically a suspect at all.

                      Suspicious and suspect can be mutually exclusive.
                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • What was it about the Kelly case though that caused the pardon for an accomplice to be offered? Could it simply have been the evidence of Cox of seeing a man opposite the entrance to Miller's Court at a crucial time?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by MysterySinger View Post
                          What was it about the Kelly case though that caused the pardon for an accomplice to be offered? Could it simply have been the evidence of Cox of seeing a man opposite the entrance to Miller's Court at a crucial time?
                          Possibly, but equally it might just have been a symptom of how desperate the authorities had become.
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by MysterySinger View Post
                            What was it about the Kelly case though that caused the pardon for an accomplice to be offered? Could it simply have been the evidence of Cox of seeing a man opposite the entrance to Miller's Court at a crucial time?
                            I would venture that it was very influential in that decision, if not the sole reason. As Sam said they must have been desperate enough to entertain a lot of less than mainstream ideas....bloodhounds, mediums, etc....but the issue of whether they believed this killer could be caught by paying for assistance from the general public was strongly rejected until this point.
                            Michael Richards

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by caz View Post
                              And yet, Abby, and yet...

                              ...the police, having read all this, concluded he was never there at all?

                              Does that sound in any way reasonable, even if they were totally unprepared for lying witnesses being potentially involved, whether it be directly or indirectly, for example if they were trying to supply an alibi for the real killer? The police were assuredly aware of the potential for the killer(s) to have an accomplice watching their back, even if they could not conceive of the actual killer ever daring to show his face in the guise of a witness.

                              If Blotchy killed Kelly, for example, Hutch's statement was an absolute Godsend, putting a very different customer in the room long after Mrs. Cox's sighting. And Hutch didn't need to be there to help Blotchy out in this way.

                              The difference between Hutch and previous witnesses, who lived or worked or had other legitimate reasons for being near the respective crime scenes, but were ditched as mere publicity seekers, is that without Astrakhan he had no apparent business being near the Kelly crime scene at all, never mind practically outside her window.

                              So what went on in police minds? Did they not even try to establish if he was elsewhere, doing something else entirely, when they decided he was just another publicity seeker? Was he still potentially at the crime scene, but they lost interest in what he might have been doing there when they no longer believed Astrakhan was?

                              Love,

                              Caz
                              X

                              Hi Caz
                              sorry for the late reply-just saw this.

                              ...the police, having read all this, concluded he was never there at all?
                              I'm not sure what they concluded-but it was probably along the lines of questioning his credibility and reliability as a witness. But if I had to bet I would say they probably concluded he was there, but never saw Mary or A man.

                              So what went on in police minds? Did they not even try to establish if he was elsewhere, doing something else entirely, when they decided he was just another publicity seeker? Was he still potentially at the crime scene, but they lost interest in what he might have been doing there when they no longer believed Astrakhan was?
                              But what are the police going to do? By his own admission, he has no alibi.
                              I'm sure they checked him out as best they could but without anything conclusive they cant do anything but drop him as a credible suspect-which is what they seemingly did. If they cant prove he lied they cant charge him with anything. There is no other evidence of guilt as being Marys killer-its dead end anyway.and of course he didn't testify at the inquest, so there goes that avenue for catching him in a lie.

                              If they came back and asked him about the discrepancy in the paper version, he could say anything he wanted-I thought I told you that or I forgot to tell you, I just remembered. whatever.

                              Bottom line. They initially believed him, came to not believe him, and perhaps some had suspicion, but not enough that it was written down anywhere or able to be followed up on.
                              "Is all that we see or seem
                              but a dream within a dream?"

                              -Edgar Allan Poe


                              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                              -Frederick G. Abberline

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                                Is this the same report covered by the Star, Garry?
                                No, Sam. Here’s what I wrote in Person or Persons: ‘Remarkably, Hutchinson’s greatest bombshell appears to have been overlooked until now. According to a report carried by The Times on 13 November, he didn’t simply tire of his Dorset Street vigil and wander away as has been previously supposed. Rather, a little before 3:00am, he entered Miller’s Court and stood outside Kelly’s room – which, he insisted, was quiet and in darkness. ‘

                                This date is incorrect. The actual publication date was Wednesday the fourteenth. Here is the quote in question: ‘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.

                                Given journalistic/editorial involvement, it's quite possible that some of this could have been added or the sake of narrative - padding out some bald statements to make them more readable, with good intentions, but ultimately confusing matters in the process.
                                I would encourage posters to access the piece for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X