An hypothesis about Hutchinson that could discard him as a suspect

[packers stem]

We don't have 'proof' that Schwartz saw or heard what he said he did just before Stride's death either. Neither man appeared at the Inquests. Yet Schwartz's account seems to be taken as gospel by many on this forum while Hutchinson is dismissed as a fantasist and liar.

There's a world of difference
Schwartz was spoken to before the inquest, the inexplicable exclusion from the inquest was down to the authorities for reasons only known to themselves
Hutchinson,if he existed at all,appeared within hours,minutes even, of the inquest closure

[Garry Wroe]

We don't have 'proof' that Schwartz saw or heard what he said he did just before Stride's death either. Neither man appeared at the Inquests. Yet Schwartz's account seems to be taken as gospel by many on this forum while Hutchinson is dismissed as a fantasist and liar.

The reality, though, Rosella, is that Hutchinson undoubtedly gave conflicting accounts to the press and police. Neither should we forget that he was dismissed by investigators as a credible witness – and very quickly too if the report in The Echo of Tuesday, 13 November, may be taken as reliable.

[Garry Wroe]

Youve been looking at these inconsistencies and pondering whethere the press accurately reflected the quotes by Hutchinson....how about this, since we have no proof at all that Hutchinson was there that night at all, why not ponder if he gave differing accounts by accident?

I first developed my ‘Hutchinson hypothesis’ in 1986, Mike, since which time I’ve considered every possibility. In terms of the ‘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’ statement, I think it likely that Mary Ann Cox passed Hutchinson as he lurked in the shadows close to Kelly’s windows at three o’clock or thereabouts. Having had the time to reflect on the matter after having made his police statement Hutchinson then began to fear being placed at the actual crime scene rather than ‘at the corner of the court’, so made a throwaway remark to the agency journalist in order to provide an element of insurance in the event of Mrs Cox or any other witness coming forward with information that might have compromised the story he related to Badham and Abberline.

We have no proof George Hutchinson was there, unless you assume he was the man Sarah saw …

Which I do, Mike. Sarah Lewis’s story was not in the public domain at the time Hutchinson came forward. She had related it first under police questioning and then as a witness at the Kelly inquest. Since Abberline gave evidence at the inquest it is safe to assume that Hutchinson could not have been in attendance – unless, of course, one supposes that Abberline failed to recognise Hutchinson at Commercial Street Police Station just a few hours later. Thus it may be inferred that Hutchinson knew nothing of the Lewis narrative at the time he made his police statement. With this in mind, compare the stories of Sarah and Hutchinson. Whilst Hutchinson stated that he watched the court in anticipation of the emergence of Astrakhan and/or Kelly, Sarah claimed to have sighted a man directly opposite the court staring into the entry as though ‘looking or waiting for someone.’ To my mind, therefore, Sarah’s observations serve to confirm that Hutchinson was indeed on Dorset Street as he claimed to have been in his police statement.

We have only his word for all of that...something I personally dont put a whole lot of stock in.

Whereas I don’t believe a word of the Astrakhan story, Mike, the evidence of Sarah Lewis is strongly suggestive that Hutchinson was on Dorset Street as claimed.

[Garry Wroe]

The bit before the ellipsis [...] seems to be heavily based on Hutch's police statement, as I've already suggested.

Agreed, Sam.

If this report were cobbled together from various reports (police and/or press agency), we can hardly expect much in the way of semantic consistency, nor have much confidence in the interpretation of them.

But there is semantic consistency, Sam. In its edition of Wednesday, 14 November, The Times attributed the following statement to Hutchinson: ‘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.’ On the same date The Star quoted Hutchinson thus: ‘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.’

Precisely the same wording.

Which would strongly suggest that both publications used a common source for their respective Hutchinson reports of 14 November – the interview conducted by the agency journalist at the Victoria Home on the evening of Tuesday, 13 November.

Beats me, but I would reiterate that the reports do not say that Hutchinson "stood directly outside Kelly's room", which you claimed earlier.

The inference is manifestly obvious, Sam. ‘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.’ Hutchinson by his own admission had been watching the court for the better part of three-quarters of an hour. The man seen by Sarah Lewis was staring intently up the court as though ‘watching or waiting for someone.’ Hutchinson then claimed that he ‘went up the court’. Why else would he have vacated his position on Dorset Street if not to get closer to the room in which he had professed such an interest? And how else would he have known that neither sound nor light was emanating from the room unless he’d spent at least some time outside one or both of Kelly’s windows?

[Damaso Marte]

We don't have 'proof' that Schwartz saw or heard what he said he did just before Stride's death either. Neither man appeared at the Inquests. Yet Schwartz's account seems to be taken as gospel by many on this forum while Hutchinson is dismissed as a fantasist and liar.

There are plenty on the board who dismiss Schwartz - I'm one of them. If Schwartz has more adherents than Hutchinson, perhaps it is because Schwartz's story is significantly more plausible than Hutchinson's.

[Rosella]

We don't have 'proof' that Schwartz saw or heard what he said he did just before Stride's death either. Neither man appeared at the Inquests. Yet Schwartz's account seems to be taken as gospel by many on this forum while Hutchinson is dismissed as a fantasist and liar.

[Abby Normal]

The bit before the ellipsis [...] seems to be heavily based on Hutch's police statement, as I've already suggested. If this report were cobbled together from various reports (police and/or press agency), we can hardly expect much in the way of semantic consistency, nor have much confidence in the interpretation of them. Other reports merely say "up TO the court" - which is correct? Beats me, but I would reiterate that the reports do not say that Hutchinson "stood directly outside Kelly's room", which you claimed earlier.

Where else would he be if he could tell there was no noise or sound?

[Michael W Richards]

Further to my previous post here follows an extract from the Star of Wednesday, 14 November, in which Hutchinson is quoted at length:-

‘As they [Kelly and Astrakhan] came by me his arm was still on her shoulder. He had a soft felt hat on, and this was drawn down somewhat over his eyes. I put down my head to look him in the face, and he turned and looked at me very sternly, and they walked across the road to Dorset-street. I followed them across, and stood at the corner of Dorset-street. They stood at the corner of Miller's-court for about three minutes. Kelly spoke to the man in a loud voice, saying, 'I have lost my handkerchief.' He pulled a red handkerchief out of his pocket, and gave it to Kelly, and they both went up the court together. I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for threequarters of an hour to see if they came down again, but they did not, and so I went away ... 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.’ (My emphasis.)

Here a clear distinction is made between the locus on Dorset Street situated at the passage entrance (‘at the corner of Miller’s Court’) and the area beyond (‘up the court’). The final sentence is quite explicit. It reveals that Hutchinson had entered the court itself – placing himself sufficiently close to Kelly’s room that he was able to determine an absence of light and sound emanating from the room. This was a claim that was certainly not contained within Hutchinson’s official police statement, and nor in all likelihood was it revealed during the interrogation conducted by Abberline. Had it been otherwise Abberline would surely have noted such a crucial piece of information in his summary report. He didn’t, so it may be safely concluded that Hutchinson failed to inform Badham or Abberline of his claimed three o’clock presence at the Kelly crime scene.

Youve been looking at these inconsistencies and pondering whethere the press accurately reflected the quotes by Hutchinson....how about this, since we have no proof at all that Hutchinson was there that night at all, why not ponder if he gave differing accounts by accident? We have no proof George Hutchinson was there, unless you assume he was the man Sarah saw, we have no proof he knew Mary at all, nor do we have any proof that he even knew where Mary Jane Kelly lived.

We have only his word for all of that...something I personally dont put a whole lot of stock in.

My guess....he was paid by someone else to assume Wideawakes role.

[Sam Flynn]

Further to my previous post here follows an extract from the Star of Wednesday, 14 November, in which Hutchinson is quoted at length:-

‘As they [Kelly and Astrakhan] came by me his arm was still on her shoulder. He had a soft felt hat on, and this was drawn down somewhat over his eyes. I put down my head to look him in the face, and he turned and looked at me very sternly, and they walked across the road to Dorset-street. I followed them across, and stood at the corner of Dorset-street. They stood at the corner of Miller's-court for about three minutes. Kelly spoke to the man in a loud voice, saying, 'I have lost my handkerchief.' He pulled a red handkerchief out of his pocket, and gave it to Kelly, and they both went up the court together. I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for threequarters of an hour to see if they came down again, but they did not, and so I went away ... 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.’ (My emphasis.)

The bit before the ellipsis [...] seems to be heavily based on Hutch's police statement, as I've already suggested. If this report were cobbled together from various reports (police and/or press agency), we can hardly expect much in the way of semantic consistency, nor have much confidence in the interpretation of them. Other reports merely say "up TO the court" - which is correct? Beats me, but I would reiterate that the reports do not say that Hutchinson "stood directly outside Kelly's room", which you claimed earlier.

In addition, he stated that he'd wandered down Miller's Court and stood directly outside Kelly's room.

[Sam Flynn]

I would encourage posters to access the piece for themselves and draw their own conclusions

I'd go further, Garry, and suggest that posters should read as many primary sources as possible before they draw their own conclusions. We all know what a minefield the press reports can be.

[Ben]

I agree entirely with you and Abby here, Garry. I argued along very similar lines when the subject came up on the "Vetting Hutchinson" thread.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=343803

Hi Caz,

"So presumably they would have asked at the Victoria Home if anyone had seen Hutch around on the Thursday night/Friday morning in question?"

Quite possibly, but considering the hoards of inmates coming and going at all hours of the night, it's doubtful that Hutchinson's presence (or otherwise) would have been registered. Even if a doorman did happen to make a note of his entry - "as soon as it opened in the morning" according to his press interview - it would have done little to resolve the issue of his whereabouts that night/morning, and it certainly wouldn't have allayed any suspicions the police may have had that Hutchinson was another time-waster.

"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?"

If the fame seekers/money grabbers in question were ham-fisted in their efforts to present themselves as genuine witnesses, they would have been particularly vulnerable to such "trip-up" questions, yes. It is clear that Hutchinson himself created a favourable first impression, however.

"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."

Unfortunately not.

Had there been a "concrete reason" in the form of, say, proof that he was elsewhere at the time, his account would not have suffered a mere "reduction" of importance (as per the Echo), but rather a complete eradication thereof. In cases where a proven liar is exposed as such beyond all reasonable doubt, it is usually spelt out in fairly robust terms by the press upon discovery, whereas the reports of Hutchinson's discrediting were more guarded with their terminology because no such "concrete" evidence had been found. Instead it appears that the police hierarchy arrived at a consensus that Hutchinson was probably full of it, just as they had done Packer and Violenia had been before him (neither of these men were proven to have lied). As Jon often reminds me - rather unnecessarily, as I don't dispute it - some factions within the Met continued to consider "Astrakhan man" as a valid lead. It cannot have been very influential as it did not result in a renewed hunt for men in Astrakhan coats, but the point is that no policeman, however low-rank, would have advocated a continuation of the Astrak-hunt if it had already been established beyond doubt that Hutchinson was elsewhere at the time of his alleged encounter.

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.

But not enough to put him there either.

Once the police had accepted that Violenia's alleged sighting in Hanbury Street was probably bogus, they didn't then task themselves with "removing" him from his purported location at the time of that "sighting"; that job was achieved the moment they ditched his account. In doing so, they logically concluded that he wasn't there at all; although, unlike Hutchinson, he at least had "business" there insofar as he lived on the street where the murder occurred.

Hutchinson's ultimate failure to demonstrate any such "business" would only have weakened his claim to have been there at all, and yet in your recent post to Abby, you suggest the reverse was the case - that the absence of demonstrable "business" would have made it more likely (in the minds of the police) that he was there in the capacity of a killer/accomplice, as opposed to being a publicity-seeker who wasn't. I don't quite get that.

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.

It might have been the best move if he was a mere time-waster, I agree, but if he was the killer, it was imperative to stick to his story. What if he had made a false confession to making the whole thing up (his presence at the crime scene included), only for some eagle-eyed journalist to then make the connection with Lewis's wideawake man? No such inference had been made at that stage, but could he rely on his luck to hold? It is Lewis's evidence - and Hutchinson coming forward hot on the heels of its publication - that establishes the latter's probable identity as the wideawake man (disregarding freak "coincidence" as an alternative explanation). Had this been registered at the time, Hutchinson would naturally have been treated with suspicion, but unfortunately it was not.

It has been argued in the past that the connection was secretly inferred, secretly investigated, and then secretly ruled out (all there in those "missing reports" as usual!), but this does not explain why, when the press has access to both the Hutchinson and Lewis statements, not a single journalist made reference to it at any point. It is often protested that the press didn't need to mention it because they already knew it had been investigated and dismissed, but that's obviously nonsense because both accounts were in the public domain long before any investigation (into a potential Hutch=wideawake connection) could have produced a satisfactory result either way, so why didn't they draw attention to it then?

The only possible answer is that it simply passed unnoticed, as so often occurs in a high profile, multi-lead investigation.

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

Further to my previous post here follows an extract from the Star of Wednesday, 14 November, in which Hutchinson is quoted at length:-

‘As they [Kelly and Astrakhan] came by me his arm was still on her shoulder. He had a soft felt hat on, and this was drawn down somewhat over his eyes. I put down my head to look him in the face, and he turned and looked at me very sternly, and they walked across the road to Dorset-street. I followed them across, and stood at the corner of Dorset-street. They stood at the corner of Miller's-court for about three minutes. Kelly spoke to the man in a loud voice, saying, 'I have lost my handkerchief.' He pulled a red handkerchief out of his pocket, and gave it to Kelly, and they both went up the court together. I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for threequarters of an hour to see if they came down again, but they did not, and so I went away ... 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.’ (My emphasis.)

Here a clear distinction is made between the locus on Dorset Street situated at the passage entrance (‘at the corner of Miller’s Court’) and the area beyond (‘up the court’). The final sentence is quite explicit. It reveals that Hutchinson had entered the court itself – placing himself sufficiently close to Kelly’s room that he was able to determine an absence of light and sound emanating from the room. This was a claim that was certainly not contained within Hutchinson’s official police statement, and nor in all likelihood was it revealed during the interrogation conducted by Abberline. Had it been otherwise Abberline would surely have noted such a crucial piece of information in his summary report. He didn’t, so it may be safely concluded that Hutchinson failed to inform Badham or Abberline of his claimed three o’clock presence at the Kelly crime scene.

[Garry Wroe]

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.

[Abby Normal]

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.

[Michael W Richards]

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.