An hypothesis about Hutchinson that could discard him as a suspect

[John G]

I agree with the arguments that Hutchinson must have created a favourable impression with Abberline. In fact Philip Sugden put it this way: "Presumably he [Hutchinson] had a forthright manner and responded well to questions" . (Sugden, 2002).

However, what I do find strange is that, if Hutchinson was lying, why wasn't an experienced detective like Abberline able to trip him up, during what may have been a lengthy interogation? In fact, given the amount of detail he gave, particularly as regards the description of Astrachan Man, I would have thought it would be quite likely that he would have been caught out in an inconsistency. But that doesn't seem to have happened.

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
Reason he was not caught out, was that he was telling the truth,as far as he could recollect.
Allegedly there were two men that entered Kelly's room that night..Cox's man . and Hutchinson's.
Mrs Cox version is unreliable, because of the clothing description, and a version told to her niece, which bears nothing on her statement.
But Hutchinson,always maintained the same story,even 40 years later.
We have to decide if Hutchinson's man was the killer, or a person caught up in a difficult position..?
Regards Richard,

[John G]

I think we also need to consider the reason why Hutchinson's evidence was subsequently regarded as having a reduced importance. Walter Dew provides a possible insight into police thinking in his memoirs:

"And, if Mrs Maxwell was mistaken, is it not probable that George Hutchinson erred also? This, without reflecting in any way on either witness, is my considered view. I believe the man with the billycock hat and beared was the last person to enter Marie Kelly's room that night and was her killer. Always supposing Mrs Cox ever had seen her with a man."

Therefore, no suggestion that Hutchinson had been caught out in any great lie (Dew, of course, postulated that he'd got the date mixed up), simply that the police may have taken the view that Blotchy was very likely to have been the murderer.

I do, however, find the last part of Dew's comments interesting, i.e. the Cox reference, "always supposing Mrs Cox ever had seen her with a man." Doesn't this imply that there were at least some doubts about her evidence?

[richardnunweek]

Hi John.
If one takes Mrs Praters account of meeting Mary at the bottom of the passage on the 8th AT 9pm , and wearing a jacket and bonnet, then taking the account of Cox'x clothing description,when she saw Mary with Blotchy, shortly before midnight, one can see they bear no similarity .
So who was mistaken.or lying.?
People will say , Mary may have returned home to change , then ventured back out.but surely unlikely.
We know Mrs Harvey left her bonnet with Mary that evening., her words were, ''I am leaving my bonnet then''..which surely puts credence on Praters account, and we know that the said Jacket, and bonnet, were burnt by the killer.
Praters description stating , that ''she was wearing a jacket and bonnet, I do not own any'',also rings true.
So it would seem, that there has to be doubt on Mrs Coxs version..if so Mr Blotchy did not exist, at least that night, she even told her niece , in the years that followed,''He was a right toff''which hardly describes the beer carrying , blotchy faced character.
If one eliminates him, we have only one other report, of a man seen with Mary, and that is Hutchinson's man..a man dressed for a morning event[ like the Lord Mayors show] rather then for a murderous bloodbath.
If we eliminate him, we are left with an obvious conclusion, Mary Kelly was alive during daylight hours,Mrs Maxwell was truthful, and not mistaken, and she met her death around two hours before the body was found.
Who killed her?
The man seen waiting outside the lodging house , seen by Mrs Lewis, who could not strike then, because she had Mr A in the room, so he waited until he saw her in the morning, and it was him that Mrs Maxwell saw talking to her around 8.45 am.
Regards Richard.

[Garry Wroe]

I think we also need to consider the reason why Hutchinson's evidence was subsequently regarded as having a reduced importance. Walter Dew provides a possible insight into police thinking in his memoirs ... Therefore, no suggestion that Hutchinson had been caught out in any great lie (Dew, of course, postulated that he'd got the date mixed up), simply that the police may have taken the view that Blotchy was very likely to have been the murderer.

Hutchinson was a witness of such importance, John, that investigators would never have risked losing him on a whim. Dew clearly had no idea why Hutchinson had been sidelined, but this should come as no great surprise given his lowly rank at the time of the murders. Security was paramount for those leading the investigation. Thus information was passed down the command chain on a strictly need-to-know basis.

I do, however, find the last part of Dew's comments interesting, i.e. the Cox reference, "always supposing Mrs Cox ever had seen her with a man." Doesn't this imply that there were at least some doubts about her evidence?

It was the same with every witness, John. Investigators could not risk placing total faith in any of their informants, irrespective of how well-intentioned or sincere a given witness might have appeared. It's called good policing.

[Ben]

However, what I do find strange is that, if Hutchinson was lying, why wasn't an experienced detective like Abberline able to trip him up, during what may have been a lengthy interogation?

I imagine for the same reason thousands of liars have successfully duped experienced detectives over the years, John - because the liars/lies are convincing and well-presented and because the detectives aren't infallible. It is likely that after being treated to a whole host of obvious dud witnesses a la Violenia, Hutchinson might initially have seemed a breath of fresh air, particularly if he had a "forthright manner and responded well to questions"

Richard - unless you have a reliable source for that "version told to her niece", I really wouldn't assume that the real Mrs. Cox had anything to do with it. There is no reliable evidence that she ever deviated from the original account she gave at the inquest.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

How could it have materialised if Hutch was outside waiting for Mary to finish her part of the scheme, while the man was inside, taking his pleasure by butchering her? Hutch was hardly going to shout through the window: "Hurry up in there, will you Mary, I'm waiting to rob him as soon as he puts his trousers back on".



If Abberline swallowed this frankly daft excuse without further question I'd be amazed, and Hutch would have been far luckier than he deserved or could have expected. If the truth was that he had hoped to rob the man, don't you think he'd have owned up to it if the alternative was to face arrest on suspicion of murder, had Abberline not been satisfied that he was telling the truth?

In fact, let's assume Hutch was the ripper and Abberline hadn't been satisfied with his given reason for waiting there so long. How do you think Hutch would have tried to resolve the situation? Wouldn't some kind of admission to a lesser wrong have been as good a way out as any?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

How could it have materialised if Hutch was outside waiting for Mary to finish her part of the scheme, while the man was inside, taking his pleasure by butchering her? Hutch was hardly going to shout through the window: "Hurry up in there, will you Mary, I'm waiting to rob him as soon as he puts his trousers back on".

Your right. I forgot that we were assuming Aman was real.
But that begs the question-why wouldn't hutch, if they had this plan, find out what was going on-especially after forty five minutes? Might not it crossed his mind that something might be going horribly wrong in there? it was the height of the ripper scare after all? wouldn't he go check it out? he might catch jack the ripper and save his friend becoming a hero!

I]If[/I] Abberline swallowed this frankly daft excuse without further question I'd be amazed, and Hutch would have been far luckier than he deserved or could have expected. If the truth was that he had hoped to rob the man, don't you think he'd have owned up to it if the alternative was to face arrest on suspicion of murder, had Abberline not been satisfied that he was telling the truth?

In fact, let's assume Hutch was the ripper and Abberline hadn't been satisfied with his given reason for waiting there so long. How do you think Hutch would have tried to resolve the situation? Wouldn't some kind of admission to a lesser wrong have been as good a way out as any?

Again, I don't see any way Hutch, murderer or not, would feel compelled to admit any preconceived robbery plot. The admittance to any violence criminal intent may have made him more suspicious to Abberline.

And anyway, again, apparently Abberline had no problem either way with his "daft excuse".

But I do agree with you that it was a pretty lame excuse. I think his real intention was probably to see if he could get into marys room, for a place to crash or to hook up with her. perhaps he didn't want to admit THAT, because it would be admitting his intention to want to get into her room/bed.

[caz]

According to his press claims, Caz, Hutchinson had seen Astrakhan loitering on the corner of Thrawl and Commercial Streets before the alleged encounter with Kelly even took place. If his intention had been robbery, why did he not mug Astrakhan when he first encountered him?

Hi Gary,

Well we don't know that the 'alleged' encounter - their meeting by chance on his return from Romford, and her request for sixpence - took place as he claimed, do we? So why would we rely on his claim to have seen Astrakhan beforehand? If Hutch and Kelly were friends, in cahoots to make some dosh out of Flash Harry, his whole account would have been suspect, from spotting the target to luring him back to her room. Whether Hutch was a murderer or would-be mugger, he would surely have bent the truth to his advantage.

If robbery had been the intention, it would have been more risky to mug this man out on Commercial Street than to let Kelly lure him with the promise of sex to the murky confines of Miller's Court.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz

Your right. I forgot that we were assuming Aman was real.
But that begs the question-why wouldn't hutch, if they had this plan, find out what was going on-especially after forty five minutes? Might not it crossed his mind that something might be going horribly wrong in there? it was the height of the ripper scare after all? wouldn't he go check it out? he might catch jack the ripper and save his friend becoming a hero!

Hi Abby,

Well he did say he had no reason at the time to think Flash Harry might harm his friend, despite his lengthy vigil. So plan or no plan, if Hutch was not the killer it presumably didn't dawn on him that Kelly could be entertaining the man who was. If he was seen as the soft touch, easily lured and parted from his money by Kelly, Hutch would not have associated him with the recent ghastly crimes. He may have thought "Sod it, she's giving him an all-nighter. No point in hanging around any longer. I'll see her tomorrow and she can cough up a share of the spoils."

But I do agree with you that it was a pretty lame excuse. I think his real intention was probably to see if he could get into marys room, for a place to crash or to hook up with her. perhaps he didn't want to admit THAT, because it would be admitting his intention to want to get into her room/bed.

I too think that's the more realistic option, Abby. I'm sure Ben will vehemently protest, but I also believe Abberline would have questioned the seriously lame 'merely curious' cop-out, and got an admission from Hutch that he was actually hoping to share the murdered woman's bed for the night. As a friend, he may have been aware that Barnet had recently moved out, but she was also a prostitute, which would make most men - then and now - reluctant to volunteer any such admission to the police unless pressed to do so. If Hutch made an admission like this, it would have boosted the credibility of the rest of his statement in Abberline's eyes, and explained why he expressed a belief in it, while not going into chapter and verse in his brief report.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

.... As a friend, he may have been aware that Barnet had recently moved out, but she was also a prostitute, which would make most men - then and now - reluctant to volunteer any such admission to the police unless pressed to do so. If Hutch made an admission like this, it would have boosted the credibility of the rest of his statement in Abberline's eyes, and explained why he expressed a belief in it, while not going into chapter and verse in his brief report.

Love,

Caz
X

And how did we conclude that he was a friend of Mary Janes again? Only by virtue of his word, thats how. Virtue which, as we can see, is suspect. Its has as much value as a claim by him that he could fly.

[Ben]

I'm sure Ben will vehemently protest, but I also believe Abberline would have questioned the seriously lame 'merely curious' cop-out, and got an admission from Hutch that he was actually hoping to share the murdered woman's bed for the night.

Good guess, Caz.

Although I would go further than "vehemently protesting" the idea, and dismiss it outright as an impossibility. Abberline wrote an internal, private report to his police bosses, and it contained no confession from Hutchinson that he hoped to spend the night with Kelly. That means it never happened; the only alternative explanation being that Abberline deliberately withheld information from Swanson for absolutely no reason. In fact, he would have done worse than that; he would been lying to him, since the only "reason" recorded in the report for Hutchinson loitering outside the court was that he was so surprised to see a man of Astrakhan's appearance in Kelly's company - in other words, a completely different excuse for loitering than an alleged desire to spend the night with Kelly. If you think that's too lame an excuse, then it's Abberline you'll have to find fault with for accepting it - for accept it he most certainly did.

Even if he did offer a "confession" along those lines - and he most assuredly did not - it wouldn't automatically make it the truth, purely on Hutchinson's unverified say-so.

I'm afraid the fatal flaw in any of the proposed "mugging" scenarios is they all rely on Astrakhan being a genuine entity, as opposed to what he probably was - a fabrication of Hutchinson's. They remain lumbered with the absurdity of a man dressed up in a manner that was guaranteed to attract attention from the worst possible quarters - criminals, policemen, and vigilante types; a man whose appearance recalled every spooky attribute that the unseen, uncaught ripper had been "collecting" in the press over the previous months.

If we consider the implications of the recent proposal that the two "friends" (?) conspired together to rob Astrakhan, it is inconceivable that Hutchinson would simply wander sheepishly away after Kelly welched on the deal and decided to do an "all nighter" with Astrakhan. You suggest he would have been content with a half share of the "spoils" when they met the next day, but what "spoils" are we talking about here? The pittance (relatively speaking) that Astrakhan paid for the session? Not much of a consolation prize when the original plan had been to rob the man of everything of value that he had secreted about his very incautious person - gold chains and all. I'd have been livid. No wonder he bumped her off.

All the best,
Ben

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Ben, speaking of Aberline, a thought occurred to me as a hypothetical:

George Hutchinson, the serial killer known as Jack the Ripper, knew the Mary Kelly inquest was over and final and there would be no further sessions. He must have hung around up at Shoreditch Town Hall right till the end, or quickly heard the definitive news somehow. It's finished.

So all he had to do was fool the police when he went directly to them. He would not have to appear at an inquest because he knew there would be no further inquest sessions. Just as he had not been required to appear at any of the inquests into his other murders, some of which had several sessions stretching over a period of days.

Roy

[Scott Nelson]

That seems reasonable, Roy. I know it's been argued for by others. Hutchinson's antecedents prior to and just after the Kelly murder have never been conclusively determined.

[Wickerman]

The inquest is not a trial, and any witness showing up after can still face interrogation, identity lineups, and still be charged if deemed suspicious.

By avoiding the Coroner's Inquest, he wasn't avoiding anything of consequence. Kelly would still have been identified, and found to have been murdered.
The Inquest was all about the victim, not the killer.

[Abby Normal]

The inquest is not a trial, and any witness showing up after can still face interrogation, identity lineups, and still be charged if deemed suspicious.

By avoiding the Coroner's Inquest, he wasn't avoiding anything of consequence. Kelly would still have been identified, and found to have been murdered.
The Inquest was all about the victim, not the killer.

Hi wick

By avoiding the Coroner's Inquest, he wasn't avoiding anything of consequence.

he wasn't? Sarah lewis was there.