An hypothesis about Hutchinson that could discard him as a suspect

[Michael W Richards]

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.


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.


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.

Hi Garry,

Thats the most polite " I disagree" that Ive recieved here, thanks Garry.

Now we have no evidence that precludes Sarah having discussed her story with others over the weekend, and we know that she first appears in this story erroneously, maybe purposefully so, under the name Mrs Kennedy in the Star on the 10th. Plus we know that Hutchinson says he was at the Victorian Mens Home, where I believe Daniel Barnett was also staying. People talk....maybe Daniel heard about the statement from Joe, as he was likely given inside investigative information to assuage any concerns he might have had about the investigation into Marys death...considering the lack of success all the previous investigations were having.

I think the 4 day delay suggests contemplation by Hutchinson....he had time to decide what to do, and say.

Cheers Garry

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
We have Hutchinson being a resident of the Victoria home.
We have Daniel Barnett being a resident of the Victoria home.
We have Joseph Fleming being a resident of the Victoria home.
Hutchinson claims to have seen Kelly , and return to her room with a man.
Daniel Barnett,was drinking with Kelly a few hours before she was killed.
Joseph Fleming was confirmed insane 3 years after the murder.
Three men who had connections with the victim, residing in the same lodgings..
Is this pure coincidence, or some sinister triangle.?
Regards Richard.

[packers stem]

Hi PS
not sure your what your getting at with that response. But Im asking Garry's thoughts because I totally respect him as an author, researcher and poster and he has brought up many good ideas about Hutch as a valid suspect (something I agree with) and I want to hear more.

For my part, I think its possible, Hutch heard what sarah said at the inquest, or got wind of it, or even maybe knew that she was there that was the catalyst for him to come forward of his own accord.

But even if he didn't, I think it also possible that the mere sight of her that night and the possibility in his mind that she saw him there and that she might know him might have done it.

Garry mentioned the interesting possibility that it was Cox who might have seen him IN the court that night that prompted his changing his story to the press. Im wondering if garry also might think she was the one who prompted him to come forward to the police in the first place.

Hi Abby and Garry
What do you make of Mrs Kennedy's sighting?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby and Garry
What do you make of Mrs Kennedy's sighting?

not much. probably just a garbled account of lewis.

[Fisherman]

Hi.
We have Hutchinson being a resident of the Victoria home.
We have Daniel Barnett being a resident of the Victoria home.
We have Joseph Fleming being a resident of the Victoria home.
Hutchinson claims to have seen Kelly , and return to her room with a man.
Daniel Barnett,was drinking with Kelly a few hours before she was killed.
Joseph Fleming was confirmed insane 3 years after the murder.
Three men who had connections with the victim, residing in the same lodgings..
Is this pure coincidence, or some sinister triangle.?
Regards Richard.

Some will only count to two here....

[Abby Normal]

Some will only count to two here....

good one

[Abby Normal]

Hi.
We have Hutchinson being a resident of the Victoria home.
We have Daniel Barnett being a resident of the Victoria home.
We have Joseph Fleming being a resident of the Victoria home.
Hutchinson claims to have seen Kelly , and return to her room with a man.
Daniel Barnett,was drinking with Kelly a few hours before she was killed.
Joseph Fleming was confirmed insane 3 years after the murder.
Three men who had connections with the victim, residing in the same lodgings..
Is this pure coincidence, or some sinister triangle.?
Regards Richard.

I think it bolsters Hutchs account that he actually knew her and knew her current (single) situation.

[packers stem]

not much. probably just a garbled account of lewis.

The star on the 10th....
A woman named Kennedy was on the night of the murder staying with her parents at a house situate in the court immediately opposite the room in which the body of Mary Kelly was found. This woman's statement, if true, establishes the time at which the
MURDERER COMMENCED HIS OPERATIONS
upon his victim. She states that about three o'clock on Friday morning she entered Dorset-street on her way to her parent's house, which is situate immediately opposite that in which the murder was committed. She noticed three persons at the corner of the street near the Britannia public house. There was a man - a young man, respectably dressed, and with a dark moustache - talking to a woman whom she did not know, and also a female poorly clad, and without any headgear. The man and woman appeared to be the worse for liquor, and she heard the man ask, "Are you coming." Whereupon the woman, who appeared to be obstinate, turned in an opposite direction to which the man apparently wished her to go. Mrs. Kennedy went on her way and nothing unusual occurred until about half an hour later. She states that she did not retire to rest immediately she reached her parents' abode, but sat up, and between half-past three and a quarter to four she
HEARD A CRY OF "MURDER."
in a woman's voice proceed from the direction in which Mary Kelly's room was situated. As the cry was not repeated she took no further notice of the circumstance until this morning, when she found the police in possession of the place, preventing all egress to the occupants of the small houses in this court. When questioned by the police as to what she had heard throughout the night, she made a statement to the above effect.
Nope, nothing garbled there. Seems like an honest account
Did Kennedy 'become' Lewis? If so then the Lewis account has altered completely and becomes worthless.
Also Lewis adopted the second part of the Kennedy story as the Kennedy story hit the press first
If they were different people why was she not called to the inquest?

[Wickerman]

If they were different people why was she not called to the inquest?

Which is a dead argument if you can't find the reason why Schwartz was not called either.

An inquest is not a trial.

[packers stem]

Which is a dead argument if you can't find the reason why Schwartz was not called either.

An inquest is not a trial.

You're right Wickerman
Anyone who actually saw anything important didn't get anywhere near the inquest apart from the impeccable Maxwell and they tried to put her off.
Schwartz,Kennedy,Packer,Maurice Lewis.Yet people who really saw nothing at all were called...Long,Cadosch,Richardson. What does that suggest to you?

[Scott Nelson]

residence in the Victoria Home, free morning newspapers, a chance to read about what's happening...to create a story and go to the police -- to be somebody - what more could you want?

[Garry Wroe]

Many have believed it was sarahs inquest account of the waiting man (hutch) that led hutch to come forward, and that he obviously got wind of her account somehow, either by word of mouth or being at the inquest. You seem to be suggesting this isn't the case?

Yes and no, Abby.

if it wasn't sarahs inquest story that brought him forward, what was, or why did he feel the need to?

Try looking at the issue from a slightly different perspective, Abby. Hutchinson lived but a stone’s throw from Dorset Street and probably frequented the district’s drinking dens. Sarah, too, was a local and was sufficiently well acquainted with Miller’s Court that she was able to secure a bed there in the small hours of the morning. Thus I think it more than plausible that Hutchinson knew Sarah by sight, recognized her on the night of the Kelly murder, saw her enter Shoreditch Town Hall on the day of the inquest, realized that she was an official witness and simply assumed the worst.

We, of course, are aware that the authorities’ principal interest in Sarah lay in her evidence relating to the cry of ‘Murder!’, which in all likelihood indicated the approximate time of death. Hutchinson, however, was not privy to such information. Thus, in his ignorance, he perhaps assumed that Sarah’s evidence related to her sighting of the wideawake man she saw monitoring the court shortly before the murder – in other words, Hutchinson himself. On this basis he may have supposed that Wideawake had assumed significance in the murder enquiry and began to fear that Sarah might have recognized him too. Even if she didn’t know his name she would have been aware that he lived and socialized locally. Worse still, she would almost certainly have been able to identify him in the event that he was picked up amid a police trawl of local pubs and lodging houses.

Albeit speculative, this scenario provides what to my mind is the most persuasive explanation as to why Hutchinson came forward when he did, and why he did so with the palpably absurd story involving Astrakhan and Kelly. It does not require that Hutchinson knew anything of Sarah’s police statement or inquest testimony. It merely requires that he knew she had become an official witness.

Everything about Hutchinson’s police statement appears to have been geared up to provide justification for his presence on Dorset Street shortly before the murder – not least the inclusion of an archetypal pantomime villain. To my mind this provides a clear indication that it was a fear of the potential consequences of the Lewis sighting that motivated him to come forward. No mention to investigators of his having wandered into Miller’s Court shortly before three o’clock. That particular revelation only emerged later after Hutchinson had had the time to consider his position a little more thoughtfully. Perhaps this is something that ought to be borne in mind by those who believe that George was a misunderstood individual who was merely doing his civic duty.

[Garry Wroe]

Thats the most polite " I disagree" that Ive recieved here, thanks Garry.

You and I both remember, Mike, when it was possible on this site to disagree without being disagreeable. How times have changed.

Now we have no evidence that precludes Sarah having discussed her story with others over the weekend, and we know that she first appears in this story erroneously, maybe purposefully so, under the name Mrs Kennedy in the Star on the 10th.

The problem being, though, Mike, that the Kennedy story makes no mention of Wideawake. Consequently, Hutchinson had nothing to worry about from the Kennedy perspective.

I think the 4 day delay suggests contemplation by Hutchinson....he had time to decide what to do, and say.

Sorry to disagree again, Mike, but I see Hutchinson’s Astrakhan story as hastily concocted – a knee-jerk reaction cobbled together in response to his recognition that Sarah Lewis had become an official witness. Hence the absurd claims regarding Kelly and Astrakhan.

[Garry Wroe]

What do you make of Mrs Kennedy's sighting?

Read the Lewis account, PS, and you’ll see that Sarah was on Bethnal Green Road with her sister on the Wednesday. I’ve long suspected that Mrs Kennedy and this sister were one and the same, and that she simply hijacked Sarah’s story in order to make some easy cash from a news-hungry journalist.

[Garry Wroe]

Garry mentioned the interesting possibility that it was Cox who might have seen him IN the court that night that prompted his changing his story to the press. Im wondering if garry also might think she was the one who prompted him to come forward to the police in the first place.

No, Abby. I remain convinced that Sarah Lewis was the factor which prompted Hutchinson to come forward. I do, however, think it likely that Hutchinson saw Mrs Cox as he loitered in the shadows beside Kelly’s windows. Only later, I suspect, after he had submitted his police statement, did he begin to worry that he had been seen and thus contemplate the possibility that this witness might have been able to place him in the court at a time when he had claimed in his police statement to have been elsewhere.