The burnt clothing

[Garry Wroe]

"the inferential evidence leaves no room for doubting that the authorities came to the conclusion that Hutchinson was either an attention-seeker or time-waster and discreetly dropped him as a consequence."

Oh yes, it does, Garry. It leaves room aplenty for suggesting that the authorities had arrived at the conclusion that Hutchinson HAD GOTTEN THE DAY WRONG, as witnessed about by Walter Dew

In which case, Fish, I will merely encourage posters to visit your 'wrong night' thread, evaluate the 'evidence', and then make up their own minds.

[Ben]

Hi all,

The problem with Dew is that his book is “riddled with mistakes” and he “got a number of things terribly wrong”. “Walter’s book came out when he was 75 years old. In it, he turns Thomas Bowyer into a young fellow, he has Diemschitz entering the club crying: "The Ripper! The Ripper!" etcetera.” “Moreover, back in 1888, Dew was still a bit of a freshman. He was 25 years old, and not in a commanding position. Therefore, we cannot conclude to which extent he knew about the discussions carried on at a higher level.” “I think you will agree with me that if we are to sharpen the picture of what happened back in 1888, Walter Dew is not necessarily the best tool for going about it”.

I also think that Dew’s thoughts on Hutchinson have been discussed extensively elsewhere, and that a thread in the victims forum entitled “the burnt clothing” isn’t necessarily the best place to discuss it all over again.

Hi Jon,

“It seems to me Cox's evidence of all being quiet when she returned at 03:00am is inconsistent with other considerations. Astrakhan had already entered Miller's Court by 02:30, and 'Widewake' (Hutch) was seen opposite the passage standing watch.”

It is clear from the observations made in the Echo that the reservations “the authorities” had with Hutchinson’s account were not limited to the Astrakhan man description alone. Two days after the publication of this article, The Star observed that Hutchinson's account had been “discredited”. This announcement was published in an article which carried the headline “Worthless Stories Lead the Police on False Scents”. Mentioned in the same article was Matthew Packer – the obvious implication being that both witnesses were being lumped into the same category, i.e. probable time-wasters and publicity seekers.

I would have to agree with Garry’s assessment, therefore, that Hutchinson was dismissed for this reason and not any other.

If there’s any inconsistency between the evidence of Hutchinson and Cox, then it is most assuredly the latter’s that takes priority. Her evidence was presented at the inquest, was not three days late, and was not discredited by the police at the time. I am strongly inclined, therefore, to treat Cox’s statement that there was no noise or light emanating from room #13 at 3.00am as correct. This would still make sense of the wideawake man’s “watching”, i.e. if he was either waiting for Blotchy (not Astrakhan, who probably never existed) to leave the room or simply allowing some time to elapse for Sarah Lewis (who had entered the court half an hour earlier) to settle down to sleep before entering the room in which Kelly only was sleeping, Blotchy having been booted out ealier.

If Hutchinson and the wideawake man were one and the same, as seems very likely, the above would very much still apply.

In short, you don’t need the presence of Astrakhan man of any other post 1.00am visitor to make sense of the wideawake man’s behaviour at 2:30am as described by Sarah Lewis.

All the best,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I started this thread because I found that Times edition intriquing, the very fact that the report hinted that the police believed the murder of kelly was carried out in daylight, and the velvet jacket and bonnet, were proberly burnt because they were bloodstained presents questions.
Why was the killer worried about his victims bloodstained [ sunday best ] jacket and bonnet... the outfit Mrs Prater had Mary wearing when they spoke around 9pm at the bottom of the passage on thursday evening.[ although Mrs Cox described differently].
Why did the police believe that happened?
Was Cox telling the truth about Blotchy did he exist.?
If the killer was so worried about clothing being bloodstained, is it likely that Astracan was JTR, wearing such fancy attire, that is if Hutchinson was truthful.
Is the jacket and bonnet a clue , was she wearing it when attacked? and if so surely her dress, or skirt would have been splattered also.
Would they have given a clue to the police if they had not been destroyed, if so what?
And what made the police believe that this murder occured in daylight?
Lots of points to discuss.
Regards Richard.

[Hatchett]

Hello Fisherman,

I call Dew's thoughts as speculation because that is exactly what they are. They are not presented as evidence, and not even presented as deductions. What is more they were written many years after the events. There is no saying whether Dew held those views at the time or even after he had written the book.

But I have said all this before. I agree that this is not the thread to discuss it.

Best wishes.

[Wickerman]

... there were glaring inconsistencies between the accounts he gave to the press and police. On top of this, he stated that Kelly was ‘not drunk’ at the time of their alleged encounter on Commercial Street, a claim that was so utterly at odds with the evidence provided by other witnesses that it must have raised doubts regarding his credibility....

Hi Garry.
Yes, I think we can see inconsistencies between witness statements to the police, evidence given in court and statements printed in the press, in general across the whole range of crimes.
I wouldn't be too worried about this with Hutchinson.

However, as for Kelly being drunk, who knows, maybe a womans (Cox) idea of being drunk is somewhat less than a man's (Hutch).

...
In context of your original point, therefore, Jon, I consider it overwhelmingly likely that, once the flaws in Hutchinson’s story were recognized, his testimony was rejected in its entirety. And with Hutchinson’s claims discredited, we have no evidence that Mary Jane went outdoors after being sighted by Mary Ann Cox.

Ok Garry, so we reject Hutchinson's story "in it's entirety"...
- Reject the description given of Astrakhan.
- Reject the sighting of Kelly out on the street.
- Reject the claim that Hutch stood on watch, where someone was seen at the time he claimed to be there.

So we must also reject the evidence of Sarah Lewis who claimed to have seen a man at this time & at this location.

This is where I have a problem.

I can readily agree to the first rejection (embellished description).
However, I can not in any way agree to the last rejection (man on watch).

Our dilemma is that we have no idea what to do about the 2nd rejection. However we approach this problem there is no easy solution, but because the last rejection is clearly unjustified and has actually been corroborated (in which you also appear to conceed), then surely we must allow for the possibility that Kelly might have been out at the stated time, otherwise, why was Hutch 'on watch'?
Either way, rejecting Hutch's statement "in it's entirety" is clearly the wrong thing to do.


Hi Ben.

....I am strongly inclined, therefore, to treat Cox’s statement that there was no noise or light emanating from room #13 at 3.00am as correct. This would still make sense of the wideawake man’s “watching”, i.e. if he was either waiting for Blotchy (not Astrakhan, who probably never existed) to leave the room or simply allowing some time to elapse for Sarah Lewis (who had entered the court half an hour earlier) to settle down to sleep before entering the room in which Kelly only was sleeping, Blotchy having been booted out ealier.

If Hutchinson and the wideawake man were one and the same, as seems very likely, the above would very much still apply.

Blotchy entered Millers Court at 11:45 pm, ...are you suggesting Hutch took up point duty (on watch) at 11:45 pm and stood there till at least 2:30 am? (when he was seen by Lewis). In the cold and rain for almost 3 hrs?
No Ben, that will not wash.

Are you suggesting Hutch knew Sarah Lewis, knew who she was visiting, knew why she was visiting (after a row with hubby), knew she was about to go to sleep at someone else's home?
No Ben, ...No.

If Blotchy & Astrakhan were the same man, I would expect Hutch to have described a "short, stout & shabby" Blotchy, at midnight, rather than a "Toff", 2 hrs later.
What did he have to loose?

If Hutch gave an intentionally misleading description to the police then there has to be a reason, but not mischief. He has actually placed himself at the crime scene, not a smart thing to do, especially if you are telling lies.
Hutch might have known more about what happened that night than he was letting on.

Regards, Jon S.

[Garry Wroe]

Ok Garry, so we reject Hutchinson's story "in it's entirety"...

I think you'll find, Jon, that if you re-read what I wrote I stated it as my belief that investigators rejected Hutchinson's account in its entirety. As I have already stated, I remain convinced that Hutchinson was indeed the man seen by Sarah Lewis. But since any further elaboration would take us into 'off topic' territory, I'll leave it there.

[Hatchett]

Hi,

Getting back to Richard's original thread I wonder if we are looking at the issue of the burnt clothing from the wrong angle. The clothing would have been blood stained so it would have smouldered rather than blazed. It wouldnt have provided heat or light.

Perhaps what happened is that the killer threw body fat onto the fire, either from his hands or his knife. He then became alarmed at the blaze and the sudden illumination and threw the clothing on to try and dampen it.

It's a new angle.

Best wishes.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Blotchy entered Millers Court at 11:45 pm, ...are you suggesting Hutch took up point duty (on watch) at 11:45 pm and stood there till at least 2:30 am?

Are you suggesting Hutch knew Sarah Lewis, knew who she was visiting, knew why she was visiting (after a row with hubby), knew she was about to go to sleep at someone else's home?

No, neither of those things.

I perfectly accept that Hutchinson was the man seen by Lewis. I just don't accept the reason he gave for being there. I'm suggesting that his 2:30am vigil had nothing whatsoever to do with any client that Kelly supposedly picked up off the streets after 1.00am. I'm also suggesting that the presence of wideawake/Hutchinson's is perfectly consistent with the premise that Kelly retired shortly after 1.00am and did not emerge thereafter. Lewis' superficial "corroboration" of Hutchinson's activity for the 2:30am period does not entitle us to conclude that the rest of his account was true.

[Ben]

Quite possibly, Hatchett.

My impression is that the clothes that Kelly received from Maria Harvey were burnt by the killer to provide both light and warmth. These would not have been bloodstained.

All the best,
Ben

P.S. Agreed on the Dew front.

[Wickerman]

...
Lewis' superficial "corroboration" of Hutchinson's activity for the 2:30am period does not entitle us to conclude that the rest of his account was true.

Absolutely, but as you have no doubt noticed, the point I have been labouring over is precisely the same.
To wit, that because the embellished description portion of Hutchinson's statement has been rejected there is no reason, nor justification, to reject the rest of his statement.

...My impression is that the clothes that Kelly received from Maria Harvey were burnt by the killer to provide both light and warmth. These would not have been bloodstained.

Agreed.
We read that Kelly's clothes were layed by the side of the bed, whether 'all' her clothes, or just 'some' of her clothes, we have no way of knowing.

Maria Harvey left a hat, coat, linen & shirts.
The hat, linen & shirts are not mentioned after the fact, therefore these may have been consumed in the fire, to what end we can only speculate.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"I will merely encourage posters to visit your 'wrong night' thread, evaluate the 'evidence', and then make up their own minds."

Fair enough! But it seems to m that you yourself are discussing a number of things relating to this very topic on this thread - including an assertion that the inferential evidence does not allow for a mistaken day; that, at least, is the only reasonable deduction we are left with when you confidently state that no room is left for any other explanation to the dropping of Hutch than the police having him down as a timewaster or an attention-seeker.

And I´m afraid that if you assert thing like these on this thread, I will counter it on the same thread.

In your post to Jon, you describe Dew as a lowly detective constable at the time of the killings. That may have something going for it, but why would we look away from the fact that Dew became the perhaps most celebrated detective of his time after it, catching Crippen and all. He would have been in the know about lots and lots criminal matters as he wrote his book, and he would reasonably have enjoyed discussions and conversations with very many of the people who had been involved in all levels of the Ripper hunt. So when he said that Hutchinson was an honest man, it is something we need to listen VERY carefully to!
As a matter of fact, we do not have to turn to Dew to realize the impression Hutchinson made. A very enlightening experience is to be had by reading the Daily News from the 14th of November 1888. In it, it says "There is not the slightest reason to doubt Hutchinson's veracity, and it is therefore highly probable that at length the police are in possession of a reliable description of the murderer."
This says a lot about Hutchinson. And keep in mind that this paper would normally not pay all that much attention to the testimonies offered by people of the lower social classes. Here is what is said in it on the very same day about the efforts of Prater, Lewis and Harvey at the inquest:

”Through the phantasmagoria of the Coroner's Court there did indeed flit figures, probably more or less apocryphal, of men who might have done the deed. One doleful-looking little body, with a negress-type of features, told how she and another had been frightened by a mysterious stranger who had tried to lure them by the offer of money into a retired spot; but they both took to their heels and ran away. Not much importance was to be attached to this testimony, probably, nor to that of one or two others who had seen men under suspicious circumstances.”

...and:

”Perhaps the most sensational bit of evidence tendered was that of a garrulous young woman who, with some dramatic force, imitated by voice and action a sort of nightmare cry of "Oh! murder!" which she declared she had heard just after she had been woke up by her kitten rubbing its nose against her face about half-past three or four o'clock on the morning of the murder. It was a faintish cry, she said, as though somebody had woke up with the nightmare, and though the evidence must be taken with the reserve that should attach to all such testimony, the time at which she believes she heard the cry would tally very well with all the circumstances of the case...”

...and:

”In Maria Harvey, the woman who had been compassionately taken in by Kelly, the Court had its one amusing witness. She was the Mrs. Gamp of the day ...”

And Mrs Gamp, as we know, was portrayed in Dickens´”Martin Chuzzlewit” in a less than flattering manner. She is described like this on the net:

Sarah Gamp (also known as Sairey) is an alcoholic who works as a nurse, midwife and layer-out of the dead. Even in a house of mourning, Mrs. Gamp manages to enjoy all the hospitality a house can afford, with little regard for the person to whom she is there to minister; and she is often much the worse for drink. In her nursing activities, she constantly refers to a Mrs Harris, who is in fact "a phantom of Mrs Gamp's brain ... created for the express purpose of holding visionary dialogues with her on all manner of subjects, and invariably winding up with a compliment to the excellence of her nature."

I trust you recognize the very different judgement that is used, as compared to the evaluation of Hutchinson? He was a man whose honesty was apparently not questioned at all, not in 1888 and not 50 year down the line. And I do not for a split second buy that Dew was guessing away about him in the thirties: to begin with, if Hutchinson had been looked upon as a timewaster or an attention-seeker back in 1888, then nothing could be gained by withholding that information from any policeman, regardless of rank. Making it a hundred per cent clear to each and every representant of the police that Hutchinson had been found to be some sort of fraud would have had only a good and useful impact on the investigation. Also, like i said before, if Walter dew had been the sole policeman not in the know about this in 1888, he would have had fifty years to improve on his ignorance, associating with the very tops of the police!

George Hutchinson was never regarded as a timewaster or an attention-seeker. Ergo something else was what made the police drop him, while still entertaining the conviction that he was an honest man with the best of intentions. And that leaves us with the fewest of possibilities - one only, as far as I can see.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
We know that Mary owned a black velvet jacket, we can not be certain that she owned the bonnet that Prater allegedly saw her wearing the night before, infact she could have simply used the one that Harvey left.
We also cannot be sure exactly where Harveys assortments were in that room, it is possible that they infact came into contact with blood.
As the Times article specifically mentions only the remains of velvet , and bonnet[ rim], one can speculate that either they were the only remains found, or they were thought to have been the only missing clothes from kellys meagre pocessions.
It is clear from that report [ Times] that the police appeared to form an opinion that the fire was not lit for light, but to cast aside bloodstained clothing, again the question is Why?
Why was it assumed that the murder occured in daylight... by not only the police[ at least in that report] but also rumoured locally that the crime was fueled by jealously, and was indeed committed shortly before discovery.
Was it assumed simply because of Maxwells sightings, and Maurice Lewis assumptions, or something we are not aware of.
It surely is a fact that dead people do not appear several hours after, and again is a fact, that Maxwell went to extrodinary lengths to maintain a lie, and even after a entire weekend, could not see that she had made a mistake in identification.
It is also a fact that playing pitch in a public place was illegal,yet Maurice Lewis clearly reported to the press that he was doing that, for what reason if he did not feel he had something to confirm.?
I have suggested many times that all of us are guilty of wearing blinkers , and we should all remove them , which would give us all a better view of this case, we are all guilty of reading two many books over the last forty years, that have blurred our vision, and thank god for the superb press section on Casebook that actually refers us back to basics.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"It is clear from the observations made in the Echo that the reservations “the authorities” had with Hutchinson’s account were not limited to the Astrakhan man description alone. Two days after the publication of this article, The Star observed that Hutchinson's account had been “discredited”. This announcement was published in an article which carried the headline “Worthless Stories Lead the Police on False Scents”. Mentioned in the same article was Matthew Packer – the obvious implication being that both witnesses were being lumped into the same category, i.e. probable time-wasters and publicity seekers."

No such implication, I´m afraid, Ben. The lumping together is on your behalf only.
The one thing of interest in all of this is to realize that it is not said "worthless storyteller", just as it is not stated that Hutchinson was discredited - only HIS STORY was!

You can tell worthless stories with a malicious, lying intent, and you can tell them from a perspective where you are honest but mistaken. Both these types of stories must be discredited, but only one of the tellers should be discredited along with them for being dishonest. It´s all quite, quite simple.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Good morning Fisherman.
We are both on the same wavelength, but with slight variations.
I am a staunch Hutchinson supporter, not only to his identification[ Topping] but to his integriety, we differ in the fact that I maintain that he reported what he saw, and assisted the police , until that investigation petered out, and he got his dates absolutely correct, after all being such a good observer , it would be unrealistic that he lost track of time.
I have often speculated that Hutchisons motives , may have been one of self presevation, having possibly been in kellys room that morning, but with no malice, however I then put on my head of realism, and simply believe what i consider to have been a very sincere witness.
Regards Richard.

[Carol]

I definitely believe that after Kate's murder his fantasies had escalated to the point that he desired to add the new elements of time, light, increased security and privacy. [/B]

Maybe it had taken him a while to find a suitable victim who had any kind of a private place, and that's why there was a longer gap between murders?

Best regards,
Archaic

Good thinking, Archaic! Mary Kelly could well have been 'targeted' by him as he discovered she had her own place and was living alone at that time. Of course, she often let other prostitutes sleep on the floor so it wouldn't have been easy for a would-be killer to 'pick his time'. He would have had to be on the prowl many nights probably.

Love
Carol