Mary Jane was murdered between 09.00 and 10.30 am

[The Rookie Detective]

Hutchinson is an interesting character because it seems that from his actions at he time, his statement didn't have the impact he thought it would.
He waited days before going the police and then gave an incredibly detailed description of the man he said he saw talking with the victim who he claims to have been on friendly terms with.

So we need to ask questions relating to each of the alleged witnesses motivations for coming forward to talk to the police.
I find that elements of the truth lay in the finer details and so picking out those nuggets of truth can be important for creating a more accurate picture of what transpired at the time.

So, back to George.

Do we believe he was actually there at the time?

If he wasn't there, then the entire events we are told occurred in his story never actually happened... BUT...certain elements of his story must hold some truth.

Would he come forward if he wasn't there?

That's quite a risk, unless you're someone like Albert Bachert who craved being the centre of attention.

I see similarities between Hutchinson and Bachert and at one point I even wondered if Hutchinson was actually Bachert because Hutchinson by all intents and purposes was a ghost and no one knows anything about him indicating the name George Hutchinson was not his real name.

The one thing that 'Hutchinson' also mentions which I believe holds a nugget of truth is his reference to Romford.

But why mention Romford when his story about witnessing seeing MJK with her likely killer is almost certainly fabricated.

The interesting thing about Romford is that it was where Crossingham lived and owned property.

As we know Crossingham and McCarthy were effectively the 2 overlords of Dorset Street and they controlled multiple lodging houses in the area.

Could Hutchinson have worked for Crossingham?

He was after all claiming to be standing outside one of his lodging houses across the road from Miller's Court.

MJK was murdered in one of McCarthy owned rooms and so could there be more to this in terms of things being covered up?

Maxwell's husband Henry ran a lodging house and it seems to me that Maxwell may have had ulterior motives.

And don't forget....

What's the one thing, the ONLY thing that connects ALL of the victims; aside from prostitution?

LODGING HOUSES

Thoughts?


RD

[c.d.]

What's the one thing, the ONLY thing that connects ALL of the victims; aside from prostitution?

LODGING HOUSES

Well I would add that they were all women. They all were poor. They all apparently had a fondness for alcohol.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael

Are you suggesting that the murderer put Hutchinson up to making his statement to distract the police from thinking JtR had an accomplice/lookout aiding him?

Possibly. Or he did so voluntarily.

[Fleetwood Mac]

LODGING HOUSES

It's a good lead. 'Not necessarily the answer but certainly worthy of pursuit.

[Michael W Richards]

Yes, but on what grounds are we to question whether this room was the one, as opposed to somewhere else?
This isn't an assumption, by the way, other residents of the court have confirmed this is where the body was found.




Others have too, lacerating her features can be a way of impeding recognition, certainly.




Cox's actual words are said to be: "I have known the deceased for 8 or 9 months as the occupant of room 13". Cox never says she KNEW Mary, only knew OF her as the resident of No.13.
Barely neighbors, certainly no claims of friendship, so quite likely competitors for what meager clientele is available in the late night hours. Having to pass the room every time she enters or leaves the court offers some justification for being near the scene of the crime. Nothing above suggests Cox can be trusted any more than a complete stranger.



I've never claimed Hutchinson is a better witness, I'm saying Cox is no better than Hutchinson, because you seem to think she is.




Seeing as you now know nothing is established between Cox & Kelly, maybe you need to reconsider giving Cox any benefit of trust?




You want 'evidence' to falsify Cox's testimony?, where's the 'evidence' that Hutchinson falsified his statement?
Cox inventing Blotchy as a cover for herself, or someone she knows, is of course just creative. Though it should demonstrate to you how easy it is to place trust in someone who actually could be involved.




Here though, you are intentionally avoiding the fact, and this IS a fact, that for most of the weekend the press were writing about Kelly being murdered after 9:00 am Friday morning. There was no 'police theory' towards a later time of death until the Sunday evening press. This is what the public believed, so naturally this is what Hutchinson believed.

He saw Mary about 2-2:30 and she had been killed some 7 hours later, so obviously he isn't going to waste police time reporting what he saw with so many hours between him seeing her, and her murder.
It was only on Sunday that we read an official conclusion that the murder was nearer to 3:00 am, that he approached a policeman, then after talking with other residents, he went to police.
It is very likely, in my view, he saw early Monday afternoon newspapers, like the Star, where it was reported "Cox saw the murderer", which Hutchinson would know to be untrue - so off he goes to the police.


But that is also false, and you know it.
The 'discredited' story came out on the 15th, yet we 'know' the police were still searching for both Blotchy & Astrachan on the 19th, as reported in the Echo, so we have actual printed evidence that your claim is false, but you continue to cling to false ideas.

You are promoting false claims to push your own agenda, that is deliberately falsifying evidence. When police are investigating a story four days after a newspaper claimed it was 'discredited', shows it is clearly wrong.
What is more, the Star have a well known reputation for inventing stories that are only intended to sell papers - and you got suckered in.



Well, this 'lookout' theory was a nonstarter from the beginning, only desperate theorists try to get some mileage out of it.
It's preposterous saying someone out in Dorset street, and across the road, could help warn an accomplice inside room 13, in any way, without raising the attention of the whole neighborhood first.
The accomplice will be trapped.

Cox lived in the court, passed Marys room day in and day out, several times that night alone,...and we can confidently state that she knew Mary. And you believe Hutch knew Mary because?.....oh yeah, right... he said he did.

Mary wasnt competitors with Mary Ann, in fact she hadnt been out soliciting lately...you know, her fear of the Ripper, her reliance on Barnett for living money, her 2 1/2 weeks arrears in rent...you know,... that stuff? Oh, and the medical opinion on when Mary dies isnt 7 hours after Hutch claimed he saw her,...where do you people get this stuff??...

So you think Hutch waited to Monday so he could correct what impressions Mary Ann had made with Blotchy? He didnt think a sighting of Mary seen with someone on that night at that time was relevant on its own, only when compared with Mary Ann's Blotchy? Wild.

You acknowledge that the paper said he was discredited but still believe differently anyway.? "We" know differently? Ok. You decide whether the Star stories are true or false based on your opinion of them? Ok.

You know that your assessment of my idea of a lookout not being feasible is in direct conflict with the Pardon issuance, right? And you realize that someone claiming to be someones friend yet waiting 4 days to give his supposed valuable sighting are ideas that are contradictory in nature? Youre debating whether the statement from Hutch had the effect of redirecting the investigation strategy?

One last thing, just so I understand this nonsense a bit better, you dont think that virtually every person who lived in that area talked about the crime all weekend long?

[Michael W Richards]

It's a good lead. 'Not necessarily the answer but certainly worthy of pursuit.

Its been discussed before here, and it does seem to have some basis...in particular, with Crossinghams.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Its been discussed before here, and it does seem to have some basis...in particular, with Crossinghams.

I'd like to see another murder case from any other country where there are such outrageous witness statements that simply make no sense when put together.

Either those people were mental or there is something else going on here.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fleetwood Mac,

Your second alternative is correct.

Simon

[Wickerman]

Hutchinson is an interesting character because it seems that from his actions at he time, his statement didn't have the impact he thought it would.

Doesn't that depend on what you think he intended?
The pieces of the puzzle that we can identify suggest to me there were two reasons he came forward when he did.
The first was that the Star reporter departed the inquest during Prater's testimony, likely because it seemed to everyone the witness Cox had seen the murderer. In fact the early afternoon edition published the sub-heading The Murderer Described, ahead of Cox's story.
Hutchinson knew this to be untrue.
He, at first, had no intention of going to police because everyone thought the murder had taken place in the late morning, after 9:00 am. So his story of seeing her between 2:00-2:30 am, was irrelevant.

Do we believe he was actually there at the time?

Yes, and Sarah Lewis saw him there.
He doesn't mention any women because Badham who was interviewing him was more concerned about suspicious persons, and at the time the police did not suspect the murderer was a woman. Also, Lewis was likely an unfortunate, and these being of the lowest class are little more than background noise.
It's even worse, women in the late 19th century were not even citizens, they had no rights, were looked upon as possessions. They didn't even get the right to vote until after 1918. Not mentioning people that don't matter is only to be expected.
Aside from this, once a late witness comes forward today, the police make every effort to establish their statement, which in this case would mean the police would contact Sarah Lewis to verify if this was the man she saw.
As Abberline was still looking for Astrachan, even on Dec. 6th, he had good reason to know Hutchinson was trustworthy.

I see similarities between Hutchinson and Bachert and at one point I even wondered if Hutchinson was actually Bachert because Hutchinson by all intents and purposes was a ghost and no one knows anything about him indicating the name George Hutchinson was not his real name.

Wasn't Backert a member of the Vigilance Committee?, I know he was in and out of several courts over the years. It's hard to believe Abberline had not met up with Backert, more than once.
When he interviewed Hutchinson, he would know if he was talking to Backert.

The one thing that 'Hutchinson' also mentions which I believe holds a nugget of truth is his reference to Romford.

But why mention Romford when his story about witnessing seeing MJK with her likely killer is almost certainly fabricated.

The interesting thing about Romford is that it was where Crossingham lived and owned property.

Yes, but also Hutch claimed to have known Mary for three years, so she would have been living at Breezers Hill then, and she lived at the same address as Stephen Maywood, a dealer in horses with stables at Romford.
So, it's possible that both Maywood & Hutchinson knew Mary Kelly around 1885-6.

[Aethelwulf]

LODGING HOUSES

This may interest you Rookie

[The Rookie Detective]

Mary Ann Austin was murdered in Crossingham's lodging House at 35 Dorset Street in 1901...

The killer vanished after stabbing her multiple times in her genitals and rear.
She was taken to hospital by Daniel Sullivan who failed to relay to the porter the severity of her wounds...and she subsequently died...
...but what's more remarkable is that Daniel Sullivan (Crossingjam's Brother In law) and others who ran the lodging house including Barney Lipman ( a former fish porter who had lived in Miller's Court) all tried to cover it up through varying witness statements that were designed to confuse the police and protect those involved with the criminality that went on. They even lied about the bed in which she was attacked as it was later discovered that the lodging house had directed the police to the wrong bed on purpose.


As far as I'm aware, Crossingham and McCarthy had a good business relationship and they helped protect each others assets.

Remember that Crossinghams was the same lodging house that Annie Chapman stayed at shortly before her death.

2 other murders occured in Miller's Court after MJK whilst still being run by McCarthy (one solved)


I would therefore consider what the implications would be if MJK fell behind on her rent as McCarthy was a business man first and foremost and I'd imagine that while he saw MJK as an asset, to owe him money was not a good thing.

Bowyer was McCarthy's enforcer just as Sullivan was Crossinghams.

The other man was of course Cooney, but his death may have altered the balance somewhat.


And so how did the victims fit in to all of this?

Well when you consider that there were often unfortunates who had their own regular bed long term as long as it was being paid for, then you start to realize that these lodging houses weren't just like hotels, they were also used as brothels and the women were assets who had to pay their way.

In my opinion the real JTR was a regular long term client with a penchants for violence and I'd be surprised if men like Crossingham and McCarthy didn't know who he was.

Don't forget that any witness statements from ANYONE associated with ANY of those lodging houses should be taken as unreliable because it's likely women like Maxwell had their own agenda.

MJK's murder was covered up by the likes of McCarthy and Crossingham and it may be the real reason why the killer had to take a break from killing... He was known as a regular client and I think the killer was introduced by someone from the lodging house as a new young woman who was relatively new in the seedy world of prostitution and that's something that may have excited the killer more when he was alone with her in Miller's Court.

RD

[The Rookie Detective]

This may interest you Rookie

That's fascinating and I think particularly significant.


The only person of interest who possibly be linked to all of the lodging houses in question is Dr Barnardo.

He visited all of the lodging houses over the years through his preaching.

He was an evangelist protestant who spoke to unfortunates on a regular basis.

He admitted to have spoken at the lodging house in which Stride was staying a few days before her death because he went out of his way to go to the mortuary to identify her body.


But of course, theres absolutely no evidence whatsoever or suggestion he was a paying client.

He did walk free from court 88 times despite admitting abduction and fraud but that doesn't make him a killer, it just means he was charming, believable and able to talk his way out of anything.

Or he had powerful friends.

He is however the kind of man whose sins could be washed under the carpet because he did save children from the slums, often through abduction but his intent was genuine because he hated the slums and was on a religious mission to change things.

He wasn't actually a qualified doctor though because he quit before he qualified, although he insisted on being addressed as DR because he did have a degree of surgical knowledge and anatomical knowledge.

But the only time he forcibly hit a woman was when she was defending her father as he was being strung up on the command of Barnardo, by Barnardos Boys over a right of way dispute.

But I digress...


I'd suspect that he had many traits of a clinical psychopath but that still doesn't make him a killer.


But he's the only person of interest who can be linked to all the lodging houses

Unless McCarthy himself was the ripper.


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

Doesn't that depend on what you think he intended?
The pieces of the puzzle that we can identify suggest to me there were two reasons he came forward when he did.
The first was that the Star reporter departed the inquest during Prater's testimony, likely because it seemed to everyone the witness Cox had seen the murderer. In fact the early afternoon edition published the sub-heading The Murderer Described, ahead of Cox's story.
Hutchinson knew this to be untrue.
He, at first, had no intention of going to police because everyone thought the murder had taken place in the late morning, after 9:00 am. So his story of seeing her between 2:00-2:30 am, was irrelevant.



Yes, and Sarah Lewis saw him there.
He doesn't mention any women because Badham who was interviewing him was more concerned about suspicious persons, and at the time the police did not suspect the murderer was a woman. Also, Lewis was likely an unfortunate, and these being of the lowest class are little more than background noise.
It's even worse, women in the late 19th century were not even citizens, they had no rights, were looked upon as possessions. They didn't even get the right to vote until after 1918. Not mentioning people that don't matter is only to be expected.
Aside from this, once a late witness comes forward today, the police make every effort to establish their statement, which in this case would mean the police would contact Sarah Lewis to verify if this was the man she saw.
As Abberline was still looking for Astrachan, even on Dec. 6th, he had good reason to know Hutchinson was trustworthy.




Wasn't Backert a member of the Vigilance Committee?, I know he was in and out of several courts over the years. It's hard to believe Abberline had not met up with Backert, more than once.
When he interviewed Hutchinson, he would know if he was talking to Backert.



Yes, but also Hutch claimed to have known Mary for three years, so she would have been living at Breezers Hill then, and she lived at the same address as Stephen Maywood, a dealer in horses with stables at Romford.
So, it's possible that both Maywood & Hutchinson knew Mary Kelly around 1885-6.

Hutchinson may have been a groom for Maywood if he owned horses and a stable.

And Maywood may have known Crossingham

Do we know anything more about Maywood?

Would that suggest that Maywood knew MJK?


Could Maywood be connected and Hutchinson is hinting that he knew the killer?


Just another random thought, but nothing is off the table and so why not?


RD

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Fleetwood Mac,

Your second alternative is correct.

Simon

Aye, I reckon there's a possibility that at least one of those women in the court knew more than they were letting on, Simon.

[Fleetwood Mac]

What's the one thing, the ONLY thing that connects ALL of the victims; aside from prostitution?

LODGING HOUSES

Thoughts?

It seems an obvious conclusion, but then again: given the era and the location, how likely is it that the women involved wouldn't have some connection to lodging houses?