Witness/Killer?

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, I haven't got it. Guess I should have, being a Swede. And aware of itīs existence. I seem to remember, though, having read less favourable things about it (along the line of it being mostly free phantasies), and so I have never gotten around to getting it. The info on Bokus was kind of mouthwatering ...

Cheers Fish, I'm sure that you'll let us know if you get a copy as I'm assuming that there's no English print version at the moment.

[Fisherman]

With regards to Hutchinson


what the general consensus with him as a reliable witness?


considering he gave a belated over exaggerated statement in which he gives a ridiculously detailed description and states he waited for 45 minutes before randomly deciding to walk away; he is one peculiar fellow to say the least.

if we were to continue complete omit his statement with the view of him not having been there at all and take his entire statement as fabrication, how would that affect the course of events on the night of the MJK murder?

what if we were to consider that none of the “eye” witness testimonies were correct and that the only statistically viable witness evidence was the audible “oh murder” heard by MULTIPLE witnesses on the night.

hutchinson acts more strangely than any other witness.

was he a complete liar
was he mistaken
was he a fantasist
was he an odd ball

or did he actually see the killer and is totally reliable as a key witness?

or was he the killer?

I believe he made the whole thing up and the murder of MJK should be considered with his entire statement omitted.

what if Kelly didn’t leave her room to speak with Hutchinson at all?

what if Kelly was in her room being murdered at the same time Hutchinson says he was speaking with her?

what if Kelly was asleep for a while in her room and was awoken by the murderer sneaking into her room shortly before the “oh murder” cry?

TRD

You forgot the option that Hutchinson was completely honest, but mistaken as to the day ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

I've always been wary of Hutchinson as a witness. The idea of him stooping down to look into the face of AM just doesn't sound right and when combining that with the description that he gave raises alarm bells with me. Also we have to ask why he didn't come forward in time for the Inquest? If I recall correctly though didn't Abberline consider him believable? If that was the case then that has to carry some weight of course from a man of Abberline's experience.

He could have gotten the date wrong as Fish mentioned but as he spoke to Abberline only 3 days later wouldn't that make it less likely? Certainly not impossible though.

As a suspect it's difficult to see why he'd have placed himself on the spot and talking to Kelly?

Scenario time:

Is it possible that he saw Kelly earlier on and hoped for somewhere to sleep for the night. She told him that she needed a client or two so he wanders around. As he passes the court next he sees Mary enter the court with a client so he continued walking to keep warm. He returns a few minutes later and stands outside the court where he's seen. After a while he wonders if the client has already left so he knocks on Mary's door but gets no answer so he looks in the window and sees what Bowyer did a few hours later so he runs. He knows that he's been seen though so after he's managed to pull himself together and had time to think he contacts the police and gives himself a reason for being there and at the same time gives the police a detailed suspect description.

[The Rookie Detective]

I've always been wary of Hutchinson as a witness. The idea of him stooping down to look into the face of AM just doesn't sound right and when combining that with the description that he gave raises alarm bells with me. Also we have to ask why he didn't come forward in time for the Inquest? If I recall correctly though didn't Abberline consider him believable? If that was the case then that has to carry some weight of course from a man of Abberline's experience.

He could have gotten the date wrong as Fish mentioned but as he spoke to Abberline only 3 days later wouldn't that make it less likely? Certainly not impossible though.

As a suspect it's difficult to see why he'd have placed himself on the spot and talking to Kelly?

Scenario time:

Is it possible that he saw Kelly earlier on and hoped for somewhere to sleep for the night. She told him that she needed a client or two so he wanders around. As he passes the court next he sees Mary enter the court with a client so he continued walking to keep warm. He returns a few minutes later and stands outside the court where he's seen. After a while he wonders if the client has already left so he knocks on Mary's door but gets no answer so he looks in the window and sees what Bowyer did a few hours later so he runs. He knows that he's been seen though so after he's managed to pull himself together and had time to think he contacts the police and gives himself a reason for being there and at the same time gives the police a detailed suspect description.

That all seems very plausible and viable in my opinion.


I believe the reason why someone would place themselves as having spoken to Kelly and kept watch for 45 minutes etc... is because they either wanted to seem important, like a fantasist imagining they are some kind of superhero

Or that they were the killer and knew that they may have been seen and so they have to place themselves at the scene to cover their own back for fear that they could have been identified.

For me Hutchinson was either a fantasist or the killer.


His past is a little strange

His mother died when he was young

He moved several times across London, including Westminster, during his childhood, his father having been a plumber.

He didn't marry until later life and was a bit of a loner at the time of the murders.

He lodged in different lodging houses, even in 1891 he was still lodging in London

Whats interesting about his statement is his reference to Romford; his father lived in Romford if i recall. This part of his statement therefore rings true.

He fits the profile


TRD

[Fisherman]

For me Hutchinson was either a fantasist or the killer.

That really does not give him much of a chance, does it? Of course, we all make our own calls, but I would advice strongly against such a meagre choice of options.

He fits the profile

TRD

Which profile is that, more exactly?

[Fisherman]

Cheers Fish, I'm sure that you'll let us know if you get a copy as I'm assuming that there's no English print version at the moment.

Consider it a deal, Herlock.

[barnflatwyngarde]

You forgot the option that Hutchinson was completely honest, but mistaken as to the day ...

Yes, yes, yes, yes!

[The Rookie Detective]

You forgot the option that Hutchinson was completely honest, but mistaken as to the day ...

So you’re saying that Hutchinson...

lowered his head to look at the man who accompanied Kelly into Millers Court

gave a detailed description of the man he saw with very specific details that displayed fantastic detail

he waited for 45 minutes to keep an eye on Kelly .


and yet he got the wrong day?!


so a man who states that he saw the man directly and gives a very detailed description of the mans entire countenance and attire and stays on the scene for 45 minutes has the capacity to FORGET which day it was?

that sir is absolute nonsense.


he says he was there and saw the man and subsequently chose to stay around for observe for longer than would he considered normal.

but he still gets the wrong day?

if he can remember and make an extremely detailed description of the mange saw, he would NOT then forget what day it occurred.

it’s quite clear he either made it all up, embellished the truth to sound more important or was the killer covering his tracks.

3 options

liar
fantasist
killer

He is more likely to have been the ripper than to have forgotten the day.

personally I don’t think he was the ripper because believe it or not, I favour the same suspect you do.

but Hutchinson was in my opinion a fantasist who wanted to seem more important than he actually was. His testimony completely confuses the chronology of the night in question and his fantastical mind ruins the more authentic witnesses who were present.


take Hutchinson with a pinch of salt


TRD

[Fisherman]

So you’re saying that Hutchinson...

lowered his head to look at the man who accompanied Kelly into Millers Court

Actually, it was Hutchinson himself who said that, not me. Personally, I have no problems whatsoever with it, though.

gave a detailed description of the man he saw with very specific details that displayed fantastic detail

Actually, it was Hutchinson ... well, you get the drift. In this context, Iīd like to point to how Gweorge William Topping Hutchinsons son Reg said that his father never had to make lists for his plumbing works; he kept all the details in his head. I find that striking. How about you?

he waited for 45 minutes to keep an eye on Kelly .

Once again, it was he who said it, not me. I am open to the suggestion that he waited for so long on account of hoping to find a bed for the night, free of charge. Stranger (much, much, MUCH stranger) things have happened.

and yet he got the wrong day?!

Is the suggestion that he would not have stooped down to look at A mans face on the day before...? Or that he would not be detailed on that day? Or that he only waited 30 minutes on Thursdays?

so a man who states that he saw the man directly and gives a very detailed description of the mans entire countenance and attire and stays on the scene for 45 minutes has the capacity to FORGET which day it was?

that sir is absolute nonsense.

Is it really? Are you aware that our memory capacities are divided up in two categories, detail memory and sequential memory? Have you ever heard of senile people who remember the colour of the tie a friend wore fifty years before - but who beleive that friend is still alive, sporting the tie?
A friendly piece of advice is to try and inform yourself of these matters before you form a view about them, not least if that view comprises calling somebody who HAS read up on it nonsensical. The two categories of memories are totally separated from each other, and you can have a formidable detail memory and a worthless sequential memory - or the other way around. Of course, you can also have formidable types of BOTH memories, but there are no guarantess either way.
Remember where you heard it first. If your sequential memory allows for it.

he says he was there and saw the man and subsequently chose to stay around for observe for longer than would he considered normal.

but he still gets the wrong day?

Yes, exactly.

if he can remember and make an extremely detailed description of the mange saw, he would NOT then forget what day it occurred.

See the above. Again.

it’s quite clear he either made it all up, embellished the truth to sound more important or was the killer covering his tracks.

3 options

liar
fantasist
killer

No, those are not the only options. The option of a very honest man with a good detail memory and a less good sequential memory is to my mind by far the best option, going on the facts we have.

He is more likely to have been the ripper than to have forgotten the day.

Allow me to smile, Mr Rookie. You are working from a flawed perspective, Iīm afraid.

personally I don’t think he was the ripper because believe it or not, I favour the same suspect you do.

Personally, I donīt think he was the Ripper becasue he was not even in Dorset Street on the 9:th.

but Hutchinson was in my opinion a fantasist who wanted to seem more important than he actually was. His testimony completely confuses the chronology of the night in question and his fantastical mind ruins the more authentic witnesses who were present.

Once you read up on the two types of memories and how a transient lifestyle with no fixed dwellings and work, coupled with skipping over nights of sleep affects these things, I hope and trust you may take another view.

take Hutchinson with a pinch of salt

TRD

I am more likely to take your advice with a lot of the same commodity. I' ve seen the same argument more times than I can count, and it hasnīt become any better over the years.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

East London Advertiser, Nov 17:

Julia Vanternie, a German said that she lived in Miller-court, and knew the deceased, who was an unfortunate. The man "Joe," who was living with her, objected to her going on the streets. The deceased had lived with another man, whom she was very fond of. She had said to witness, "Joe has been a good fellow to me. I shall have to leave him." On the night of the murder witness felt strange, thinking that she heard noises. The deceased was singing some Irish songs during the night.

Did Joe leave Mary, or did Mary leave Joe?

[caz]

I don't know the answer, but if Joe Barnett could no longer provide for them both, but objected to Mary going on the streets or inviting others back to the room, something was bound to give. Might even have been a mutual parting.

[Prosector]

I think it probably was Caz. It had only been a matter of days and neither seems to have made much of an effort to patch things up. Julia Venturini (her actual name) is an interesting character and, as far as I know, the only person who claimed that MJK had told her that her husband was still alive.

[Michael W Richards]

I don't know the answer, but if Joe Barnett could no longer provide for them both, but objected to Mary going on the streets or inviting others back to the room, something was bound to give. Might even have been a mutual parting.

Might even have been as little as Maria living there too. She left when Barnett arrived Thursday evening. Maybe there was an issue with Maria and Joe.

As for having people into the room, there is only 1 case of Mary going in that room with a man that was not Barnett. And she sang to him off and on for over an hour. Some trick...a serenade in squalor.

[caz]

Only one known case, Michael. If Kelly invited other men in, after Joe Barnett's departure, they were unlikely to advertise the fact.

You seem cynical about Kelly making her own entertainment and having a song in the hovel she called home. If her killer was Blotchy, he may have been plying her with more drink in the hope that she'd fall asleep and he'd be able to kill her without any fear of her waking the neighbours with her screams. What's an hour of singing, if the return is a lengthy ripping session in peace, with a relatively young, strong woman, compared with the recent outdoor murders?

[Michael W Richards]

Only one known case, Michael. If Kelly invited other men in, after Joe Barnett's departure, they were unlikely to advertise the fact.

You seem cynical about Kelly making her own entertainment and having a song in the hovel she called home. If her killer was Blotchy, he may have been plying her with more drink in the hope that she'd fall asleep and he'd be able to kill her without any fear of her waking the neighbours with her screams. What's an hour of singing, if the return is a lengthy ripping session in peace, with a relatively young, strong woman, compared with the recent outdoor murders?

Maria Moved out Tuesday, Mary went out Thursday and is killed Friday after midnight. Maria and Mary were in her room all day Thursday. So, you have on Wednesday night possible...go find that man and Ill retract my comment..