Prater/Lewis/Hutchinson/Cox

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Chava



But why? Why would Hutchinson want to impersonate a witness and possibly incriminate himself in one of the worst killings in British criminal history? Perhaps he thought (as some posters to this web-site maintain) that the police were as thick as the proverbial docker's sandwich, and would take him at face value, I don't know.

Think about it, coming forward in the place of a genuine witness in a gruesome murder, it's not the wisest of things to do is it? Did he crave noteriety? Did he think he could make a few bob out of it? Either way if he was not the man seen by Lewis, then he's not the brightest star in the sky is he?

Observer

.....to say nothing of the noose! Capital punishment by hanging by the neck until dead being one of Matthews hobby horses-he was a very unbending about this "deterrant" when Home Secretary . I cant picture Jack the Ripper nipping into the Commercial Street Police Station and announcing he was at the scene of the crime at 3 am when Mary was being murdered.
Not Jack the Ripper,a murderer careful enough never to leave a clue,never known to have allowed a sound to slip from his victims mouth"s when he murdered them.Who took great care not to be seen.Thats why I dont believe the Astrakhan man was the Ripper.He may have been a client of the murdered Kelly that night but I doubt he was the ripper.

[caz]

Hi Nats,

In my scenario, Blotchy could have been the companion who was in with Mary when Hutch arrived. Hutch could have turned Blotchy into Astrakhan Man, without either man having seen each other. Had Hutch not left when he did, he might have heard that cry of "Murder!" and his supposed curiosity could have killed him too.

Love,

Caz
X

[perrymason]

On Observers point regarding Hutchinson's time to create a "story", it was almost 4 days since the murder, and the press had reported Sarah Lewis's initial statements. Not only had he the time to create a story....he had the information with which he could place himself at the site watching the court. And he had the impetus, if he was in that area at night...to explain his presence.

Not only is Hutchinson's story extremely unlikely, there is no evidence with which it can be corroberated...despite at least 2 courtyard witnesses being out at the time the "sighting" takes place.

Caz....I am getting tired if being called names when all I am doing is re-iterating the facts....there is no account Mary ever had a client in her room......PERIOD. You disparage my comments, so does Dan, but neither of you has ever countered it using evidence or proof. You and Dan and Tom like to cast aspersions on my comments....thats part of common discussion boards, and I have to accept them regardless of the accuracy or merit. It is my task to then discredit the comments of the dis creditors...by pointing out that all the conjecture and suppositions used to argue against them...like these...

"To state the bleedin’ obvious (as Observer and Dan and others keep having to do with you, for reasons I still have not managed to fathom) MJK was a known prostitute and a drinker, who now had the freedom to use the room (which was essentially her bedroom) in whatever way she chose, and who was, according to her landlord, way behind with the rent, and we know the rent man was coming in the morning, and she may have known that too."

.....which has nothing to do with what was in fact known...being that she had never brought "clients" in before Blotchy Man or there is no witness that ever saw that or heard from her she did, and McCarthy at no time ever said anything about her being close to eviction. Plus she was drunk....so whats the reason now for going out or inviting men in.....she has a room, she has eaten, and she is hammered.

Not only was Bowyer sent to see if he can collect some rent, not the arrears...as indicated by McCarthy's comment at Inquest..."arrears were got as best one can".... Mary was in no immediate danger that we know, or that she did,... of eviction. Her freedom to use the room as desired doesnt equate to her starting to bring strange men into it to service them, nor is there 1 witness that ever saw what we are told was a "client" enter the room with Mary.

Then you add this line.....

"What are the odds - in early November - that the ripper would be looking for a new victim from among the area’s ‘unfortunates’ who were still not taking adequate measures to protect themselves from him?"

Since he had'nt killed in over a month, and it is in no way certain that she was killed by any "Ripper" at large, and since he managed to find unfortunates alone during the height of the killings....and since he never killed a woman under 30 indoors....Im sure he still had ample opportunities outdoors, in dark locations, with unfortunates. You and others assume he had already killed 4 that way...but yet you now surmise that 5 weeks after the last murder, he is forced indoors due to the "heat".

Then you say this...

"Does MJK fit the definition of an unfortunate, who ‘just happened’ to be trying to make ends meet at the height of the ripper scare, and ‘just happened’ to live at the heart of ripper territory, and who ‘just happened’ to fail to take adequate measures to protect herself from being viciously murdered and mutilated?

No actually...Mary is the only Canon unfortunate who didnt have to pay each night to sleep indoors....the "heart" of Ripper territory is also a stretch,...and who says that Mary did'nt have Blotchy escort her home.....her "adequate" safety measure. Since this "Jack" of yours never killed indoors before, or killed any priors while the victim was at home..it would seem she had her safety inside her room...behind her own door.

How about this, disagree all you want with what I write, just please offer some shred of proof, or evidence, that you are attempting to actually counter the position, not just trash the messenger.

And in this case.....sure, speculate all you want, but at least acknowledege that there is not one piece of evidence that suggests Mary Jane ever brought clients into room 13.

Theres only your and Dans intimate understanding of what all Victorian whores did all the time..regardless of their circumstances.

You do know these were actual people dont you...not just stats?

If you were honest with yourself and me...you'd acknowledge that the main reason that you and others offer baseless challenges to the statement that we have no records that Mary ever brought clients in to her room... is because you think Jack killed her....and that Jack kills whores while they are working.

At least Im not tailoring the evidence or the facts, or rather ignoring them, to support a Kelly's killer theory.

Best regards.

[Observer]

Hi Natalie

.....to say nothing of the noose! Capital punishment by hanging by the neck until dead being one of Matthews hobby horses-he was a very unbending about this "deterrant" when Home Secretary . I cant picture Jack the Ripper nipping into the Commercial Street Police Station and announcing he was at the scene of the crime at 3 am when Mary was being murdered.
Not Jack the Ripper,a murderer careful enough never to leave a clue,never known to have allowed a sound to slip from his victims mouth"s when he murdered them.Who took great care not to be seen. Thats why I dont believe the Astrakhan man was the Ripper.He may have been a client of the murdered Kelly that night but I doubt he was the ripper.

There’s no way Hutchinson’s Toff existed though is there?

Hi Caz

In my scenario, Blotchy could have been the companion who was in with Mary when Hutch arrived. Hutch could have turned Blotchy into Astrakhan Man, without either man having seen each other. Had Hutch not left when he did, he might have heard that cry of "Murder!" and his supposed curiosity could have killed him too.

If Blotchy was still in Kelly’s room at 2:30 then he got a hell of a run for his money.

If Kelly got rid of Blotchy sometime after 1:00 a.m. she could even have left with Blotchy in order to try her hand at making some more money.

Could Hutchinson have met Kelly on the Street as he said shortly after 2:00a.m., Having no money he can’t afford Kelly’s services. Kelly leaves him. He watches Kelly solicite for a while, Kelly feeling a little bedraggled from her nights drinking decides to call it a day, and decides to return home. Hutchinson follows her intending to try to get a bit of tick from Kelly, but his nerve gives out and before he can parle with Kelly she’s already at the entrance to the court. He stands opposite the Court still hopeful he can spend the remainder of the night with Kelly, he enters the Court but his nerve deserts him again, and he can’t bring himself to knock on the door. He emerges back onto Dorset street and after awhile decides to move on.

He learns of Kelly’s murder and realises that he could well have been seen with Kelly on the morning of the ninth, and so not being the brightest of buttons, makes up a **** and bull story using a concoction of all the newspaper reports of previous suspects, a Jew, A doctor etc.

Observer

[Ben]

I cant picture Jack the Ripper nipping into the Commercial Street Police Station and announcing he was at the scene of the crime at 3 am when Mary was being murdered.

But what you "can't picture" and what history has shown to have happened don't always make very good bed fellows, Nats. and here is an excellent case in point. Serial killers have communicated with the police under false guises and delivered false information when they perceive an advantage in doing so; an advantage that might include self-preservation, a desire to keep appraised of police progress, or sheer personal bravado. Hutchinson could have been one of those for all we know, irrespective of whether anyone thinks these are "obvious" enough reasons or not. When you say the killer took care never to be seen - how can you possibly know that? Incidentally, the killers who have come into contact with the police under false pretences have generally been the more organized ones.

Hi all,

As for the idea that Hutchinson was waiting for a client to emerge, that's a good suggestion that would make sense of Lewis' observation, but if so, it's equally possible that the hypothetical client did emerge and that Hutchinson did gain access. But even if the truth entailed so innocent an explanation (that he was waiting to use Kelly's services) why didn't he say so? Nichols' clients didn't admit to sleeping with her, but how did those clients know that the prostitute was Nichols? Blotchy didn't come forward, but then Blotchy could have been the killer. Even if admitting to desiring her services was a bit precarious, it would surely legitimize his presence rather better than the non-explanation for loitering that he gave to Abberline. And surely if that was his mission, he'd return periodically to see if the client was still there, rather than sauntering the streets alibi-less when he had money to enter the Victoria Home "when it opened in the morning"?

Please don't think I'm being overly critical here, because I believe the suggestion has some merit. But if we're prepared to accept that he could have fabricated Astrakhan man and the attendant details and lied about his reasons for being there, he could easily have lied about when he left the scene.

Hi Observer,

You've raised some good points. Just a quick observation on Hutchinson's appearance at the inquest. Once the inquest was terminated, the details were effectively public knowledge, and Hutchinson would have known about them shortly thereafter, either in the press, by attending the inquest himself, by being part of the masses who swarmed the coroner's offices, or even through word of mouth that spread through the populace with considerable speed, as the Pizer/Leather apron brouhaha demonstrated. Even before the inquest, there was a Mrs. Kennedy doing the press rounds who was clearly "chinese whisepering" Sarah Lewis' account.

Best regards,
Ben

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

It has been suggested that during the weekend before Kelly's inquest GH got wind of Sarah Lewis's Wideawake Man. Her sighting prompted him to walk into the lion's den and present himself to the police as that person.

If GH really had his ear to the ground [and also read the newspapers] over the weekend he would have also learned that there was much confusion about the time of Kelly's death. She was seen alive at 8.30, 9.00 [and later] on Friday morning. Surely this might have suggested to GH that no undue importance attached to his Mr Astrakhan sighting. He was just another punter. GH breathes a sigh of relief and goes on his merry way.

But something's still bugging GH.

Let's put him in the back row at the inquest. What else could he have learned about the murder in Millers Court to give him cause to involve himself? Nothing. Nobody attached any significance to the man seen by Sarah Lewis, and other than reports of screams and cries of "murder" at around 3.45 am—over an hour and a half after Kelly and Mr Astrakhan entered Room 13 [so much for the Ripper being a fast worker]—Kelly's time of death was not discussed. And here, under oath, was Mrs Maxwell reiterating her story about talking to Kelly at 8.30 am.

What's GH got to worry about?

Regards,

Simon

[Observer]

Hi Perry

On Observers point regarding Hutchinson's time to create a "story", it was almost 4 days since the murder, and the press had reported Sarah Lewis's initial statements. Not only had he the time to create a story....he had the information with which he could place himself at the site watching the court. And he had the impetus, if he was in that area at night...to explain his presence.

Not only is Hutchinson's story extremely unlikely, there is no evidence with which it can be corroberated...despite at least 2 courtyard witnesses being out at the time the "sighting" takes place.

I knew this would happen

You were saying that Hutchinson may have come forward in the guise of the 2:30 a.m. witness were you not?

If he did not know of Lewis's statement prior to the inquest, and he was not the man seen by Lewis, then he had only a very short time in which to concoct his story.

But now it appears that regardless of the inquest, Hutchinson knew of Lewis's sighting of a man at 2:30 a.m. on the morning of the 9th, it being reported in the press, before the inquest

So what was all the hullabaloo about (in another thread) arguing whether Hutchinson could not have known about Lewis's sighting because he had already gone to the police station before the first edition of the newspaper carrying the inquests content?

Surely this is irrelevant, as access to Lewis's sighting of a man was available in the press before the inquest.

I am confused



Observer

[Ben]

Hi Simon,

Firstly, there wasn't a great deal of "confusion" as to the time of death. It Hutchinson was at the inquest (as per your suggestion) and had heard the totality of evidence presented there, he'd be pretty foolish to chance the possibility that the police would end up settling for the "still alive at 9.00am" version Maxwell offered.

Secondly, he couldn't possibly have known that no significance had been attached to the man seen by Lewis. It wasn't as if the police and coronor were expressing opinions there and then as to which pieces of evidence they were taking seriously and which ones they were ignoring for whatever reason, and if they were ignoring "wideawake" completely, they were pretty incompetent. If - strictly an if - Hutchinson was responsible for earlier murders at which he was also seen, he probably feared that a positive ID from Lewis would precipitate more positive IDs from those earlier witnesses.

Best regards,
Ben

[Jon Guy]

And how did Hutchinson have access to

a. Police statements

b. Sarah Lewis, or someone whom Lewis had told about the man she saw at 2:30 on the morning of the 9th. It's obvious that the police would have told Lewis to keep schtum about her sighting of Hutchinson, at least until the cessation of the inquest. Whether she did or not is a different matter.

Why do I have a strange feeling that someone is going to tell me that Lewis's sighting was reported in a newspaper prior to the inquest?

Hi Observer

He wouldn`t have access to the police statements, only the witnesses, who were held back at Millers Court till late Friday afternoon.

It does seem that Lewis spoke to the press under the name Sarah Roney, so maybe she was asked to keep quiet,but if the man from the Star is willing to pay.

It is worth noting that Lewis` man was loitering outside Crossinghams, whereas George stated that he followed them to the Court to see if he could see them. For a man particularly fond of detail I`m sure he would stated that he waited opposite the Court.

[perrymason]

Hi Observer,

Im not claiming to know why Hutchinson may have claimed the role of the "suspect" that Sarah Lewis saw...only that he may have done so. He need not have attended the Inquest to know of her sighting....all he need do was read a paper or hear a story about the murder on the streets over the almost 4 days before heading into the station.

I dont think its that easy to dismiss Hutchinson having reasons to make his statements Monday night Simon, because as we know, his coming forward had little to do with assisting the investigation. 4 days late in ID'ing a suspect? Astrakan could have been almost anywhere in 4 days....his description, although well colored, is virtually useless that long after the fact, unless of course Astrakan stays in town...and wears the accoutrements that Hutchinson describes while walking around the East End each day.

He came forward for a reason, but it appears that reason was not to help police catch Marys killer...if that had been his goal, he would have offered his story Friday when news of the killing was spreading, and the killer might still be in town. And I wouldnt say that nobody attached importance to Sarah's loitering man.....the accomplice Pardon was issued within 24 hours. After vehement opposition to do so since the first killing. And this killing....in the words of an investigator, had circumstances that warranted that issuance.

I think she contributed to that Pardon being so hastily issued. And only after Hutchinson, does everyone forget that Wideawake has not been identified, and may not have been Hutchinson....and he was suspicious being there at that time and hour.

Hutchinson made Wideawake friendly....no small feat.

On Maxwell, before Hutchinson she is the only person to even suggest by her statement that Mary ever left her room after arriving home at 11:45pm...on the 8th. I dont think anyone ever considered her statement as "sound"...and only Hutchinson raised the possibility Mary had been out at all, so he is her "reasonable doubt". Not the best support.

If Hutchinson saw Astrakan and Mary.....it means Sarah Lewis didnt see them even though she was coming into the court around the same time, Mary Ann Cox didnt see them, and she was outside, in and out of the court,..nobody heard or saw Mary leave....and yet no sounds or lights were heard or seen from Marys room until at least after 3:00am, when Mary Ann comes in.

It would seem some people consider a man who comes in to offer witness testimony regarding a killing... 4 days after the sighting, obviously embellished or concocted...without having 1 other person to corroborate that Mary did leave her room, was out and about the streets, and came home again around 2am with what everyone assumes is Marys client.

Since she never brought clients in before....as a matter of record, and we dont even know if he actually knew Mary at all...thats giving him far more than a benefit of the doubt I would think. If hes right, and didnt lie.....Mary Ann and Sarah must have missed light and noise in Room 13 after 1:30am, none of the witness must have heard or seen Mary leave to get her client, no-one but Hutchinson sees or hears her return, and "oh-murder" is called out after 2 hours of dark and silent room occupation by Mary and her client.

He is hardly credible,...and Astrakan was discarded.

So "Caveat Emptor" with George Hutchinson.

Best regards.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

As far as the inquest was concerned, Kelly's time of death was left up in the air. Why Doctor Phillips didn't offer his opinion on this is a mystery, for his reported estimation in The Times [earlier the same day] of five or six hours before 11.15 am would have blown Mrs Maxwell's story out of the water. And why her contradictory evidence was permitted at the inquest is another mystery. All it did was cloud the issue. But, then, I suppose everything has its purpose.

My observation that nobody attached any significance to Wideawake Man is based on an earlier inquest—Nichols—when the coroner asked what steps the police had taken to establish the identity of an unknown man who passed down Bucks Row. No such question was asked at Kelly's inquest.

Take out the preposterous Mister Astrakhan from GH's statement and all we are left with is an alibi of sorts for Dorset Street. Nothing happened in the three-quarters of an hour he was standing opposite Millers Court. "One policeman went by the Commercial Street end of Dorset Street while I was standing there, but no one came down Dorset Street. I saw one man go into a lodging-house in Dorset Street, and no one else."

GH's story established his innocent lone presence opposite Millers Court at 2.30 am, suggesting that he was the man seen by Sarah Lewis.

But in her original witness statement taken on November 9th Sarah Lewis stated that the man loitering outside the lodging house was "talking to a female". This was crossed out, and her next words were "but I cannot describe him". The man she saw was now alone, yet at the inquest Sarah Lewis laboured the point by adding that "there was no one talking to him". Fairly self-evident, I would have thought.

This has always puzzled me. From across a narrow street it's difficult to confuse a man standing alone and a man talking to a woman.

So now I'm also wondering about the woman Sarah Lewis saw.

There's more to GH than meets the eye, so I'm going to put on my thinking cap and lie down in a dark room.

Regards,

Simon

[Chava]

This to both Chava, and Perry. Hutchinson spent the whole week-end oblivious of the fact that he would be presenting himself at Commercial Street police station on Monday evening.

And you know this how?

As for Hutchinson incriminating himself, I very much doubt that he thought the whole process through longer than to realize he could do himself a bit of good in the free drinks line by portraying himself as (a) the last person to see the victim and (b) the best and most detailed eye-witness ever. And it was a dumb thing to do and he didn't look at the possible consequences. But you know what? People are stupid.

Case in point. A doctor (a doctor! Someone who has been to medical school and everything!) is involved in a drug trial. Instead of giving her patients the drugs etc and noting their effects, she doesn't bother. She doesn't give anything to anybody and makes the data up. She pockets money for every 'patient' she reports on. Until a very cursory check by the company involved shows what has happened because she didn't even try to cover her tracks. Doctor goes to gaol for fraud. This is a true story.

You guys are giving Hutchinson way too much credit for brains. His evidence is not corroborated by anyone else onsite. Lewis says she saw 'a man' not 'George Hutchinson'. He's hijacked this case because of his dumb stunt, but I am glad to report he did not hijack the cops. Who shortly after withdrew his wonderfully detailed load of crap from circulation.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Simon,
I have asked many times'Why was Maxwells evidence required at the inquest, if it went against the police doctors opinions'
Surely if the police thought that Caroline Maxwell was a glory seeker/ nutcase, then they would not have required her to give such contridictary evidence, as it would undermine their colleques quite significantly.
Lets just understand the facts here.
Maxwell was interviewed by no less then Abberline, and in his own words 'He could not break the woman' this also seems to be the case with the coroner at Kellys inquest, after warning her to be careful in her evidence, she went ahead with her recollections of that morning in history Friday November 9th.
Surely guys this woman was telling the truth, but ifn so what does it imply?
Regards Richard.

[perrymason]

You guys are giving Hutchinson way too much credit for brains. His evidence is not corroborated by anyone else onsite. Lewis says she saw 'a man' not 'George Hutchinson'. He's hijacked this case because of his dumb stunt, but I am glad to report he did not hijack the cops. Who shortly after withdrew his wonderfully detailed load of crap from circulation.

Im glad to see someone else doesnt need to tread lightly where Hutchinsons evidence is concerned.

And that Simon mentioned Wideawake is not necessarily Hutchinson. He claims he was in an area where Sarah Lewis is on record saying she saw Wideawake....thats it. And without one supporting witness saying that anyone saw him there...or that he knew Mary at all.

Best regards Chava...all.

[Tom_Wescott]

Likewise I'm not convinced that anyone saw Hutchinson. He was described as having a 'military bearing' whereas Sarah Lewis' man was something like short and fat.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott