George Hutchinson Revisited

[MrBarnett]

Yes, I very briefly touched on that in my first post on the thread - post #22.

It's not explained how Hutchinson knew which of the residences within Miller's Court was where Mary lived. He says he's been in her company on a number of occasions, but perhaps the assumption there would be it was in places like the nearby pubs or in the street. Could Hutchinson have been to No.13 Miller's Court before the 9th November?

This also goes back to something I mentioned about Caroline Maxwell's statement. If you knew Joseph Barnett it wouldn't necessarily mean you also knew or even be aware of Mary Kelly, but if you knew Mary then you would at the very least be aware of Barnett and their relationship. Mary's contacts outside the immediate area of Dorset Street and Commercial Street appear to be non-existent. As Hutchinson claims to have known Mary quite well he must have at least already been well aware of who Barnett was. As such, it seems strange that there is apparently no approach by Hutchinson to Barnett in the 3 days after the murder to relay what he saw that morning. It takes talking to another bloke at his lodgings about it in passing that prompts him to suddenly give this crucial statement to the police.

Hi CC,

I’m not sure I agree with your statement above. There are reasons to suspect that Kelly may well have maintained some contact with her erstwhile employers/customers in the Ratcliff Highway. Let’s not forget that Hutchinson, the man who had in the past spent time in her company and given her a few shillings, was said to have known her for about three years. That was probably when she was plying her trade in the Highway and living at 79, Pennington Street. Kelly had moved away from the Highway around two years prior to her murder, but Mrs ‘Phoenix’, the sister-in-law of Johannes Morgenstern, had been kept informed of her activities in the Commercial Road (I suspect that should have been Street). And shortly before her death Kelly was said by ‘Mrs McCarthy’ to have returned to her former lodgings, presumably 79, Pennington Street, with a strange man in tow and asked for a room for the night. The request was granted and the punter coughed up a ‘few shillings’ for his night of pleasure - 2/- for the room plus whatever other costs were demanded.

It’s not too much of a stretch to suggest that Hutchinson may well have known Morganstone, Buki etc. - and their next door neighbour, Stephen Maywood, the brothel keeper/horse dealer with connections to Romford.

There are also reasons to suspect that Kelly may have known Maria Harvey from her Highway days.

Gary

[C. F. Leon]

Not a massively important point but I wonder why Kelly needed money at 2.00 am?

[Sorry about the long response time- I only just noticed this when reading this thread.]

Come on, Herlock. You should know that she didn't need $$ AT 2 AM. (Unless she was drinking it away.) She needed it for the rent collector that was coming around in the morning. (and discovered her body)

[Herlock Sholmes]

[Sorry about the long response time- I only just noticed this when reading this thread.]

Come on, Herlock. You should know that she didn't need $$ AT 2 AM. (Unless she was drinking it away.) She needed it for the rent collector that was coming around in the morning. (and discovered her body)

True enough but she owed a whopping 29s. The very few pennies that se might have earned at 2am wouldn’t have gone anyway toward placating McCarthy. Everyone needs money though of course.

[Curious Cat]

Well, let me remind you verbatim what YOU claimed Hutchinson said.

"....In his statement Hutchinson suggests he watched Mary Kelly and the man she was with the whole time he was leaning against the lamp...."

Not only do you make a false claim, you then accuse me of misquoting you, when it's right there in black & white for all to see.




You seem to be assuming the lamp was mounted on the wall, not a street lamp at the edge of the kerb.



As can be seen from the edge of the kerb where the black rubbish bin stands (behind the green traffic light), a person has an unobstructed view down Commercial St.




Yet, both points are entirely invented by you.
You 'think' the angle was not sufficient, yet you don't 'know' where precisely he stood on that sidewalk.
You 'think' the lighting was not sufficient, yet you have not stood at the same distance in the same lighting conditions.
It's all in your mind, you fabricate objections, instead of just admitting that he could have viewed the couple if the lamp was at the edge of the kerb, and you can't be entirely sure if the lighting was sufficient.

I have been wondering why you don't seem to understand what I'm saying and can only think that perhaps it's down to vernacular. In my head I read it back and it makes sense but maybe it doesn't quite do the same for you. I'll try a different way and see if it works.


Hutchinson says he leaned against the lamp and watched the man.

I am saying Hutchinson watched the man the whole time he was leaning against the lamp.


I say Hutchinson is watching the man the whole time he is leaning against the lamp as he says it's from the point he takes up that position that his watching of the man begins.

When Hutchinson walked away from Mary and the man they were on the section of Commercial Street between Thrawl Street and Flower & Dean Street. He cannot have been watching the man between that point and his taking up his spot against the lamp as he would've had his back to them. He cannot have seen exactly where along Commercial Street they had reached when he leaned against the lamp as the angle and lack of light would not have allowed it. Mary and the man would only have come into view for Hutchinson at his position as they approached the corner of Fashion Street.

I have not invented it. I am going by what Hutchinson said and the layout of the streets, which are still there.

I am not assuming the lamp was mounted on the wall. I know it was a free standing lamp.

It's you assuming the lamp was where that bin is. It wasn't.

If you go to the junction of Fashion Street you will see there slabs of yellow raised paving. Look at the four in the corner nearest the curved wall of The Queen's Head. The lamp would've stood somewhere within those four squares.

The bin you have used as a reference point sits on the edge of a 20th century extension of the pavement. Plus the view in the photo you've posted is from the road, not the pavement.

No, once again you are creating a scenario that doesn't exist.

Hutch told the police, "..a man coming the opposite direction...", he doesn't say "I first saw a man approach from the other direction", that is you assuming again.
Just the simple fact that this stranger approached Kelly is what the police want to know, and that is what Hutchinson said. Whether Hutch had seen this man seconds before Kelly spoke to him is not stated in the police statement. Yet you choose to assume he didn't see the man before Kelly spoke to him.

Why this matters is because, you, like most of those who criticize Hutchinson, often invent scenario's that don't exist in the two written pieces of evidence.
It is your interpretation where the fault lies, not in Hutchinson's words. Whether your interpretation is bent towards intentionally casting Hutchinson in a suspicious light, is for you to decide.

I didn't say anything about the man approaching from any direction. I said Hutchinson had already acknowledged the man before he himself had encountered Mary, as per him telling the press he saw the man on the corner of Thrawl Street first. However, he gives the impression in his police statement that he first saw the man after talking to Mary. That's a switch in the chronology.

[Curious Cat]

Hi CC,

I’m not sure I agree with your statement above. There are reasons to suspect that Kelly may well have maintained some contact with her erstwhile employers/customers in the Ratcliff Highway. Let’s not forget that Hutchinson, the man who had in the past spent time in her company and given her a few shillings, was said to have known her for about three years. That was probably when she was plying her trade in the Highway and living at 79, Pennington Street. Kelly had moved away from the Highway around two years prior to her murder, but Mrs ‘Phoenix’, the sister-in-law of Johannes Morgenstern, had been kept informed of her activities in the Commercial Road (I suspect that should have been Street). And shortly before her death Kelly was said by ‘Mrs McCarthy’ to have returned to her former lodgings, presumably 79, Pennington Street, with a strange man in tow and asked for a room for the night. The request was granted and the punter coughed up a ‘few shillings’ for his night of pleasure - 2/- for the room plus whatever other costs were demanded.

It’s not too much of a stretch to suggest that Hutchinson may well have known Morganstone, Buki etc. - and their next door neighbour, Stephen Maywood, the brothel keeper/horse dealer with connections to Romford.

There are also reasons to suspect that Kelly may have known Maria Harvey from her Highway days.

Gary

By contacts I was meaning daily social interactions in the lead up to her murder. She may well have been in touch with those old employers/customers but in the couple of months before her murder what was her path to regularly interacting with others through the day? There doesn't appear to be a routine or route that takes her far from the immediate area of Commercial Street. She didn't have a workplace to go to and she didn't collect items from a specific place to work from her room so that cuts one regular route of interaction. Though, Hutchinson does claim to have been in her company a number of times so their individual routes crossed over on several occasions along the way.