Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

George Hutchinson Revisited

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Not a massively important point but I wonder why Kelly needed money at 2.00 am?
    Echo 10 Nov
    "An elderly man who wore a coat and waistcoat, but no shirt beneath, averred in pessimistic tones it was better for Mary Jane Kelly to have been done to death. "Wot was her life?" he muttered, spreading out his thin and not too clean hands to the fire. "Starvation three days a week, and then, when she got money, drink for the other three days. I knowed her. I guv her the money for her doss three weeks ago cos she hadn't none. Yes, matey, and that at two in the mornin'," he said, turning to our reporter whose intent bearing may possibly have suggested incredulity."

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

      One can believe Hutchinson yet consider the man seen innocent. He could have been simply a customer.

      I see no reason to disbelieve Hutchinson. That does not mean I am certain Astrakhan Man was the ripper. He's a good candidate, though.
      hi Kattrup
      a good candidate? a villanous looking man carrying a knife sized parcel entering marys room an hour or so before the screams of murder are heard? he should be suspect number one on everyones list if you beleive hutch.

      and if he was simply a customer, shouldnt that put the onus back on hutch? engaging in stalking behavior and watches them go into her room, waits around, then says he leaves after 45 minutes-no alibi. did he come back at some point to see if aman is gone? he had no where else to go.

      I mean we got barnett, blotchy, hutch and aman all with her that night. Is there really a need for a phantom suspect?
      "Is all that we see or seem
      but a dream within a dream?"

      -Edgar Allan Poe


      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

      -Frederick G. Abberline

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by etenguy View Post

        Hi Wickerman

        It is interesting that Hutchinson states Kelly was in her room at 3.00am, the same time Mrs Kennedy states she saw her at the Britannia. While the pub was quite close by and we can allow Mrs Kennedy some lee-way with the time - it seems likely Kelly was still with the same man if she was at the pub, else she would have to had found another well dressed man to drink with in a very short time.
        It was a whole different time back then. Today we are used to being so precise, everybody has a watch, a phone, alarms to remind us for everything.
        It's not easy to grasp how we could live by the chimes of church bells. If you hear bells shortly after something happened, you time it to those bells. Likewise, if you hear bells shortly before something happened, it's the same thing, but in both cases, the few minutes between the event & the bells, is disregarded by everyone.

        All we can assume is that as Hutch left, he heard the 3:00 chimes, he could have just turned into Commercial St. as Kelly & Astrachan came out of Millers court. They may have been waiting for Hutch to leave.
        Kelly could have been outside the Britannia only minutes after the 3:00 chime just as Kennedy approached.
        A couple of minutes either way would not change Kennedy's story in any way.
        The cry of "murder" was heard roughly 45 minutes later.

        The timing is sufficient for me to suspect the man outside the Britannia was the last person to see Kelly alive.
        Astrachan is therefore off the suspect list, in my view.

        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

          It was a whole different time back then. Today we are used to being so precise, everybody has a watch, a phone, alarms to remind us for everything.
          It's not easy to grasp how we could live by the chimes of church bells. If you hear bells shortly after something happened, you time it to those bells. Likewise, if you hear bells shortly before something happened, it's the same thing, but in both cases, the few minutes between the event & the bells, is disregarded by everyone.

          All we can assume is that as Hutch left, he heard the 3:00 chimes, he could have just turned into Commercial St. as Kelly & Astrachan came out of Millers court. They may have been waiting for Hutch to leave.
          Kelly could have been outside the Britannia only minutes after the 3:00 chime just as Kennedy approached.
          A couple of minutes either way would not change Kennedy's story in any way.
          The cry of "murder" was heard roughly 45 minutes later.

          The timing is sufficient for me to suspect the man outside the Britannia was the last person to see Kelly alive.
          Astrachan is therefore off the suspect list, in my view.
          Hi Wickerman

          I absolutely agree with you about the timings quoted - my thoughts were about how quickly MJK might meet someone new at the pub. I was wondering, if it was her at the pub that Mrs Kennedy saw - did she go with the man Hutchinson claims he saw. If not she must have met a new punter almost immediately on arrival.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by etenguy View Post

            Hi Wickerman

            I absolutely agree with you about the timings quoted - my thoughts were about how quickly MJK might meet someone new at the pub. I was wondering, if it was her at the pub that Mrs Kennedy saw - did she go with the man Hutchinson claims he saw. If not she must have met a new punter almost immediately on arrival.
            According to Sarah Lewis that man was outside the Britannia about 2:30, so he'd been there for a half hour. As Kelly left Millers court she may have seen people stood outside the Britannia, and headed for them. If what we read about her is true, she was out that night looking for clients.
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
              I told one policeman on Sunday morning what I had seen, but did not go to the police station. I told one of the lodgers here about it on Monday, and he advised me to go to police station, which I did at night.
              Hi NotBlamedForNothing

              I also found an article in the The Ottawa Citizen (Canada) dated 10 November 1888 which may be covering Hutchinson's story too, but it is not very detailed and has errors - like a landlady finding the body.

              The murdered woman told a companion last evening that she was without money and unless she obtained a supply would commit suicide. It has been learned that a man respectfully dressed accosted the victim and offered her money. They went to her lodgings on the second floor of the Dorset street house. Ho noise was heard during the night and nothing was known of the murder until the landlady went to the room in the morning to ask for her rent. The first thing she saw on entering the the room were the woman's mutilated remains lying on a table. Dorset street is short and narrow and is situated close to Mitre's Square and Hanbury street.

              Comment


              • #22
                Hutchinson comes forward with a statement at Commercial Street police station on Monday 12th November. He was prompted to do so by a fellow lodger at the Victoria Working Men's Home after telling them about what he saw in the early hours of Friday 9th November. He gives the statement after Sarah Lewis had given evidence at the inquest into Mary Kelly's murder earlier that day. He appears to place himself in the position of the man Lewis saw as she entered Miller's Court at about 2:30am on the morning of the murder. The only apparent paper reporting Lewis's evidence on the 12th November is The Echo, an evening publication distributed across London. It's unclear whether or not this edition of The Echo was out on sale - or available in the Whitechapel area - before or after 6pm when Hutchinson appeared at Commercial Street police station to give his statement.

                Here's the statement Hutchinson gave Sergeant Badham:

                About 2am, 9th, I was coming by Thrawl Street, Commercial Street, and saw just before I got to Flower and Dean Street I saw the murdered woman Kelly. And she said to me, "Hutchinson will you lend me sixpence?" I said I cant I have spent all my money going down to Romford. She said, "Good morning, I must go and find some money." She went away toward Thrawl Street. A man coming in the opposite direction to Kelly tapped her on the shoulder and said something to her. They both burst out laughing. I heard her say, "Alright," to him. And the man said, "You will be alright for what I have told you." He then placed his right hand around her shoulders. He also had a kind of a small parcel in his left hand with a kind of strap round it. I stood against the lamp of the Queen’s Head Public House and watched him. They both then came past me and the man hid down his head with his hat over his eyes. I stooped down and looked him in the face. He looked at me stern. They both went into Dorset Street. I followed them. They both stood at the corner of the Court for about 3 minutes. He said something to her. She said, "Alright my dear come along. You will be comfortable." He then placed his arm on her shoulder and gave her a kiss. She said she had lost her handkerchief he then pulled his handkerchief, a red one, out and gave it to her. They both then went up the court together. I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out. They did not so I went away.

                Description age about 34 or 35. Height 5ft6. Complexion pale, dark eyes and eye lashes, slight moustache, curled up each end, and hair dark. Very surley looking dress, long dark coat, collar and cuffs trimmed astracan. And a dark jacket under. Light waistcoat, dark trousers, dark felt hat turned down in the middle. Button boots and gaiters with white buttons. Wore a very thick gold chain, white linen collar. Black tie with horse shoe pin. Respectable appearance, walked very sharp. Jewish appearance. Can be identified.


                From this statement, a version for a press release was created for newspapers to run the following day. It read:

                A man, apparently of the labouring class, but of a military appearance, who knew the deceased, last night lodged with the police a long and detailed statement of an incident which attracted his attention on the day in question. The following is a summary of the statement, and it may be said that notwithstanding examination and re-examination by the police, the man's story cannot be shaken, and so circumstantial and straightforward were his assertions that the police believe they have at length been placed in possession of facts which will open up a new line of investigation, and probably enable them to track the criminal. This man states that on the morning of the 9th instant he saw the deceased woman, Mary Janet Kelly, in Commercial-street, Spitalfields (the vicinity of where the murder was committed), in company with a man of respectable appearance. The man was about 5 feet 6 inches in height, and 34 or 35 years of age, with dark complexion and dark moustache curled up at the ends. He was wearing a long dark coat trimmed with astrakhan, a white collar with black necktie, in which was affixed a horseshoe pin. He wore a pair of dark gaiters with light buttons, over button boots, and displayed from his waistcoat a massive gold chain. The highly respectable appearance of this individual was in such great contrast to that of the woman that few people could have failed to remark them at that hour of the morning. This description, which substantiates that given by others of the person seen in company with the deceased on the morning she was killed, is much fuller in detail than that hitherto in the possession of the police, and the importance they attach to this man's story may be imagined when it is mentioned that it was forwarded to the headquarters of the H Division as soon as completed by a special detective. Detectives Abberline, Nairn, and Moore were present when this message arrived, and an investigation was immediately set on foot.

                At least 7 newspapers on Tuesday 13th November printed this police press release exact wording, including the shift from describing the gold chain from "very thick" to "massive" and the omission of the man being of Jewish appearance. However, by the same evening, The Echo suggests that the original statement had suffered diminished importance due to further inquiries being made. It's not known whether these additional inquiries were carried out by the police, press reporters or both. Hutchinson's identity is not disclosed in any of the reports up to this point.

                Despite Hutchinson's description apparently already losing traction the same day it was published in the papers, he is tracked down and interviewed by a press reporter that evening at the Victoria Working Men's Home. Hutchinson both repeats and elaborates on the police statement he made 24 hours before. This is how it appears in The Daily News the following day, Wednesday 14th November:

                On Thursday last I had been to Romford, in Essex, and I returned from there about two o'clock on Friday morning, having walked all the way. I came down Whitechapel road into Commercial street. As I passed Thrawl street I passed a man standing at the corner of the street, and as I went towards Flower and Dean street I met the woman Kelly, whom I knew very well, having been in her company a number of times. She said, "Mr. Hutchinson, can you lend me sixpence?" I said, "I cannot, as I am spent out going down to Romford." She then walked on towards Thrawl street, saying, "I must go and look for some money." The man who was standing at the corner of Thrawl street then came towards her and put his hand on her shoulder, and said something to her which I did not hear, and they both burst out laughing. He put his hand again on her shoulder and they both walked slowly towards me. I walked on to the corner of Fashion street, near the public house. As they came by me his arm was still on her shoulder. He had a soft felt hat on, and this was drawn down somewhat over his eyes. I put down my head to look him in the face, and he turned and looked at me very sternly, and they walked across the road to Dorset street. I followed them across and stood at the corner of Dorset street. They stood at the corner of Miller's court for about three minutes. Kelly spoke to the man in a loud voice, saying, "I have lost my handkerchief." He pulled a red handkerchief out of his pocket, and gave it to Kelly, and they both went up the court together. I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for three quarters of an hour to see if they came down again, but they did not, and so I went away. My suspicions were aroused by seeing a man so well dressed, but I had no suspicion that he was the murderer. The man was about 5ft 8in in height and 34 or 35 years of age, with dark complexion and dark moustache turned up at the ends. He was wearing a long dark coat trimmed with astrachan, a white collar with black necktie, in which was affixed a horseshow pin. He wore a pair of dark "spats" with light buttons over button boots, and displayed from his waistcoat a massive gold chain. His watch chain had a big seal with a red stone hanging from it. He had a heavy moustache, curled up, and dark eyes and bushy eyebrows. He had no side whiskers, and his chin was clean shaven. He looked like a foreigner. I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house or hear any noise. I was out last night until three o'clock looking for him. I could swear to the man anywhere. I told one policeman on Sunday morning what I had seen, but did not go to the police station. I told one of the lodgers here about it yesterday, and he advised me to go to the police station, which I did last night. The man I saw did not look as though he would attack another one. He carried a small parcel in his hand, about eight inches long, and it had a strap round it. He had it tightly grasped in his left hand. It looked as though it was covered with dark American cloth. He carried in his right hand, which he laid upon the woman's shoulder, a pair of brown kid gloves. One thing I noticed, and that was that he walked very softly. I believe that he lives in the neighbourhood, and I fancied that I saw him in Petticoat lane on Sunday morning, but I was not certain. I went down to the Shoreditch mortuary today and recognised the body as being that of the woman Kelly, whom I saw at two o'clock on Friday morning. Kelly did not seem to me to be drunk, but was a bit "spreeish." I was quite sober, not having had anything to drink all day. After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed. I came in as soon as it opened in the morning. I am able to fix the time, as it was between ten and five minutes to two o'clock as I came by Whitechapel Church. When I left the corner of Miller's court the clock struck three o'clock. One policeman went by the Commercial street end of Dorset street while I was standing there, but not one came down Dorset street. I saw one man go into a lodging house in Dorset street, but no one else. I have been looking for the man all day.

                ^ Here we also see in bold where the distinctly worded police press release has been pasted into Hutchinson's own press statement.

                This statement appears in at least 5 other papers, but, unlike the police press release, there isn't a definitive version as there's the odd line or detail here and there either added or removed across the publications. The Morning Advertiser, for example, only does its own summary of the statement and takes great care to keep Hutchinson's anonymity for his safety. It's nice of them to do so but an utter waste of time given Hutchinson's name appears in the other publications and he himself puts his own name into the statement by quoting Mary Kelly's words to him. He also reinstates the man as being a foreigner after the police press release left out his assertion that the man was Jewish in appearance.

                Two days after The Echo first suggested Hutchinson's account was quickly losing its value, The Star reports on Thursday 15th November that it had become discredited altogether. No details appear as to why or when exactly Hutchinson's statement has become dismissed as of no value but both he and his description are not mentioned again in regard to the investigation.

                It's interesting to note that while the press had access to Hutchinson's description of the man he saw via the police press release, no details were given of Hutchinson's exchange with Mary Kelly or how he came to be following her and her companion that morning. Yet his words in the press statement he gives on the Tuesday evening is almost verbatim in its phrasing of his police statement up until the pasting in of the police press release. After that he's more fresh in the information he gives and not quite so chronological. Of course some details would be the same when relaying an account again, but the way it's phrased both for the press statement and the police statement 24 hours earlier has it appear to be rehearsed.

                The last part of the press statement becomes more freeform and little things stick out. Hutchinson says of walking about all night after his vigil and only coming back into the Victoria Working Men's Home when it reopened later that morning. That suggests that he had paid in advance for his bed earlier in the week as he wasn't in Whitechapel for when bed tickets would've been made available for that day/night. But men could pay two shillings for a stay of up to a week. As he went straight in on it opening that morning he must've already paid for his lodging for that week. He also says he could swear to the man he saw anywhere but then says that he wasn't certain if the man he saw in Petticoat Lane on Sunday morning was the man after all. He also said in the police statement that the man he saw walked sharp but changes it to walking very softly during the press statement.


                In general, Hutchinson's timings of the night are pretty spot on. Going by the time on St Mary's Church clock as he passed it along Whitechapel Road to the chimes and sight of the Christ Church clock he would've heard and seen thereafter when in Commercial Street/Dorset Street. By that token it seems hard to dispute the running order of his statement in terms of going from A to B to C. The problem though is his assertion of watching Mary and her companion walking from Thrawl Street to his position outside the Queen's Head Pub on the north corner of Fashion Street. From his position he could not have seen Mary and her companion until they reached the south corner of Fashion Street. The view down Commercial Street is obscured from that point. It's also unexplained how he immediately knew Mary lived at No.13 within Miller's Court and not one of the other residences.

                Overall, it would seem Hutchinson was around Commercial Street and Dorset Street at the time he states he was. Sarah Lewis appears to unwittingly corroborate this with her evidence at the inquest. However, whether he really had just come back from Romford, really was spent out and really saw the man he describes is all up for debate.


                For me, I do wonder if he saw the Mrs Kennedy account in the papers on Saturday 10th November and then rehearsed his statement over the next couple of days before going to the police station on the Monday evening. He doesn't say at all where he was or what he was doing on the Saturday. Did Mrs Kennedy saying she was in Dorset Street at 3am that morning set alarm bells ringing for Hutchinson?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Purely from a practical standpoint would you walk up Commercial St at 2 am with a gold watch and chain showing ? Would you also pass Hutchinson who stooped down to look at you and then followed you, go into a notorious St like Dorset while all the time being trailed by a man you didn't know ? And then would you leave yourself to be cornered in a darkened court with one entrance and exit ?
                  For all Astrachan knew, Hutch could have been Mary's pimp and he was going into a trap to be mugged.
                  I doubt many punters would take that chance, and even if they did would they be flaunting their apparent wealth, [ gold chain etc ] ?
                  Regards Darryl

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Curious Cat View Post

                    ....
                    For me, I do wonder if he saw the Mrs Kennedy account in the papers on Saturday 10th November and then rehearsed his statement over the next couple of days before going to the police station on the Monday evening. He doesn't say at all where he was or what he was doing on the Saturday. Did Mrs Kennedy saying she was in Dorset Street at 3am that morning set alarm bells ringing for Hutchinson?
                    Mrs Kennedy makes no mention of seeing Hutchinson.

                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
                      Purely from a practical standpoint would you walk up Commercial St at 2 am with a gold watch and chain showing ? Would you also pass Hutchinson who stooped down to look at you and then followed you, go into a notorious St like Dorset while all the time being trailed by a man you didn't know ? And then would you leave yourself to be cornered in a darkened court with one entrance and exit ?
                      For all Astrachan knew, Hutch could have been Mary's pimp and he was going into a trap to be mugged.
                      I doubt many punters would take that chance, and even if they did would they be flaunting their apparent wealth, [ gold chain etc ] ?
                      Regards Darryl
                      Those points might work in Mr Roger's neighbourhood , but in the real world, the world that Abberline knew better than all of us put together, it was all quite acceptable.
                      Newspapers reported muggins where watches were stolen all the time, they had to be worn to be stolen, yes?
                      Yet, people still wore their finery in spite of the dangers.
                      Why?
                      Because, just like today, they thought, "It'll never happen to me",
                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                        Mrs Kennedy makes no mention of seeing Hutchinson.
                        Where do I say she did? I'm talking about Hutchinson seeing the Mrs Kennedy account and realising she would have been in Dorset Street at the same time as him.

                        Did Hutchinson know whether the Mrs Kennedy in the paper on Saturday would or wouldn't appear to give evidence at the inquest on Monday?

                        If Mrs Kennedy did appear at the inquest, would she recall seeing Hutchinson in Dorset Street at about 3am and would she swear to recognise him if she saw him again?

                        Did Hutchinson get the 3am leaving time from the 3am Mrs Kennedy was reported to have been in Dorset Street?


                        ​​​​​


                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                          Hi NotBlamedForNothing

                          I also found an article in the The Ottawa Citizen (Canada) dated 10 November 1888 which may be covering Hutchinson's story too, but it is not very detailed and has errors - like a landlady finding the body.
                          Nice find. It's fascinating how this relatively wealthy man appears on the scene, when she is supposedly suicidal due to poverty.
                          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Curious Cat View Post

                            Here's the statement Hutchinson gave Sergeant Badham:

                            About 2am, 9th, I was coming by Thrawl Street, Commercial Street, and saw just before I got to Flower and Dean Street I saw the murdered woman Kelly. And she said to me, "Hutchinson will you lend me sixpence?" I said I cant I have spent all my money going down to Romford. She said, "Good morning, I must go and find some money." She went away toward Thrawl Street. A man coming in the opposite direction to Kelly tapped her on the shoulder and said something to her. They both burst out laughing. I heard her say, "Alright," to him. And the man said, "You will be alright for what I have told you." He then placed his right hand around her shoulders. He also had a kind of a small parcel in his left hand with a kind of strap round it. I stood against the lamp of the Queen’s Head Public House and watched him. They both then came past me and the man hid down his head with his hat over his eyes. I stooped down and looked him in the face. He looked at me stern. They both went into Dorset Street. I followed them. They both stood at the corner of the Court for about 3 minutes. He said something to her. She said, "Alright my dear come along. You will be comfortable." He then placed his arm on her shoulder and gave her a kiss. She said she had lost her handkerchief he then pulled his handkerchief, a red one, out and gave it to her. They both then went up the court together. I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out. They did not so I went away.
                            He must have been standing very close to hear all this. Like ... right next to Kelly.
                            AM was an invention, or someone he had seen before, or perhaps read about in the Star.
                            It was Hutchinson himself who went up the court with his dear, Mary Jane.
                            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                              Hi NotBlamedForNothing

                              I also found an article in the The Ottawa Citizen (Canada) dated 10 November 1888 which may be covering Hutchinson's story too, but it is not very detailed and has errors - like a landlady finding the body.
                              Also found a version of this story, riddled with errors, in the Star - only it includes MJK having a young boy and it is a woman who says she was asked for money by MJK. It is beginning to look like Hutchinson appropriated the story from news reports and then went to the police with it as his own - possibly worried he was seen and could be identified and he needed to explain his presence at the site.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                                Those points might work in Mr Roger's neighbourhood , but in the real world, the world that Abberline knew better than all of us put together, it was all quite acceptable.
                                Newspapers reported muggins where watches were stolen all the time, they had to be worn to be stolen, yes?
                                Yet, people still wore their finery in spite of the dangers.
                                Why?
                                Because, just like today, they thought, "It'll never happen to me",
                                Astrakhan's apparel seems perfectly appropriate to me for a gentlemen attending the Lord Mayor event.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X