George Hutchinson Revisited

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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)

[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

[Sunny Delight]

It is my own belief that George Hutchinson was telling the truth as he knew it. He had been to Romford and on arriving home had seen Kelly whom he knew having given her a few shillings in the past(make of that what you will) with a well dressed man whom she took back to her lodgings. He loitered either out of boredom or even jealousy or sheer nosyness. But he did loiter. Then he left. It was obviously eating him up that he had info the Police could use but was maybe afraid that it would look suspicious. He confides in a friend at the lodging house he resides most of the time. His friend tells him to go to the Police. This he does. The Papers then track him down(this is a problem because he now has harmed his evidence by going public) probably throwing him a few shillings to give his story. In my opinion there is nothing at all wrong with his story.

[Wickerman]

Hi Abby.

....why change THAT? perhaps classic guilty behavior 101. changing your story placing yourself closer , because someone saw you and your afraid of being caught out in a lie.

Hmm, so it's better to implicate yourself in the murder, than to be caught out in a lie?
Especially, when the police didn't have a clear description of the man, merely dark clothes & a wideawake hat.

Why, doesn't it make more sense to simply leave town, as opposed to give an interview to the press?

[Wickerman]

I have never said Hutchinson said he, "watched them the whole time."

That's you misquoting.

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.

I am saying that when he says he watched them that took place the whole time he was leaning against the lamp outside The Queen's Head.

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.

So both the lack of visibility from the position of the lamp and the lack of light along that particular section of Commercial Street is what makes me doubt that part of Hutchinson's statement. Given it's a fairly important detail in the chronology of his account, if he's making this part up then why is he doing that?

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.

There is also a switch in the chronology within his account between his police statement and what he tells the press the following day. First Hutchinson tells the police that the man approached Mary from Thrawl Street. However, he tells the press he saw the man before he had even reached Mary by Flower & Dean Street. So he acknowledged the man before either of them encountered Mary but gave the police the impression he first saw the man only after he had already spoken to Mary. Why change that detail?

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.

[Abby Normal]

But are we to believe that absolutely none of these things aroused any suspicion by the police with regard to Hutchinson? Certainly possible but very hard to believe that they could have been so incredibly incompetent. And if they had suspicions, would they not have followed up on them as best they could?

c.d.

hi cd
I beleive abberline may have been suspicious of him initially-as when he used the word "interrogated" to describe his questioning of him. but i see what youre saying- seems odd to me too. everything about the hutch affair seems odd. I can only posit that if he was the ripper he simply fooled the police.
But i dont think the police were incompetent, just inexperienced with serial killer cases.

[c.d.]

But are we to believe that absolutely none of these things aroused any suspicion by the police with regard to Hutchinson? Certainly possible but very hard to believe that they could have been so incredibly incompetent. And if they had suspicions, would they not have followed up on them as best they could?

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

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 Curious

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?

I think its obvious he has. He said hes known her for several years, he sees her enter millers court, and that he stands outside her window listening. he already knows where she lives. the questions for me is why didnt he tell the police that? and whats he doing following her around, listening outside her window and then hanging around for almost an hour waiting for the man to leave?

one obvious answer is that he knew her and was the ripper and wants her to be his next victim.

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.

[/QUOTE]

exactly. heres a guy thats so interested in Mary, and apparently a "friend" , but waits three days, conveniently missing the inquest, before he goes to the police with what he saw? something is amiss with Hutch. very amiss.

[Curious Cat]

hey curious
i dont know why?

but speaking of changes between his press and police stories.. to me the most telling is he adds in his press story that he now goes and stands by marys window listening. why change that? its a major material difference. now admitting he actually knows where she lives, something he leaves out of the police account.

why change THAT? perhaps classic guilty behavior 101. changing your story placing yourself closer , because someone saw you and your afraid of being caught out in a lie.

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.

[Abby Normal]

I have never said Hutchinson said he, "watched them the whole time."

That's you misquoting.


I am saying that when he says he watched them that took place the whole time he was leaning against the lamp outside The Queen's Head. He sees Mary and the man before that point but it's when he's leaning against the lamp that Hutchinson says he watched them. He says he left them behind and walked north towards The Queen's Head while they were still between Thrawl Street and Flower & Dean Street. He leans against the lamp and then starts watching them. How? He wouldn't be able to see them as the angle doesn't allow him to see down to the corner of Flower & Dean Street. They would only come into view when they pretty much reached the corner of Fashion Street.

It's also worth noting that that section of Commercial Street would've been particularly badly lit due to the placement of the lamps. Despite Hutchinson being literally under a lamp, the angle would've left much of the section between Fashion Street and Flower & Dean Street in shadow, with other lamps being too far away to significantly illuminate it. Again, it would only be the corner of Fashion Street that would have any decent illumination. Think how dark a section of street or road is when just one modern day lamp isn't working despite other lamps being around. Now think about Victorian lamps. They would've been in virtual darkness for much of the section Hutchinson say he watched them.

So both the lack of visibility from the position of the lamp and the lack of light along that particular section of Commercial Street is what makes me doubt that part of Hutchinson's statement. Given it's a fairly important detail in the chronology of his account, if he's making this part up then why is he doing that?

There is also a switch in the chronology within his account between his police statement and what he tells the press the following day. First Hutchinson tells the police that the man approached Mary from Thrawl Street. However, he tells the press he saw the man before he had even reached Mary by Flower & Dean Street. So he acknowledged the man before either of them encountered Mary but gave the police the impression he first saw the man only after he had already spoken to Mary. Why change that detail?

hey curious
i dont know why?

but speaking of changes between his press and police stories.. to me the most telling is he adds in his press story that he now goes and stands by marys window listening. why change that? its a major material difference. now admitting he actually knows where she lives, something he leaves out of the police account.

why change THAT? perhaps classic guilty behavior 101. changing your story placing yourself closer , because someone saw you and your afraid of being caught out in a lie.

[Curious Cat]

Would you mind pointing out where he said he "watched them the whole time"?

Also, you must have seen post #121 by now, apparently he had an unobstructed view down Commercial St. from that corner.

I have never said Hutchinson said he, "watched them the whole time."

That's you misquoting.


I am saying that when he says he watched them that took place the whole time he was leaning against the lamp outside The Queen's Head. He sees Mary and the man before that point but it's when he's leaning against the lamp that Hutchinson says he watched them. He says he left them behind and walked north towards The Queen's Head while they were still between Thrawl Street and Flower & Dean Street. He leans against the lamp and then starts watching them. How? He wouldn't be able to see them as the angle doesn't allow him to see down to the corner of Flower & Dean Street. They would only come into view when they pretty much reached the corner of Fashion Street.

It's also worth noting that that section of Commercial Street would've been particularly badly lit due to the placement of the lamps. Despite Hutchinson being literally under a lamp, the angle would've left much of the section between Fashion Street and Flower & Dean Street in shadow, with other lamps being too far away to significantly illuminate it. Again, it would only be the corner of Fashion Street that would have any decent illumination. Think how dark a section of street or road is when just one modern day lamp isn't working despite other lamps being around. Now think about Victorian lamps. They would've been in virtual darkness for much of the section Hutchinson say he watched them.

So both the lack of visibility from the position of the lamp and the lack of light along that particular section of Commercial Street is what makes me doubt that part of Hutchinson's statement. Given it's a fairly important detail in the chronology of his account, if he's making this part up then why is he doing that?

There is also a switch in the chronology within his account between his police statement and what he tells the press the following day. First Hutchinson tells the police that the man approached Mary from Thrawl Street. However, he tells the press he saw the man before he had even reached Mary by Flower & Dean Street. So he acknowledged the man before either of them encountered Mary but gave the police the impression he first saw the man only after he had already spoken to Mary. Why change that detail?

[Wickerman]

Would you mind pointing out where he said he "watched them the whole time"?

Also, you must have seen post #121 by now, apparently he had an unobstructed view down Commercial St. from that corner.