George Hutchinson Revisited

[Darryl Kenyon]

Astrakhan's apparel seems perfectly appropriate to me for a gentlemen attending the Lord Mayor event.

In the middle of the night ?

I think people were street savvy back then as well. [ perhaps more so ] . I just find it hard to believe that Astrakhan would allow himself to be put in a situation of perhaps danger after being followed by someone who took an interest in him.
Remember Astrakhan may have seen Mary talk to Hutch and both of them in the middle of the night [ with all due respect ] would have looked, maybe dodgy. Mary the worst for wear and Hutch out all day probably tired and dishevelled.

Regards Darryl

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

I'm inclined to agree. He did say of AM; "The man I saw did not look as though he would attack another one." That's not quite what he might be expected to say if he were trying to frame the man.
So what do you think about Abberline accepting his story as true?

[Wickerman]

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.

That scenario can be ruled out by Sarah Lewis. She describes three people in Dorset st., one couple ahead of her walk up the passage, and a man loitering in the street opposite the passage.
We have to consider 'all' the statements, not just the one's that fit our theories.

[Wickerman]

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.

If he was there, he would have known that anyway. Just like Cox, she turned up about 3:00 am too, Sarah Lewis is another. People coming and going just like any other night.

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?

How would he know who this Mrs Kennedy was?

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?

All the more reason to flee the neighbourhood, but the last thing he should do is go to police where they can ask him to stand in a line up.

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

So you're assuming he wasn't really there now?
Logically then, he should pick a time before 3:00 am for his departure.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

That scenario can be ruled out by Sarah Lewis. She describes three people in Dorset st., one couple ahead of her walk up the passage, and a man loitering in the street opposite the passage.
We have to consider 'all' the statements, not just the one's that fit our theories.

So Hutchinson switched the roles

[Wickerman]

Astrakhan's apparel seems perfectly appropriate to me for a gentlemen attending the Lord Mayor event.

It's all rather amusing in some ways, these modern theorists think they know the neighbourhood better than Abberline.
If there was anything out of the ordinary about it Abberline was the one to challenge him about this character.

[Wickerman]

So Hutchinson switched the roles

But you accuse Hutchinson of making up stories, yet you are doing the same. Just making it up as you go.

[Curious Cat]

If he was there, he would have known that anyway. Just like Cox, she turned up about 3:00 am too, Sarah Lewis is another. People coming and going just like any other night.



How would he know who this Mrs Kennedy was?



All the more reason to flee the neighbourhood, but the last thing he should do is go to police where they can ask him to stand in a line up.



So you're assuming he wasn't really there now?
Logically then, he should pick a time before 3:00 am for his departure.

Hutchinson only mentions seeing a man enter a nearby lodging house. He doesn't mention seeing any of the three women. Why is that?

You're being deliberately obtuse. He doesn't need to know who Mrs Kennedy is. The report would be enough to spook him. He hasn't immediately come forward but suddenly there's the potential of someone identifying him at the inquest he hasn't accounted for. The man he sees entering the lodging house doesn't come forward either to the police, the press or the inquest. Why identify a mystery man but not at least two potential witnesses who could back up his story? Hutchinson himself says no-one else was in the street in the time he was there, so no people coming and going just like any other night.

I'm not assuming he wasn't there. I think he was there that night around the time he claims. I just think the rest of his story is a creation to mitigate any identification by explaining why he was there. The Echo did report Sarah Lewis's evidence at the inquest on the Monday evening but whether Hutchinson read it just prior to making his statement or he lucked out at placing himself where she said she saw a man opposite Miller's Court is something we'll never know. But the possibility is there.

The Echo reported on the evening of Tuesday 13th November that Hutchinson's statement had lost its value just 24 hours after he gave it due to further inquiries. By Thursday 15th November it was reported in The Star to have been since discredited. Hutchinson effectively disappears from the investigation at that point.

If you have an issue with him being dropped as a witness and his description of a possible suspect being dismissed within 48 hours then you'll have to take that up with Chief Inspector Abberline.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

But you accuse Hutchinson of making up stories, yet you are doing the same. Just making it up as you go.

I decided to go with my gut instinct. Just to see. It may have paid off.

[Wickerman]

Hutchinson only mentions seeing a man enter a nearby lodging house. He doesn't mention seeing any of the three women. Why is that?

Because, they are living in a time when women didn't matter, they were everywhere. Women were not even citizens in 1888, they were there to be servants to men. No-one was interested in who saw any women, the killer was obviously, in everyone's eyes, a male.
When a constable asks if the witness saw anyone suspicious, they mean 'men'.

You're being deliberately obtuse. He doesn't need to know who Mrs Kennedy is. The report would be enough to spook him.

Huh?, a report that makes no mention of him, is supposed to spook him?

... The man he sees entering the lodging house doesn't come forward either to the police, the press or the inquest.

So he wasn't worried about being seen either, sort of cancels any assumed culpability by Hutchinson then?

Why identify a mystery man but not at least two potential witnesses who could back up his story? Hutchinson himself says no-one else was in the street in the time he was there, so no people coming and going just like any other night.

Because.... the killer is a man, so the police are not interested in women, only how many men were in the street at that hour, and what were they doing.

You are forgetting, a witness giving a police statement is not there to verify his presence. He is 'only' there to clearly describe what he was, heard & did with respect to the murder.

Abberline, came to interview Hutchinson after he received a copy of his statement. This is where Hutch would be expected to say if anyone saw him there. That interview has not survived.

Everyone, including yourself, are misunderstanding what Hutchinson's statement is intended to do.
At no point is he expected to justify or verify his presence in that statement, yet you think this simple statement is expected to provide all the answers to your personal theories. And, because it doesn't, you make it suspicious.

I'm not assuming he wasn't there. I think he was there that night around the time he claims.

Right, so he has no need to get the 3:00 time from any newspaper story then.

I just think the rest of his story is a creation to mitigate any identification by explaining why he was there. The Echo did report Sarah Lewis's evidence at the inquest on the Monday evening but whether Hutchinson read it just prior to making his statement or he lucked out at placing himself where she said she saw a man opposite Miller's Court is something we'll never know. But the possibility is there.

The Echo reporter stayed to the end of the inquest, so very likely it was in a later edition. Early editions had to go to print by 2-3:00 in the afternoon, the Star reporter left the inquest early during Prater's testimony, so before that of Sarah Lewis.

More likely it was a report in the Star of Mary Cox's statement where the sub-header read: MURDERER DESCRIBED.
If he read that, or another lodger told him, he would know that story is wrong. Cox couldn't have seen the murderer with Mary at midnight because he himself had been with her about 2-2:30 am.
That is sufficient cause to go to police.

The Echo reported on the evening of Tuesday 13th November that Hutchinson's statement had lost its value just 24 hours after he gave it due to further inquiries. By Thursday 15th November it was reported in The Star to have been since discredited. Hutchinson effectively disappears from the investigation at that point.

I notice you avoid mentioning the police are still investigating Hutchinson's story on the 19th (in the Echo) - so much for him being 'discredited'. Just another controversial report from the Star, not based on any fact, not a report by police.

[barnflatwyngarde]

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

No, it is a massively important point, because it is fundamentally illogical.

[Curious Cat]

I notice you avoid mentioning the police are still investigating Hutchinson's story on the 19th (in the Echo) - so much for him being 'discredited'. Just another controversial report from the Star, not based on any fact, not a report by police.

I don't have access to that edition of The Echo. It's not on the site. I'm not avoiding it, I haven't seen it. Perhaps you could quote it in full so I could see the context.

[rjpalmer]

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

She didn't need money at 2 a.m.

She needed money, and, being 2 a.m., the window of opportunity for finding that money was rapidly closing.

The inference being that she needed money in the morning, and lo!, in the morning, we have a man coming around looking for money.

Wrong 'em Boyo.

[Wickerman]

I don't have access to that edition of The Echo. It's not on the site. I'm not avoiding it, I haven't seen it. Perhaps you could quote it in full so I could see the context.

More than happy to....

The police have not relaxed their endeavours to hunt down the murderer in the slightest degree; but so far they remain without any direct clue. Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson as to his having seen the latest victim with a gentlemanly man of dark complexion, with a dark moustache. Others are disposed to think that the shabby man with a blotchy face and a carrotty moustache described by the witness Mary Ann Cox, is more likely to be the murderer.
Echo, 19 Nov.

If you are a member of the JTRForums, you will find editions of the Echo from 13th Nov. till the end of the year.

[Wickerman]

One other point of interest, after the Star published on the 14th that the story of the man Hutchinson was discredited, they then print an account on the 16th by a witness Mr Galloway who was watching a 'blotchy' looking character, and alerted a constable to the fact.
Only to be rebutted by that same constable, that he "was looking for a man of a very different appearance".

The Star possibly too proud to admit their statement of the 14th was less than factual, they choose not to have this constable say "the Hutchinson suspect".