George Hutchinson Revisited

[Curious Cat]

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.

This talks of a split in the investigation, saying only SOME of the authorities were still pursuing a man matching Hutchinson's descriptions. Others were going for Blotchy. This doesn't say which group Abberline was with. So there was not universal support for Hutchinson's statement among the investigating officers, meaning it had been dismissed by some of them. This would have been the basis of the report that Hutchinson's statement had lost its value.

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".

There was a split among the investigating officers that became apparent from the 15th onwards. This incident with Mr Galloway - which I had previous read - took place in the early hours of the 15th, while the split in the investigation had only started to form in the previous 12 hours. It can't be known if the police officer Mr Galloway encountered was either still of the belief Hutchinson's description was the one to follow due to who he answered to or if the information to disregard it and concentrate on Blotchy instead hadn't filtered down to him.

The story is about Mr Galloway and his assertion that the man he saw matched the description given by Mary Ann Cox...

"I was very much struck with his appearance, especially as he corresponded, in almost every particular, with the man described by Mary Ann Cox."


The policeman is said to have responded by saying he was looking for a man of a very different description by Mr Galloway. The policeman is not quoted directly by the paper so why would they put words in his mouth? The story isn't about Hutchinson's statement.

Again, their reporting of the Hutchinson statement being discredited would be based on the apparent split in the investigation.

[Wickerman]

This talks of a split in the investigation, saying only SOME of the authorities were still pursuing a man matching Hutchinson's descriptions. Others were going for Blotchy. This doesn't say which group Abberline was with. So there was not universal support for Hutchinson's statement among the investigating officers, meaning it had been dismissed by some of them. This would have been the basis of the report that Hutchinson's statement had lost its value.

But we already knew that, the Echo had made that divided approach to the investigation public knowledge on the 13th, check for yourself...
"The City police have been making inquiries for this man for weeks past, but without success, and they do not believe that he is the individual described by Cox. The Metropolitan police, however, have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement."

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/echo/18881113.html

As you can see, the Star distorted what was only a typical approach - the police had two suspects, some preferred one, some the other. A person can't be half discredited, their story is either dismissed or it isn't, there is no half measures.
If Hutchinson's story had to be discredited because some police believed Cox, then Cox's story had to be discredited for the others to believe Hutchinson, but they made no mention of that.
It was just a tactic to sell copy.

[Curious Cat]

But we already knew that, the Echo had made that divided approach to the investigation public knowledge on the 13th, check for yourself...
"The City police have been making inquiries for this man for weeks past, but without success, and they do not believe that he is the individual described by Cox. The Metropolitan police, however, have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement."

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/echo/18881113.html

As you can see, the Star distorted what was only a typical approach - the police had two suspects, some preferred one, some the other. A person can't be half discredited, their story is either dismissed or it isn't, there is no half measures.
If Hutchinson's story had to be discredited because some police believed Cox, then Cox's story had to be discredited for the others to believe Hutchinson, but they made no mention of that.
It was just a tactic to sell copy.

If you read it properly the quote you put forward is in regard to the suspect seen in Hanbury Street before Annie Chapman's murder two months earlier. There is no discrediting Mary Ann Cox's description of the man she saw with Mary Kelly at Miller's Court.

The division was in regard to which of the men - Blotchy or Astrakhan - was the killer. Those in the Blotchy camp would obviously dismiss Astrakhan and so discredit Hutchinson's statement. Those in the Astrakhan camp may have favoured him as the killer but had no need to discredit Mary Ann Cox's description of the man she saw. They were separate men and separate sightings to begin with.

Was Abberline for Blotchy or Astrakhan by the end of the week?

[Wickerman]

If you read it properly the quote you put forward is in regard to the suspect seen in Hanbury Street before Annie Chapman's murder two months earlier. There is no discrediting Mary Ann Cox's description of the man she saw with Mary Kelly at Miller's Court.

The division was in regard to which of the men - Blotchy or Astrakhan - was the killer. Those in the Blotchy camp would obviously dismiss Astrakhan and so discredit Hutchinson's statement. Those in the Astrakhan camp may have favoured him as the killer but had no need to discredit Mary Ann Cox's description of the man she saw. They were separate men and separate sightings to begin with.

I don't know what you mean "read it properly", you read it the same way.
Hutchinson's story was not discredited, it was the Star putting a spin on a divided investigation. There never was a consensus for a single 'police suspect', but the Star tried to make the public think so.

Was Abberline for Blotchy or Astrakhan by the end of the week?

He doesn't say, but on or about Dec. 6th he arrested Joseph Isaac's and if anyone fit the description of Hutchinson's suspect, it was Isaac's. Abberline was reported to have said to a fellow officer: "we've got the right man at last, this is a big thing".
So clearly, Hutchinson's suspect was foremost in Abberline's mind as late as December.

[Wickerman]

[FONT=Calibri][FONT=Garamond]

This might also explain another challenge to Hutchinson’s statement, which is why did he leave it three days to give his statement to the police. He certainly wasn't going to tell them he was waiting to commit a crime and perhaps thought it best to keep his counsel.

Hutchinson's reason for not coming forward may not be the secret some have believed. The Morning Advertiser suggested the reason would be too imprudent to mention, implying he explained to them his reason. It only stands to reason he told police. But what we can see from merely studying the press reports is, the press & public both had been under the impression on Friday, and all day Saturday that the murder of Mary Kelly had taken place sometime after 9:00 am Friday morning. Hutchinson had met Kelly between 2-2:30 almost 7 hours before her presumed murder. He simply had no idea his sighting had been of any importance.

It was only on Sunday, in Lloyds Weekly where we read that after the outcome of the post-mortem on Saturday morning the doctors were under the impression the murder had taken place around 3:00 am. This change was not widely known on Sunday, not until Monday would he learn that his sighting might have been more significant than first thought.
Naturally then, his lodger friends would convince him to go to police.

After three days of not being aware he had seen Mary almost an hour before her actual murder, he came forward. Nothing suspicious about that.

The reason I think he changed his mind was due to the testimony of Sarah Lewis. She stated that she saw a man hanging around outside MJK’s room between 2.00am and 3.00am. This must have been George Hutchinson. I could not find her statement reported in the press prior to the inquest.

Correct, Sarah Lewis did not talk to the press over the weekend, the first we hear of her story is on Monday evening in press reports from the inquest.

All Sarah Lewis saw was a man in dark clothes wearing a Wideawake hat, no age given, no features described like, beard, moustache, whiskers, etc.. Nothing sufficient to single out anyone.

There was also a second reason, as I mentioned in another post, the Star early edition came out just after the inquest where they stated Mrs Cox had described the murderer (another of their assumptions), but Hutchinson actually knew this report was wrong - another reason to come forward.

[Curious Cat]

I don't know what you mean "read it properly", you read it the same way.
Hutchinson's story was not discredited, it was the Star putting a spin on a divided investigation. There never was a consensus for a single 'police suspect', but the Star tried to make the public think so.



He doesn't say, but on or about Dec. 6th he arrested Joseph Isaac's and if anyone fit the description of Hutchinson's suspect, it was Isaac's. Abberline was reported to have said to a fellow officer: "we've got the right man at last, this is a big thing".
So clearly, Hutchinson's suspect was foremost in Abberline's mind as late as December.

It's clear you can't abide critical thinking when it comes to Hutchinson but purposely dismissing basic information because it doesn't fit your rigid support for this one account is blinding you to the point of making you look ridiculous.

This is the quote you used...

"The City police have been making inquiries for this man for weeks past, but without success, and they do not believe that he is the individual described by Cox. The Metropolitan police, however, have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement."

The man being referred to in this quote is NOT Blotchy. They are referring to the man seen in Hanbury Street back in September. Two separate sightings but believing the men to be two separate individuals. As Blotchy and Astrakhan are two separate men seen in separate sightings. You misued the quote as it is about another strand of the investigation as a whole, not the specific split on who of Blotchy or Astrakhan was the likely killer of Mary Kelly.

It's basic that if the earlier suspect is favoured over the latter one then the statement regarding the latter has to be dismissed. Nothing to do with spinning a story.


In what way did Joseph Issacs fit Hutchinson's description?

And how did Hutchinson even see him when he was in a cell at the time? You yourself have already proven Joseph Issacs' alibi...

Isaacs was arrested on Nov. 8th, held in police custody (at either Barnet or Holloway) until the 12th, then brought back to Barnet police court to be sentenced to 21 days hard labor, at Holloway.

[etenguy]

There was also a second reason, as I mentioned in another post, the Star early edition came out just after the inquest where they stated Mrs Cox had described the murderer (another of their assumptions), but Hutchinson actually knew this report was wrong - another reason to come forward.

Hi Wickerman

I'm inclined to believe Hutchinson's statement, although recognise why it is in doubt. But partly that is informed by reasoning that Blotchy man left before MJK ate.

That means Blotchy left MJK's room before 2.00am. I think there is reason to believe just that. We know that MJK ate a meal of fish and potatoes sometime up to an hour or so before she was murdered, so likely between 1.00am and 2.00am. That would be after Blotchy (possibly using any money he gave her), but before Hutchinson's man. Mary Cox did not mention that MJK and Blotchy had any food with them, it's unlikely MJK and Blotchy would sit down to eat before he murdered her (if he was the murderer), we know MJK was alive over an hour after she went in with Blotchy (so a meal before they arrived would be too early) and it is unlikely they went out to eat before bringing Blotchy back a second time for the murder to then take place.

[Curious Cat]

Hi Wickerman

I'm inclined to believe Hutchinson's statement, although recognise why it is in doubt. But partly that is informed by reasoning that Blotchy man left before MJK ate.

That means Blotchy left MJK's room before 2.00am. I think there is reason to believe just that. We know that MJK ate a meal of fish and potatoes sometime up to an hour or so before she was murdered, so likely between 1.00am and 2.00am. That would be after Blotchy (possibly using any money he gave her), but before Hutchinson's man. Mary Cox did not mention that MJK and Blotchy had any food with them, it's unlikely MJK and Blotchy would sit down to eat before he murdered her (if he was the murderer), we know MJK was alive over an hour after she went in with Blotchy (so a meal before they arrived would be too early) and it is unlikely they went out to eat before bringing Blotchy back a second time for the murder to then take place.

A question for me on this all along has been when and where the fish and potatoes were bought/acquired? She had no means to cook them at Miller's Court so would have to consume them elsewhere unless brought home ready cooked. The fish would take at least 2 hours to digest while potatoes would take up to another hour. So the meal was eaten at around 3 hours before death. If she was murdered between 3am-4am then the meal was consumed around midnight to 1am. Mary Kelly was in her room over that time.

[etenguy]

A question for me on this all along has been when and where the fish and potatoes were bought/acquired? She had no means to cook them at Miller's Court so would have to consume them elsewhere unless brought home ready cooked. The fish would take at least 2 hours to digest while potatoes would take up to another hour. So the meal was eaten at around 3 hours before death. If she was murdered between 3am-4am then the meal was consumed around midnight to 1am. Mary Kelly was in her room over that time.

Hi Curious Cat

It is an interesting question, and would certainly help to pull the timeline together if we knew when and where the food was consumed. I am certainly no expert on digestion, but a quick internet search seems to suggest potatoes are digested in about an hour - which is what my Blotchy out, Astrakhan in timeline was based on. No idea how alcohol and fish affect the digestion time.

[Curious Cat]

Hi Curious Cat

It is an interesting question, and would certainly help to pull the timeline together if we knew when and where the food was consumed. I am certainly no expert on digestion, but a quick internet search seems to suggest potatoes are digested in about an hour - which is what my Blotchy out, Astrakhan in timeline was based on. No idea how alcohol and fish affect the digestion time.

I saw an estimate of 2 hours for food to generally pass through the stomach into the intestine, but yes the average for potatoes and fish appears to be 50-60 minutes. However, that's based on each going through the digestive system on an already empty stomach. The body takes longer to break down foods when consumed together, adding to the digestion time.

So if we give it 50 to 70 minutes between consumption and murder then a 3am to 4am time of death puts that meal being had between Hutchinson meeting Mary Kelly on the corner of Flower and Dean Street and him taking up his vigil opposite the entrance to Miller's Court.

[Wickerman]

It's clear you can't abide critical thinking when it comes to Hutchinson but purposely dismissing basic information because it doesn't fit your rigid support for this one account is blinding you to the point of making you look ridiculous.

This is the quote you used...

"The City police have been making inquiries for this man for weeks past, but without success, and they do not believe that he is the individual described by Cox. The Metropolitan police, however, have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement."

The man being referred to in this quote is NOT Blotchy. They are referring to the man seen in Hanbury Street back in September. Two separate sightings but believing the men to be two separate individuals. As Blotchy and Astrakhan are two separate men seen in separate sightings. You misued the quote as it is about another strand of the investigation as a whole, not the specific split on who of Blotchy or Astrakhan was the likely killer of Mary Kelly.

You're completely missing the point.
The 'only' reason for me quoting from that article is to demonstrate the police were divided on suspects, that the Star had exaggerated a situation which was perfectly normal.
The Star had with full bias suggested Hutchinson had been discredited, yet the same rationale had to apply to Cox, but they made no suggestion that Cox had been discredited - only Hutchinson, and without any justification sourced from police.

The article in the Echo of the 13th is making the argument for Cox's suspect being similar to a "Mitre Square suspect with fair moustache", and the Hanbury suspect "who entered a public house".
As opposed to Hutchinson's suspect being more in keeping with the Berner st. "very dark man", and the Hanbury st. "dark foreign-looking man".
So, we then get to that quote you quibble about above.
The City police have been looking for "Mitre square" suspect for these past weeks, but they do not think he is the same as the Cox suspect.
Whereas, the Met. police are more persuaded by Cox's suspect. An already divided investigation, without making clear any preference for the Hutchinson suspect.

It's basic that if the earlier suspect is favoured over the latter one then the statement regarding the latter has to be dismissed. Nothing to do with spinning a story.

On the contrary - the police will never dismiss any suspect until they have been thoroughly investigated, if that means they have two, three four or more suspects all being investigated at the same time, then so be it.
What you suggest simply never happens.
It should be obvious that if the authorities are still investigating two suspects on 19th Nov. then neither suspect can have been discredited, regardless of what any controversial newspaper chooses to print. Both forces worked tightly together and met on a regular basis - per Swanson.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman

I'm inclined to believe Hutchinson's statement, although recognise why it is in doubt. But partly that is informed by reasoning that Blotchy man left before MJK ate.

That means Blotchy left MJK's room before 2.00am. I think there is reason to believe just that. We know that MJK ate a meal of fish and potatoes sometime up to an hour or so before she was murdered, so likely between 1.00am and 2.00am. That would be after Blotchy (possibly using any money he gave her), but before Hutchinson's man. Mary Cox did not mention that MJK and Blotchy had any food with them, it's unlikely MJK and Blotchy would sit down to eat before he murdered her (if he was the murderer), we know MJK was alive over an hour after she went in with Blotchy (so a meal before they arrived would be too early) and it is unlikely they went out to eat before bringing Blotchy back a second time for the murder to then take place.

Dr Bond may have been contrary with his peers, we have a few examples to speak about, but he was no fool.
Bond knew he cannot estimate a time of death from digestion if he has no idea roughly when the meal in her stomach was bought.
Thats the part that he does not tell us in his report, but that report was for Anderson, and it is a detail Anderson does not need to know. The fact Bond is able to make an estimation of her time of death indicates he must have been provided with a rough time she ate. Once food was discovered in her stomach Abberline would have been informed and it would be his responsibility to discover the source of that meal - which shop provided the food.

So, although Bond's estimate of 1:00-2:00 falls short of the 3:30-3:45 rough time of the scream, it is near enough. His estimate being based on 'when bought' as opposed to 'when ate', which naturally could be a little later.

[Abby Normal]

kelly probably ate her last meal with blotchy on the way home to her place

[Curious Cat]

You're completely missing the point.
The 'only' reason for me quoting from that article is to demonstrate the police were divided on suspects, that the Star had exaggerated a situation which was perfectly normal.
The Star had with full bias suggested Hutchinson had been discredited, yet the same rationale had to apply to Cox, but they made no suggestion that Cox had been discredited - only Hutchinson, and without any justification sourced from police.

The article in the Echo of the 13th is making the argument for Cox's suspect being similar to a "Mitre Square suspect with fair moustache", and the Hanbury suspect "who entered a public house".
As opposed to Hutchinson's suspect being more in keeping with the Berner st. "very dark man", and the Hanbury st. "dark foreign-looking man".
So, we then get to that quote you quibble about above.
The City police have been looking for "Mitre square" suspect for these past weeks, but they do not think he is the same as the Cox suspect.
Whereas, the Met. police are more persuaded by Cox's suspect. An already divided investigation, without making clear any preference for the Hutchinson suspect.




On the contrary - the police will never dismiss any suspect until they have been thoroughly investigated, if that means they have two, three four or more suspects all being investigated at the same time, then so be it.
What you suggest simply never happens.
It should be obvious that if the authorities are still investigating two suspects on 19th Nov. then neither suspect can have been discredited, regardless of what any controversial newspaper chooses to print. Both forces worked tightly together and met on a regular basis - per Swanson.

The line you quoted saying, "The City police have been making inquiries for this man for weeks past, but without success," is not in reference to Blotchy. The man is not Blotchy. The man in that sentence is not the individual Mary Ann Cox says she saw. The man written of in that sentence is a separate individual who was described by others in regard to a murder that wasn't of Mary Kelly.

Blotchy was seen with Mary Kelly at an earlier time. Even if Astrakhan was the favoured suspect, there are no grounds to discredit Mary Ann Cox's description of the man she saw or the rest of her account. He is still needed to be tracked down to confirm when he left Miller's Court. Therefore Mary Ann Cox is never discredited.

If Blotchy is the favoured suspect then Astrakhan and Hutchinson's account is discredited by default as he can't very well converse with a dead woman in the street let alone watch another man do the same before going to her room. If there were investigating officers who favoured Blotchy then they were openly dismissing Hutchinson's account, regardless of whether you think that was professional of them to do so or not. If the papers report on that being the circumstance then that's not spin, it's just how it was at that point.

If you really think the police never dismiss a suspect until they have been thoroughly investigated then maybe you should look up the case of Stephen Port. The evidence was there but they dismissed him as a suspect and left him to kill again. The difference here is that the police didn't have multiple suspects. No-one else was in the frame. What I suggest simply does happen.



Why did you suggest Joseph Issacs was the man Hutchinson saw when you had already proven he couldn't have been anywhere near Dorset Street that morning?

Should I keep Joseph Issacs on my suspect list or take him off through discrediting your suggestion that he was the man Hutchinson described as the man in Mary Kelly's company?

[Wickerman]

kelly probably ate her last meal with blotchy on the way home to her place

I guess we can all pick a time that suits us, there are a few intervals to choose from.