George Hutchinson Revisited

[Wickerman]

I can. I've stood on the spot he claims to have stood outside The Queen's Head pub and watched Mary Kelly and Astrakhan the whole time they walked up towards him from between Trawl Street and Flower and Dean Street.

The view is obscured by the angle of Commercial Street at that point. He could not have watched them all along unless he had eyes that could see round corners.

If that detail is impossible, that brings other details into question.

Ah, some nitty-gritty at last.
Your objection reads to me like you have misinterpreted what he said.
He noted a man standing on the corner of Thrawl as he passed going towards Flower & Dean.
So he knew where the man was after Kelly left him, but he doesn't say where they were when they came into view.
This is your assumption that he could see all the way to Thrawl, he never said that.

[Curious Cat]

Ah, some nitty-gritty at last.
Your objection reads to me like you have misinterpreted what he said.
He noted a man standing on the corner of Thrawl as he passed going towards Flower & Dean.
So he knew where the man was after Kelly left him, but he doesn't say where they were when they came into view.
This is your assumption that he could see all the way to Thrawl, he never said that.

He said he stood against the lamp and watched the man. He said the lamp was outside The Queen's Head. He wouldn't be able to see them until they reached the corner of Fashion Street. The corner of Fashion Street is immediately next to where he was so they would be passing him within seconds of them getting to that point. There would be no time to 'watch' him. You need to physically be there to understand what I mean. Just looking at a map or google street view won't give you the perspective.

[Wickerman]

He said he stood against the lamp and watched the man. He said the lamp was outside The Queen's Head. He wouldn't be able to see them until they reached the corner of Fashion Street. The corner of Fashion Street is immediately next to where he was so they would be passing him within seconds of them getting to that point. There would be no time to 'watch' him. You need to physically be there to understand what I mean. Just looking at a map or google street view won't give you the perspective.

You need to read it again my dear.

Are you only using his police statement, or the press statement, or both together?
I merge them both together, nevertheless....

Hutchinson met Kelly before he reached Flower & Dean - as I went towards Flower-and-Dean-street I met the woman Kelly,

He then tells us, as Kelly left him she walked towards Thrawl - She then walked on towards Thrawl-street

He says Astrachan came towards Kelly (at some point between Flower & Dean and Thrawl) - The man who was standing at the corner of Thrawl-street then came towards her

It's a straight road between Flower & Dean, and Thrawl. So he can see straight ahead quite well.

He says, they both walked towards him ONLY THEN, did Hutch turn and walk on to Fashion St., to stand outside the Queens Head - and they both walked slowly towards me. I walked on to the corner of Fashion-street, near the public-house.

Kelly & Astrachan are following behind Hutch.

Hutch stops under the Queens Head lamp, as they pass across the front of 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.

Kelly & Astrachan were on the same stretch of road - between Flower & Dean and Thrawl, when they met, and when Hutch saw them meet.
You have either misread the statements, or are intentionally creating a straw-man argument.
Either way your argument is invalid.

[Wickerman]

This shows the short 'straight' stretch where Hutch saw Kelly meet up with Astrachan.
The top blue spot on Commercial by Fashion is where the Queen Head was.



All three - Hutch, Kelly & Astrachan, were between Flower & Dean and Thrawl, when Hutch saw them meet.
Kelly & Astrachan followed behind Hutch until he stopped by the Queen Head (blue spot).

[etenguy]

Either way your argument is invalid.

Hi Wickerman

I agree with your analysis of Hutchinson's statement in this respect and I don't think this is a reason to question the veracity of his statement.

Earlier in this thread, two common challenges to Hutchinson's statement have been considered (why was he hanging around in Miller's Court for so long and why did he not make his statement earlier). While we cannot be certain, there are, in my view, reasonable answers to these two questions.

I err on the side of accepting Hutchinson's statement, but I'm struck by how closely his statement reflects a combination of press reports published ahead of him going to the police. There was one story that reported that a woman was approached by Kelly who asked for sixpence as she needed money. Combine this with Sarah Lewis' statement and the substantive elements of Hutchinson's story is all there. If these reports were the basis of his story, this would mean what we might interpret as corroboration of his statement could have instead been the inspiration for it. However, I cannot think of any compelling reason why he would fabricate such a story.

[Curious Cat]

You need to read it again my dear.

Are you only using his police statement, or the press statement, or both together?
I merge them both together, nevertheless....

Hutchinson met Kelly before he reached Flower & Dean - as I went towards Flower-and-Dean-street I met the woman Kelly,

He then tells us, as Kelly left him she walked towards Thrawl - She then walked on towards Thrawl-street

He says Astrachan came towards Kelly (at some point between Flower & Dean and Thrawl) - The man who was standing at the corner of Thrawl-street then came towards her

It's a straight road between Flower & Dean, and Thrawl. So he can see straight ahead quite well.

He says, they both walked towards him ONLY THEN, did Hutch turn and walk on to Fashion St., to stand outside the Queens Head - and they both walked slowly towards me. I walked on to the corner of Fashion-street, near the public-house.

Kelly & Astrachan are following behind Hutch.

Hutch stops under the Queens Head lamp, as they pass across the front of 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.

Kelly & Astrachan were on the same stretch of road - between Flower & Dean and Thrawl, when they met, and when Hutch saw them meet.
You have either misread the statements, or are intentionally creating a straw-man argument.
Either way your argument is invalid.

My post on page 2 should point you in the direction of understanding that I have extensively read both the police statement and the press statement. Taking both as individual and combined sets of evidence. I am fully aware of the order of events according to Hutchinson.

I am fully aware that Hutchinson first meets Mary Kelly at Flower and Dean Street. I am also fully aware that there is a straight stretch of road between Flower and Dean Street and Thrawl Street. On the map it does indeed look like those street corners would be visible from outside The Queen's Head. I took that to be the case from reading the statement and looking at the map. Then I went there in person. You get a very different perspective on the ground. Those street corners were not visible when stood outside The Queen's Head. Someone walking from that direction only comes into view just as they reach the south corner of Fashion Street.

Hutchinson sees them meet by Trawl Street but then continues his walk northwards ahead of them. He reaches The Queen's Head pub and stands against the lamp where he says he watches the man. How? He can't see beyond the corner of Fashion Street and when Mary Kelly and Astrakhan do get to that point they're at the stage of passing him within seconds. There is no opportunity to 'watch' them unless a) Hutchinson walked backwards all the way to The Queen's Head or b) he walked along with them some of the way.


You can say I have a different interpretation or perspective of his statement but you can't say I've misread it or that my argument is invalid.

[Curious Cat]

Hi Wickerman

I agree with your analysis of Hutchinson's statement in this respect and I don't think this is a reason to question the veracity of his statement.

Earlier in this thread, two common challenges to Hutchinson's statement have been considered (why was he hanging around in Miller's Court for so long and why did he not make his statement earlier). While we cannot be certain, there are, in my view, reasonable answers to these two questions.

I err on the side of accepting Hutchinson's statement, but I'm struck by how closely his statement reflects a combination of press reports published ahead of him going to the police. There was one story that reported that a woman was approached by Kelly who asked for sixpence as she needed money. Combine this with Sarah Lewis' statement and the substantive elements of Hutchinson's story is all there. If these reports were the basis of his story, this would mean what we might interpret as corroboration of his statement could have instead been the inspiration for it. However, I cannot think of any compelling reason why he would fabricate such a story.

Looking at the phrasing of the police statement and then the first two thirds of the press statement there appears to repetition in the rhythm of how he's giving his account, like it's rehearsed. It's only in the latter stages when he's saying something new that it becomes a bit haphazard with the chronology switching back and forth. It may be that the reporter prodded for more details and he had to come up with something. He goes from being adamant he'd recognise Astrakhan if he saw him again to not being sure whether a man he saw in Petticoat Lane was him or not. With such a detailed description in his mind and one he'd retained for a number of days, you'd think he would be pretty certain if a man was Astrakhan or not.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman

I agree with your analysis of Hutchinson's statement in this respect and I don't think this is a reason to question the veracity of his statement.

Earlier in this thread, two common challenges to Hutchinson's statement have been considered (why was he hanging around in Miller's Court for so long and why did he not make his statement earlier). While we cannot be certain, there are, in my view, reasonable answers to these two questions.

Thankyou, and I do recall those two other points.

The first, why did he loiter for about 45 minutes?
I can readily accept he might have had illicit intentions towards Astrachan, as he did acknowledge the man did not look threatening. So, perhaps being out of money himself he might have considered relieving fancy-pants of something of value.
There doesn't seem to be anything in Hutchinson's words that might suggest he was concerned for Kelly's safety.

As to the next question, why come forward so late?
Do you agree that the Friday evening papers all suggest the murder 'must' have taken place sometime after 9:0 am Friday morning?
David Orsam also studied the Friday evening papers in his analysis of the story by Morris Lewis, and found nothing to suggest otherwise.
The Saturday morning papers promote the same story - murder took place after 9:00 am.
The Saturday evening papers now offer the 'cry' of murder stories, but continue with the theories the murder took place after 9:00 am.
On Sunday one newspaper published the opinion the murder must have occurred between 2:00-3:00 am, a story not widely published.
Even on Monday morning the press continue with the late morning (after 9:00am) murder theory, while sharing the 'cry' of murder around 3:30, and the medical opinion that Kelly had been dead some 5-6 hours when she was discovered.
All very confusing.

Hutch did say he told a constable his story on Sunday morning - which might have been due to him hearing of the recent medical opinion?

However, what in your opinion would urge Hutchinson to come forward any sooner than he did, when everybody is talking about the murder happening after 9:00 am on Friday?
In his opinion, along with public opinion, Kelly was murdered almost 7 hours after he met her, so where is this supposed 'concern' to run to police?

I err on the side of accepting Hutchinson's statement, but I'm struck by how closely his statement reflects a combination of press reports published ahead of him going to the police. There was one story that reported that a woman was approached by Kelly who asked for sixpence as she needed money. Combine this with Sarah Lewis' statement and the substantive elements of Hutchinson's story is all there. If these reports were the basis of his story, this would mean what we might interpret as corroboration of his statement could have instead been the inspiration for it. However, I cannot think of any compelling reason why he would fabricate such a story.

I honestly do not see what you claim to see, and like you I can't imagine a rational reason for someone to troll the papers looking for various stories to mould together - it's a bizarre theory in my opinion.

[Abby Normal]

Looking at the phrasing of the police statement and then the first two thirds of the press statement there appears to repetition in the rhythm of how he's giving his account, like it's rehearsed. It's only in the latter stages when he's saying something new that it becomes a bit haphazard with the chronology switching back and forth. It may be that the reporter prodded for more details and he had to come up with something. He goes from being adamant he'd recognise Astrakhan if he saw him again to not being sure whether a man he saw in Petticoat Lane was him or not. With such a detailed description in his mind and one he'd retained for a number of days, you'd think he would be pretty certain if a man was Astrakhan or not.

exactly curious.
ive mentioned this before. you either recognize someone or you dont. especially after learning she was killed that night he would have made sure it was him, followed him. something. this wishy washy statement is another one thats odd to me.
as is him telling the press that he actually went and stood by kellys door after her and aman went inside. an important detail he left out of his police testimony because it shows that he actually knew where she lived.

[Abby Normal]

Thankyou, and I do recall those two other points.

The first, why did he loiter for about 45 minutes?
I can readily accept he might have had illicit intentions towards Astrachan, as he did acknowledge the man did not look threatening. So, perhaps being out of money himself he might have considered relieving fancy-pants of something of value.
There doesn't seem to be anything in Hutchinson's words that might suggest he was concerned for Kelly's safety.

As to the next question, why come forward so late?
Do you agree that the Friday evening papers all suggest the murder 'must' have taken place sometime after 9:0 am Friday morning?
David Orsam also studied the Friday evening papers in his analysis of the story by Morris Lewis, and found nothing to suggest otherwise.
The Saturday morning papers promote the same story - murder took place after 9:00 am.
The Saturday evening papers now offer the 'cry' of murder stories, but continue with the theories the murder took place after 9:00 am.
On Sunday one newspaper published the opinion the murder must have occurred between 2:00-3:00 am, a story not widely published.
Even on Monday morning the press continue with the late morning (after 9:00am) murder theory, while sharing the 'cry' of murder around 3:30, and the medical opinion that Kelly had been dead some 5-6 hours when she was discovered.
All very confusing.

Hutch did say he told a constable his story on Sunday morning - which might have been due to him hearing of the recent medical opinion?

However, what in your opinion would urge Hutchinson to come forward any sooner than he did, when everybody is talking about the murder happening after 9:00 am on Friday?
In his opinion, along with public opinion, Kelly was murdered almost 7 hours after he met her, so where is this supposed 'concern' to run to police?




I honestly do not see what you claim to see, and like you I can't imagine a rational reason for someone to troll the papers looking for various stories to mould together - it's a bizarre theory in my opinion.

hi wick and eten
you cant think of any reason why hutch might read the papers to find out what witnesses claimed to see that night? really? well one obvious one would be so he could cobble together a fake, yet beleiveable, story to tell the police for his fifteen minutes of fame and fortune.

a statement from hutch btw that mirrors word for word some press reports. someone a while back actually put the press quotes and hutchs side by side and it was incredible. i remember one was "the murdered woman kelly". i always thought that was an odd way for hutch to describe her.

[Wickerman]

My post on page 2 should point you in the direction of understanding that I have extensively read both the police statement and the press statement. Taking both as individual and combined sets of evidence. I am fully aware of the order of events according to Hutchinson.

I am fully aware that Hutchinson first meets Mary Kelly at Flower and Dean Street. I am also fully aware that there is a straight stretch of road between Flower and Dean Street and Thrawl Street. On the map it does indeed look like those street corners would be visible from outside The Queen's Head. I took that to be the case from reading the statement and looking at the map. Then I went there in person. You get a very different perspective on the ground. Those street corners were not visible when stood outside The Queen's Head.

He isn't standing outside the Queens Head trying to see all the way down to Thrawl.
Hutch, Kelly & Astrachan are all walking together (obviously not too close) along the same block (F & Dean to Fashion), Hutch was south of F & Dean when he first met Kelly. The whole block is barely 150 ft long, of course he can see them both.

Hutch then turns to walk north, while Kelly & Astrachan are walking behind him some yards back of course.

You seem to be saying Hutch stood at the Queens Head and looked all the way down towards Thrawl, it just is not the case.

Someone walking from that direction only comes into view just as they reach the south corner of Fashion Street.

He wasn't looking from the Queens Head, he was walking just ahead of them - he told us this.
This is what I mean, you have not read what he says. Instead, you jump to a conclusion without understanding what you are reading.

Hutchinson sees them meet by Trawl Street but then continues his walk northwards ahead of them.

No, he does NOT say they were by Thrawl. He says Kelly walked towards Thrawl, and the man came (from Thrawl) towards her - wherever they met, it was some point between F & Dean and Thrawl, but is not stated.
Hutch was standing on the same block nearer to F & Dean, they are all less than 150 ft apart.

He reaches The Queen's Head pub and stands against the lamp where he says he watches the man. How?

Because they were less than 150 ft behind him.

He can't see beyond the corner of Fashion Street

Look, to start with, all three of them were on the same block, a 150 ft long stretch of pavement between F & Dean and Thrawl.
Hutch turns to walk north, while they follow on behind.
All three of them (maybe a 100 ft apart?) cross F & Dean street, and continue north.
Hutch made it to Fashion street, where he crossed and stood under the lamp. He turns and they are approaching Fashion street, walking towards him.
You are trying to argue Kelly & Astrachan are way down by Thrawl, which is plainly not true.

When Hutch saw Kelly meet Astrachan, they were all on the same block, less than 150 ft apart, and they all walked north. So at no point are they any further apart than 150 ft., in fact they were likely much closer than that.

This is just plain math, the only assumption being made here is, they walked at the same pace. We cannot know this of course, but as Hutch was suspicious, it would make no sense at all for him to walk faster away from them. So, as he was intrigued, he would keep pace with whatever speed they were walking.

----

This all began with Hutch walking north, and "approaching" F & Dean when he met Kelly, he was some distance south of F & Dean.
That block is 150 ft long, so Hutch is less than 150 ft from Thrawl.

Kelly left Hutch, and walked towards Thrawl, the man who had been stood at Thrawl, came towards Kelly.
So, as the block is 150 ft long, all three of these characters are within 150 ft - pick a number, 120 ft, 100 ft, 80 ft? - who cares, it wasn't foggy, they could see each other clearly enough.
Now, after Kelly met Astrachan, they turned towards Hutch, and Hutch turned towards F & Dean, to walk in the same direction they are coming.
So, in a manner of speaking they are all walking together some distance (80, 100, 120 ft?) apart until Hutch reached Fashion st. and stopped under the lamp at the Queens Head.

You have no argument, Hutch can see them plainly.

[Wickerman]

hi wick and eten
you cant think of any reason why hutch might read the papers to find out what witnesses claimed to see that night? really? well one obvious one would be so he could cobble together a fake, yet beleiveable, story to tell the police for his fifteen minutes of fame and fortune.

a statement from hutch btw that mirrors word for word some press reports. someone a while back actually put the press quotes and hutchs side by side and it was incredible. i remember one was "the murdered woman kelly". i always thought that was an odd way for hutch to describe her.

As everybody thought the murder occurred after 9:00 am Friday, what reason would Hutch have to read the weekend papers?

After the inquest, we only have the Star, which didn't print Sarah Lewis's testimony, and the Echo, who's reporter stayed til the end of the inquest so likely was only in a late evening edition. Hutch may have even been sat with police when that edition came out.

What was in the Star was the subheading THE MURDERER DESCRIBED, which recounted Cox's testimony.
Hutch would have known that header was false, he saw her two hours later than Cox, so he goes to police.

[Curious Cat]

He isn't standing outside the Queens Head trying to see all the way down to Thrawl.
Hutch, Kelly & Astrachan are all walking together (obviously not too close) along the same block (F & Dean to Fashion), Hutch was south of F & Dean when he first met Kelly. The whole block is barely 150 ft long, of course he can see them both.

Hutch then turns to walk north, while Kelly & Astrachan are walking behind him some yards back of course.

You seem to be saying Hutch stood at the Queens Head and looked all the way down towards Thrawl, it just is not the case.



He wasn't looking from the Queens Head, he was walking just ahead of them - he told us this.
This is what I mean, you have not read what he says. Instead, you jump to a conclusion without understanding what you are reading.



No, he does NOT say they were by Thrawl. He says Kelly walked towards Thrawl, and the man came (from Thrawl) towards her - wherever they met, it was some point between F & Dean and Thrawl, but is not stated.
Hutch was standing on the same block nearer to F & Dean, they are all less than 150 ft apart.




Because they were less than 150 ft behind him.



Look, to start with, all three of them were on the same block, a 150 ft long stretch of pavement between F & Dean and Thrawl.
Hutch turns to walk north, while they follow on behind.
All three of them (maybe a 100 ft apart?) cross F & Dean street, and continue north.
Hutch made it to Fashion street, where he crossed and stood under the lamp. He turns and they are approaching Fashion street, walking towards him.
You are trying to argue Kelly & Astrachan are way down by Thrawl, which is plainly not true.

When Hutch saw Kelly meet Astrachan, they were all on the same block, less than 150 ft apart, and they all walked north. So at no point are they any further apart than 150 ft., in fact they were likely much closer than that.

This is just plain math, the only assumption being made here is, they walked at the same pace. We cannot know this of course, but as Hutch was suspicious, it would make no sense at all for him to walk faster away from them. So, as he was intrigued, he would keep pace with whatever speed they were walking.

----

This all began with Hutch walking north, and "approaching" F & Dean when he met Kelly, he was some distance south of F & Dean.
That block is 150 ft long, so Hutch is less than 150 ft from Thrawl.

Kelly left Hutch, and walked towards Thrawl, the man who had been stood at Thrawl, came towards Kelly.
So, as the block is 150 ft long, all three of these characters are within 150 ft - pick a number, 120 ft, 100 ft, 80 ft? - who cares, it wasn't foggy, they could see each other clearly enough.
Now, after Kelly met Astrachan, they turned towards Hutch, and Hutch turned towards F & Dean, to walk in the same direction they are coming.
So, in a manner of speaking they are all walking together some distance (80, 100, 120 ft?) apart until Hutch reached Fashion st. and stopped under the lamp at the Queens Head.

You have no argument, Hutch can see them plainly.

Simple question...have you been to the location of The Queen's Head pub in person?

[Curious Cat]

exactly curious.
ive mentioned this before. you either recognize someone or you dont. especially after learning she was killed that night he would have made sure it was him, followed him. something. this wishy washy statement is another one thats odd to me.
as is him telling the press that he actually went and stood by kellys door after her and aman went inside. an important detail he left out of his police testimony because it shows that he actually knew where she lived.

Absolutely.

When you look at the statements objectively you can see the patterns and crossovers.

[Curious Cat]

As everybody thought the murder occurred after 9:00 am Friday, what reason would Hutch have to read the weekend papers?

After the inquest, we only have the Star, which didn't print Sarah Lewis's testimony, and the Echo, who's reporter stayed til the end of the inquest so likely was only in a late evening edition. Hutch may have even been sat with police when that edition came out.

What was in the Star was the subheading THE MURDERER DESCRIBED, which recounted Cox's testimony.
Hutch would have known that header was false, he saw her two hours later than Cox, so he goes to police.

He doesn't say he went to the police because he saw that headline in the paper. He says he went to the police after being advised to by a fellow lodger.

How could you possibly know he hadn't read any papers over the weekend?