George Hutchinson Revisited

[Wickerman]

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

I have no issue with your claim, that is not the point, but a simple answer is yes, twice.

I take issue with this, from your post #84:
"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."

He was not standing by the Queens Head to watch them walk from Thrawl. He was on the same block, just short of F & Dean when they began to walk towards him.
This is why your claim above is irrelevant.

[Wickerman]

On Commercial St. the block between F & Dean and Thrawl is barely 150 ft long.

Here, including the scale at bottom.

[Wickerman]

Hutchinson (red) walking up Commercial meets Kelly (Green) walking down.
He meets her just short of F & Dean, while Astrachan (black) was standing in Thrawl St.




Hutch talks with Kelly, then she walks off towards Thrawl.
Hutch see's Astrachan walk towards her.




Hutch watched them both meet, and turn to walk towards him.
Hutch continues to walk up Commercial.




As we can see the figures are barely 100 ft apart.
Hutch remains the same distance ahead of them.




Hutch reached No, 74 Commercial St., The Queens Head.
He stands under the lamp as they walk towards him.


So we can see Kelly and Astrachan are roughly outside No. 68, while Hutch is at No. 74.

He never was standing at the Queens Head watching them walk from Thrawl - as you claimed.

[Wickerman]

This is the view today.



All in plain sight of each other.

[caz]

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.

Hi Jon,

I don't get why there is any confusion about this. A witness account describing a potential murder suspect won't be discredited, dismissed or forgotten about until the man described can be identified and ruled out of the investigation. Before that, it's not a question of a show of hands to see whose sighting is considered a stronger one, and then dismissing any and all other different sightings. Few murders would ever get solved if they could only investigate one sighting at a time, on an either/or basis.

I get the feeling some people have the police of 1888 down as a bunch of brainless twits.

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

The view today from directly outside No. 74 Commercial st. which was The Queens Head.
Coincidentally, circled in red we have two people coming towards us reasonably close to where I placed Kelly & Astrachan.

[Curious Cat]

Hutchinson (red) walking up Commercial meets Kelly (Green) walking down.
He meets her just short of F & Dean, while Astrachan (black) was standing in Thrawl St.




Hutch talks with Kelly, then she walks off towards Thrawl.
Hutch see's Astrachan walk towards her.




Hutch watched them both meet, and turn to walk towards him.
Hutch continues to walk up Commercial.




As we can see the figures are barely 100 ft apart.
Hutch remains the same distance ahead of them.




Hutch reached No, 74 Commercial St., The Queens Head.
He stands under the lamp as they walk towards him.


So we can see Kelly and Astrachan are roughly outside No. 68, while Hutch is at No. 74.

He never was standing at the Queens Head watching them walk from Thrawl - as you claimed.

I didn't say he watched them walking from Trawl Street when stood at the lamp by The Queen's Head. I said he wouldn't be able to see them between Thrawl Street and Flower and Dean Street. They could've been closer to Trawl Street than he was or closer to Flower and Dean Street than he was when he reached The Queen's Head. He would only have been able to 'watch' them from the lamp when they were seconds away from approaching him to pass by.

How do you know Mary Kelly and Astrakhan were 100ft from Hutchinson at that point? Hutchinson would have had his back to them. How do you know they didn't briefly stop at Flower and Dean Street, extending the distance between them and Hutchinson as he continued on to The Queen's Head? How can you be so sure about these distances? How do you know exactly where they were when Hutchinson took up his position at the lamp?

None of these dots on the map convey what can be seen on the ground. For one thing you have Astrakhan in the middle of the road rather than on the pavement. When I was down there I observed that I could not see much beyond the corner of Fashion Street to the south. Could you see down to the corner of Lolesworth Close (Flower and Dean Street) when you were down there?

It's my perspective. It's my observation. It's what leads me to just one of my doubts about the veracity of Hutchinson's account. You don't have to agree with me but you are in no position to suggest it's either irrelevant or invalid.

[caz]

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?

So merely by favouring one potential suspect over another, without even having identified him, you really think the police would automatically have dismissed the less favoured one because he had to be innocent if they turned out to be right about the more favoured one? So if Mr Blotchy had been tracked down and eliminated, what then? Go back to Hutch and apologise for discrediting his account prematurely? Whatever happened to keeping one's options open?

Love,

Caz
X

[Curious Cat]

The view today from directly outside No. 74 Commercial st. which was The Queens Head.
Coincidentally, circled in red we have two people coming towards us reasonably close to where I placed Kelly & Astrachan.

That view is from the road.

Go to the junction of Fashion Street and spin round. See what you see there.

[Curious Cat]

So merely by favouring one potential suspect over another, without even having identified him, you really think the police would automatically have dismissed the less favoured one because he had to be innocent if they turned out to be right about the more favoured one? So if Mr Blotchy had been tracked down and eliminated, what then? Go back to Hutch and apologise for discrediting his account prematurely? Whatever happened to keeping one's options open?

Love,

Caz
X

I put that forward as a possibility, not an absolute definite event to the exclusion of others. If some of the police were discrediting Hutchinson's account then a reason could be was that they favoured Blotchy as a suspect and so automatically put Hutchinson's account to the side. As Wickerman has already pointed out, there was a split within the investigation regarding the possible suspects.

Did they find Blotchy?

Did they find Astrakhan?

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I don't get why there is any confusion about this. A witness account describing a potential murder suspect won't be discredited, dismissed or forgotten about until the man described can be identified and ruled out of the investigation. Before that, it's not a question of a show of hands to see whose sighting is considered a stronger one, and then dismissing any and all other different sightings. Few murders would ever get solved if they could only investigate one sighting at a time, on an either/or basis.

I get the feeling some people have the police of 1888 down as a bunch of brainless twits.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz.

Their sole intent is to cast Hutchinson in a suspicious light. Their arguments do not need to make sense in the wider world beyond this forum, or with people who have a better understanding.
They seem to think if another suspect is investigated, the previous one must have been discredited, they have no idea how Scotland Yard functions, but they don't care either.
So long as they can come up with something to criticize Hutchinson with, they'll keep repeating the same nonsense.

[Wickerman]

I didn't say he watched them walking from Trawl Street when stood at the lamp by The Queen's Head.

Didn't you write this?
"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."

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/witnesses/hutchinson-george-aa/759148-george-hutchinson-revisited?p=759562#post759562

I said he wouldn't be able to see them between Thrawl Street and Flower and Dean Street.

So now I hope you understand Hutch was not AT the Queens Head when Kelly & Astrachan were walking between Thrawl & F & Dean.
He was there on the same block with them.

They could've been closer to Trawl Street than he was or closer to Flower and Dean Street than he was when he reached The Queen's Head.

Why?
Why would he change the distance between himself & them, when he was clearly intrigued by Astrachan, and they were all walking in the same direction?

He would only have been able to 'watch' them from the lamp when they were seconds away from approaching him to pass by.

Sure, they would have been roughly outside No.68 when he stopped by No.74.

How do you know Mary Kelly and Astrakhan were 100ft from Hutchinson at that point?

I didn't say "know", but I've already explained that, maybe you didn't read the posts?

Hutchinson would have had his back to them. How do you know they didn't briefly stop at Flower and Dean Street, extending the distance between them and Hutchinson as he continued on to The Queen's Head? How can you be so sure about these distances? How do you know exactly where they were when Hutchinson took up his position at the lamp?

Go ahead, invent anything you can to substantiate your argument. We started out by using Hutchinson's words, now you want to throw in details he didn't say because your argument has collapsed.
Go ahead, make anything up you want, it's what all the other Hutchinson critics do.

None of these dots on the map convey what can be seen on the ground. For one thing you have Astrakhan in the middle of the road rather than on the pavement. When I was down there I observed that I could not see much beyond the corner of Fashion Street to the south. Could you see down to the corner of Lolesworth Close (Flower and Dean Street) when you were down there?

Ah, so now the size on the dots are a problem.
How do you know they walked on the pavement?, Hutch didn't mention carriages passing, so why not walk in the road?
It's not like they will be run down at 2:00 in the morning, and less chance of being surprised by a mugger jumping out from a doorway.

It's my perspective. It's my observation. It's what leads me to just one of my doubts about the veracity of Hutchinson's account. You don't have to agree with me but you are in no position to suggest it's either irrelevant or invalid.

I have not questioned your point of view. I questioned the fact you have not related the sequence of events as Hutchinson described them.

[Wickerman]

That view is from the road.

Go to the junction of Fashion Street and spin round. See what you see there.

Yes, I couldn't get Street View onto the pavement

In his police statement Hutch only says "I stood against the lamp of the Queens Head", not under the lamp.

In the press interview he says "I walked on to the corner of Fashion street, near the public house"

We don't know if there was a lamp hanging from the pub wall, but as he doesn't say "under", but only "against", the likelyhood is he was standing by a streetlamp. And in those cases street lamps are out on the edge of the pavement, right beside the road.
So, if the pavement is 5 ft wide, then the lamp was 5 ft away from the pub.
Which is consistent with his press interview where he says "on the corner", and "near the pub".

All these points considered it looks like Hutchinson was standing several feet away from the pub wall.
How can you disagree with that?, and as a consequence, he would be able to see down Commercial street a bit further than you assumed.

[Wickerman]

exactly curious.
ive mentioned this before. you either recognize someone or you dont.

The man might have had his back to him, not being able to get a good frontal view.
I'm assuming Hutchinson is working at the market, its busy & crowded, and he can't just leave and run after someone of the off-chance, he has a job to do.

.......especially after learning she was killed that night he would have made sure it was him, followed him.

Fair enough, but when did he learn the murder happened?
Like everyone else, he may have believed the papers that she was killed after 9:00 am on that Friday.
He may not have learned the revised theory (in Lloyds Weekly News) until he got back to his lodgings on Sunday, and read about it, we just don't know.

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.

He's already placed himself at the murder scene, what is so incriminating about admitting he stood outside her room in the court?
The police can still haul him in for admitting something incriminating to the press. It's not like he gets off scott free because he incriminates himself to the newspapers.
The police read the papers too.

[caz]

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.

Hi Abby,

Hutch volunteered his statement to the police, so if he had deliberately omitted an important detail like this, because he was directly or indirectly involved in the murder, or feared becoming a suspect himself, how stupid would he have had to be to reveal that important detail to a newspaper? And how stupid would the police have had to be, not to pick up on it and question him on this very point?

I have to admit that I see no possible advantage for Hutch in coming forward at all, if he was guilty of anything more serious than hoping to mug Del Boy or stay the night with Kelly. And no good reason to invent the whole thing, drawing needless attention to his own movements and motives, if he was entirely innocent.

It's like Schwartz all over again. We are meant to be looking for potential suspects - not accusing every other witness of being lying bar stewards, covering their own behinds. Funny how it's only the male witnesses who are suspected of lies at best and murder at worst, almost at the drop of a hat, if the slightest fault can be found - or imagined - with their account, even though the female witnesses were no less fallible.

Love,

Caz
X