George Hutchinson Revisited

[Wickerman]

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.

I had another go at creating a view down Commercial St. from the edge of the pavement where a street lamp would have been.
In these views it looks like a large black rubbish bin is pretty well on the spot.



The girl? is stepping on the modern pavement, the older pavement is still visible another foot or more inside.



Standing on the spot where that black rubbish bin is gives a better view down Commercial St., but there's a traffic light in front of it.

So if that rubbish bin was on the spot of the old street lamp, at the edge of the kerb where they always are, he would be stood "on the corner", "against the lamp", and "near the pub", all points where he said he was in his statements.

[etenguy]

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?

Hi Wickerman

I agree that there is a timeline of events that explains why Hutchinson went to the police when he did. We can't know that is what happened but it is plausible. But with regards to your question about why we might question he did not go earlier, I think it is right to question that. You are correct that Hutchinson had good reason to think the murder happened at or after 9.00am originally. Nevertheless, he saw Kelly with a man who stayed in her room until at least 3.00am and for all Hutchinson knew stayed overnight. Surely he would have thought the police would be interested in that - particularly since Hutchinson himself says he was so taken by the man that he followed and waited outside for nearly an hour.

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.

I cannot think why Hutchinson might want to concoct his story. But if such a reason did exist, what better way to devise a story than borrow details from others' stories to give it some credibility and make it seem real. Everything of substance in his story, appears in others' stories that are in the press and/or told at the inquest ahead of Hutchinson giving his statement. I simply noticed the resemblance and remark on it but have no theory attaching to it.

[etenguy]

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.

Hi Curious Cat

There are certainly some clear similarities between the press reports/inquest statement and Hutchinson's story which it is interesting to note. Of course, it may simply be because Hutchinson's story is true and it dovetails with other witness statements. But one detail in particular, MJK asking for sixpence, just made me sit up and say, what a coincidence. Having done that, I then thought, actually everything of substance in Hutchinson's statement was out there before he made his statement. That might not be too concerning, but it is interesting to note.

[caz]

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.

Did Hutch actually say that he watched them when they were more than seconds away from him? Did he say how long he watched them before they passed by?

If not, I can't see your difficulty. He watched them as they approached him - even if they were only a few steps away when he first caught sight of them again.

[caz]

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?

A split regarding the possible suspects in no way amounts to one being completely discarded by anyone, just because another looks to them at the time like he could be a better bet.

The police were not total imbeciles.

[caz]

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.

And naturally, if he was watching and waiting for them to come into view, he'd have picked the best vantage point to stand.

Crikey, there may have been dozens of ways for Hutch not to have been able to see them until they were right under his nose, but why would anyone favour any one of those ways over what Hutch himself said was his experience? The fact that the geography allowed for him to have watched the couple as they drew near, exactly as he said he did, suggests he knew that and wasn't making it up because it happened to him.

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman

I agree that there is a timeline of events that explains why Hutchinson went to the police when he did. We can't know that is what happened but it is plausible. But with regards to your question about why we might question he did not go earlier, I think it is right to question that.

True, I've never suggested it was wrong to question it. My position has always been there is a reasonable answer.
Those who raise that question only consider a clandestine answer, they are not interested in the fact there is a reasonable solution. They are only interested in condemning the man.

You are correct that Hutchinson had good reason to think the murder happened at or after 9.00am originally. Nevertheless, he saw Kelly with a man who stayed in her room until at least 3.00am and for all Hutchinson knew stayed overnight. Surely he would have thought the police would be interested in that - particularly since Hutchinson himself says he was so taken by the man that he followed and waited outside for nearly an hour.

You think the police would be interested in who Kelly was with between 2:00-3:00 am, when she was seen by several people alive & walking the streets between 8:30 - 10:00 am, or thereabouts?
What would the relevance be to her murder after 10:00 am?

I cannot think why Hutchinson might want to concoct his story. But if such a reason did exist, what better way to devise a story than borrow details from others' stories to give it some credibility and make it seem real. Everything of substance in his story, appears in others' stories that are in the press and/or told at the inquest ahead of Hutchinson giving his statement. I simply noticed the resemblance and remark on it but have no theory attaching to it.

"Everything of substance"?
The theory is not new, another poster some years back was quite insistent that he purloined certain details from press stories.
We went over a couple at the time and the phrases he was accused of stealing are everyday phrases in common use.
I recall you mentioning a couple some days ago, maybe we should devote a thread to this theory and deal with each point separately?

One of the problems with this theory is, the statement he gave to police are just as likely to be the words of Sgt. Badham who took down his story. The police are allowed to condense the words of a witness to save space & time, so long as they do not change anything.

The common layperson doesn't always think clinically like an investigator, some tend to ramble and mention details that are not legally relevant. Also, these statements are taken with a view to an eventual trial where an accused is charged with a murder. The last thing a court needs to hear is some disjointed rambling sequence of unconnected statements. So, some control must be exercised by the officer, or the journalist in a press interview for that matter.

So, if the phrases are not entirely Hutchinson's own, then the argument collapses wouldn't you think?

[caz]

Hi Curious Cat

There are certainly some clear similarities between the press reports/inquest statement and Hutchinson's story which it is interesting to note. Of course, it may simply be because Hutchinson's story is true and it dovetails with other witness statements. But one detail in particular, MJK asking for sixpence, just made me sit up and say, what a coincidence. Having done that, I then thought, actually everything of substance in Hutchinson's statement was out there before he made his statement. That might not be too concerning, but it is interesting to note.

I would imagine, if MJK asked anyone for sixpence, they would not be the only person she had ever asked for sixpence. A beggar will ask for what they think they might get, so sixpence might have been her usual opening gambit. I don't think it necessarily indicates that Hutch was poring over other witness accounts and pinching details verbatim. Why not be more original and claim she'd asked to borrow a shilling from him?

Love,

Caz
X

[etenguy]

And naturally, if he was watching and waiting for them to come into view, he'd have picked the best vantage point to stand.

Crikey, there may have been dozens of ways for Hutch not to have been able to see them until they were right under his nose, but why would anyone favour any one of those ways over what Hutch himself said was his experience? The fact that the geography allowed for him to have watched the couple as they drew near, exactly as he said he did, suggests he knew that and wasn't making it up because it happened to him.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

I have to agree with your substantive point, that Hutchinson would have been able to see Kelly and Astrakhan man based on what he says in his statement. I tend to think it more likely that Hutchinson is telling his truth rather than has manufactured the story. But I would be less bullish in concluding that since the geography allows for the story to be true that it necessarily is.

Hutchinson, though, is not a straight-forward witness - the behaviour he describes is a little odd, as is his reason for being interested in the man with with Kelly. He can provide such a detailed description of the man because he says ne positioned himself by a lamp and then stooped and looked up at the man's face. If this did happen, then I think he was inviting a violent reaction from the man but perhaps he was exaggerating what actually happened - which might mean we need to take some of the detail of his description with some caution.

[etenguy]

So, if the phrases are not entirely Hutchinson's own, then the argument collapses wouldn't you think?

Hi Wickerman

I was less concerned about the phraseology than the substance, but since raising the notion, others have noted the actual phraseology was similar - I have not compared at that level of detail.

I don't think the argument collapses on phraseology not being aligned- in fact I'm not sure there is an argument there even. The evidence is that the main elements of Hutchinson's story was public from others before he went to the police and made his statement. This allows him, if he was so motivated, to borrow those elements to form a manufactured story. I am not saying this is what he did, but noting the possibility. Of course, if his story is true, then you would expect some details to be the same as from other witnesses so it may not be anything to be concerned about - and may be a bit circular. If his statement had been made earlier, before Sarah Lewis's evidence, the two would support each other. As it stands it is possible one story inspired the other.

[etenguy]

I would imagine, if MJK asked anyone for sixpence, they would not be the only person she had ever asked for sixpence. A beggar will ask for what they think they might get, so sixpence might have been her usual opening gambit. I don't think it necessarily indicates that Hutch was poring over other witness accounts and pinching details verbatim. Why not be more original and claim she'd asked to borrow a shilling from him?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

Good point and as you say, it certainly does not prove Hutchinson pored over other witness accounts. The similarities may be exactly what we might expect if he was telling the truth. I'm not sure why the asking for sixpence resonated with me - it just caught my eye and is why I considered what was public before Hutchinson made his statement.

I think, though, if for some unknown reason he was making up his story, he would probably keep the details as similar as possible rather than be too creative, in order to provide a greater sense of verisimilitude.

[Wickerman]

... He can provide such a detailed description of the man because he says ne positioned himself by a lamp and then stooped and looked up at the man's face.

If you recall, Hutch said he first noticed the man standing at Thrawl st. as he approached from Whitechapel Rd.

- He then stood with Kelly just before Flower & Dean and watched her walk towards Thrawl, but also see the man come towards Kelly. Their distance from each other was less than 140 ft (the actual length of the block).

- Whether Hutch turned to look behind him at all as all three of them walked up Commercial st. will never be known.

- He then waited under a lamp for them to pass him on their way to Dorset St.

- Hutch apparently walked down Dorset St. on the south side and stood opposite them as Kelly & Astrachan exchanged words.

So we see at least four occasions when Hutch had the opportunity to take in his physical appearance.
It wasn't just one fleeting glance.

If this did happen, then I think he was inviting a violent reaction from the man but perhaps he was exaggerating what actually happened - which might mean we need to take some of the detail of his description with some caution.

If Hutch was in the habit of mugging his victims then of course he will have an eye for detail, sizing him up for what was worth snatching. He may have been weighing up his worth.

[Abby Normal]

If you recall, Hutch said he first noticed the man standing at Thrawl st. as he approached from Whitechapel Rd.

- He then stood with Kelly just before Flower & Dean and watched her walk towards Thrawl, but also see the man come towards Kelly. Their distance from each other was less than 140 ft (the actual length of the block).

- Whether Hutch turned to look behind him at all as all three of them walked up Commercial st. will never be known.

- He then waited under a lamp for them to pass him on their way to Dorset St.

- Hutch apparently walked down Dorset St. on the south side and stood opposite them as Kelly & Astrachan exchanged words.

So we see at least four occasions when Hutch had the opportunity to take in his physical appearance.
It wasn't just one fleeting glance.



If Hutch was in the habit of mugging his victims then of course he will have an eye for detail, sizing him up for what was worth snatching. He may have been weighing up his worth.

something amiss with hutch. no other witness has this type of deal going on.

[Wickerman]

I think, though, if for some unknown reason he was making up his story, he would probably keep the details as similar as possible rather than be too creative, in order to provide a greater sense of verisimilitude.

Ah, tone it down you mean, yes of course.

Like only give the suspect a dark moustache turned up at the ends, a long dark coat trimmed with astrachan, a white collar and horseshoe tie pin, dark spats with light buttons, a waistcoat with gold watch chain with a big red seal, brown kid gloves & a red handkerchief.

Right, keep it subtle, not too ostentatious.

I don't recall any article in the weekend papers offering a description along those lines.

[etenguy]

If you recall, Hutch said he first noticed the man standing at Thrawl st. as he approached from Whitechapel Rd.

- He then stood with Kelly just before Flower & Dean and watched her walk towards Thrawl, but also see the man come towards Kelly. Their distance from each other was less than 140 ft (the actual length of the block).

- Whether Hutch turned to look behind him at all as all three of them walked up Commercial st. will never be known.

- He then waited under a lamp for them to pass him on their way to Dorset St.

- Hutch apparently walked down Dorset St. on the south side and stood opposite them as Kelly & Astrachan exchanged words.

So we see at least four occasions when Hutch had the opportunity to take in his physical appearance.
It wasn't just one fleeting glance.

Hi Wickerman

I agree with you, the point I was making was regarding that part of his statement which read

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.

This is Hutchinson trying to get a good look at his face, so I assume he didn't see his face clearly earlier - this was a deliberate act to get a look and from this then is where I assume the description of Astrakhan man's face derived. This act must have been observed by Astrakhan man and so hence my suggestion that Hutchinson was inviting an angry response by so obviously staring at his face. If someone did that to me in the street - daytime or nighttime, I would certainly react. Especially so since the man seems to be deliberately hiding his face. So I wondered if actually Hutchinson was a little more subtle than he describes and hence did not get quite the good look at the man's face he claims.

If Hutch was in the habit of mugging his victims then of course he will have an eye for detail, sizing him up for what was worth snatching. He may have been weighing up his worth.

I don't question that Hutchinson might have had good reason for wanting to observe the man.