George Hutchinson Revisited

[GBinOz]

hi craig and wick

the BGB/BM (bethnal green botherer/brittania man) is a very intriguing suspect IMHO:
he generally fits the description of other witnesses
hes accosting women and trying to get them to a secluded place
hes frightening women
hes carrying a knife size parcel (smiths man and others)
he has a taunting/threatening/ teasing way of speaking-Marshalls man-"you would say anything but your prayers" ...Lewis-"something the ladies dont like"
hes around at the time of kellys murder (whether you beleive in a kennedy or not)- Did he follow sarah lewis to millers court??

Also, kennedy said she saw kelly with him at 3:00. Dosnt this cast doubt on hutchs statement? according to hutch isnt she still in her room with A man?
could hutch have read about the accounts about BGB/BM and partially used him in his fake Aman account???

what say you intrepid CB detectives?

Hi Craig, Wick and Abby,

This is from the Daily Telegraph dated 6 Oct 1888:

SKETCH PORTRAITS OF THE SUPPOSED MURDERER.
[Two sketches]

The next portion of this issue's report from "The above sketches…" to "…for rain was falling at the time." is reproduced in "News from Whitechapel" pages 124 - 126. Immediately following that on from that portion, the Telegraph reported:

It is a remarkable circumstance - much more than an ordinary coincidence - that the description of the supposed murderer given by Packer was yesterday confirmed by another man who, without being aware of the fact, also chose from the sketches the one which had been already selected by Packer. Search for an individual answering to the description above detailed, but having a small moustache and wearing a black deerstalker felt hat, instead of a soft one, has been made by the police in Whitechapel ever since Saturday, Sept. 1, the day following the Buck's-row tragedy. Information was tendered at the King David's-lane Police Station, at about that time, by a dairyman who has a place of business in Little Turner-street, Commercial-road. It will be recollected that on Saturday, Sept. 1, a desperate assault was reported to have been committed near to the music-hall in Cambridge-heath-road, a man having seized a woman by the throat and dragged her down a court, where he was joined by a gang, one of whom laid a knife across the woman's throat, remarking "we will serve you as we did the others." The particulars of this affair were subsequently stated to be untrue; but the milkman has reason to suppose that the outrage was actually perpetrated, and he suspects that the murderer of Mary Ann Nicholls in Buck's-row had something to do with it. At any rate, upon that Saturday night, at five minutes to eleven o'clock, a man corresponding with the description given by Packer of the individual who purchased the grapes in Berner-street, called at the shop, which is on the left of a covered yard, usually occupied by barrows, which are let out on hire. He was in a hurry, and he asked for a pennyworth of milk, with which he was served, and he drank it down at a gulp. Asking permission to go into the yard or shed, he went there, but the dairyman caught a glimpse of something white, and, having suspicions, he rejoined the man in the shed, and was surprised to observe that he had covered up his trousers with a pair of white over-alls, such as engineers wear. The man had a staring look, and appeared greatly agitated. He made a movement forward, and the brim of his hard felt hat struck the dairyman, who is therefore sure of the kind that he was wearing. In a hurried manner the stranger took out of a black shiny bag, which was on the ground, a white jacket and rapidly put it on, completely hiding his cutaway black coat, remarking meanwhile, "It's a dreadful murder, isn't it?" although the subject had not been previously mentioned. Without making a pause the suspicious person caught up his bag, which was still open, and rushed into the street, towards Shadwell, saying, "I think I've got a clue!" The matter was reported to the police, and although strict watch has been maintained for the reappearance of the man he has not been seen in the street since. He is said to have had a dark complexion, such as a seafaring man acquires. The style of collar that he was then wearing was of the turn-down pattern. He had no marked American accent, and his general appearance was that of a clerk or student whose beard had been allowed three days' growth. His hair was dark, and his eyes large and staring. The portrait gives, according to the statement of the witness, a good approximate idea of his look. The bag carried by the young man, whose age the dairyman places at twenty-eight, is stated to have been provided with a lock at the top, near the handle, and was made, as stated, of a black glistening material.

Immediately following on from the above, the next portion of this issue's report from "In connection with…" to "…the morning of the murder in Berner-street." is reproduced in "News from Whitechapel" page 126. Immediately following that portion the Telegraph reported:

Albert Bachert, of 13, Newnham-street, Whitechapel, has also stated: "On Saturday night at about seven minutes to twelve I entered the Three Nuns Hotel, Aldgate. While in there an elderly woman, very shabbily dressed, came in and asked me to buy some matches. I refused, and she went out. A man who had been standing by me remarked that those persons were a nuisance, to which I responded 'Yes.' He then asked me to have a glass with him, but I refused, as I had just called for one myself. He then asked me if I knew how old some of the women were who were in the habit of soliciting outside. I replied that I knew or thought that some of them who looked about 25 were over 35, the reason they looked younger being on account of the powder and paint. He asked me if I could tell him where they usually visited, and I replied that I had heard that some went to places in Oxford-street, Whitechapel, others to some houses in Whitechapel-road, and others to Bishopsgate-street. Having asked other questions about their habits, he went outside and spoke to the woman who was selling matches, and gave her something, I believe. He returned to me, and I bid him good-night at about ten minutes past twelve. I believe the woman was waiting for him. I do not think I could identify the woman, as I did not take particular notice of her, but I should know the man again. He was a dark man, height about 5ft. 6in. or 7in. He wore a black felt hat, dark clothes, morning coat, black tie, and carried a black shiny bag."

There is one striking point in Bachert's narration. His interrogator appears to have asked him particularly about the age of the women outside. Hitherto it has been singular that none of the victims were young women, all of them having been over forty years of age. With respect to the age of their assailant the witnesses differ, but the police in connection with the Berner-street tragedy circulate the following description of a man "wanted," as having been seen in the company of the deceased during the Saturday evening: "Age twenty-eight; slight; height 5ft. 8in.; complexion dark; no whiskers; black diagonal coat, hard felt hat; collar and tie; carried newspaper parcel; respectable appearance." The age, twenty-eight, herein named, is favoured by two witnesses, whilst Bachert thinks he was a little older, and, assuming that the same man was also seen by Mrs. Long, who gave evidence at the Hanbury-street inquest, he must have been forty. In the interval he may have taken pains to alter his personal appearance by shaving, so as to elude detection. Mrs. Long is the person who saw Annie Chapman in Hanbury-street shortly before her death, and at that time, 5.30 a.m. on Sept. 8, she was talking to a dark man, who was wearing a "brown low-crowned felt hat, and who had the appearance of a 'shabby genteel' foreigner." A thoroughly practical suggestion has been made for the Scotland-yard authorities to adopt. In their possession at Whitehall they have some thousands of photographs of criminals, with full particulars concerning their convictions. These are kept bound in registers, which can be consulted easily. If the witnesses who are believed to have seen the Whitechapel murderer were permitted to examine these records one or other of them might possibly find a face which would serve to identify the suspect, and, if not, the fact might be presumptively established that the detectives need not look for the man in the ranks of recognised criminals.

Cheers, George

[Abby Normal]

Hi Craig, Wick and Abby,

This is from the Daily Telegraph dated 6 Oct 1888:

SKETCH PORTRAITS OF THE SUPPOSED MURDERER.
[Two sketches]

The next portion of this issue's report from "The above sketches…" to "…for rain was falling at the time." is reproduced in "News from Whitechapel" pages 124 - 126. Immediately following that on from that portion, the Telegraph reported:

It is a remarkable circumstance - much more than an ordinary coincidence - that the description of the supposed murderer given by Packer was yesterday confirmed by another man who, without being aware of the fact, also chose from the sketches the one which had been already selected by Packer. Search for an individual answering to the description above detailed, but having a small moustache and wearing a black deerstalker felt hat, instead of a soft one, has been made by the police in Whitechapel ever since Saturday, Sept. 1, the day following the Buck's-row tragedy. Information was tendered at the King David's-lane Police Station, at about that time, by a dairyman who has a place of business in Little Turner-street, Commercial-road. It will be recollected that on Saturday, Sept. 1, a desperate assault was reported to have been committed near to the music-hall in Cambridge-heath-road, a man having seized a woman by the throat and dragged her down a court, where he was joined by a gang, one of whom laid a knife across the woman's throat, remarking "we will serve you as we did the others." The particulars of this affair were subsequently stated to be untrue; but the milkman has reason to suppose that the outrage was actually perpetrated, and he suspects that the murderer of Mary Ann Nicholls in Buck's-row had something to do with it. At any rate, upon that Saturday night, at five minutes to eleven o'clock, a man corresponding with the description given by Packer of the individual who purchased the grapes in Berner-street, called at the shop, which is on the left of a covered yard, usually occupied by barrows, which are let out on hire. He was in a hurry, and he asked for a pennyworth of milk, with which he was served, and he drank it down at a gulp. Asking permission to go into the yard or shed, he went there, but the dairyman caught a glimpse of something white, and, having suspicions, he rejoined the man in the shed, and was surprised to observe that he had covered up his trousers with a pair of white over-alls, such as engineers wear. The man had a staring look, and appeared greatly agitated. He made a movement forward, and the brim of his hard felt hat struck the dairyman, who is therefore sure of the kind that he was wearing. In a hurried manner the stranger took out of a black shiny bag, which was on the ground, a white jacket and rapidly put it on, completely hiding his cutaway black coat, remarking meanwhile, "It's a dreadful murder, isn't it?" although the subject had not been previously mentioned. Without making a pause the suspicious person caught up his bag, which was still open, and rushed into the street, towards Shadwell, saying, "I think I've got a clue!" The matter was reported to the police, and although strict watch has been maintained for the reappearance of the man he has not been seen in the street since. He is said to have had a dark complexion, such as a seafaring man acquires. The style of collar that he was then wearing was of the turn-down pattern. He had no marked American accent, and his general appearance was that of a clerk or student whose beard had been allowed three days' growth. His hair was dark, and his eyes large and staring. The portrait gives, according to the statement of the witness, a good approximate idea of his look. The bag carried by the young man, whose age the dairyman places at twenty-eight, is stated to have been provided with a lock at the top, near the handle, and was made, as stated, of a black glistening material.

Immediately following on from the above, the next portion of this issue's report from "In connection with…" to "…the morning of the murder in Berner-street." is reproduced in "News from Whitechapel" page 126. Immediately following that portion the Telegraph reported:

Albert Bachert, of 13, Newnham-street, Whitechapel, has also stated: "On Saturday night at about seven minutes to twelve I entered the Three Nuns Hotel, Aldgate. While in there an elderly woman, very shabbily dressed, came in and asked me to buy some matches. I refused, and she went out. A man who had been standing by me remarked that those persons were a nuisance, to which I responded 'Yes.' He then asked me to have a glass with him, but I refused, as I had just called for one myself. He then asked me if I knew how old some of the women were who were in the habit of soliciting outside. I replied that I knew or thought that some of them who looked about 25 were over 35, the reason they looked younger being on account of the powder and paint. He asked me if I could tell him where they usually visited, and I replied that I had heard that some went to places in Oxford-street, Whitechapel, others to some houses in Whitechapel-road, and others to Bishopsgate-street. Having asked other questions about their habits, he went outside and spoke to the woman who was selling matches, and gave her something, I believe. He returned to me, and I bid him good-night at about ten minutes past twelve. I believe the woman was waiting for him. I do not think I could identify the woman, as I did not take particular notice of her, but I should know the man again. He was a dark man, height about 5ft. 6in. or 7in. He wore a black felt hat, dark clothes, morning coat, black tie, and carried a black shiny bag."

There is one striking point in Bachert's narration. His interrogator appears to have asked him particularly about the age of the women outside. Hitherto it has been singular that none of the victims were young women, all of them having been over forty years of age. With respect to the age of their assailant the witnesses differ, but the police in connection with the Berner-street tragedy circulate the following description of a man "wanted," as having been seen in the company of the deceased during the Saturday evening: "Age twenty-eight; slight; height 5ft. 8in.; complexion dark; no whiskers; black diagonal coat, hard felt hat; collar and tie; carried newspaper parcel; respectable appearance." The age, twenty-eight, herein named, is favoured by two witnesses, whilst Bachert thinks he was a little older, and, assuming that the same man was also seen by Mrs. Long, who gave evidence at the Hanbury-street inquest, he must have been forty. In the interval he may have taken pains to alter his personal appearance by shaving, so as to elude detection. Mrs. Long is the person who saw Annie Chapman in Hanbury-street shortly before her death, and at that time, 5.30 a.m. on Sept. 8, she was talking to a dark man, who was wearing a "brown low-crowned felt hat, and who had the appearance of a 'shabby genteel' foreigner." A thoroughly practical suggestion has been made for the Scotland-yard authorities to adopt. In their possession at Whitehall they have some thousands of photographs of criminals, with full particulars concerning their convictions. These are kept bound in registers, which can be consulted easily. If the witnesses who are believed to have seen the Whitechapel murderer were permitted to examine these records one or other of them might possibly find a face which would serve to identify the suspect, and, if not, the fact might be presumptively established that the detectives need not look for the man in the ranks of recognised criminals.

Cheers, George

hi gb
interesting but whats your point? that they resemble the bgb? please elaborate, im a little slow on the uptake.
re the photographs. ive often said the police should have photgraphed all the suspects AND the male witnesses who could have been the killer, like hutch lech bowyer etc., to also show other witnesses.

[GBinOz]

hi gb
interesting but whats your point? that they resemble the bgb? please elaborate, im a little slow on the uptake.

Hi Abby,

Point is that there are reports of a person of similar description, the staring eyes, hard felt deerstalker and shiny black bag, across the entire range of canonical victims. Pity there is no physical description of Kosminsky with which to make a comparison.

Cheers, George

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Point is that there are reports of a person of similar description, the staring eyes, hard felt deerstalker and shiny black bag, across the entire range of canonical victims. Pity there is no physical description of Kosminsky with which to make a comparison.

Cheers, George

ok thanks!

[Curious Cat]

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/rip...562#post759562



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.

My reply to this post a year ago was lost due to some technical burp that wiped the whole thing shortly before I was about to hit the send button. Goodness knows I wasn't going to type it all again so thought I'd get back to it at the weekend. 52 weekends later I've finally got round to it. And goodness knows again I'm not going through every point as I did last time. But I will clarify this one point.

By 'whole time' I was referring to when Hutchinson was leaning on the lamp post, not any stage he was at before taking up that position. In his statement Hutchinson suggests he watched Mary Kelly and the man she was with the whole time he was leaning against the lamp, which was outside The Queen's Head pub. I wasn't suggesting he was watching them the whole time they walked from the corner of Thrawl Street towards The Queen's Head pub. The opportunity to 'watch' them from this stationary position at the lamp is almost non-existent. They would have been in darkness until reaching the corner of Fashion Street. The lamp opposite Thrawl Street was too far away and the lamp in Flower & Dean Street was obscured. They would only have become visible to Hutchinson as they passed No.70 and came into the light of the very lamp he was leaning against outside The Queen's Head. Add that the angle of Commercial Street means he wouldn't have been able to see the corner of Flower & Dean Street even in full daylight from that position, he cannot have "watched" the man from any real distance for any significant time.

[Wickerman]

Would you mind pointing out where he said he "watched them the whole time"?

Also, you must have seen post #121 by now, apparently he had an unobstructed view down Commercial St. from that corner.

[Curious Cat]

Would you mind pointing out where he said he "watched them the whole time"?

Also, you must have seen post #121 by now, apparently he had an unobstructed view down Commercial St. from that corner.

I have never said Hutchinson said he, "watched them the whole time."

That's you misquoting.


I am saying that when he says he watched them that took place the whole time he was leaning against the lamp outside The Queen's Head. He sees Mary and the man before that point but it's when he's leaning against the lamp that Hutchinson says he watched them. He says he left them behind and walked north towards The Queen's Head while they were still between Thrawl Street and Flower & Dean Street. He leans against the lamp and then starts watching them. How? He wouldn't be able to see them as the angle doesn't allow him to see down to the corner of Flower & Dean Street. They would only come into view when they pretty much reached the corner of Fashion Street.

It's also worth noting that that section of Commercial Street would've been particularly badly lit due to the placement of the lamps. Despite Hutchinson being literally under a lamp, the angle would've left much of the section between Fashion Street and Flower & Dean Street in shadow, with other lamps being too far away to significantly illuminate it. Again, it would only be the corner of Fashion Street that would have any decent illumination. Think how dark a section of street or road is when just one modern day lamp isn't working despite other lamps being around. Now think about Victorian lamps. They would've been in virtual darkness for much of the section Hutchinson say he watched them.

So both the lack of visibility from the position of the lamp and the lack of light along that particular section of Commercial Street is what makes me doubt that part of Hutchinson's statement. Given it's a fairly important detail in the chronology of his account, if he's making this part up then why is he doing that?

There is also a switch in the chronology within his account between his police statement and what he tells the press the following day. First Hutchinson tells the police that the man approached Mary from Thrawl Street. However, he tells the press he saw the man before he had even reached Mary by Flower & Dean Street. So he acknowledged the man before either of them encountered Mary but gave the police the impression he first saw the man only after he had already spoken to Mary. Why change that detail?

[Abby Normal]

I have never said Hutchinson said he, "watched them the whole time."

That's you misquoting.


I am saying that when he says he watched them that took place the whole time he was leaning against the lamp outside The Queen's Head. He sees Mary and the man before that point but it's when he's leaning against the lamp that Hutchinson says he watched them. He says he left them behind and walked north towards The Queen's Head while they were still between Thrawl Street and Flower & Dean Street. He leans against the lamp and then starts watching them. How? He wouldn't be able to see them as the angle doesn't allow him to see down to the corner of Flower & Dean Street. They would only come into view when they pretty much reached the corner of Fashion Street.

It's also worth noting that that section of Commercial Street would've been particularly badly lit due to the placement of the lamps. Despite Hutchinson being literally under a lamp, the angle would've left much of the section between Fashion Street and Flower & Dean Street in shadow, with other lamps being too far away to significantly illuminate it. Again, it would only be the corner of Fashion Street that would have any decent illumination. Think how dark a section of street or road is when just one modern day lamp isn't working despite other lamps being around. Now think about Victorian lamps. They would've been in virtual darkness for much of the section Hutchinson say he watched them.

So both the lack of visibility from the position of the lamp and the lack of light along that particular section of Commercial Street is what makes me doubt that part of Hutchinson's statement. Given it's a fairly important detail in the chronology of his account, if he's making this part up then why is he doing that?

There is also a switch in the chronology within his account between his police statement and what he tells the press the following day. First Hutchinson tells the police that the man approached Mary from Thrawl Street. However, he tells the press he saw the man before he had even reached Mary by Flower & Dean Street. So he acknowledged the man before either of them encountered Mary but gave the police the impression he first saw the man only after he had already spoken to Mary. Why change that detail?

hey curious
i dont know why?

but speaking of changes between his press and police stories.. to me the most telling is he adds in his press story that he now goes and stands by marys window listening. why change that? its a major material difference. now admitting he actually knows where she lives, something he leaves out of the police account.

why change THAT? perhaps classic guilty behavior 101. changing your story placing yourself closer , because someone saw you and your afraid of being caught out in a lie.

[Curious Cat]

hey curious
i dont know why?

but speaking of changes between his press and police stories.. to me the most telling is he adds in his press story that he now goes and stands by marys window listening. why change that? its a major material difference. now admitting he actually knows where she lives, something he leaves out of the police account.

why change THAT? perhaps classic guilty behavior 101. changing your story placing yourself closer , because someone saw you and your afraid of being caught out in a lie.

Yes, I very briefly touched on that in my first post on the thread - post #22.

It's not explained how Hutchinson knew which of the residences within Miller's Court was where Mary lived. He says he's been in her company on a number of occasions, but perhaps the assumption there would be it was in places like the nearby pubs or in the street. Could Hutchinson have been to No.13 Miller's Court before the 9th November?

This also goes back to something I mentioned about Caroline Maxwell's statement. If you knew Joseph Barnett it wouldn't necessarily mean you also knew or even be aware of Mary Kelly, but if you knew Mary then you would at the very least be aware of Barnett and their relationship. Mary's contacts outside the immediate area of Dorset Street and Commercial Street appear to be non-existent. As Hutchinson claims to have known Mary quite well he must have at least already been well aware of who Barnett was. As such, it seems strange that there is apparently no approach by Hutchinson to Barnett in the 3 days after the murder to relay what he saw that morning. It takes talking to another bloke at his lodgings about it in passing that prompts him to suddenly give this crucial statement to the police.

[Abby Normal]

Yes, I very briefly touched on that in my first post on the thread - post #22.

It's not explained how Hutchinson knew which of the residences within Miller's Court was where Mary lived. He says he's been in her company on a number of occasions, but perhaps the assumption there would be it was in places like the nearby pubs or in the street. Could Hutchinson have been to No.13 Miller's Court before the 9th November?

This also goes back to something I mentioned about Caroline Maxwell's statement. If you knew Joseph Barnett it wouldn't necessarily mean you also knew or even be aware of Mary Kelly, but if you knew Mary then you would at the very least be aware of Barnett and their relationship. Mary's contacts outside the immediate area of Dorset Street and Commercial Street appear to be non-existent. As Hutchinson claims to have known Mary quite well he must have at least already been well aware of who Barnett was. As such, it seems strange that there is apparently no approach by Hutchinson to Barnett in the 3 days after the murder to relay what he saw that morning. It takes talking to another bloke at his lodgings about it in passing that prompts him to suddenly give this crucial statement to the police.

Hi Curious

He says he's been in her company on a number of occasions, but perhaps the assumption there would be it was in places like the nearby pubs or in the street. Could Hutchinson have been to No.13 Miller's Court before the 9th November?

I think its obvious he has. He said hes known her for several years, he sees her enter millers court, and that he stands outside her window listening. he already knows where she lives. the questions for me is why didnt he tell the police that? and whats he doing following her around, listening outside her window and then hanging around for almost an hour waiting for the man to leave?

one obvious answer is that he knew her and was the ripper and wants her to be his next victim.

This also goes back to something I mentioned about Caroline Maxwell's statement. If you knew Joseph Barnett it wouldn't necessarily mean you also knew or even be aware of Mary Kelly, but if you knew Mary then you would at the very least be aware of Barnett and their relationship. Mary's contacts outside the immediate area of Dorset Street and Commercial Street appear to be non-existent. As Hutchinson claims to have known Mary quite well he must have at least already been well aware of who Barnett was. As such, it seems strange that there is apparently no approach by Hutchinson to Barnett in the 3 days after the murder to relay what he saw that morning. It takes talking to another bloke at his lodgings about it in passing that prompts him to suddenly give this crucial statement to the police.

[/QUOTE]

exactly. heres a guy thats so interested in Mary, and apparently a "friend" , but waits three days, conveniently missing the inquest, before he goes to the police with what he saw? something is amiss with Hutch. very amiss.

[c.d.]

But are we to believe that absolutely none of these things aroused any suspicion by the police with regard to Hutchinson? Certainly possible but very hard to believe that they could have been so incredibly incompetent. And if they had suspicions, would they not have followed up on them as best they could?

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

But are we to believe that absolutely none of these things aroused any suspicion by the police with regard to Hutchinson? Certainly possible but very hard to believe that they could have been so incredibly incompetent. And if they had suspicions, would they not have followed up on them as best they could?

c.d.

hi cd
I beleive abberline may have been suspicious of him initially-as when he used the word "interrogated" to describe his questioning of him. but i see what youre saying- seems odd to me too. everything about the hutch affair seems odd. I can only posit that if he was the ripper he simply fooled the police.
But i dont think the police were incompetent, just inexperienced with serial killer cases.

[Wickerman]

I have never said Hutchinson said he, "watched them the whole time."

That's you misquoting.

Well, let me remind you verbatim what YOU claimed Hutchinson said.

"....In his statement Hutchinson suggests he watched Mary Kelly and the man she was with the whole time he was leaning against the lamp...."

Not only do you make a false claim, you then accuse me of misquoting you, when it's right there in black & white for all to see.

I am saying that when he says he watched them that took place the whole time he was leaning against the lamp outside The Queen's Head.

You seem to be assuming the lamp was mounted on the wall, not a street lamp at the edge of the kerb.



As can be seen from the edge of the kerb where the black rubbish bin stands (behind the green traffic light), a person has an unobstructed view down Commercial St.

So both the lack of visibility from the position of the lamp and the lack of light along that particular section of Commercial Street is what makes me doubt that part of Hutchinson's statement. Given it's a fairly important detail in the chronology of his account, if he's making this part up then why is he doing that?

Yet, both points are entirely invented by you.
You 'think' the angle was not sufficient, yet you don't 'know' where precisely he stood on that sidewalk.
You 'think' the lighting was not sufficient, yet you have not stood at the same distance in the same lighting conditions.
It's all in your mind, you fabricate objections, instead of just admitting that he could have viewed the couple if the lamp was at the edge of the kerb, and you can't be entirely sure if the lighting was sufficient.

There is also a switch in the chronology within his account between his police statement and what he tells the press the following day. First Hutchinson tells the police that the man approached Mary from Thrawl Street. However, he tells the press he saw the man before he had even reached Mary by Flower & Dean Street. So he acknowledged the man before either of them encountered Mary but gave the police the impression he first saw the man only after he had already spoken to Mary. Why change that detail?

No, once again you are creating a scenario that doesn't exist.

Hutch told the police, "..a man coming the opposite direction...", he doesn't say "I first saw a man approach from the other direction", that is you assuming again.
Just the simple fact that this stranger approached Kelly is what the police want to know, and that is what Hutchinson said. Whether Hutch had seen this man seconds before Kelly spoke to him is not stated in the police statement. Yet you choose to assume he didn't see the man before Kelly spoke to him.

Why this matters is because, you, like most of those who criticize Hutchinson, often invent scenario's that don't exist in the two written pieces of evidence.
It is your interpretation where the fault lies, not in Hutchinson's words. Whether your interpretation is bent towards intentionally casting Hutchinson in a suspicious light, is for you to decide.

[Wickerman]

Hi Abby.

....why change THAT? perhaps classic guilty behavior 101. changing your story placing yourself closer , because someone saw you and your afraid of being caught out in a lie.

Hmm, so it's better to implicate yourself in the murder, than to be caught out in a lie?
Especially, when the police didn't have a clear description of the man, merely dark clothes & a wideawake hat.

Why, doesn't it make more sense to simply leave town, as opposed to give an interview to the press?

[Sunny Delight]

It is my own belief that George Hutchinson was telling the truth as he knew it. He had been to Romford and on arriving home had seen Kelly whom he knew having given her a few shillings in the past(make of that what you will) with a well dressed man whom she took back to her lodgings. He loitered either out of boredom or even jealousy or sheer nosyness. But he did loiter. Then he left. It was obviously eating him up that he had info the Police could use but was maybe afraid that it would look suspicious. He confides in a friend at the lodging house he resides most of the time. His friend tells him to go to the Police. This he does. The Papers then track him down(this is a problem because he now has harmed his evidence by going public) probably throwing him a few shillings to give his story. In my opinion there is nothing at all wrong with his story.