George Hutchinson Revisited

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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]

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.

[rjpalmer]

While it is possible, Hutch may have known the man. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that, beyond the coincidence that Isaac's 'apparently' looked like Astrachan.

If Hutchinson had said the man had a clarinet sticking out of his pocket instead of a red handkerchief, I might have gone for it.

And if Hutchinson was implicating Isaacs, it would mean that he had been lingering around Dorset Street for days, because Isaacs was long-gone by the 7th.

[Curious Cat]

As I said, he doesn't say that he stood there "watching" the man, but while he was standing there he watched him. In the quote, it's clear that he was not standing still:


If you read page one of this thread, his expanded statement is:

If you read page 2 you'll see I made points about both his police statement and press statement.

Hutchinson says he was stood against the lamp as he watched the man. That means he was stationary. Standing still. Not moving. Outside The Queen's Head. The position he says he was watching from.

[mpriestnall]

In the middle of the night ?

I think people were street savvy back then as well. [ perhaps more so ] . I just find it hard to believe that Astrakhan would allow himself to be put in a situation of perhaps danger after being followed by someone who took an interest in him.
Remember Astrakhan may have seen Mary talk to Hutch and both of them in the middle of the night [ with all due respect ] would have looked, maybe dodgy. Mary the worst for wear and Hutch out all day probably tired and dishevelled.

Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl,

Sorry for not responding earlier.

In his book, "Deconstructing Jack Ripper", Simon Wood posited that sources known to him considered Kelly's murder as some kind of operation, rather than a straightforward murder. I too see the Miller's Court murder as an "operation", specifically an misdirection event. It's purpose was to relocate Kelly, killing another in her place, to kill off the investigation and act as cover for Kelly's relocation.

In this scenario, both Blotchy and Astrakhan were acting in concert.

Maybe we need to step back to fully understand the Miller's Court murder. Could the situation for Astrakhan, by the time of Kelly's murder, be unraveling?. Perhaps he feared his role, maybe as an accomplice, was about to be revealed to the authorities?

Astrakhan's well-dress appearance can simply be explained by his commitment to engagements related to the Lord Mayor's Show and his willingness to appear in such a consciously well dressed manner perhaps because he feared the possibility of swinging from the hangman's noose more than an East End street mugging?

[Kattrup]

Until they actually reach him at that point, he can't be watching them. The angle doesn't allow for it. Unless he was walking alongside them as they approached the corner of Fashion Street he can't be 'watching' the man.

As I said, he doesn't say that he stood there "watching" the man, but while he was standing there he watched him. In the quote, it's clear that he was not standing still:

"I was coming by Thrawl Street, Commercial Street, and saw just before I got to Flower and Dean Street I saw the murdered woman Kelly [...] She went away toward Thrawl Street. A man coming in the opposite direction to Kelly tapped her on the shoulder and said something to her."

If you read page one of this thread, his expanded statement is:

"I came down Whitechapel road into Commercial street. As I passed Thrawl street I passed a man standing at the corner of the street, and as I went towards Flower and Dean street, I met the woman Kelly [...] She then walked on towards Thrawl street [...] The man who was standing at the corner of Thrawl street then came towards her [...] He put his hand again on her shoulder and they both walked slowly towards me. I walked on to the corner of Fashion street, near the public house. As they came by me his arm was still on her shoulder. [...] They walked across the road to Dorset street. I followed them across, and stood at the corner of Dorset street."

[Curious Cat]

I don't think he claims that he watched them the whole time, nor that he was only stationed outside the pub. He sort of walked along while they also walked in the same direction.

He was standing outside the pub when they passed him and went towards Dorset St. He wasn't standing outside the pub when he first saw the man, nor when the man met MJK.

He says...

About 2am, 9th, I was coming by Thrawl Street, Commercial Street, and saw just before I got to Flower and Dean Street I saw the murdered woman Kelly. And she said to me, "Hutchinson will you lend me sixpence?" I said I cant I have spent all my money going down to Romford. She said, "Good morning, I must go and find some money." She went away toward Thrawl Street. A man coming in the opposite direction to Kelly tapped her on the shoulder and said something to her. They both burst out laughing. I heard her say, "Alright," to him. And the man said, "You will be alright for what I have told you." He then placed his right hand around her shoulders. He also had a kind of a small parcel in his left hand with a kind of strap round it. I stood against the lamp of the Queen’s Head Public House and watched 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. They both stood at the corner of the Court for about 3 minutes. He said something to her. She said, "Alright my dear come along. You will be comfortable." He then placed his arm on her shoulder and gave her a kiss. She said she had lost her handkerchief he then pulled his handkerchief, a red one, out and gave it to her. They both then went up the court together. I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out. They did not so I went away.


Hutchinson watches the man - and also by default Mary Kelly - from his position outside The Queen's Head before they approach him, where he stoops to get a better look.

Until they actually reach him at that point, he can't be watching them. The angle doesn't allow for it. Unless he was walking alongside them as they approached the corner of Fashion Street he can't be 'watching' the man.

[Kattrup]

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.

I don't think he claims that he watched them the whole time, nor that he was only stationed outside the pub. He sort of walked along while they also walked in the same direction.

He was standing outside the pub when they passed him and went towards Dorset St. He wasn't standing outside the pub when he first saw the man, nor when the man met MJK.

[Curious Cat]

No, I'll tell you what it is.
I take him at his word because there is nothing in what he said that we can genuinely call into question. Nothing we have learned from any other source that contests what he says.
In fact quite the opposite, we have a small degree of confirmation from independent sources as to Kelly being out in that time window, of her being seen with a man, and an odd-looking man in the court.

Whereas, on the basis of "nothing" you care to share, you simply "choose" to render him a liar.

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.

[Wickerman]

No, I'll tell you what it is.
I take him at his word because there is nothing in what he said that we can genuinely call into question. Nothing we have learned from any other source that contests what he says.
In fact quite the opposite, we have a small degree of confirmation from independent sources as to Kelly being out in that time window, of her being seen with a man, and an odd-looking man in the court.

Whereas, on the basis of "nothing" you care to share, you simply "choose" to render him a liar.

[Curious Cat]

Just put that down to sarcasm, mea culpa.



It can't be ruled out.



Each to their own.

So this whole discourse this last few days over whether or not Hutchinson lied in his statement comes from you dismissing one scenario I put forward but now you suggest your own scenario, borne out of sarcasm, can't be ruled out?

Each to their own, eh?

Unless they don't agree with you.

[Wickerman]

It was you who brought up the possibility Hutchinson was setting up Joseph Isaacs.

Just put that down to sarcasm, mea culpa.

It never occurred me he might have been attempting to implicate someone he knew.

It can't be ruled out.

For me his description is either made up completely and the man didn't exist at all or made up to deflect from either himself or someone else being the man.

Each to their own.