George Hutchinson Revisited

[Wickerman]

[FONT=Calibri][FONT=Garamond]

This might also explain another challenge to Hutchinson’s statement, which is why did he leave it three days to give his statement to the police. He certainly wasn't going to tell them he was waiting to commit a crime and perhaps thought it best to keep his counsel.

Hutchinson's reason for not coming forward may not be the secret some have believed. The Morning Advertiser suggested the reason would be too imprudent to mention, implying he explained to them his reason. It only stands to reason he told police. But what we can see from merely studying the press reports is, the press & public both had been under the impression on Friday, and all day Saturday that the murder of Mary Kelly had taken place sometime after 9:00 am Friday morning. Hutchinson had met Kelly between 2-2:30 almost 7 hours before her presumed murder. He simply had no idea his sighting had been of any importance.

It was only on Sunday, in Lloyds Weekly where we read that after the outcome of the post-mortem on Saturday morning the doctors were under the impression the murder had taken place around 3:00 am. This change was not widely known on Sunday, not until Monday would he learn that his sighting might have been more significant than first thought.
Naturally then, his lodger friends would convince him to go to police.

After three days of not being aware he had seen Mary almost an hour before her actual murder, he came forward. Nothing suspicious about that.

The reason I think he changed his mind was due to the testimony of Sarah Lewis. She stated that she saw a man hanging around outside MJK’s room between 2.00am and 3.00am. This must have been George Hutchinson. I could not find her statement reported in the press prior to the inquest.

Correct, Sarah Lewis did not talk to the press over the weekend, the first we hear of her story is on Monday evening in press reports from the inquest.

All Sarah Lewis saw was a man in dark clothes wearing a Wideawake hat, no age given, no features described like, beard, moustache, whiskers, etc.. Nothing sufficient to single out anyone.

There was also a second reason, as I mentioned in another post, the Star early edition came out just after the inquest where they stated Mrs Cox had described the murderer (another of their assumptions), but Hutchinson actually knew this report was wrong - another reason to come forward.

[Wickerman]

If you read it properly the quote you put forward is in regard to the suspect seen in Hanbury Street before Annie Chapman's murder two months earlier. There is no discrediting Mary Ann Cox's description of the man she saw with Mary Kelly at Miller's Court.

The division was in regard to which of the men - Blotchy or Astrakhan - was the killer. Those in the Blotchy camp would obviously dismiss Astrakhan and so discredit Hutchinson's statement. Those in the Astrakhan camp may have favoured him as the killer but had no need to discredit Mary Ann Cox's description of the man she saw. They were separate men and separate sightings to begin with.

I don't know what you mean "read it properly", you read it the same way.
Hutchinson's story was not discredited, it was the Star putting a spin on a divided investigation. There never was a consensus for a single 'police suspect', but the Star tried to make the public think so.

Was Abberline for Blotchy or Astrakhan by the end of the week?

He doesn't say, but on or about Dec. 6th he arrested Joseph Isaac's and if anyone fit the description of Hutchinson's suspect, it was Isaac's. Abberline was reported to have said to a fellow officer: "we've got the right man at last, this is a big thing".
So clearly, Hutchinson's suspect was foremost in Abberline's mind as late as December.

[Curious Cat]

But we already knew that, the Echo had made that divided approach to the investigation public knowledge on the 13th, check for yourself...
"The City police have been making inquiries for this man for weeks past, but without success, and they do not believe that he is the individual described by Cox. The Metropolitan police, however, have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement."

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/echo/18881113.html

As you can see, the Star distorted what was only a typical approach - the police had two suspects, some preferred one, some the other. A person can't be half discredited, their story is either dismissed or it isn't, there is no half measures.
If Hutchinson's story had to be discredited because some police believed Cox, then Cox's story had to be discredited for the others to believe Hutchinson, but they made no mention of that.
It was just a tactic to sell copy.

If you read it properly the quote you put forward is in regard to the suspect seen in Hanbury Street before Annie Chapman's murder two months earlier. There is no discrediting Mary Ann Cox's description of the man she saw with Mary Kelly at Miller's Court.

The division was in regard to which of the men - Blotchy or Astrakhan - was the killer. Those in the Blotchy camp would obviously dismiss Astrakhan and so discredit Hutchinson's statement. Those in the Astrakhan camp may have favoured him as the killer but had no need to discredit Mary Ann Cox's description of the man she saw. They were separate men and separate sightings to begin with.

Was Abberline for Blotchy or Astrakhan by the end of the week?

[Wickerman]

This talks of a split in the investigation, saying only SOME of the authorities were still pursuing a man matching Hutchinson's descriptions. Others were going for Blotchy. This doesn't say which group Abberline was with. So there was not universal support for Hutchinson's statement among the investigating officers, meaning it had been dismissed by some of them. This would have been the basis of the report that Hutchinson's statement had lost its value.

But we already knew that, the Echo had made that divided approach to the investigation public knowledge on the 13th, check for yourself...
"The City police have been making inquiries for this man for weeks past, but without success, and they do not believe that he is the individual described by Cox. The Metropolitan police, however, have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement."

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/echo/18881113.html

As you can see, the Star distorted what was only a typical approach - the police had two suspects, some preferred one, some the other. A person can't be half discredited, their story is either dismissed or it isn't, there is no half measures.
If Hutchinson's story had to be discredited because some police believed Cox, then Cox's story had to be discredited for the others to believe Hutchinson, but they made no mention of that.
It was just a tactic to sell copy.

[Curious Cat]

More than happy to....

The police have not relaxed their endeavours to hunt down the murderer in the slightest degree; but so far they remain without any direct clue. Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson as to his having seen the latest victim with a gentlemanly man of dark complexion, with a dark moustache. Others are disposed to think that the shabby man with a blotchy face and a carrotty moustache described by the witness Mary Ann Cox, is more likely to be the murderer.
Echo, 19 Nov.

If you are a member of the JTRForums, you will find editions of the Echo from 13th Nov. till the end of the year.

This talks of a split in the investigation, saying only SOME of the authorities were still pursuing a man matching Hutchinson's descriptions. Others were going for Blotchy. This doesn't say which group Abberline was with. So there was not universal support for Hutchinson's statement among the investigating officers, meaning it had been dismissed by some of them. This would have been the basis of the report that Hutchinson's statement had lost its value.

One other point of interest, after the Star published on the 14th that the story of the man Hutchinson was discredited, they then print an account on the 16th by a witness Mr Galloway who was watching a 'blotchy' looking character, and alerted a constable to the fact.
Only to be rebutted by that same constable, that he "was looking for a man of a very different appearance".

The Star possibly too proud to admit their statement of the 14th was less than factual, they choose not to have this constable say "the Hutchinson suspect".

There was a split among the investigating officers that became apparent from the 15th onwards. This incident with Mr Galloway - which I had previous read - took place in the early hours of the 15th, while the split in the investigation had only started to form in the previous 12 hours. It can't be known if the police officer Mr Galloway encountered was either still of the belief Hutchinson's description was the one to follow due to who he answered to or if the information to disregard it and concentrate on Blotchy instead hadn't filtered down to him.

The story is about Mr Galloway and his assertion that the man he saw matched the description given by Mary Ann Cox...

"I was very much struck with his appearance, especially as he corresponded, in almost every particular, with the man described by Mary Ann Cox."


The policeman is said to have responded by saying he was looking for a man of a very different description by Mr Galloway. The policeman is not quoted directly by the paper so why would they put words in his mouth? The story isn't about Hutchinson's statement.

Again, their reporting of the Hutchinson statement being discredited would be based on the apparent split in the investigation.

[Wickerman]

One other point of interest, after the Star published on the 14th that the story of the man Hutchinson was discredited, they then print an account on the 16th by a witness Mr Galloway who was watching a 'blotchy' looking character, and alerted a constable to the fact.
Only to be rebutted by that same constable, that he "was looking for a man of a very different appearance".

The Star possibly too proud to admit their statement of the 14th was less than factual, they choose not to have this constable say "the Hutchinson suspect".

[Wickerman]

I don't have access to that edition of The Echo. It's not on the site. I'm not avoiding it, I haven't seen it. Perhaps you could quote it in full so I could see the context.

More than happy to....

The police have not relaxed their endeavours to hunt down the murderer in the slightest degree; but so far they remain without any direct clue. Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson as to his having seen the latest victim with a gentlemanly man of dark complexion, with a dark moustache. Others are disposed to think that the shabby man with a blotchy face and a carrotty moustache described by the witness Mary Ann Cox, is more likely to be the murderer.
Echo, 19 Nov.

If you are a member of the JTRForums, you will find editions of the Echo from 13th Nov. till the end of the year.

[rjpalmer]

Not a massively important point but I wonder why Kelly needed money at 2.00 am?

She didn't need money at 2 a.m.

She needed money, and, being 2 a.m., the window of opportunity for finding that money was rapidly closing.

The inference being that she needed money in the morning, and lo!, in the morning, we have a man coming around looking for money.

Wrong 'em Boyo.

[Curious Cat]

I notice you avoid mentioning the police are still investigating Hutchinson's story on the 19th (in the Echo) - so much for him being 'discredited'. Just another controversial report from the Star, not based on any fact, not a report by police.

I don't have access to that edition of The Echo. It's not on the site. I'm not avoiding it, I haven't seen it. Perhaps you could quote it in full so I could see the context.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Not a massively important point but I wonder why Kelly needed money at 2.00 am?

No, it is a massively important point, because it is fundamentally illogical.

[Wickerman]

Hutchinson only mentions seeing a man enter a nearby lodging house. He doesn't mention seeing any of the three women. Why is that?

Because, they are living in a time when women didn't matter, they were everywhere. Women were not even citizens in 1888, they were there to be servants to men. No-one was interested in who saw any women, the killer was obviously, in everyone's eyes, a male.
When a constable asks if the witness saw anyone suspicious, they mean 'men'.

You're being deliberately obtuse. He doesn't need to know who Mrs Kennedy is. The report would be enough to spook him.

Huh?, a report that makes no mention of him, is supposed to spook him?

... The man he sees entering the lodging house doesn't come forward either to the police, the press or the inquest.

So he wasn't worried about being seen either, sort of cancels any assumed culpability by Hutchinson then?

Why identify a mystery man but not at least two potential witnesses who could back up his story? Hutchinson himself says no-one else was in the street in the time he was there, so no people coming and going just like any other night.

Because.... the killer is a man, so the police are not interested in women, only how many men were in the street at that hour, and what were they doing.

You are forgetting, a witness giving a police statement is not there to verify his presence. He is 'only' there to clearly describe what he was, heard & did with respect to the murder.

Abberline, came to interview Hutchinson after he received a copy of his statement. This is where Hutch would be expected to say if anyone saw him there. That interview has not survived.

Everyone, including yourself, are misunderstanding what Hutchinson's statement is intended to do.
At no point is he expected to justify or verify his presence in that statement, yet you think this simple statement is expected to provide all the answers to your personal theories. And, because it doesn't, you make it suspicious.

I'm not assuming he wasn't there. I think he was there that night around the time he claims.

Right, so he has no need to get the 3:00 time from any newspaper story then.

I just think the rest of his story is a creation to mitigate any identification by explaining why he was there. The Echo did report Sarah Lewis's evidence at the inquest on the Monday evening but whether Hutchinson read it just prior to making his statement or he lucked out at placing himself where she said she saw a man opposite Miller's Court is something we'll never know. But the possibility is there.

The Echo reporter stayed to the end of the inquest, so very likely it was in a later edition. Early editions had to go to print by 2-3:00 in the afternoon, the Star reporter left the inquest early during Prater's testimony, so before that of Sarah Lewis.

More likely it was a report in the Star of Mary Cox's statement where the sub-header read: MURDERER DESCRIBED.
If he read that, or another lodger told him, he would know that story is wrong. Cox couldn't have seen the murderer with Mary at midnight because he himself had been with her about 2-2:30 am.
That is sufficient cause to go to police.

The Echo reported on the evening of Tuesday 13th November that Hutchinson's statement had lost its value just 24 hours after he gave it due to further inquiries. By Thursday 15th November it was reported in The Star to have been since discredited. Hutchinson effectively disappears from the investigation at that point.

I notice you avoid mentioning the police are still investigating Hutchinson's story on the 19th (in the Echo) - so much for him being 'discredited'. Just another controversial report from the Star, not based on any fact, not a report by police.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

But you accuse Hutchinson of making up stories, yet you are doing the same. Just making it up as you go.

I decided to go with my gut instinct. Just to see. It may have paid off.

[Curious Cat]

If he was there, he would have known that anyway. Just like Cox, she turned up about 3:00 am too, Sarah Lewis is another. People coming and going just like any other night.



How would he know who this Mrs Kennedy was?



All the more reason to flee the neighbourhood, but the last thing he should do is go to police where they can ask him to stand in a line up.



So you're assuming he wasn't really there now?
Logically then, he should pick a time before 3:00 am for his departure.

Hutchinson only mentions seeing a man enter a nearby lodging house. He doesn't mention seeing any of the three women. Why is that?

You're being deliberately obtuse. He doesn't need to know who Mrs Kennedy is. The report would be enough to spook him. He hasn't immediately come forward but suddenly there's the potential of someone identifying him at the inquest he hasn't accounted for. The man he sees entering the lodging house doesn't come forward either to the police, the press or the inquest. Why identify a mystery man but not at least two potential witnesses who could back up his story? Hutchinson himself says no-one else was in the street in the time he was there, so no people coming and going just like any other night.

I'm not assuming he wasn't there. I think he was there that night around the time he claims. I just think the rest of his story is a creation to mitigate any identification by explaining why he was there. The Echo did report Sarah Lewis's evidence at the inquest on the Monday evening but whether Hutchinson read it just prior to making his statement or he lucked out at placing himself where she said she saw a man opposite Miller's Court is something we'll never know. But the possibility is there.

The Echo reported on the evening of Tuesday 13th November that Hutchinson's statement had lost its value just 24 hours after he gave it due to further inquiries. By Thursday 15th November it was reported in The Star to have been since discredited. Hutchinson effectively disappears from the investigation at that point.

If you have an issue with him being dropped as a witness and his description of a possible suspect being dismissed within 48 hours then you'll have to take that up with Chief Inspector Abberline.

[Wickerman]

So Hutchinson switched the roles

But you accuse Hutchinson of making up stories, yet you are doing the same. Just making it up as you go.

[Wickerman]

Astrakhan's apparel seems perfectly appropriate to me for a gentlemen attending the Lord Mayor event.

It's all rather amusing in some ways, these modern theorists think they know the neighbourhood better than Abberline.
If there was anything out of the ordinary about it Abberline was the one to challenge him about this character.