Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[c.d.]

"How many persons would know that Kelly lived in that room in Millers court?"

Well for starters anybody that she told including anybody she had met only recently (like that week for instance). That would put them into the category of an "acquaintance" and make them someone for whom she might have opened her door late at night. Acquaintance is a pretty broad category.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

Anybody, would no doubt include men like this.

Deceased was observed in the company of a man at ten p.m. on Thursday, of whom no description can be obtained.
Morning Advertiser, 10 Nov.

Then of course there was Blotchy, at near midnight.

But earlier, on Wednesday night.
"Harry Bowyer states that on Wednesday night he saw a man speaking to Kelly who resembled the description given by the fruiterer of the supposed Berner Street murderer. He was, perhaps, 27 or 28 and had a dark moustache and very peculiar eyes. His appearance was rather smart and attention was drawn to him by showing very white cuffs and a rather long white collar, the ends of which came down in front over a black coat. He did not carry a bag."
Western Mail, 12 Nov. 1888.

And these are only the ones we know of.


As to the belief that Kelly was not out on the street after midnight, we read this.

"Although no evidence was produced at the inquest as to her having left her room after one o'clock, at which time she was heard singing, the police have obtained statements from several persons who reside in Millers Court, that she was out of her house and in Dorset street between two and three o'clock. It appears almost certain that her life was taken about the last named hour."
Morning Advertiser, Irish Times, Nov 14th 1888.

An interesting sighting by Bowyer on the morning of the murder.
"...Bowyer, the young man in Mr. McCarthy's employ was out at different times up Miller's-court on the Thursday night for the purpose of getting water from a tap there-the only available supply.Indeed, Bowyer vistited that spot as late-or, rather, as early-as three o'clock on the morning of the murder.....
Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer. Bowyer has, he says, described this man to Inspector Abberline and Inspector Reid."
The Echo Wed. Nov. 14 1888

By the 14th of course, there was only one principal description of the killer in circulation. Hutchinson's suspect - Astrachan.

As Bowyer made no mention of Kelly, and as the time given was 3:00 am. It would seem Bowyer saw Astrachan leaving Millers Court.

[DJA]

How many persons would know that Kelly lived in that room in Millers court?
Hutchinson,by his statements appeared to know.How did he get that information? Would a stranger to the district go scouting such a location on the off chance a door was left unlocked,or a prostitute was waiting inside somewhere along the passge? Doesn't seem a likely Ripper hunting location,yet Kelly was killed there.
Believing as I do,that Kelly had no reason to leave her room after arriving about midnight,the alternative is that Hutchinson lied.There was no Aman,Kelly was murdered by an aquaintance.

To answer your first question .... the newspapers.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam,

Which one of the three Hutchinson signatures on the statement matches the GTH marriage certificate and 1901 Census?

All three, apart from the elaborate capital H on the first page, which can be explained as per my previous posts on the matter.

[harry]

I doubt the newspapers carried any information of Kelly,before her death,to make her and the place she lived,a known item.So I would discount Hutchinson gaining information from that source.

Blotchy would know,after having been taken there that night,but if Hutchinson was telling the truth,Blotchy is in the clear.Hutchinson coming forward presumably puts him in the clear.Was that Hutchinson's intention?It cannot be ruled out.

[Ben]

Hi RJ,

I’m pleased to see that my response succeeded in dissuading you from your previous intention to abandon our discussion, even if it was at the expense of your morning coffee.

My 'very modern' lamp is no different from an oil lamp from the 19th Century

I’m afraid this is where I do the bluff-calling and question the extent of your knowledge and research into Victorian gas lighting, the light-emitting powers of which varied considerably during the latter half of the 19th century. Did you look at the video I shared? Do you understand the difference between a freeze-famed image, to be scrutinised at leisure for eternity, and an event that lasted a couple of seconds?

1. How close Kelly and her client were standing to the lamp.
2. How bright that particular lamp was at that particular moment.
3. How close Hutchinson was standing to them.
4. Whether or not any of the surrounding walls or shutters were white-washed, which would add reflected light.

But even if you allow the maximum in each case, the chances of Hutchinson being able to discern a colour, let alone a pattern, were obviously very remote. It was only possible to get so close to the lamp, which was mounted high on the wall, considerably further away from the couple that your red cloth was to your light source.

We know where Hutchinson said he was standing - at the corner of Commercial and Dorset Street, 120 feet away from the entrance to Miller’s Court. I’m afraid we don’t get to do a Jon and “manoeuvre” him any closer, just to give his credibility a much-needed boost.

No, the circumstances are not known with absolute certainty, but even the most generous “stretching” and conceding does not make it remotely likely that Hutchinson was able to register the colour of such an small object, produced but for a fleeting moment, all that distance away, and in those lighting conditions. And that’s not just my opinion either.

I wasn’t confident that you would retract your attempt to call my “bluff” in the Bundy case, but I do think it’s important to clarify my position regarding Hutchinson:

I have never claimed that Hutchinson must be regarded with suspicion because his actions and movements that night constituted “standard” serial killer. All I’m saying is that he can’t be dismissed as one on the grounds that he came forward voluntarily. Serial killers have come forward voluntarily for various reasons. Nor can he dismissed as a suspect for loitering outside the crime scene shortly before that crime occurred; serial killers have loitered outside their crime scenes beforehand.

Equally, however, innocent parties have come forward with fantastic and implausible tales (usually for money or publicity), just as some people have loitered near a crime scene without having anything to do with the crime itself.

Hutchinson is simply of interest to me because there is evidence that he was seen at the crime scene and later gave a less than honest account of his reasons for being there. Not “standard serial killer behaviour” but behaviour that warrants suspicion.

He is exhibiting the known behavior of someone stuck out on the streets in East London in the 1880s”

Nah.

He wasn’t “stuck out on the streets” at all, and even if he was, anyone so stuck would have tried to rectify their predicament as quickly as possible, rather than engaging in a prolonged vigil of pointless voyeurism.

All the best,
Ben

P.S. The American-cloth wrapped parcel that Astrakhan grasped so “tightly” (how could he possible tell? Could he spot the veins in his hands too?) was indeed reported as “dark”, not “black”. Sorry about that, my bad. I wouldn’t have thought it made a huge difference.

[Wickerman]

I doubt the newspapers carried any information of Kelly,before her death,to make her and the place she lived,a known item.So I would discount Hutchinson gaining information from that source.

Hutch claimed to have been in her company a number of times.
It's a 50-50 bet he knew where she lived before this night.

Blotchy would know,after having been taken there that night,but if Hutchinson was telling the truth,Blotchy is in the clear.Hutchinson coming forward presumably puts him in the clear.Was that Hutchinson's intention?It cannot be ruled out.

Why do you assume this was Blotchy's first encounter with Kelly?
If Hutch is telling the truth it solves a lot of queries.
For Hutch to try put Blotchy in the clear he would have to know he was in there to start with.

[rjpalmer]

"After the lapse of a few minutes he went to the court, but could see no one about, and after waiting sufficient time he concluded that all was right and retired from the scene. He afterwards heard of the murder, but for certain reasons which it would be imprudent to state he did not immediately put himself in communication with the police." --Morning Advertiser, 14 November.

Sounds to me like Hutchinson was fully aware that by coming forward he would be made into a suspect.

[Observer]

"After the lapse of a few minutes he went to the court, but could see no one about, and after waiting sufficient time he condescriptionthat all was right and retired from the scene. He afterwards heard of the murder, but for certain reasons which it would be imprudent to state he did not immediately put himself in communication with the police." --Morning Advertiser, 14 November.

Sounds to me like Hutchinson was fully aware that by coming forward he would be made into a suspect.

I don't think he thought that far ahead RJ. I think he fully believed that the police would swallow his story in full. Then when they realised his description of astrakhan was too good to be true he went from witness to suspect. The thought of dangling on the end of a rope proved too much for George, so he provided a cast iron alibi for the night in question.

[Wickerman]

Ok, Obs. if Hutch had a cast iron alibi for that night what, in your opinion, was his reason for this elaborate story he gave to police?

[Observer]

Ok, Obs. if Hutch had a cast iron alibi for that night what, in your opinion, was his reason for this elaborate story he gave to police?

Read what Dew says on the subject Wick. In short his five minutes of fame.

[Observer]

In fairness Wick, as you know, Hutchinson's evidence was later deemed greatly reduced in importance. Note, not rejected out of hand. This has always troubled me slightly. One scenario though might fit this description. Hutchinson possibly did see Kelly that night, perhaps earlier than stated, perhaps she did ask him for money. However that's where the story ends, she went her way he went his. I'd still plump for the whole of his evidence being alie though.

[Wickerman]

Read what Dew says on the subject Wick. In short his five minutes of fame.

Thankyou Obs.

I think it is noteworthy that Dew does not weigh the statement of M.Lewis who also claimed to see Kelly, and the fact that Maxwell saw Kelly the same day as she gave her statement to police.
Dew appears to brush aside the possibility of mistaken identity.
However, confusing the day seems almost laughable under the circumstances.

Dew does not offer an explanation for a presumed error by Hutchinson, but leaves the reader with 'confusing the day' as more likely than mistaken identity.
Had Dew forgotten about the testimony of Sarah Lewis?

Dew doesn't seem too clear in his recollections of Blotchy, giving him a beard.

I can't see why anyone would put faith in 50 year old recollections, when we have statements & testimony from the actual time of the incident.
Was Dew even present at Millers Court?
Compare his claims with other well known claims of notoriety by figures in authority, which are also known to be false.

[Wickerman]

In fairness Wick, as you know, Hutchinson's evidence was later deemed greatly reduced in importance. Note, not rejected out of hand. This has always troubled me slightly.

I'm happy to hear that Obs.
Although no newspaper could claim to have access to exclusive sources within the Met., the Echo offers the most practical resolution to this short period of confusion.
They do at least temper their criticism concerning Hutchinson's story, limited to the story, not the character of the witness himself.

However, more importantly they also offer a practical reason for this sudden "apparent" reduction of importance, in relating that the authorities are not pursuing one prime suspect, but two.
They tell how the authorities are now divided between the Cox suspect and the Hutchinson suspect.
They had to be, they knew from recent experience how fallible medical evidence was, but also how equally fallible witness statements were.

This appeared to be a quick about-face, in the eyes of the press.
On the morning of the 13th the prime suspect was indeed the one offered by Hutchinson. This did not last for too long as by the evening of the same day the press noticed the investigation was divided between Blotchy & Astrachan.

There had to be a reason for this, and a reason the press were not privy to.
Today, we know the estimated time of death provided by Dr. Bond would offer credence to the testimony of Mary Ann Cox, yet a good number of police remained behind the Astrachan suspect.
This would quite naturally result in a divided detective force in the eyes of the press. However, from an investigation perspective, it was quite normal to pursue as many lines of enquiry as the evidence dictates.

We still see evidence of this division as far out as the 19th Nov., and that seems to be where the investigation began to fade as a news worthy topic.

[harry]

Jon,
Read propery.I never proposed that it was the first time Blotchy had been to Kelly's.Only that by being there,he would know where her room was.

Knowing that she lived at a certain number in Millers court,is not the same as knowing where that place was geographically.Hutchinson knew both.


Makes little difference who might have been in her room previously,Hutchinson's placing of Aman in that room,virtually rules out the chance of anyone else being there at that time. But if Hutchinson ws lying?

We do not know,beyond Aberline,who believed Hutchinson,so to say that the police were divided on the matter is wrong.