|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
George Hutchinson
Casebook Message Boards: Witnesses: Specific Witnesses:
George Hutchinson
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 01 May 2000 - 10:46 am |        | Checking the press statements , they all seem to confirm that Hutchinson made his testimony on the 12th of November ( the Monday ) 1888 ,if he was at the inquest could this have been a fact kept quiet by the police as a ' control ' until they had made further enquiries ? Hutchinson's description matches that of the man seen with Kelly by the ' Britannia ' by Mrs Kennedy , as reported by the Illustrated Police News also. Just what was going on that night then , and who was the man seen by Mrs Cox hanging around outside Miller's court if it wasn't Hutchinson ? Since Robinson's report includes coroners questions it may well be true , it would be a funny thing for someone to invent in any case as it would go against what was printed in the newspapers. And it would explain why Hutchinson took so long to come forward with his story - he didn't ! |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Monday, 01 May 2000 - 03:39 pm | | Leanne, it is a dangerous thing to rely on a book such as Tom Robinson's, The Whitechapel Horrors, in that it is full of errors and down right fiction. Early books such as this were written to make money, not to be a scholarly study of the Whitechapel murders.
George Hutchinson's statement was taken at the Commercial Street Police Station after which he was interrogated by Inspector Abberline. The statement still exists, (MEPO 3/140, ff. 227-9), and begins,
"At 6 pm. 12th. George Hutchinson of the Victoria Home, Commercial Street, came to this station and made the following statement..."
This, 6:00 pm., was after the inquest into the death of Mary Kelly had ended. Hutchinson did not give evidence at the inquest and the lines of supposed inquest testimony are an example of Robinson's fiction. If the police had wanted to suppress Hutchinson's statement as a ‘control' as Simon has suggested, they could have attempted to bar the press from writing about him, (this didn't happen as witness to the press reports on Hutchinson on the 13th,) but they wouldn't have excluded his testimony from the official inquest report.
There are discrepancies between Hutchinson's police statement and the statements that he gave to the press as to the suspects complexion, (he told the police that it was ‘pale' while he told the press that it was ‘dark') and the suspects moustache, (‘slight moustache', police. ‘Dark moustache', press.), all in all it is perhaps better to trust the statement to the police.
As to his going straight off to his lodgings, this goes against what he told both the police and the press,
"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." Statement to the police.
As a side note, Hutchinson was living at the Victoria Home for Working Men which was situated at 39-41 Commercial Road near Wentworth Street. He told the police that at 2:00 am. he was,
"...coming by Thrawl Street, Commercial Street, and just before I got to Flower and Dean Street I met the murdered woman Kelly..." This would mean that in the early morning of a cold and rainy night he was walking North on Commercial Street and away from his lodgings. Why?
If one looks at what Robinson wrote and compares that with what Hutchinson told the police and the press, it is easy to see that Robinson's information comes solely from the newspaper reports to which he has added his own touches. This is evident in his fictitious inquest dialogue where the heavy moustache, dark complexion and the use of the less inflammatory term, ‘foreigner' are all culled from the press whereas slight moustache, pale complexion and ‘Jewish appearance' appear in his official statement.
Wolf. |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 01 May 2000 - 04:05 pm | | Oh well , never mind. From reading Sugden , it turns out that the coroners papers for the Kelly inquest are still intact and are availible to the public , and that they make no mention of Hutchinson appearing at all. If there was a press cover-up of any sorts , Hutchinson's statement would still be in the coroner's papers for the inquest if he had attended. We have to conclude that Robinson did make up Hutch's inquest attendance then , although it does seem an odd thing to make up. Perhaps one of his eye-witnesses was a bit confused ( to be polite ). |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 01 May 2000 - 09:08 pm | | G'day Fellas,
Wolf: The official police statement you mention, was made at 6pm the same afternoon that Kelly's one day inquest was held.
His statement was, as Robinson writes: 'Very different to that given by the female witnesses.'
Maybe his statement was singled out and ordered 'struck' from the 'Official Inquest Report'. The press could have been barred from writing about it, until the next day, giving the police one day to take him to a station to make an 'Official Police Statement'.
I dont think that Tom Robinson would have just wrote this to try to make money. Firstly it's not a book, but a 32 page paper, that sold in the 1920s for 3D.
I think that you are dangerously implying that is 'down right fiction'! Why would Robinson write soley from newspaper reports, labeling this 'An Authentic Account Of Jack the Ripper Murders'? He lived there and was able to describe: 'Houses were barricaded', 'Women would not leave the security of their homes' and 'Many men had been mobbed', etc.
I doesn't matter to me if this is fiction or not, but I don't think we should rule out the possibility that Hutchinson first gave a statement at the inquest and then gave an 'Official' one at the station.
Leanne! |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 02 May 2000 - 04:40 am | | Here is a possible scenario to support Leanne's case then : Hutchinson makes a statement to the police on the Friday or Saturday and gives a very good description of the man seen with Kelly. The police want to keep this information secret , as it is such a good description , at least for a few days. Hutchinson speaks at the Inquest but his testimony is not recorded by the clerk as the police already have a plan : they will say Hutchinson gave his statement on the Monday night. This gives the police two days to find their man before he realises he has been spotted. But the culprit is not caught. Hutchinson's statement is released to the Press then , and is altered to have him standing outside Miller's Court for 45 minutes. The real person seen standing outside Miller's Court by Mrs Cox has a possible escape route then ; the police think he is the Ripper's accomplice. If he turns himself in because of the Pardon now issued , then there is no need to worry about him being seen at the crime scene : the police can say it was only Hutchinson. All IMHO. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 02 May 2000 - 08:44 am | | G'day Simon,
I can tell you're an artist and a real 'right-brain-hemisphere' thinker. I've studied the left/right brain thing........................
......That's a compliment, by the way!!!!!!
Leanne! |
Author: Glenn Baron
Tuesday, 02 May 2000 - 11:08 am | | Wolf, does the MEPO 3/140 document exist on the net anywhere, or is it reported in full in any of the books?
Cheers
Glenn |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 02 May 2000 - 03:15 pm | | | Try Sugden , pages 333-334 , Glenn. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 02 May 2000 - 07:08 pm | | It's also in Tully's "Prisoner 1167" pages 269-271.
I have to agree with Wolf on this one. It's risky to bend the known facts merely so that they agree with a rather obscure pamphlet. Hutchinson was not at the inquest. His claim of holding a 3/4 hour vigil opposite Miller's Court agrees with the statement of Sarah Lewis, who saw someone who appeared to be "waiting for someone".
Was the inquest abrupt and cursory in order to withhold important evidence from the public? Certainly.
Hutchinson made the statement that he knew Mary Kelly for about three years (Fido) and that he lent her money from time to time. This seems very odd to me. It means that Hutch would have known her almost since her return from France, and would have maintained some contact with her throughout all her various relationships and changes of address.
RJP
PS. Does anyone have any alternative theories about the Home Office's offer of pardon, other than they thought JTR had a lookout? |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Tuesday, 02 May 2000 - 07:39 pm | | Leanne, witnesses at an inquest are provided and vetted by the police. You cannot just walk into an inquest and ask to give testimony. An interview is conducted and the police take a statement first before a determination is made as to who will appear in front of the coroner. Therefore, the coroner already knows what sort of evidence will be presented to him and knows what sort of questions he is going to ask the witnesses. Remember Coroner MacDonald's admonishment to Caroline Maxwell in the Kelly inquest. We know that Hutchinson's statement was taken at 6:00 pm. on the evening of the 12th and was followed by the interview conducted by Abberline who forwarded his report to Scotland Yard saying,
"An important statement has been made by a man named George Hutchinson which I forward herewith. I have interrogated him this evening, and I am of the opinion his statement is true."
Why would Robinson make things up? Why would Edwin Woodhall or Donald McCormick or Stephen Knight or several other authors who have written on the Ripper murders?
Wolf. |
Author: Jeffrey
Wednesday, 03 May 2000 - 05:03 am | | Hello All !
I have been having one of my lightenning bolt flashes of inspiration, and after re-reading the events of Nov. 9th., have come to the conclusion that Geo. Hutchinson knew Jack the Ripper.
Throughout the series, a red scarf or neckerchief appears to feature in some way. Lawendes' description of the man seen with Eddowes had a red-neckerchief around his neck. I must say also, that for someone who can say he never got a real good look and would not be able to recognise the suspect, his description is pretty vivid all the same. Many of the victims then, appear to have had a piece of red silk or neckerchief on or about their person.
Hutchinsons' suspect was supposed to have handed a red handkerchief to Kelly as they walked up Millers Court. It has been noted that it would more than likely have been too dark for anyone to actually notice the colour of the handkerchief, but Hutchinson states with utmost confidence that it was a "red" handkerchief. I must wonder then, whether George could have known that it was red.
I have thought of a scenario where Hutchinson actually knew the man who went back to Kelly's that night, though for reasons known only to himself, he makes up a false description of the wealthy Jew. Very often a person making up a lie will intersperse the made up story with truths and real facts. I had always wondered why Kelly being given the red-hanky would have even been significant enough to mention, though it could have simply been a way of George letting the killer or someone know that he did actually see him. The man in Mitre Sq. had a red neckerchief, Hutchinsons' man had a red hanky, this is a very minor, insignificant item I know and I am grasping at straws but it has to be more than a coincidence.
The sudden offer of a pardon, the series ending along with many other events, suggest to me that Hutchinson, if not the man himself, saw and knew who the killer was. Standing outside for 45 minutes on a cold drizzly night, after walking miles from Romford and having a bed to go to which was in the other direction, have to add up to more than George having a simple crush on Kelly. More went on that night that I am sure we will never know, but Hutch has to have known something. He stood out in the cold for 45-minutes for a reason. I think I'll have to read through Bobs' book again.
Regards
Jeff D |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 04 May 2000 - 05:09 am | | Though flimsy and circumstantial, the "Lipsky!" fellow across the street from Stride's assault had a clay pipe, and a clay pipe was found in Kelly's room; this along with the fact that Hutchinson more or less fits the description of Stride's attacker. This is admittedly very wild speculation that Hutchinson worked an accomplice to JTR.
But there is a big problem. Yes, Hutchinson's story is odd and suspicious; but, it must be remembered, he willingly told it to the police. He came forward voluntarily. If he was guilty of something, why on earth would he do that? The promise of pardon? If that's the case, who did he finger? Evidently no one.
Still, why would Hutchinson be curious enough to stand in the rain for 45 minutes, but not curious enough to cross the street and peep in the window when his supposed friend Mary Kelly went off with a "stern" fellow in the wee hours during the Ripper scare?
On another point, from what I've read, Henry Matthews, the Home Secretary, was friendly with James Monro. Maybe it was Monro's "hot potato" suspicions about the identity of JTR that led Matthews to offer pardon the day after Kelly's murder.
Just a guess. |
Author: Jim Leen
Thursday, 04 May 2000 - 07:12 am | | Hello Everybody,
I think it may be logical to construe that the pardon offer and rewards were, tenuously, linked. Some parts of the population have no dealings with the forces of law and order in any way whatsoever. However, a third party offering a sum of money would be more approachable to their peculiar moral code.
Amyway, with regard to the pardon. Britain has a notion of judicial forgiveness - turning Queen's evidence. This is where an accomplice in a capital case informs the authories of their nefarious deeds. One goes to the gallows, the other goes home.
The only examples that I can think of are, in England, the Turner murder of 1891, and in Scotland, Burke and Hare the notorious grave robbers.
I think had the authorities not come forward with the pardon, which one should bear in mind was open to someone regarded as an accessory after the event, e.g. a mother who washed her son's bloody shirt, it would be far more worthwhile of conspiracy theories.
Trusting that this makes some sense!
Jim Leen |
Author: David M. Radka
Thursday, 04 May 2000 - 09:39 am | | R.J.,
With respect to why Hutchinson may have come forward--
He may have been a local pimp, and been pressured into doing so by the gentlemen who used his women. Perhaps Mary Jane was one of those women, or perhaps Hutchinson's base of operations was Miller's Court. The gentlemen would want him to make an explanation focusing suspicion on someone different from them, therefore a Jewish man of striking appearance was chosen. Otherwise, if somehow the police could have gotten wind of the names of some of Mary Jane's customers, or of those of the other women in the court, investigation could have led to a revelation of these gentlemen using prostitutes, which would be harmful to them.
David |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Friday, 05 May 2000 - 05:17 am | | Why Hutchinson would come forward as witness when guilty:
The whole murder serie speaks of glory against the police - While many coppers strole around with a keen eye for any disturbance, JtR disembowels a different number of women in 10 or less minutes time, right under their noses. If you are that daring as a killer, then wouldn't you at a certain point even go further and make contact? It is known Sk's devour every news about them, especially what the detectives hunt after. They even sometimes want to be policemen themselves. And to personal feel their power and cunning they try to make contact, not declaring them as the monster they are after, but rather by appearing to help them.
And admittedly Hutchinson has some way of bragging in his declerations (so much detail) while his own actions seem rather obscure if you thinnk about it. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Friday, 05 May 2000 - 05:20 am | | | Sorry, this post was before I edited it, the same as the previous one. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 05 May 2000 - 01:01 pm | | Hello All.
So many interesting posts!
Glenn--see the last part of Viper's post above (19 Dec 1998). I don't know to which newspaper he's referring, but Hutchinson was evidently returning from Romford via Whitechapel Road THAT EVENING. Which makes your questions quite apropos.
Rabbi Leen- you make perfect sense to me. I'll try not to read too much into the Home Office's offer of pardon. The timing was right for Matthew's to do SOMETHING; Warren had just resigned among cheers from the House of Commons.
Well, I'm a bit of a crank and tend to repeat myself, but I'm still obsessing about Hutchinson's claim that he knew Kelly for three years. If this is true, what was the nature of their acquaintanceship? This means he knew Kelly during her time at Mrs. Carthy's at Breezer's Hill, when she was seeing a man "in the building trade"; when she was courted by Morgestern/Morganstone in Stepney; when she was romanced by Jospeh Fleming near Bethnal Green; as well as when she flitted from address to address with Barnett. Was Hutch always the bridesmaid and never the bride? Or was something else going on?
RJP
PS. Anyone can learn to spell correctly. Only brilliant minds can spell with flair, originality, and an element of surprise. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Friday, 05 May 2000 - 01:58 pm | | Hello, R.J.:
I think similar to Roslyn D'Onston, Mathew Packer, and other persons who figured (or wanted to figure) in the case, Hutchinson attempted to make himself seem important. By claiming that he had known Mary Jane Kelly for three years, he undoubtedly thought that it would give himself more credibility as a witness that the police would heed. But did he really know her for that long? Probably not. As you point out, this would have covered a considerable period of her life, for which we have some claims as to her activities. During these three years, not only would Kelly have lived in various locations, but Hutchinson too would have lived a transient existence. Thus, they almost undoubtedly would not have happened upon each other during this time span. Note, for example, that although Hutchinson offers plenty of details about Kelly for the night of the murder, he does not offer us more about the preceding three years that would help enlighten us. So his claim of having known her for three years is probably empty.
Chris George |
Author: Diana
Friday, 05 May 2000 - 09:42 pm | | | The most interesting thing about Hutchinson is the description he gives of Mary's customer which would reveal him to have superhuman eyesight if it was true. It smells like a lie which opens up all sorts of possibilities. Why did Hutchinson lie? |
Author: Bob Hinton
Saturday, 06 May 2000 - 08:31 am | | Dear Everyone,
Quite possibly Hutchinson did not know Mary Kelly, but at one time Hutchinsons father kept the Crooked Billet pub in King Davids Lane, which is situated just along the road from - Breezers
Hill.
Hutchinson also worked as a barman which would give him ample opportunity to meet prostitutes.
Hutchinson did not appear at the inquest but made his statement just after. What you should be asking is Why did he come forward? Answer - because he had to! He had no other choice- why not? The answer lies in the inquest.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 07 May 2000 - 05:08 am | | | Hi Bob. Could you check out my post of 25th April on the ' Was it really MJK ' board , I've been trying to get in touch for ages. Thanks ! |
Author: Glenn Baron
Monday, 08 May 2000 - 09:54 am | | Hutchinson's hike..
Regarding my earlier post about whether H had *just* returned from Romford when meeting Kelly, I am none the wiser (Simon - Sugden just gives th e bald witness statment. Bob - couldn't find the reference in Viper's post). I'm presuming the police would have recorded background notes. Sorry to be a pain by repeating myself, but can anyone point me at any quotes/references which will clear this up? |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 09 May 2000 - 05:40 pm | | Hello Everyone.
Bob--Breezer's Hill is tantallizing. If Kelly lived there in around 1885, it would neatly fit with Hutchinson's claim to have known her for three years. (Which leaves me wondering even more why he would be loitering around). I, too, plan on grabbing up a copy of your book.
Of course, on the other hand, the always sensible (it seems to me) Chris George could also be correct in his guess that Hutchinson might be just another self-aggrandizing witness along the lines of Matthew Packer. (I call this "The Ripper Effect"--for every known fact there are two plausible but diametrically opposed interpretations... with intriguing secondary facts that tend to confirm both! :-))
Meanwhile, I'm a bit confused about Kelly's history. She supposedly left Breezer's Hill for a "man in the building trade"--which would suggest Fleming, a stone mason. But the Morganstone/Morgestern fellow seems to have come before Fleming. A gas stoker.
By the way, can anyone tell me Hutchinson's occupation? Is it known? HE wasn't in the building trade was he? All the books I currently have access to refer to him as "a laborer".
Cheers,
RJP |
Author: alex chisholm
Tuesday, 09 May 2000 - 07:00 pm | | Hi RJ
The Star, 14 Nov. describes Hutchinson as “a groom by trade, but now working as a labourer.” According to Abberline on 12 Nov. (MEPO 3/140 f. 230-232) “Hutchinson is at present in no regular employment.”
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 09 May 2000 - 10:59 pm | | G'day RJP, Bob, Alex, Simon, Glenn, everyone,
Paley's book says: 'Around 1884, Kelly arrived in London and worked in a West End brothel. There she met a gentleman, who took her to France. She didn't like it, so came back to London. She lived for a time on the notorious Ratcliffe Highway, and later somewhere in Stepney, with a man named Morganstone. Afterwards, Kelly went to stay in a lodging house run by Mrs Carthy in Breezer's Hill, off Pennington Street...Kelly had been working out of a brothel in Pennington Street when she met mason's plasterer Joseph Flemming....When Joseph Barnett first met Kelly, she was staying at Cooney's Lodging House in Thrawl Street and walked the streets around Aldgate and Leman Streets.'
Leanne! |
Author: Ashling
Wednesday, 10 May 2000 - 02:57 am | | Hi R.J.
Greater London Record Office: MJ/SPC/ NE/376/:
Excerpt of Joe Barnett's inquest testimony:
"... she lived there (France) about
a fortnight she did not like it and
returned, she came back and lived in
Ratcliffe Highway for some time, she did
not tell me how long, then she was
living near Stepney Gas Works Morganstone
was the man she lived with there, she
did not tell me how long she lived there
She told me that in Pennington Street
she lived at one time with a Morginstone
and with Joseph Flemming she was
very fond of him s he was a Masons
plasterer he lived in Bethnal Green Rd
she told me all this, but I do not know
which she lived with last - Flemming
used to visit her ..."
As you know, Stewart Evans & Nick Connell have recently identified Morganstone/ Morgestern in the census records, but unless new research identifies Flemming for us, including where he lived in the mid-1880s ... I don't know how we can determine which of Mary Kelly's old boyfriends she lived with first--evidently Joe Barnett never knew.
Janice |
Author: Bob Hinton
Wednesday, 10 May 2000 - 06:08 am | | Dear Janice,
I don't know if this is the right one but the 1881 census shows a Joseph Flemming (note the double m) living in 61 Crozier Terrace, Hackney as a lodger. He was aged 22 and born in Bethnal Green, occupation Masons plasterer.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Ashling
Wednesday, 10 May 2000 - 08:44 am | | BOB: Sounds promising! Please keep me posted on any further developments.
Janice
P.S.
Check the 'Was It Really Mary Kelly' board again, please. I left you a post there a few minutes ago. |
Author: Glenn Baron
Tuesday, 13 June 2000 - 08:42 am | | Concerning Hutchinson's statement :
I've read many interpretations of GH's police statement, and it seems that everybody assumes that his remark to Kelly that '...I have spent all my money going down to Romford...' means that he had _just_ returned from Romford at the time he met her. This has led to much speculation about just why he then proceeded to walk past his lodging house after a very long walk in bad weather etc. It’s even a very significant factor in Bob Hinton’s case against GH in ‘From Hell’
Yesterday I viewed and copied the original document at Kew, expecting to find incidental police notes to support the idea of the Romford trip, but there appear to be none.
Unless there other sources (newspaper reports?), then I can see little reason to presume that GH had only just got back when he met Kelly. It seems perfectly possible to me that GH had been to Romford the previous day and spent all his money. The statement does not contradict that. It’s also perfectly possible that the story of the trip was a small white lie to avoid offending Kelly with a blank refusal (a standard social technique that we all use, in fact).
Does here anybody know of any evidence indicating exactly when GH is supposed to have visited Romford?
Cheers all
Glenn Baron
p.s. I also find GH's 3 signatures curious. More on that later.. |
Author: Harry Mann
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 06:47 am | | Glen,
The statement,'been down to Romford',is like every
thing else that Hutchinson says,open to question.
The only corroboration of his actions is the sighting at Crossingham's.If,as is my opinion,the whole story is a fabrication,the words were never spoken,and the meeting with Kelly never took place.
In coming forward he had to have some story to tell, however implausible.Perhaps believing that he would eventually be questioned,he may have thought that coming forward was the lesser of two evils. |
Author: Glenn Baron
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 11:57 am | | Sugden mentions (from memory,book not to hand) that 'as Hutchinson passed ... Church, the clock struck quarter to 2..' or something similar. Where does that come from? It's not in the statement.
Glenn |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 04:07 am | | Glenn:
"When I left the corner of Miller's Court,' he told the press, 'the clock struck three o'clock.' (Sugden,p.335)
Evidently, most of the information comes from Hutchinson's account given to the press on 13 &14 November. In those accounts Hutchinson apparently claims he was in Romford on Thursday. His statements are in The Times (Nov 13, 1888) and Star (Nov 14, 1888)
RP |
Author: Kris Fenton
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 01:43 am | | I would like to consider some possibilities regarding G.H.-
1)Mary Kelly was by all accounts, an attractive young woman. It isn't too far-fetched that G.H. may have had a bit of a crush on her. With the killings being the talk of the town, it's a possibility that his interest in her customer was genuine.
2)Throughout history, there have been times when people have avoided calamity or have forseen calamity due to "feelings" or "vibes". I know it sounds corny, but it's possible that G.H. may have had a bad feeling about this man and decided to take a good look at him and commit his appearance to memory.
3)Why didn't G.H. come forward immediately? It is possible that he was suspicious of Mary's customer but didn't act on it. If that's true, he could have felt both guilty and ashamed for not taking action in an age where men were supposed to protect women. It may have taken him some to decide that he quite possible had some valuable information that could help police catch Mary's killer.
-These are just possiblities, but I think none of them are too far-fetched to explain G.H.'s description and his lack of coming forward immediately following the killing. I think they are reasonable, at least enough to prevent G.H. from being totally disregarded as a valid witness. Of course, I could be wrong.
Regards,
Kris Fenton |
Author: Grailfinder
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 02:16 am | | Hi Kris
Personally, I prefer to have Hutch in my suspect list, but I have to agree with your point about attitudes at the time. Things have changed a lot since Jack's day eh?, only yesterday my mate Paul commented on a bus ride he had just taken where 3 elderly ladies got on and no body (apart from Paul) got up to offer the girls a seat. And if you hold a door open for some women these days you are called sexist?.
Anyway, good point for the reason Hutch may have been reluctant to admit he had left the poor girl to her horrid fate.
Cheers GF |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 05 January 2002 - 12:42 pm | | The Star of 19 November, 1888 has a story concerning a medical man arrested at Euston station suspected of complicity in the Whitechapel murders. The article makes an interesting statement:
"The suspected man was of gentlemanly appearance and manners, and somewhat remembled the description of the person declared by witnesses at the inquest to have been seen in the company with Kelly early on the morning that she was murdered."
[my italics]
Question: Is somthing missing from the surviving reports of the inquest? What witnesses described a "man of gentlemanly appearance" seen with Kelly?
Certainly, this must be Mr. Astracan, but no mention of him was made at the inquest that we know of.
Now note the following article that I stumbled across in the New York Tribune, 14 Novemember, 1888:
ON THE TRACK OF THE WHITECHAPEL FIEND.
The Police of London Confident in Their Seach--Description of the Murderer Given.
London, Nov. 13.--The police are confident that they are on the right track in their search for the Whitechapel murderer. Two persons have been found who saw the man who accompanied the last victim to her room on the night she was murdered. Their descriptions of the man tally in every respect.
Hutchinson came forward on the 12th, and this is dated the 13th. Clearly this refers to Hutchinson. But, like the Star article, it also suggests that another witness also saw "Mr. Astracan" entering Kelly's room.
So perhaps this all suggests that Hutchinson was correct after all?
On the 13th the police are looking for Mr. Astracan.
On the 14th a man of "gentlemanly appearance" is re-arrested by the police. A connection? |
Author: The Viper
Saturday, 05 January 2002 - 04:44 pm | | Good bit of digging R.J., but I think there is a little confusion here.
The incident reported in The Star also appeared in The Times for 19th November. The latter makes it clear that the arrest of the man at Euston took place on the previous Saturday (17th November). The suspect arrested apparently described himself as a doctor, and therefore was of the "gentlemanly appearance" you describe.
So we’re looking for witnesses (plural, at least two) at the inquest who described such a suspect. I can’t identify two such witnesses. Can you? Mary Ann Cox, who described Mr. Blotchy as, "a short stout man shabbily dressed", clearly wasn’t one of them.
Sarah Lewis might have been though. As well as describing a man waiting at the end of the court (Hutchinson?), Lewis told the jury how she and a friend had encountered a man in Bethnal Green Road the previous Wednesday wearing a round high hat and carrying a bag. She then testified to seeing him again in Commercial Street at 2:30 a.m. on the morning of the murder.
Who could the other witness have been? Nobody else fits the bill, so by default it would appear to be Hutchinson – who didn't testify at the inquest. That would suggest that The Star’s report is in error. Either the whole basis of their report was completely off-beam or they made the mistake of assuming that Hutchinson had appeared at the inquest. The latter is more likely in my opinion. It would have been an easy mistake to make, since Hutch went to the police on the evening of the inquest day, and basic details of his statement appeared in some of the next morning’s newspapers.
The article in the New York Tribune is dated 14th November, prior to the arrest at Euston. Consequently it cannot refer to the same suspect. Furthermore, you will note that the NYT doesn't give any descriptive details of this suspect. It would seem logical that the man referred to here is Mr. Blotchy and that one of the witnesses was Mrs. Cox, the other presumably being another local resident. The report does after all contain the words "…accompanied the last victim to her room on the night she was murdered".
Regards, V. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 06 January 2002 - 11:20 pm | | Viper--Thanks for the comments. Very solid reasoning. The Star's report is still puzzling to me, but I can see where you might be right there. I hadn't thought of the possibility of Sarah Lewis. Although now I'm equally unsure about the Tribune report referring to Hutchinson, what makes it an interesting possibility to me is that the police would certainly have been less interested in Mr. Blotchy once Hutchinson came forward the evening of the 12th with his sighting of a later visitor to Kelly's room. The NYT article's claim that the police are 'confident that they are on the right track' sounds like it fits with the confidence Abberline gives to Hutchinson's identification in his private report, and the plan of having two police officers sent out to search for the suspect. [Would they have been equally confident about the drunken Blotchy before they knew of Mr. Astracan?] Still, with the article dated 13th November, there's no guarantee that the reporter would have been aware of Hutchinson yet, so it could just as easily refer to Mr. Blotchy, even though we don't know that he was ever seen by a second witness.
Finally, I have to confess that I had a slightly hidden agenda. When I was referred to the 'man of gentlemanly appearance' being arrested on the following day, I wasn't thinking of the mysterious arrest at Euston station, but was actually thinking of the warrant issued for Tumblety's arrest on the 14th...the day after Hutchinson made the rounds.
Just a thought. Back to the drawing board I guess. Cheers, RJP |
|
|
|
|
