Some Questions As To His Story

[How Brown]

This is yet another area of the Case that we've overlooked...the establishment of a Hutchinson thread.

Last night, Nina and I were discussing numerous Hutchinson related "points".

One of them was the possibility....and I'm not sure if this has ever been mentioned before...if it has,please let me know...which Nina commented on about Hutchinson actually being responsible for the Astrakhan Man having the liason with Mary Kelly....reliant of course on whether this liasing ever occurred in the first place.

It was hashed back and forth whether Hutchinson acted as sort of a "on the spot pimp'...who hooked these two up....and may have waited ( which he says he did ) expecting some sort of remuneration for his efforts in obtaining a client for Kelly.

One other thing thats never been fully explained about Hutchinson is how, if he was indeed skint as he claims to have been and claimed to have told Kelly, he was able to find lodging for that night. What is he doing hanging out in the rain and cold if he HAD lodging ?

I'm hoping Judge Hinton will appear on this thread to elaborate...knowing that some of us don't have a copy of his book, FROM HELL, to gauge his position.

Any comments,people?

[How Brown]

It would also be nice if Glenn Andersson, one of the biggest Abberline critics, could appear here to discuss these points made.

Although I am hip to the fact that Glenn has never been "happy" with FGA, I still am not absolutely certain as to why....and perhaps one of the previous statements on this thread is that very reason.

[Mags]

I don't think Mary needed any help finding customers. And if Hutch had the money to actually wait inside Crossingham's he probably would have, as you point out.

I think he panicked at the thought of having been seen hanging out near the murder site and made up the most outlandish story to deflect suspicion fronm himself. The police as well as the general public must have been ready by then to hang the crime on just about anyone and Hutch must have panicked. I know I would have.

[Mr. Poster]

hi ho How

There is no need for GH to have got lodgings. We know from historical documents written at the time (fully referenced on threads now consigned to memory) that walking the streets all night when without doss was pretty much what people did. At any rate...perhap he got lucky and found a dry spot undera bridge.

p

[How Brown]

Thanks very much Lars...thats another consideration to where he "crashed" on the night in question.

Good thinkin'...even for a Norwegian:)

[Caroline Morris]

I don't think Mary needed any help finding customers.

Hi Mags,

While that's almost certainly true in the sense of quantity, it may not be true in the sense of quality. Hutch's claim that Mary asked him to lend her sixpence and his reply that he couldn't has always had a ring of truth about it for me, as it wasn't a necessary part of his story and would have given the impression that he knew he could have her for sixpence if only he could find the funds - and suddenly here was this fancy man, invented or not, who could 'lend' Mary (as in pay her) a lot more than sixpence towards her back rent, or indeed 'lend' Hutch (as in be good for) the sixpence he needed for a place in Mary's bed and maybe a bit of the other thrown in.

This is where Hutch could have come in handy from Mary's point of view as well as that of her customers. Since Joe's recent departure she had total freedom on the one hand to offer her customers a bed and charge more accordingly, to help keep McCarthy sweet and keep herself in gin tokens. But on the other hand she had to bear in mind that among her customers a homicidal maniac could be lurking. Hutch may have been able to do a bit of scouting, in Petticoat Lane for instance, for the kind of customer who was willing to pay above average for a 'tart with a heart' (!) and her own bed, even if it was only in crummy Dorset Street.

Mary may have trusted Hutch to 'vet' such customers and weed out any oddballs, but she may also have equated an ability to pay more up front (regardless of their ability to snatch it back again) with an inability to be the savage who had lately been ripping up women on the street. There is nothing to say that the average working girl would not have suspected her own 'kind' in 1888 before a man who evidently had greater spending power. Prejudice takes many forms.

A quick sixpence handed to Hutch by the customer for his pains before said customer disappears inside to get 'comfortable' with Mary, and two birds are killed with one stone. Customer assumes that Hutch has made himself scarce with his cut of the dodgy deal, but instead he hangs around (getting seen in the process) because he now has sixpence to 'lend' Mary and - ahem - get his head down, as soon as Customer has had his two bobs' worth and departed.

But Mary is evidently giving him a long session for his money and Hutch gives up waiting. The rest is history, and Hutch's overly colourful description could be an indication that he was too far in not to go to the police with a story, but was also frightened that a genuine description of a customer he found for Mary would put his own life in danger.

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris G.]

Hi Howard

I think most of us have come to the conclusion that Hutchinson was "up to something" that night and that was why his coming forward and witness statement were delayed until after the inquest. Maybe he was involved in some unrelated crime or as you say was working as a pimp for Mary Jane. Certainly it might seem that his statement that he was friendly with her might indicate some association, business or otherwise. In which case though if he got Astrakhan man and MJK together would he have given a truthful description of the man? The statement would appear to be either a total fabrication or a distortion of the truth. Interesting to ponder.

All the best

Chris

[How Brown]

Caz:

I think your post and points were very well made. Thanks for sharing those ideas.

The possibility that Hutchinson

A. Arrives from Romford
B. Is outdoors at the moment
C. Has no money for Kelly to borrow
D. Figures a way to get the money she needs
E. Goes to Petticoat Lane or another street to procure a client
F. Depends on Kelly to kickback some coin to him after the expected 10 minute liason is over with....

.....would possibly explain why the man is standing outdoors in the rain and cold. I can't understand nor ever could understand WHY Hutch would wait around while Kelly is engaged with a rank and file, garden variety, run of the mill customer. Whats it to him ? If he's not her pimp...her brother...her boyfriend...her best male friend.....whats it to him unless there is something in it for him?

This also connects with Chris George's point(s) about a "false description" in a way.

Hutchinson might have gotten frightened...not that he had any part whatsoever with the actual murder...but,as mentioned, did have something to do with the hookup with a character who turns out to be her killer.

Hutchinson's elaborate description does in a way sound like a description one would give to obscure the real features of a man you would not care to run into again.

Why does Hutchinson take "an extra step" in peering into the face of the man in the first place? Is this standard procedure, considering that virtually every man I know, and I have asked this to several men out there in the civilian world...would turn their heads when the two passed because what the two, Kelly and Astrakhan, were about to do was... well....of a sexual nature. Its a gesture that most men would make in a scenario like that.

Back to you folks....

[Kim Ross]

Gday. i agree that H was probably her pimp or EXTREMELY interested friend/boyfriend. About the bloke with the fob watch (I think) that he gave such a detailed description of, it could be he was looking for a little affection. It could also be that he made him up because everyone was looking at him and he needed to deflect attention away from himself. 'Yes i was there but i didnt't do it but i can tell you about this bloke i saw her with. He looked shady to me....'

Cheers

[How Brown]

Dear Kim:

As far as anyone knows...yet...it doesn't appear that anyone was actually looking for Hutchinson as you mentioned in your post. Many people I am sure think that Hutchinson may have labored over the decision to appear in the police station 3 days after the actual murder....because he might have considered someone may have seen him lounging around at the end of the court on the fateful night.

[Kim Ross]

Gday

You know much more about this than I do. I don't think H is a goer but then..now correct me if I'm wrong Kelly had defence marks on her forearms. That means she was awake and saw what was coming. What prostitute would go to sleep while her customer was in the room. If it was H then maybe she would be laid back (excuse the pun).

Please point me in the right direction

Cheers

[How Brown]

Dear Kim:

One of the "beautys" of Ripperology is that despite your comment about me or someone else here necessarily "knowing more" about a specific aspect or scenario found within the Case...none of us are certain of what transpired in Millers Court and are therefore just as "in the dark' as to the precise movements of Hutchinson that night as you might think you are. Your opinion is just as valuable as most and definitely as valuable as mine. Don't ever let anything obscure that fact.

Kelly did have what were probably defensive marks on her arms and for the sake of bringing up more possible ideas for the both of us, Kim...let me toss these up here.

1. Kelly may have been killed by the client after a sexual encounter and putting on her chemise. She wasn't nude.

2. Kelly may have been killed before she could get her chemise off and before the sexual liasing occurred.

3. Kelly may have had sex with the client....the client leaves...comes back...and enters ( hand through broken window to lift latch ) and then as she is nodding out, assaults her in the chemise she put on after he left and she was preparing to, or in, sleep.

4. Kelly may have been killed by Hutchinson, with the myriad of concomitant scenarios that would entail.

5. Kelly may have engaged in sex with that Astrakhan Man....he leaves...and someone else "bum rushes" her by rapping on the door...she opens it....he accosts her ( in her chemise ) and goes to "work" on her on the bed.

These are but a few,Kim, of the potential scenarios we are ALL faced with when trying to make sense of the events that night.

To further complicate matters, I have often wondered what the consensus would have been as to whom killed Kelly, had Hutchinson NOT appeared at the police station on the 12th. How about you?

[Kim Ross]

Gday. Thanks for being so supportive as i try to wind my way through all the information. I don't have a bee in my bonnet about Hutchinson so I'll get that out of the way. So, we accept that he was not out in the cold, hanging around for 45mins or so, just because he had a kind heart. But he is, I'm certain, the man that Sarah Lewis/Mrs Kennedy told police she saw hanging around. If so, the cops already knew that someone had been there and they had a pretty good description of him. Now, with the hysteria in the area and the fact that a pardon was offered on Nov 10 for anyone who could give info about the crime, if i were H I'd be heading for the cop shop pretty quickly.

As you say, we'll never know what happened in that room besides the fact that Kelly was butchered. we don't know if she had intercourse with Jack but defence wounds, to me, would indicate that she was probably removing her clothes when he struck. But then again, would a pro who lived at that time in that part of london have bothered to undress to service her Joe.

Perhaps someone can give me an answer to that question.

Cheers

[How Brown]

Kim:

To answer your last question....yes, I would think that Kelly would undress to engage in coitus with Joe Barnett, IF that aspect of their relationship was based on some level of intimacy that sex with a stranger isn't.

Off the subject for a moment....I don't know if you've put much thought into this...I am sure others have...and up to now I haven't. Your question shook some apples off my tree over here which were sort of shakin' a little after reading "The Seduction of Mary Kelly" by Bill Perring.

There really isn't any proof is there, that Barnett and Kelly were intimate on a sexual level is there?

The wonderful book by Bill Perring, The Seduction of Mary Kelly, focuses on Barnett as almost a sort of "brother" ( and brother, what a pain in the butt that guy is with his echolalia in Bill's book !) to MJK.

It might be possible that after Barnett lost his job, his "value" to Kelly deteriorated to the point that any gratuitous sex they may have had vanished.

Its difficult for a man ( me )...to come to grips with how a guy like Barnett.......... who is not some 50 to 60 year old guy livin' in the LVP who has to pawn his shoes in order to find a roof over his head for a night and accept that his female life partner has to dole out her one remaining commodity, her vagina, in order to do the same for a glass of gin or a roof over her head as well.... tolerated other men to come into contact with someone he has an emotional attachment to....unless this attachment was not as deep as we have been led to believe it was at one time. Maybe she was a meal ticket for Barnett as well at some point and she got hip to that fact and put an end to it.

You've got to love someone an awful lot to tolerate someone else engaging in sexual contacts with smelly,greasy, and drunk men...who at any point, might have given Kelly syphilis or gonhorrea....which of course could have been given to Barnett HAD they been such a steady rollin' couple as we think they were. There's no way Barnett didn't know of the consequences of Kelly's behavior and how it could affect him.

This latter fact alone would have had me looking for someone "new" awfully quick.

I don't like to use and almost never did or do, the word "whore", Kim...in describing the victims of Jack The Ripper. But if I did use it, there's no question that the one whom I would openly and freely use it towards would be Kelly. I think she was the most capable woman in terms of age and enduring factory work or domestic service...and the one who could have risen out of her hole the easiest.

[Kim Ross]

Gday. So you think it possible Barnett might have come back and done her in. OK we both i think agree that it wasn't H. But I still believe he was up to something. Why would you tell the coppers that she asked you for money? Either trying to really push he wasn't her pimp or he was really stupid. But I don't think the latter when i read his extremely detailed account about the man he said he saw leaving with Kelly. I must admit that I still am pretty iffy about this. He saw this bloke and someone else saw him but no-one else saw the bloke H said he saw. If you get my drift ( I hope).

Anway about Barnett. He knew she was a pro. He said he didn't want her to return to it. But 'she" and I emphasize 'she' was 30? shillings in arrears. Where was good, kind hearted Joe B when she couldn't pay the rent?

I just seem to keep coming up with more questions.

Cheers:faint:

[How Brown]

Kim:

No,actually I don't "think" either one of these two gents was her killer.
Its just one of the many "mysteries within the Mystery", isn't it...the story these two characters tell about MJK.

[Caroline Morris]

Hi All,

I can't see Hutch hanging around just out of curiosity, but I also can't see him going to the cops with an invented description of a suspect if he was the killer - ie the same man previous witnesses may have seen talking to Kate and/or Annie. If those witnesses had seen Hutch, and therefore furnished a description that was nothing like his invented suspect, the mere act of walking into the police station could have turned out to be the last thing he ever did voluntarily.

So if Hutch was expecting to get something out of loitering outside Mary's room, apart from a chill, what was it? If he had no money, as he claimed he told Mary earlier, why would he have expected her to take him in when the present customer left (assuming he was waiting for a customer to leave) instead of going out again to find another man who did have sixpence for her?

But if, as I suggested in my previous post, Hutch found customers for her who were prepared to pay extra for a private room, he could have got his cut direct from the men before they went off with Mary down Commercial Street or disappeared indoors with her. It would not have been very practical if he had to wait outside each time for the business to be completed and then had to depend on Mary chucking some cash his way when she was likely to be in bed in a state of undress. But if Hutch had made his way to Mary's room that night clutching his latest earnings, he may have had reason to think she would let him in to spend them on her when she had finished entertaining whoever was inside when he arrived.

It's even possible that Hutch wasn't sure who was inside, if he had sent more than one man off with Mary that night (including Mr Blotchy perhaps?) or hadn't followed anyone back as he claimed, in which case she could have found herself another customer at any time before Hutch arrived outside. She could even have sent that one packing shortly after Hutch gave up waiting and Jack could have entered later, unseen by him or anyone else.

Hutch would hardly have wanted to admit it if he had unwittingly introduced Jack to Mary, never mind two or more potential Jacks. And if he couldn't be sure which one was the killer, if any, he was limited to coming up with a single description that wouldn't grass up the wrong man, but equally wouldn't finger the right one, which would put himself in mortal danger of the real killer seeking him out. Maybe his suspect was a composite figure made up from elements he recalled about more than one delighted customer plus others invented for good measure.

I still wonder if a red hanky, or the burned remains of one, could have been found in the room and taken as support for Hutch's story. If a red hanky could have been used as a sign that a customer approaching Mary had come 'recommended', Hutch would not have needed the daylight to know about it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Caz and How,
I have often thought how closely the description of Hutchinson"s man matches Druitt.Same colour hair, deep set eyes, thick brows,pale complexion and classy dress sense----they found the drowned Druitt similarly smartly dressed with the tie pin, watch with gold chain,kid gloves ,pocket handkerchief and overcoat which possibly had an astrakhan collar missing-these astrakhan collars and cuffs being very fashionable at the time.They often made them "detachable" ----but ofcourse it could equally have been the "shirt collar" that was missing---they also made those detachable!
Anyway, I believe Hutchinson probably did see this character,got a bit scared about letting the police know the full story since he had been at the scene of the crime in the early hours and delayed telling them for this reason---simple as that.
Hutchinson"s man could therefore have been the Ripper.
The only question I have about the story is what he did when he left.You would think that since he had waited for three quarters of an hour there he might have returned later to see if he could kip there---ie if he was simply walking round Whitechapel when he left Millers Court.Maybe he fell asleep in a doorway poor sod!
Natalie

[Caroline Morris]

The only question I have about the story is what he did when he left.You would think that since he had waited for three quarters of an hour there he might have returned later to see if he could kip there---ie if he was simply walking round Whitechapel when he left Millers Court.Maybe he fell asleep in a doorway poor sod!
Natalie

Hi Nats,

Well of course it's possible that Hutch did return later to try his luck again and was the first to look through that window! Might explain his delay in coming forward - he would have been in shock and wondering what the hell he should do for the best. Would he have dared report the murder himself in such circumstances? Risky just to do a runner if he was innocent, but risky to lie low and not come forward at all, in case he had been seen in the court twice that night at separate times.

Love,

Caz
X

[Nemo]

I consider it a strong possibility that Hutchinson knew who was in the room with Kelly up to and possibly beyond 3am

If his statement is fabrication which surrounds some actual facts about the encounter, then we can possibly speculate that the physical aspects of Hutchinson's story (except the description of Astrakhan) are true, but the reasons given are false

To cut a long story...

ie
Hutchinson has a man whom he is offering to set up with a woman for a price

Hutchinson tells him to wait in sight on the corner of Thrawl St while he finds a woman

Hutchinson meets Kelly, explains the situation to Kelly and points her to the client

She makes the connection and the man nods at Hutchinson in acknowledgement as he passes by on the way to Mary's room

Hutchinson hangs about - leads the man out of the area and gets paid

Mary retires to bed

So - there are still numerous possibilities as to who actually killed Mary as it could have been Hutchinson / the client returning or else another unknown third party

Hutchinson hears the inquest testimony - noting especially the time of death, and realises he is in a predicament after being spotted

He and/or his man were probably the last people to see Mary before the killer

He attends the police station to explain his presence. He fabricates the description to protect his man

He states that he doesn't think the man he saw would be the killer anyway - again to protect the man from investigation

In this scenario, Astrakhan does not exist. Mary left her room after 12.30am. Hutchinson was more than likely innocent.

Mary could have been killed up to an hour after Hutchinson left the area which opens up a number of possibilities.

[Garry Wroe]

To my mind, the central problem with Hutchinson's story is that he was clearly unaware that Kelly was roaring drunk at the time he claimed to have encountered her, and yet he asserted that she 'was not drunk', merely 'a little spreeish'.

Kelly was described by Mary Cox as having been 'very much intoxicated' when the two women met shortly before midnight. So intoxicated, in actual fact, that Kelly was all but incomprehensible. Given the likelihood that Kelly then went indoors and had her fair share of Blotchy's beer, the notion that she could have been 'not drunk' at 2:00am is laughable.

Thus Hutchinson could not have met Kelly as he described in his police and press statements. And if he didn't meet her, he almost certainly never saw her. Which would seem to indicate that the story relating to Astrakhan was a fabrication on Hutchinson's part.

[How Brown]

Garry...thanks for kickstarting this thread back up...and for the remarks.

One reason is that I get the opportunity to "fix" the following remark :

"There really isn't any proof is there, that Barnett and Kelly were intimate on a sexual level is there?"- Me

Not sure what I said that for or why or in what context, but in any event, I do believe they were intimates in the sexual sense.

[Garry Wroe]

Although I don't recall the source, Howard, one of Kelly's associates said something to the effect that Kelly couldn't bear Barnett being near her. Given that Barnett continued to visit Kelly on what appear to have been friendly terms, the implication is that Kelly had become less than enamoured with the physical side of their relationship. Thus your earlier observation might not be too far wide of the mark. I have long believed that Kelly had an ulterior motive in allowing fellow-prostitutes to share her room. Aside from the reality that she probably earned a little extra money from this arrangement, I tend to think that she was attempting to provoke Barnett into upping and leaving.

Hence I wouldn't be in a rush to recant were I you, Howard.

[Stephen Thomas]

[QUOTE=Garry Wroe;152432]Although I don't recall the source, Howard, one of Kelly's associates said something to the effect that Kelly couldn't bear Barnett being near her. Given that Barnett continued to visit Kelly on what appear to have been friendly terms, the implication is that Kelly had become less than enamoured with the physical side of their relationship.[QUOTE]

The first sentence there needs back-up, Garry.

The second sentence makes no logical sense.

[Garry Wroe]

The first sentence there needs back-up, Garry.
I don't have the time to track it down at the moment, Stephen, but have a feeling that it emanated from Maria Harvey.
The second sentence makes no logical sense.
Really? Okay, then. Assuming that my memory isn't at fault here and that the source also related genuine information, it would appear that Kelly's feelings for Barnett were in decline. Since the two met up regularly following Barnett's departure from Miller's Court and were reportedly on good terms, it seems reasonable to suppose that Kelly no longer wanted a sexual relationship with Barnett. In other words, she was prepared to tolerate his company (and accept his money), but didn't want him in her bed.

Reading between the lines, Kelly seems to have tired of Barnett some months before their eventual separation. She certainly appears to have returned to prostitution (if she ever gave it up in the first place) despite Barnett's overt disapproval, and even invited fellow streewalkers to stay in her room. Neither was the liaison with Joe Fleming (and possibly others) indicative that she was entirely happy with Barnett. It's as though Kelly was deliberately attempting to drive a wedge between herself and Barnett.

So again, I wouldn't be in the least surprised if it turned out that Kelly had withdrawn from the physical side of her relationship with Barnett as a means of driving him away. She wouldn't have been the first. Nor the last.

[Stephen Thomas]

I wouldn't be in the least surprised if it turned out that Kelly had withdrawn from the physical side of her relationship with Barnett as a means of driving him away. She wouldn't have been the first. Nor the last.

Hi Garry

Apologies for the rather curt post to you above.

You could be right of course but I've seen nothing in the records to indicate that she was trying to get rid of him and all in all they seem to have been a relatively happy couple given their circumstances. A more likely scenario, to my mind, is that Joe moved out to free up the room so that Mary could make more money and rather than him giving money to her, as he claimed, he was actually coming round to get money from her.

[Phillip Walton]

Perhaps Barnett was Pimping off of Kelly? This might explain why she was carrying on despite the danger of JTR.

[Wicker Man]

To my mind, the central problem with Hutchinson's story is that he was clearly unaware that Kelly was roaring drunk at the time he claimed to have encountered her, and yet he asserted that she 'was not drunk', merely 'a little spreeish'.

Garry, I recall you mentioning this previously, I thought it a rather odd observation. Generally women drink less than men, again generally women get drunk quicker than men. These are just general observations.

This being the case, for Cox to suggest Kelly was 'much intoxicated', yet Hutchinson see's her only as 'tipsy' is I think quite in keeping with what we might expect. One man's "tipsy" is one woman's "blotto".

On the other hand, Hutchinson might have had a 'thing' for Kelly so he was just downplaying her condition in typical British fashion. If someone appears badly beaten they might say, "I walked into a door". Or, if they are so drunk to be legless we might say "they had one too many".
Downplaying a condition is common in British 'wit', ie; the great British understatement.

I most certainly could not take such a triffle comment as a good indication of Hutchinson lying. If thats the case, the 'great British understatement' makes every Brit a liar every day.

All the best, Jon S.

[Garry Wroe]

Apologies for the rather curt post to you above.
No apology necessary, Stephen

A more likely scenario, to my mind, is that Joe moved out to free up the room so that Mary could make more money and rather than him giving money to her, as he claimed, he was actually coming round to get money from her.
That’s certainly a possibility, Stephen, though a remote one in my view. I tend to think that there has emerged a somewhat distorted view of Kelly and Barnett over the years. Kelly is largely seen as the attractive innocent who became a victim of circumstances beyond her control, and Barnett as a violent, controlling drunkard who may well have been Kelly’s killer. Personally, I see Kelly as anything but the innocent. If those views expressed by customers of the Britannia may be taken as reliable, she was extremely argumentative whilst under the influence and something of a bruiser. As for Barnett, he has been subjected to the level of unfair character assassination that calls to mind the case of Joanne Lees.

Bruce Paley has a great deal to answer for in my opinion.

[Garry Wroe]

Perhaps Barnett was Pimping off of Kelly? This might explain why she was carrying on despite the danger of JTR.
To my mind, Phillip, Kelly was a woman who craved the helter-skelter lifestyle. She wanted the freedom to get drunk as and when she pleased, but could only realistically finance such an existence by way of prostitution. A similar pattern may be observed with Polly Nichols, who obtained a position in the Cowdry household which guaranteed an income as well as a degree of personal stability. But it didn’t last. Polly upped and left and was soon hawking her body in the East End as a means of financing an alcoholic lifestyle.

For Nichols and the Cowdry household, substitute Kelly and Barnett. Kelly effectively ‘absconded’ from the kind of restrictive lifestyle that was being imposed on her by Barnett and returned to her old ways. Barnett did all he could to keep her on the straight and narrow, but it was a lost cause. Once Barnett became unemployed, he became surplus to requirements. Kelly not only grew colder towards him, she set out to deliberately antagonize him by inviting streetwalkers to stay in their room.

Thus, to my way of thinking, Phillip, it was Kelly who was exploiting Barnett, not the other way round. I see no evidence that Barnett was either a pimp or an abuser of women. But there is copious evidence to suggest that Kelly was not the fragrant rose of latter-day myth.

[Garry Wroe]

Garry, I recall you mentioning this previously, I thought it a rather odd observation. Generally women drink less than men, again generally women get drunk quicker than men. These are just general observations … This being the case, for Cox to suggest Kelly was 'much intoxicated', yet Hutchinson see's her only as 'tipsy' is I think quite in keeping with what we might expect. One man's "tipsy" is one woman's "blotto".
It’s an entirely relevant observation, Jon, when one is attempting to piece together the final hours of Mary Kelly. According to Mary Cox, Kelly was drunk to the point of near-incoherence a little before midnight and was barely able to utter a simple ‘goodnight’. Kelly then entered her room with Blotchy and yet more alcohol. The chances of her not partaking in Blotchy’s beer are in my view less than zero. And yet, a little over two hours later, Kelly was purportedly out on the streets where she met and spoke to George Hutchinson. As if this wasn’t unlikely enough given the hour and the prevailing weather conditions, she had now magically sobered up to the extent that Hutchinson believed that she ‘was not drunk’.

Of course, Jon, you are free to contemplate the finer points of human perception to your heart’s content. As for myself, I view this as one of those instances where the sensible approach is simply to apply good old-fashioned common sense. In so doing, it becomes immediately apparent that the observations of Cox and Hutchinson are mutually exclusive. Since Kelly couldn’t have been near-incoherently drunk and merely a little tipsy, one has to exercise a value judgement in order to determine which of the Cox and Hutchinson versions is the most likely to have been true. Thus, all things considered, I’m inclined to trust Mrs Cox. And emphatically so.

I most certainly could not take such a triffle comment as a good indication of Hutchinson lying. If thats the case, the 'great British understatement' makes every Brit a liar every day.
The evidence that Hutchinson related a spurious version of events is overwhelming, Jon, and is certainly not contingent on a single remark. In Hutchinson’s police statement, for example, Astrakhan appeared out of nowhere. When speaking to the press, however, Hutchinson described how he had walked along Commercial Street and saw Astrakhan lurking on the corner of Thrawl Street. Nor did he make any mention in his police statement of having spoken to a policeman on the Sunday morning, yet there it is in his press rendition. When speaking to Abberline, he denied having entertained any suspicions regarding Astrakhan, but then went on to discuss his suspicions with reporters. And it goes on, and on, and on …

Over the years I have discussed Hutchinson with many people. Whereas some are willing and able to adopt an objective perspective, others resort to a default mindset which entails accepting or excusing even the most transparently untrue elements of Hutchinson’s narrative. But if any real headway is to be made in the study of this case, the myth of Astrakhan must first be dispelled. Only then can we begin to piece together Kelly’s final hours and thus better understand how she came to die. For some, however, this appears to be a step too far, and they cling to the kind of old and outmoded beliefs that render real progress impossible.

For some, so it would seem, real progress is no progress.