Hutchinson: Deposition Revisited

[How Brown]

Over time, its easy to forget some of the thousands of details or facts one has in their head regarding this Case.
I'm sure those interested in Hutchinson will have a better explanation for the following than most, so I'll leave it to them should they care to respond.

My question is...
Since people have usually gone with two major options regarding Hutchinson's testimony:
1. He made it up and was a waste of time.
2. He was Kelly's killer

....could Hutchinson have used the references found in the New York Tribune of Nov. 10th and the following one all the way out in California on the same day...2 days prior to his appearance at the police station ?

If this man mentioned was Indian Harry Bowyer, its possible,I think, that Bowyer would have said that he mentioned whats in the following article to Hutchinson after Hutchinson's disclosure to the police......just an opinion. (I don't know if Bowyer has ever been shown to be the source in question. Please confirm if thats been done.)

In short...how many other people knew about the content of the following article at the same time Hutchinson did, but unlike Hutchinson, did not go to the police with the same information ?

Academic,to be sure....but it makes you wonder whether Hutchinson was even there like he says he was...since he may have only heard whats in the following article at some point.

The police undoubtedly heard of this story which was reported in the press...and if it didn't appear in the London press ( I honestly don't recall if it was....) then from the two American sources ( New York & Sacremento, if not others...).

IF...this story... out in print on November 10th.... did give the police some encouragement at the time, is it possible that when Hutchinson appeared in front of Abberline & Co. on the 12th, that he was actually corroborating a story they had already had interest in and that in reality his story was not some "out of the blue" 11th hour revelation ?

Could Hutchinson's story have simply been a confirmation of previous information,people ?

Anyone up for rehashing this subject?

Nina Brown found this article in the California paper...although it does appear in the New York Tribune of the same date and others probably have seen it before.

Sacramento Daily Record-Union.
November 10, 1888
Page ONE
*******

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Photo%20Thanksgiving/Forums%20March%202010/sac.jpg

[JTRSickert]

Howard,

One thing to check out would be if the California paper was available in London at the time. I mean, Because it seems to be local paper from CA, which is as far West from England that you can get in the USA, it seems rather unlikely to me that he would have seen the article. I mean, today if you go to a newsstand or magazine store in England, you may find some major US papers like the New York Times or the Washington Post (heck, maybe an Inquirer if you're lucky) but for a CA paper...I dunno, seems out of his league.

[How Brown]

JT:

What I am driving at ( sorry for any confusion I may have caused here) is..

...if the American papers had the reference of a "respectable looking man" on the 10th, then isn't it likely that the London police knew of the reference if not necessarily the origin or contributor of that reference at least before Hutchinson popped into the police station two days after on the 12th ?

...if so, then Hutchinson's deposition wasn't really something as extraordinary as it's made out to be, since the police and the citizens all the way over yonder in Sacremento,Cal. USA knew of the "respectable man" who appears to be awfully similar to Astrakhan Man two days before.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi How

I cannot resist a Hutch thread...

Since people have usually gone with two major options regarding Hutchinson's testimony:
1. He made it up and was a waste of time.
2. He was Kelly's killer


Therein lies the problem with Hutch and our view of him.

The third, and most likely, option is, and always has been, that:

3. He saw something and his report of it was hopelessly messed up due to a combination of factors beyond his control - stress, police pressure, gossip, the papers, memory, etc.

An eye witness but a poor one.

But not having "made it up" in the sense of him wilfully lying.

p

[How Brown]

Resist ye not,Lars...
Do you see what I'm getting at here,though ?

If Hutchinson and every other swinging schwantz in the East End knew from reading or hearing about the "respectably dressed man" in a London tabloid...then could Hutchinson simply been the first with the chutzpah to go to the police with an elaboration of the story...adding details to the template of the "respectably dressed man" ?
Motivation ? 15 minutes of fame...maybe the thought of a monetary gain,as in reward....

What do you think ? I think its possible.

[How Brown]

This is an example of what I'm driving at.
This is from a paper in Britain, outside of London, with reference to what Hutchinson stated on the same day. I'm puzzled by all this, to be honest.

Look at the reference to the two coats.

According to Abberline, Hutchinson was at the police station at 6 PM on the 12th.
How in the world, unless this was reported to the press before Hutchinson went to the police...could the following paper know about the two coats ?

The North-Eastern Daily Gazette
(Middlesbrough, England)
Monday, November 12, 1888

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Photo%20Thanksgiving/Forums%20March%202010/coat.jpg

[How Brown]

I know that the police had been given a description of the man seen with Kelly. Thats understood.
What isn't understood is how the press got ahold of it.
I think its very likely that Hutchinson invented this story without being present "coming down from Romford" now. I used to think he was very likely to have been there.
Hopefully,this hasn't been a waste of time for the reader, but I got one of those flashes we get from time to time that Hutchinson merely beat "someone else" to the punch in search of a reward.

[Jon Simons]

Hi How

I was wondering whether the time UK/USA time difference may have something to with it?

If it were six in the evening in London, wouldn`t it be ten in the morning in New York for example.. just a thought

[Mr. Poster]

Hi How

The alternative is that Hutch had already broadcast his tale far and wide and the press got hold of it?

P

[Nemo]

It wouldn't be wise to give a false detailed description of a person somebody else had already reported

[How Brown]

Good of you gents to come up with these ideas...

Jon:

If it were 6 PM in London, then it would have been 8 AM in Sacremento, California. Thats a good suggestion and thanks for that. I admit I forgot the time differential. I tend to think that the story of the respectably attired man was out prior to the day of the 12th....but I'm going to look further.

As Lars just said, Hutchinson or someone else might have mentioned details regarding the man in question and the press got ahold of it before he went to the station.

And Nemo's point of Hutchinson theoretically providing a false description could have worked out poorly for him, if...this story had been in circulation prior to his arrival at the station. Thats a good suggestion too,Nemo.

Thanks gents. I'll keep looking....

[Mr. Poster]

And of course the option-that-cannot-be-mentioned.... that there was a fairly toffish chap running around whitechapel and that GH wasnt the only man to see him with Kelly.

p

[Wicker Man]

Hi 'Aitch.
Did you find a solution to the question you posed in post #3?

Quote:
...if the American papers had the reference of a "respectable looking man" on the 10th, then isn't it likely that the London police knew of the reference if not necessarily the origin or contributor of that reference at least before Hutchinson popped into the police station two days after on the 12th ?

The subsequent newspaper article in post #6 appears to be taken from The Daily News of the same date.

The question seems to be, "who knew about the killer wearing two coats, before Hutchinson went to the police?"

The source appears to be Mrs Kennedy, she is the only witness who said she saw a man outside the Britannia on Friday morning who might fit the bill.
I say 'might' because in her description of the Wednesday sighting she describes the 'man' as wearing two coats, then goes on to say this is the same man she saw outside the Britannia on Friday morning. However, she makes no mention of whether he still wore the same two coats.
This may have been a reporters assumption because Sarah Lewis specifically say's the man she saw was 'without' his overcoat, be it right or wrong.
Regardless, your Saturday (10th) source appears to have been Mrs Kennedy.

Regards, Jon S.

[How Brown]

Jon:

Thanks for that, old bean...its been some time since I've thought about this thread.