George Hutchinson is lying. The question is not why – at the moment, but his reasoning. He didn’t see the gold-watch chain man, with Mary Kelly at two in the morning, as he stated. It is impossible for the human eye to detect colour in the dark –earlier blog.
So, Hutchinson walked to and from Romford in the hours preceding Mary Kelly’s slaughter? It wasn’t market day in Romford. If he did walk the twelve miles to Romford then whatever caused him to slog those miles was a call of duty. A family bereavement, which means George Hutchinson lives, lived, or has family in Essex?
I believe George Hutchinson did witness Mary Kelly with a man as described, but during the day. After all, if a lie is to convince best ensure it doesn’t vary from one statement to another. Tie the lie to a truth – hang it on fact. Otherwise, it's too easy to forget those little incriminating details. George Hutchinson recalled and recounted an event that occurred earlier but moved the occurrence to the night in question. There’s no reason a man wouldn’t wear a gold watch chain, in a main thoroughfare, in the middle of the day.
So what’s left is George’s interest in Mary Kelly. He states he stood outside her living space for three-quarters of an hour and even ventured into the small court. He also says he gave her money on occasion. He stated he had known her for three years, which means he met her after her arrival in London and when she worked as a prostitute in the Ratcliff area. It's not too difficult to work out why he gave her money.
A witness, Sarah Lewis, testified she saw a stout man standing looking up the alley as if he waited for someone. George Hutchinson came forward after the inquest had closed and made his bizarre, and obviously untrue, statement.
The question is what part of it is a lie?
Mary Kelly escorting a man with a gold chain and a red handkerchief, according to George Hutchinson’s description, is a lie.
Joe Barnett told Mary not to take other men while she was with him. So some time after the date of 30th October when Joe Barnett left Miller’s Court.
Romford is twelve hours from Whitechapel. He saw Mary Kelly at two in the morning in Commercial Street.
So walking at four miles an hour, he left Romford at eleven o’clock at night. As I’ve already said, it wasn't market day. And even if it were, it was an early morning market. It begs the question what was he doing from the market’s closure to his arrival in Whitechapel? It’s a three-hour walk to Essex and another three hours return journey but he lurks on a dismal drizzly night in Dorset Street watching an alley? It doesn’t make sense.
I don’t think his visit to Romford was that day. So perhaps he did visit the market, just on a different day and the man he saw with Kelly was a different time from his stated date. The market in Romford opens at six in the morning. So George would have left Whitechapel at three in the morning. The market closes at two. He would have returned to Whitechapel at four in the afternoon at the earliest. Enough time to witness Mary Kelly meet a punter in Commercial Street. If he’d been to Romford market, surely it was to find work? If that is the case, why didn’t he have any money? He says, when Mary Kelly asked if he would lend her a sixpence, he replied that he’d spent all his money going to Romford. Not to work then? Or perhaps he didn’t find someone willing to hire him when he arrived there? Okay, so he’s not going to Romford to make money but he’s spent money. Which leads me back to where has a link to Essex other than the market.
So if he is lying what other lies is he telling and why? He places himself in the frame. No one knew it was he until he confesses. He made his statement given only after the inquest’s closure. But he doesn’t know what that witness said. But then something prompted his arrival at Commercial Street police station after he heard that a stout man was seen in Dorset Street. Perhaps she knows him? Or perhaps he recognised her? She was intent in finding sanctuary from an abusive husband in the early hours of the morning on a dismally damp night. I expect she tucked herself in her shawl and ignored him – signalling she wasn’t for hire. She wouldn’t have made eye content with him. But he saw and stared at her. But if he recognised her, he didn’t know if she recognised him. Word was out about the killing and the inquest. But he didn’t arrive until its closure. So something unnerved him . . . Just thinking aloud.
So he didn’t go to Romford to visit the market.
What we have is man who was roaming the streets at two in the morning. Why? He had a doss but he had no money to give Mary Kelly the sixpence she requested. Or so he says.
A man wandering the streets in the early hours of the morning? He sees Mary Kelly. She’s broke and desperate. They have known each other for three years but they refer, according to George Hutchinson’s statement, with their titles – Mary Kelly calls him Mr Hutchinson. No friendly chat here. It is formal. Perhaps that was the Victorian, ‘cover up the piano legs’ style of prim etiquette? But not on these mean streets. This isn’t the bourgeoisie.
Perhaps Mary Kelly did meet George Hutchinson that night. Perhaps he did say he didn’t have any money. But perhaps his mate did? Perhaps that’s who George Hutchinson waited for that night as he peered down that alley? George Hutchinson waited for someone. His mate who was with Kelly. He had the sixpence she wanted. Do serial killers work in pairs? Yes, apparently they do. But that presupposes George Hutchinson knew his mate was a killer.
I think George Hutchinson isn’t called Hutchinson – previous blog. He has family in Essex and he knew Jack the Ripper.
