Two things that don't make sense!

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

That's a terrible piece of reasoning!

Uhh...no.

It's actually pretty logical if you give it some thought: Killer may fear the possibility of being seen entering Kelly's room but went ahead and did it anyway. There's no "reasoning" about it - it's a fact. Of course I don't know for certain if the killer did any loitering, but with reliable eyewitness evidence of a man loitering outside, and preoccupied with, the crime scene an hour before the murder was committed AND examples aplenty of serial killers casing their indoor venues first through prior surveillance, I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to surmise that the killer may have dine precisel that in this case.

We know Blotchy was seen entering the room earlier with Mary but not seen leaving again. So he would have had plenty to be concerned about, if the cops believed he was the last man to do so, whether he was the killer or just a 'guest' with unfortunate timing.

Well, yes, in Blotchy's case, it's obvious that he'd been seen entering the room. There was a witness in the form of Mary Ann Cox who he can't possibly have missed. If there wasn't a witness visible in the locality, I'd stress again that the killer was pretty damned justified in satisfying himself that nobody had seen him enter a building. Unless, of course, we're prepared to accept that the killer realistically feared some sort of stake-out at a nearby window with some Victorian equivalent of a zoom-lense.

In the absence of any great insight into Blotchy's identity, it's also a bit premature to assert that he "didn't have a wild desire to explain himself".

But did he go out on November 9th, still assured that no previous witnesses could be a problem for him? Or did he know by then that he had no such assurance, and therefore should be taking extra steps not to allow anyone a decent sighting or description this time?

The latter, naturally.

So how long are you putting Hutch there if he went on to kill Mary?

Not being endowed of psychic powers, I've tended to avoid any confident assertions as to the exact length of time he remained in the spot where he was apparently seen by Lewis. I've only offered a reminder that we only have it on the deeply dubious authority of Hutchinson himself that he remained there for as long as he did. If Lewis saw Hutchinson, the only "corroborated" time period is 2:30. It just establishes his whereabouts for that interval of time, and no other. It doesn't corroborate his claim as to why he was there, nor how long he remained there.

he couldn't possibly know that half a dozen residents hadn't been enjoying a late chinwag in the court and could testify to his absence during the period he claimed to be there.

Oh, but he could. It wouldn't have required a deductive genius for realise that, in the wake of the assumed near-miss with Lewis at 2:30, it might have been prudent to moniter the court from a rather more discreet location from the one he was currently installed in, one that still afforded him the opportunity to moniter the comings and goings of Miller's Court residents and visitors.

Yes, Ben. And then I suppose you’d have gone out on November 9th and allowed at least one new witness to see you lurking near the scene of the next murder

Where are you getting "allowed" from? This was one of the most overcrowded districts of the East End, boasting a very high homeless and nocturnal population. Unless he was some invisible phantom of the night, he had little to no control over the very high chances of him being seen at a point crucial to the commission of the murder - pre-crime, post-crime, and during. Whoever he was, the killer was seen, he couldn't help it. It was a factor over which he had no control.

His best bet lay in an admittedly forlorm hope that he wouldn't have been noticed, and with men and women loitering on their streets for no good reason (Marshall, Mortimer etc), it wasn't as though the widawake man could have reasonably expected his presence to be noticed, any more than he could have expected Lewis - a stranger to the court - to veer into the passage he was monitering.

Every attempt to bolster it makes it sound even less credible than it did before

Good grief. Please avoid trying to flatter or delude yourself - it's quite embarrassing to behold. The reverse is becoming increasingly apparent; every crass attempt you make to negate it seems to increase its immunity to numpty criticism.

I challenge you to cite just one example of a serial killer who came forward because of potentially incriminating witness accounts connecting him with more than one of his offences, which he hoped to talk his way out of.

I didn't say Hutchinson came frward because of incriminating witness accounts connecting him with more than one of his offences.

What JTR suspect can be linked to more than one of the crimes?

I didn't claim that any other serial killer came frward because of incriminating witness accounts connecting them with more than one of their offences.

I have claimed that serial killers have come forward because of incriminating witness accounts connecting them with one of their offences, because it's true, and it serves to urinate with abandon over claims that "Hutchinson wouldn't have done that...", but I guess that won't prevent the patently desperate from making dishonest attempts to change the goalposts.

Keep trying.

[caz]

Hi Ben,

That would have been a concern for the killer whoever he was, but we know that the killer continued regardless.

That's a terrible piece of reasoning! Of course it would have been a concern for the killer, whoever he was, not to be seen loitering in the vicinity of his own crime scene, or entering or leaving it. But all you know is that Mary ended up dead. You don't know that her killer did any loitering at all, or gave anyone the opportunity to clock him in or near the court that night. Crucially, you don't know that he 'continued regardless' of having done any such things, but you do know that if the killer wasn't Hutch he obviously had no intention to come forward and admit to being there.

Once inside the court, however, the killer had a reasonable degree of assurance that he would not have been seen by any witnesses actually opening the door, even if it meant peering in an nearby windows to check for any signs of awake neighbours.

We know Blotchy was seen entering the room earlier with Mary but not seen leaving again. So he would have had plenty to be concerned about, if the cops believed he was the last man to do so, whether he was the killer or just a 'guest' with unfortunate timing. But he obviously didn't have any wild desire to come forward and explain himself. In fact it must have been a considerable relief to him when he learned that Hutch had introduced this flashy Jew to the cops, who really did appear to have overstayed his welcome chez Mary. Took any heat right off Blotchy for long enough to make himself scarce.

Before a certain time, he was assured that none of the witnesses had acquired anything like a decent sighting or description. After that time, it became alarmingly apparent that he had no such assurance, and so altered plans accordingly.

But did he go out on November 9th, still assured that no previous witnesses could be a problem for him? Or did he know by then that he had no such assurance, and therefore should be taking extra steps not to allow anyone a decent sighting or description this time?

Where does "a good hour" come from? Only Hutchinson himself. We only have "corroboration" - if you can call it that - for his whereabouts for a fleeting moment at 2:30am. If there was any incentive for claiming to have loitered there for longer than he actually did, it was probably to implicate the Astrakhan suspect further.

Hmmm. So how long are you putting Hutch there if he went on to kill Mary? I understand the incentive to claim he was there long enough to be able to put someone else in her room for more than a quick one. But if he wasn't there for much more than this 'fleeting moment' at 2.30, and lied about having followed Mary and her client back initially and also lied about hanging around until 3, he couldn't possibly know that half a dozen residents hadn't been enjoying a late chinwag in the court and could testify to his absence during the period he claimed to be there.

You will recognise your own words from (yet) another Hutch discussion:

Here's an interesting exchange from the Eddowes inquest:

[Coroner] What sort of man was this? - He had on a cloth cap with a peak of the same.
Mr. Crawford: Unless the jury wish it, I do not think further particulars should be given as to the appearance of this man.
The Foreman: The jury do not desire it.
Mr. Crawford (to witness): You have given a description of the man to the police? - Yes.

If the killer was keeping abrest of police "progress" and had read this extract from the Daily Telegraph, he would undoubtedly have been alarmed. "Special reason"? Withheld descriptions? Unsettling at best, especially when the full description was published much further down the line on 19th October.

If I had read that article at the time, I'd be thinking: what if they tried that naughty trick again with another witness at the next murder?

Best regards,
Ben

Yes, Ben. And then I suppose you’d have gone out on November 9th and allowed at least one new witness to see you lurking near the scene of the next murder, thus providing the police with even stronger naughty trick fuel, and giving yourself the huge headache of having to go to the cops yourself to try and render all their fuel harmless?

Sorry, Ben, but you are busy talking yourself out of your own scenario here. Every attempt to bolster it makes it sound even less credible than it did before, either from a self-preservation or bravado angle. I challenge you to cite just one example of a serial killer who came forward because of potentially incriminating witness accounts connecting him with more than one of his offences, which he hoped to talk his way out of. If you can’t do that, I’m afraid you are stuck with pure bravado propelling Hutch forward despite the danger of suppressed Lawende/Lewis/A N Other Witness testimony piling up and pinning him down.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Thanks for that, Simon.

It seems likely that The Times obtained the description directly from the witness, hence the few discrepencies with the more detailed police-endorsed one that appeared in the Police Gazzette on 19th October:

At 1.35 a.m., 30th September, with Catherine Eddows, in Church-passage, leading to Mitre-square, where she was found murdered at 1.45 a.m., same date - A MAN, age 30, height 5 ft. 7 or 8 in., complexion fair, moustache fair, medium build; dress, pepper-and-salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak of same material, reddish neckerchief tied in knot; appearance of a sailor.

Correction to my post above: the earliest anyone would have heard of suppressed witness descriptions was directly after the publication of the Eddowes inquest transcripts.

Best regards,
Ben

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ben,

Lawende's description being withheld at Eddowes' inquest is intriguing.

THE TIMES, 2nd October 1888

"The following is a description of a man seen in company with a woman who is supposed to be the victim of the murderer in the City. The man was observed in a court in Duke-street, leading to Mitre-square, about 1:40 a.m. on Sunday. He is described as of shabby appearance, about 30 years of age and 5ft. 9in. in height, of fair complexion, having a small fair moustache, and wearing a red neckerchief and a cap with a peak."

That's nine days prior to Lawende's appearance at the inquest, and almost identical to the description in the 19th October Swanson report and Police Gazette.

Regards,

Simon

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

This still leaves Hutch the Ripper at risk of being seen loitering in or around the court at any time after 3am, when he claimed that he left, or worse, being seen entering or leaving Mary's room.

That would have been a concern for the killer whoever he was, but we know that the killer continued regardless. Given Hutchinson's later admission that he entered the court itself - a detail conspicuously absent from his police statement - it is likely that he was concerned about the possibility of being seen after 3.00am, thus giving him an incentive to embellish and "improve" on his original account. Once inside the court, however, the killer had a reasonable degree of assurance that he would not have been seen by any witnesses actually opening the door, even if it meant peering in an nearby windows to check for any signs of awake neighbours.

Moreover you are proposing that Hutch had to tell the truth about being there - until 3am at least - when he learned that he had indeed been seen before that time.

No, I'm proposing that he only had to tell the truth about being there at 2:30am, when he realized he'd been seen, and that he introduced subsequent embellishments to the press "Did I mention I actually went inside Miller's Court?" to give himself an "out" in the unlikely event that another witness had seen him doing precisely that.

I say "unlikely" because the man had eyes. If he couldn't see or hear any other witnesses in the locality after Lewis and Cox had returned home for the last time, then short of fearing some sort of Hollywood-style stakeout from a nearby window, he would have been more than justified in feeling "confident that he hadn't been seen after (3.00am) as well"

You know I always struggle with your argument that Hutch came forward on the basis of learning that certain details of Lawende's testimony had been kept back initially and fearing that the same could apply to Lewis or other potential witnesses

I'm afraid I'm at a loss as to understand why, Caz. Before a certain time, he was assured that none of the witnesses had acquired anything like a decent sighting or description. After that time, it became alarmingly apparent that he had no such assurance, and so altered plans accordingly.

I struggle even further if he is supposed to have learned this about Lawende's testimony before going to Miller's Court that night, armed with his sharp knife and a fresh urge to kill, and lurking there for a good hour before indulging this urge

Where does "a good hour" come from? Only Hutchinson himself. We only have "corroboration" - if you can call it that - for his whereabouts for a fleeting moment at 2:30am. If there was any incentive for claiming to have loitered there for longer than he actually did, it was probably to implicate the Astrakhan suspect further. "It wasn't just a quick shag 'e was after. Oh no, 'e was there for a long time, and when I left, 'e was still bloomin' in there...with 'is tightly grapsed parcel. Y'know, that surly sinister wealthy Jew I was talking about?"

So when exactly is he meant to have become aware of the police holding back details, if not until after November 9th?

October 19th at the earliest, when Lawende's full description was published in the Police Gazzette, after being withheld from the inquest.

Best regards,
Ben

[caz]

Another thing that doesn't make sense

Hi Ben,

This still leaves Hutch the Ripper at risk of being seen loitering in or around the court at any time after 3am, when he claimed that he left, or worse, being seen entering or leaving Mary's room. Clearly, if he invented her last client, no witness including Lewis could have seen said client, either being watched by Hutch or entering or leaving. But anyone could have seen Hutch after 3am if they saw him before. Moreover you are proposing that Hutch had to tell the truth about being there - until 3am at least - when he learned that he had indeed been seen before that time. So how could he have been confident that he hadn't been seen after that time as well, if he was still in the court until considerably later, because he committed the murder there?

You know I always struggle with your argument that Hutch came forward on the basis of learning that certain details of Lawende's testimony had been kept back initially and fearing that the same could apply to Lewis or other potential witnesses. I struggle even further if he is supposed to have learned this about Lawende's testimony before going to Miller's Court that night, armed with his sharp knife and a fresh urge to kill, and lurking there for a good hour before indulging this urge, giving more Lawendes the opportunity to have seen him and have details of their subsequent testimony kept back.

If Hutch was forced to go to the cops on the basis of being seen by Lewis, it was because he had hung around Miller's Court like a complete idiot, allowing himself to be seen and going ahead with his murderous plans regardless of the possibility. That in itself is not too hard to buy, but if so, he was clearly oblivious that night to any lessons to be learned from Lawende. So when exactly is he meant to have become aware of the fact that the police had initially held back details of Lawende's sighting, since it could hardly have been before November 9th?

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

One explanation that could make some sense is that the long wait was integral to his story - ie he had to "be there" in order to confirm that his suspect had been in that room too long for a quickie.

Well, there you go.

You answer your own question in a way that should ennervate your original "Why would he do that if...?" doubts. If he wanted to implicate Astrakhan man in the murder for whatever reason, it was obviously in his interests to convey the impression that the suspect was in the room for a long time, thus leaving less room for the possibility of Astrakhan leaving and someone else - Kelly's real killer - arriving on the scene

It also provided Hutchinson with some degree of insurance in the event that he was seen by other witnesses besides Lewis. Admitting to have loitered outside the crime scene only for the 2:30am period would perhaps have given the game away that he was only coming forward to validate her sighting.

Maybe he could prove he was somewhere outside the area for one or more of the previous crimes - even prove he was not in Whitechapel on November 9th if push came to shove and he had made the whole thing up

Doubtful in the extreme, I'd say, Caz.

As I've explained before, the chances of an ostensibly solitary labourer living in a doss house with no transport options to speak of having anything like a verifiable alibi was incredibly remote. In fact, parsimony would somewhat dicate that if he was likely to have been anywhere for the whopping majority of the Autumn of Terror, it would have been asleep in bed at the busy Victoria Home, with essentially no possibility of anyone being able to vouch for his whereabouts for a murder that had occured some weeks previously.

A claim to have been "watching and waiting" outside a crime scene at 2:30am as soon as it became public knowledge that an established witness had seen someone "watching and waiting" outside a crime scene at 2:30am also militates rather heavily against the money/publicity seeker premise.

Best regards,
Ben

[caz]

Sorry, I can't get behind this one. Maybe if it Blotchy and Hutchinson were running some sort of scam or white collar crime. But here, it's your neck in a rope if you are convicted. Blotchy would have to have a hell of lot of money for that. This is something that you don't want to be mixed up in in any way, shape or form.

c.d.

Hi c.d,

I do see your point. But for whatever reason, Hutch did mix himself up in this by venturing forward and claiming that he had been loitering for nearly an hour, with Mary (+ alleged customer) in mind, near what was shortly to become the most horrible Whitechapel murder scene to date.

He would automatically have been risking his own neck if he: couldn't produce said customer; changed anything he had initially told the police when talking to the press (risking a charge of perjury, if nothing else); didn't have a verifiable alibi; could have been seen - and recognised again later - by one or more of the witnesses who had already given evidence; was counting on the feeble excuse that it was only idle curiosity that kept him lurking for that long.

I'd still like to know why he thought it was a cool idea, under any circumstances, to say he had lurked for quite so long. If he was worried that a witness could have put him there at any time between 2.15 and 3, and reasoned that he had better put himself there between those times and have an explanation ready, he really was dicing with the hangman if he didn't leave the court at 3pm as he claimed, and a witness could have known that too.

One explanation that could make some sense is that the long wait was integral to his story - ie he had to "be there" in order to confirm that his suspect had been in that room too long for a quickie.

If Hutch was indeed out of work at the time, I think he would have taken a chance and taken the money from a twitchy client, and later from the papers, as long as the police had no evidence to pin the murders on him. Maybe he could prove he was somewhere outside the area for one or more of the previous crimes - even prove he was not in Whitechapel on November 9th if push came to shove and he had made the whole thing up.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

But the same principle would apply. Witnesses would hear about and in no time you'd get a truckload more of "important" witnesses eager to be paid for their efforts. The Home Secretery was initially opposed to "rewards" for precisely that same reason. It wasn't as if Hutchinson had much of choice in the matter of walking the streets with officers either.

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben.
I am not suggesting that it was police policy to pay witnesses for there help, but in this case if a statement fabrication was present, and signed accordingly by Gh, and because of the witness apparent integriety, and assistance in walking the streets with officers, I can see no reason because of the importance of such a sighting, and possible apprehension, that police funds were not given.
We simply do not know Ben.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

He wouldn't have been paid off by the police. If they did that to one witness, they'd have to do it with all witnesses, and the direct result of that is hoards of new "witnesses" all turning up eager to be paid off.

He was unlikely to be paid off by someone else either. If Hutchinson really went on a self-sacrifical mission on behalf of someone else, that someone else would have had to cough up an appreciable amount, and that was beyond the means of most local denizens. Again, I find it utterly perplexing that coming forward to protect someone else is easier to digest that coming forward to protect himself. I can only think that it might have something to do with the fact that we can be less restrictive with the identity of that "someone else" than if we we're dealing with the, in my view more parsiminious conclusion, that one man was looking out for number one.

Best regards,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Richard,

Thanks for that info. Yes, I think it is highly likely that Hutch got paid for his info, and it makes a lot more sense than anything else to me. I did like Caz' idea, however.

Cheers,

Mike

[richardnunweek]

Hi Mike,
The name of the man you are looking for is Lawrence[ surname] he apparently asked a neighbour of kellys to do him a favour ie, take in a summons for him should it arrive whilst he was away.
The man in question apparently was the dead woman husband, and he was a drover, who was absent for weeks at a time, infact Mary was absent from room 13 for periods, but would return when she tired of him. [ like the trip from france?].
Big question.
Who is Lawrence?
PS.
I like the suggestion that GH was paid off... but personally not for me, I believe he was paid, but by the police for assistance, sorry its still 'Topping' for me, good old honest 'George'.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

if hed made himself known & was guilty, then this would be an extremely stupid move, as he didnt know who had given statements to the police, nor what they knew

Oh, good heavens no, Joel. It wouldn't have been a stupid move at all. It would have been an incredibly prudent move. He's finding out where he is, whether it be through a desire for self-preservation, an act of bravado, or a desire to keep appraised of police progress. He didn't know how much Sarah Lewis knew, and wanted to get his "explanation" in first to pre-empt any suspicion if and when it arrived. "Don't look at me. I contacted YOU. I was cooperative, remember?" In poker terminology, Hutchinson's pre-emptive move would be the equivilent of a "feeler bet". He's not sure he has the best hand so he makes a move - a bet, a gamble - to find out where he is.

i cant imagine hed make himself known to the police.

But that's precisely what serial killers have done in similar situations.

Best regards,
Ben

[joelhall]

Hi Joel,



I would encourage you to consider the following:

You say you can't see how another witness could possibly have identified him...

um.... no

i said i dont think he would make himself known as he couldnt be sure if someone could id him. if hed made himself known & was guilty, then this would be an extremely stupid move, as he didnt know who had given statements to the police, nor what they knew.

if hed been seen, & given the darkness, he would never know who could be watching, i cant imagine hed make himself known to the police.