Two things that don't make sense!

[Ben]

Hi Roy,

On what grounds could the police have arrested him? He didn't arrive back at his lodgings in a bloodstained condition as Sadler had done, and even if they did suspect him, it wasn't as though there was a convenient barometer for determining guilt or innocence. The problem with arresting a witness is that if such an arrest was ever publicized, it would deter any future witnesses from coming forward through fear of receiving similar treatment. If he was ever suspected - a big if - they could only have kept him under surveillance with a view to catching him in the act, if possible.

Best regards,
Ben

[Mitch Rowe]

Hi Salome,



But consider the timing.

It wasn't just any old time after the inquest - it was a few hours thereafter, or more specifically; right after the evidence of Sarah Lewis had become public knowledge. The sequence of events goes like this:

Lewis described a man loitering outside - and apparently interested in - the crime scene at 2:30am on the night of the murder.

Her evidence is published.

Hutchinson comes forward and says he loitered outside - and admittedly interested in - the crime scene at 2:30am on the night of the murder.

The logical deduction, based on that sequence of events and the congruent details therein, is that Hutchinson had learned of Lewis' evidence, realized that the man she'd seen was probably him, and delivered his account to "explain" his presence there.

I have trouble reconciling that with the antics of a mere attention-seeker.

Best regards,
Ben

Or Hutchinson reads the paper and decides now is the best time to insert himself into the biggest ruckus to hit London and pretends that he is the guy.
Or Hutchinson never reads the paper and he is or isnt the guy.

Like most witness accounts. He leaves us with more questions than answers. More confusion than logic. Who said these cases were tough?

[The Good Michael]

I still think it's about making a buck for Hutchinson. Otherwise, his testimony is no worse than Maxwell's, Lewis', Prater's, or anyone else. It is the timing (which could be about the money, or coincidence), and it is the character he describes (which seems to me to be about the money). Remember that this has nothing to do with the missing radio broadcast. I believed this way before I heard about that. It is human nature to rip others off to make a buck. It isn't human nature to rip others apart. (Good line, wot?)

Cheers,

Mike

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Thread title: "Two things that don't make sense"...

Only TWO???

All the best

[Salome]

Quite, Glenn.

Does anybody else mention seeing or speaking to Hutchinson on that night? Have we only his word for it that he was there? I can't justify the next statement at all but I've always felt that he might be a little bit, erm, 'mentally challenged'.

[The Good Michael]

Salome,

Hutchinson was not seen by anyone, or at least not identified in their narratives. It is suggested that he was a man of military bearing, and that could mean mentally challenged if you were to ask most people that have been in the military. I suggest that he must have presented an upright appearance and answered questions intelligently (seemingly) in order to have that said about him. Personally, I think he was quick enough to con the police out of a few quid.

Cheers,

Mike

[claire]

So Kelly was descended upon by both a stalker and a murderer at more or less the same time on the same date?

It just wasn't her night, I guess.

Personally, I have an easier time condensing the two (more parsimonious),

I think you're making much of the phrase 'stalker,' which was just a throwaway on my part, just going on this idea that GH had had a bit of a thing for MJK. I don't know why people get so upset whenever it's mentioned that there might have been someone less-than-savoury else other than the killer in the vicinity of a victim on the night of their death. In any case, my point was that GH wasn't in the victinity, but rather that he saw an opportunity to continue a dialogue about MJK even though he was no longer able to continue one with her. Sarah Lewis's testimony was just the opportunity he needed. JtR must have been both alarmed and amused to hear someone had stepped forward

[The Good Michael]

I I don't know why people get so upset whenever it's mentioned that there might have been someone less-than-savoury else other than the killer in the vicinity of a victim on the night of their death.

Indeed Claire. In that particular area 'Unsavoury' was everyone's middle name.

Cheers,

Mike

[DVV]

Possibly. The police had previously hired two bloodhounds. But they had been sent home by the time of Kelly's murder. This is a point of fact and not speculation.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom,
the sentence (from Salome's post) is:

"could it be possible that he [Mac Carthy] may have wanted to buy time for the trail to go cold in case bloodhounds were to be used?"
Isn't that a speculation about Mac Carthy's guilt?
Of course, Salome is free to speculate, and I am free to express my own feelings about such a speculation.

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

Hi Ben and Steve F,

OK great, if Hutchinson was so suspicious, why wasn't he arrested and tried for murder? Like Tom Sadler.

Roy

Hi Roy,
there is a significant difference here.
If Hutch had been suspected, like, Sadler, Barnett, etc, and carefully questionned and cross-examined, your objection would be significant enough.
But that was not the case, though, at least, he deserved to be suspected of being a liar, a dishonest witness.
The fact is that he hasn't been suspected at all, and that's why he wasn't arrested and tried.
Maybe the reason why the case remained unsolved.

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Hi Mitch,

Or Hutchinson reads the paper and decides now is the best time to insert himself into the biggest ruckus to hit London and pretends that he is the guy.

Possibly, but I can't picture him incriminating himself to such an extent if he wasn't the man in question. The important thing to consider here - and in any aspect of the ripper case - is historical precedent; comparisons with other serial and murder cases. Unfortunately, there have been examples of killers coming forward under false pretenses when they fear incriminating evidence and/or imminent identification. It's happened before, whereas I've yet to see a single example of a publicity seeker (or whatever) assuming the identity of a real person observed at the crime scene, especially if that person is claiming to be a witness himself.

That's not to say it couldn't have happened, or that a "quick buck" didn't figure on his agenda. I just feel that the timing and congruity with Sarah Lewis' account, as described earlier, points away from a mere publicity-seeker and more in the direction of a bacon-saver.

Hi Claire - Thanks for the clarification. I'm sorry if I gave you the impression I was upset. I really wasn't.

Best regards,
Ben

[Steve F]

Take your pick!

Thread title: "Two things that don't make sense"...

Only TWO???

All the best

Hi Glenn
Yes, there are oodles of things in this case that don't make sense but these were the 2 at time time that were annoying me
By all accounts MJK was above average in looks,figure etc when compared to your 'street lady' in the LVP so I feel there could have been any number of 'boyfriends' who could've 'done her in' and let Jack take the blame.
Of we go....
Steve

[The Good Michael]

By all accounts MJK was above average in looks,figure

By some accounts. By others she was stout. My guess is that we wouldn't bat an eye at her today.

Cheers,

Mike

[Roy Corduroy]

a bacon-saver

Ben, what do you mean?

Roy

[The Good Michael]

Roy,

Saving one's bacon: Protect oneself, Save one's own skin

That kind of thing.

Mike