Two things that don't make sense!

[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

[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]

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

[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'.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

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

Only TWO???

All the best

[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

[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?

[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

[Roy Corduroy]

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

[Ben]

Hi Salome,

Maybe he was just an attention seeker and that's why he turned up to give evidence after the inquest.

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

[Ben]

Hi Claire,

Because he'd want to carry on talking about her (you know, because he probably thought he had some ownership over her, like a lot of stalkers

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), and would respectfully submit that Steve's suggestions are rather more palatable than the notion of Hutchinson doing a Freddie from My Fair Lady:

"Let the time go by, with no alibi!
Standing here on the street where you live!"

Enjoy your bonnet.

Best wishes,
Ben

[claire]

Funny, Steve. But I suspect Salome's suggestion is closer to the mark--if he was holding a bit of a candle for MJK, the fact that she'd meet her end and he wasn't around (not for heroic reasons or a desire to have rescued her, more a fantasy of having rescued her and being a hero) would have been a real stinger. Because he'd want to carry on talking about her (you know, because he probably thought he had some ownership over her, like a lot of stalkers), and the only way anyone would listen was if he had something 'useful' to say, I suspect he concocted some or all of his implausible story. If he wasn't tucked up in some flop house, either locally or in Romford, I'll eat my bonnet

[Steve F]

Hutchinson was hiding something!

Yep!The more I think about it the more I become convinced he had more to do with MJK end than he is letting on.Was he a look out?? Was he JTR?? Was he a jealous lover who used JTR as an excuse to kill her and get away with it?
Too much detail in his statement! A liar always adds to much detail if he is trying to cover his tracks!
Thats it!I've finally cracked the case after all these years!!I can cease work on the time machine
Steve

[Salome]

Oh I don't know! Maybe he was just an attention seeker and that's why he turned up to give evidence after the inquest.

[Ben]

Hi Salome,

I reckon George thought he might have had a chance with Mary after the previous punter left but after 45 mins in the cold November air he thought better of it.

The problem here is that, by his own admission, Hutchinson remained in the cold November rain (where it's hard to hold a candle!) even after he claimed to leave the vicinity of Miller's Court; just "walking about all night" we're told. Surely if he wanted to crash at Kelly's pad, he'd check in again periodically to see if the previous client had departed. If the truth entailed so innocent and explanation, there was nothing preventing him from admitting as much to the police.

Best regards,
Ben