Two things that don't make sense!

[caz]

Cheers guys!

Love,

Caz
XX

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

It's a lot better than a good deal of Hutchinson theories put forward, and was originally mooted by Derek Obsbourne in an article entitled - I believe - "The man who shielded Jack the Ripper". The problems I see with it are as follows:

1) Why so self-sacrificing for another bloke? I can understand if Hutchinson was looking out for himself, but for someone else? On a purely superficial basis, Blotchy doesn't strike me as the kind of chap to have a lot of dosh knocking around to pay others to "alibi" him out, besides which it was a tad risky. What if Hutchinson went straight to the cops with a "Guess what Blotchy told me to do?" story?

2) In your scenario, wasn't it of paramount importance for Hutchinson to say where he really was at the time of the murder (i.e. after 3.00am) just in case he gets suspected himself? "Walking around all night" strikes me as the perfect alibi-disposing excuse of someone who wanted to cover up what he was really doing at that time, but if Hutch-the-blotchy-helper had fulfilled his purpose by planting a fictional Jew on the scene, surely it was then time to look out for himself and establish his genuine alibi for the time of the murder?

I believe you have the basic principle spot on:

You believe Hutchinson came forward to deflect suspicion away from someone else.

I believe Hutchinson came forward to deflect suspicion away from himself.

The two aren't that dissimilar, but I plump for the latter. I find it easier to condense it into one person, rather than two.

Best regards,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Ben,

But it was a cracker idea, eh? You know that I don't see Hutch as the Ripper, but I do see him possibly being run out of town on a rail after the police think he's lied to them, but they can't prove it. That might be why he has remained silent to us for 120 years.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

One of the better ideas, certainly, but I feel that anyone who is prepared to accept the notion that Hutchinson came forward to take the heat of someone else ought to recognise equal merit in the suggestion that he came forward to take the heat off himself. They amount to the same thing in principle, but the latter involves just one person looking out for himself rather than two.

Best regards,
Ben

[c.d.]

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.

[Bailey]

I like the theory here, and it's well put, but for me the big stumbling block is that there were rewards on offer by this stage, worth a great deal more than is likely to have been paid by one man for an alibi. If they were in cahoots over something else that would have gotten them both in trouble, or the Blotchy Killy Twitchy dude had something else on Hutch, then maybe.

Alternatively, Hutch as the lookout part of a two man Ripper team? With Blotchy Twitchy Killy (could he be Flemy?) as the other portion.

B.

[joelhall]

i did go along with hutchinson protecting someone else at one point. though the idea that he was really fleming has niggled at me for years. the idea that he was protecting himself i find less convincing. i cant see that if another witness could have possibly identified him, he would have made himself known. after all it was dark & you never knew who was watching.

however, unless he was suspicious this person was a murderer, then why his detailed memory of the man.

he could of course have been spying for fleming or barnett, and so he would remember these people who went in or out, so kelly wouldnt realise someone was keeping tabs on her.

then again... sadly as happens in murder investigations, it could frankly just be some nutter taking the p*ss?

joel

[Ben]

Hi Joel,

the idea that he was protecting himself i find less convincing. i cant see that if another witness could have possibly identified him, he would have made himself known. after all it was dark & you never knew who was watching.

I would encourage you to consider the following:

You say you can't see how another witness could possibly have identified him, but you're working from the assumption that Hutchinson knew the full and true extent of Sarah Lewis' sighting, which wasn't possible.

At the inquest into the murder of Eddowes, Lawende mentioned only a "rough and shabby" appearance in connection with a suspect he observed from a few yards away, and at that stage, the killer may well have adopted the very attitude you suggest. "Oh well, that was a crap description. He obviously didn't get a very good look and therefore can't identify me".

But by the 19th November, the full description was published (neckerchief, cap, height, age and all) and circulated. Whoever the killer was, he must have alarmed him to know that his physical particulars were suddenly and unexpectedly doing the rounds weeks after he committed the murder. What started as a lame descipton suddenly mutated into something more detailed and potentially more incriminating.

Suddenly, the chances of his description being circulated (and consequently, his being noticed or recognised in the streets) were increased, and by the time of the Kelly murder and the publication of Lewis' evidence, he must have considered the strong possibility that the authorities would withhold Lewis' description as they did with Lawende's.

What if they tried that tactic again with Lewis?

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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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,

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