Jack the........ Police Officer??

[Ben]

Use the "quote" feature in future, Fisherman, rather than writing in bold.

It's easier on the eye and ensures that your key points aren't lost in the rubble.

You are guessing away, as usual. And once again - true to your theory - you try to mail Hutchinson as discredited. His story suffered a loss of value, thatīs all. And that says nothing about Hutchinson himself.

It is nonsense to attempt to separate a discredited account from the author of that discredited account. It's akin to declaring Jack the Ripper innocent, but sending his right hand to the gallows for being a bit stabby. There is no mystery behind Hutchinson's discrediting - it was because the police came to doubt his credibility, and not because the poor, hapless nincompoop had made an "honest mistake" and bollocksed up the days. We learn this from a proven police communication between the police and the Echo newspaper.

The Dew Spew - my affectionate term for Dew's purely personal musings on Hutchinson - has been known about for decades, and nobody except you has sought to revive his opinions as accurate. I draw my own conclusions from that.

I responded to your assertion that Cox was a far better witness than Hutchinson, since this is something that cannot be determined.

In terms of provenance, Cox is an irrefutably better witness than Hutchinson because she attended the inquest as opposed to delaying presentation of evidence until after the inquest. In terms of whether she was considered more reliable, that much is certain. Hutchinson was discredited, Cox wasn't. In fact, it was reported that the discrediting of Hutchinson left only Cox's evidence containing anything of value to the Kelly investigation.

A piece of well-meaning advice: Dump Hutchinson and your theory. It wonīt wash in a million years. It was yesterdays news - and it was not good news at that stage either. Move on.

The problem with your advice - aside from it being anything but "well-meaning", and transparently so - is that it's apt to change quite drastically. Your formerly "advised" us all to ignore Dew, forget Stride as a ripper victim, and accept Joseph Fleming as the ripper, but you seem to have changed your tune a bit since then.

But I'm fascinated - if the Hutchinson theory is "yesterday's news", what's today's news? Crossmere? Ouch. I do hope you haven't convinced yourself that making lots and lots of noise about a controversial, unpopular theory and then being met with a barrage of criticism for it means you've alighted on the next "big thing" to be reckoned with?

It doesn't work like that I'm afraid.

[caz]

To begin with, he must have known that she DID have company, must he not? If he arrived there on a cold, wet and windy evening (he didnīt, but thatīs another story... ), would his first move not be to check on Kelly and ask to be let in? If he simply decided to hang around outside the court, he would not even know if she was in, would he?

Hi Fishy,

Oh yes, in any scenario where Hutch was there at all (on either night), he must have known Kelly was in the room and had company, or there would have been no reason for him to hang around - unless he was waiting for Kelly to return from the streets, in which case he could have said quite truthfully that she was still not home when he pushed off at 3am and saved himself the bother of describing a 'last man in'.

But would he, when going to the police on realizing that he had been there on the murder night (he wasnīt, but thatīs another story... ), conjure up a very odd personality? The risk was obvious that the customer was NOT the killer, and so he could have come forward afterwards of his own accord. And if he proved NOT to be a toff clad in spats and astrakhan, where would that leave Georgie boy? Right - bogged down in a swamp of lies. And my personal guess is that the police would not take kindly to that.

Hmm, I think we can safely say that nobody in the room that night, Blotchy especially, would have been fool enough to come forward afterwards of his own accord, proving Hutch a liar and his description false. Quite the reverse in fact. Blotchy must have thanked his lucky stars when he read Hutch's account of the flash harry who entered that room a good hour after he had been seen by Cox. If I were in Blotchy's shoes I might have paid good money for a break like that.

Now, I am not saying that Hutchinson equalled Einstein - but if he saw noone, then surely a nondescript man (Uuhhh, he was normal, sort of, not tall not small, but it was so dark in the street that I did not make out his clothing) would be a better suggestion on his behalf. I mean, Lewis did exactly that stunt - and got away with it.

This is why I speak of overcomplication.

Yes, but we are stuck with that overcomplication, whether Hutch did see a man matching his description (which you appear to believe he did, but on the previous night) or decided to invent one on the murder night. We can't get inside Hutch's head, but it may be that he had a fixed idea - like so many others then and now - of how the ripper should have looked, and how he could have charmed Kelly into inviting him in. Looking 'normal' was not an option for many people back then.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

Can you shed any light on what movements (in and out of the court or in the room itself) there would have been for Hutch to monitor for so long before deciding it was safe to enter the room and commit the murder?

Pre-murder surveillance would typically involve monitoring the various comings and goings of the victim and her close neighbours. Specifically, in this case, that would have meant ensuring that Kelly was alone and probably asleep, and that the last of the Miller's Court residents had entered the passage and had, in all likelihood, dozed off themselves. Were we to make the case for the loitering widawake man as her killer, it could be argued that he was compelled to stall on his own murderous entry into the court in order to allow a decent interval for first Sarah Lewis and, later, Mary Cox to settle down to bed and sleep. This, it can be further argued, would neatly account for a cry of murder being heard after 3.00am but before 4.00am, as Mary Cox didn't arrive home until 3.00am - the killer allowing a period of time to elapse after seeing Cox enter the passage.

Remember that Hutchinson had no way of anticipating who, among the various bods walking up and down Dorset Street, was going to veer off into Miller's Court. This holds particularly true for Sarah Lewis, who was only visiting friends and was not herself a Miller's Court resident. He may have cursed his misfortune when he saw Lewis enter the passage and hoped she'd either failed to notice him (he'd have been in a better position than us, obviously, to determine this) or disregarded him as a doss house skulker. Even if he anticipated the worst, he may have been too intent on his grisly goal to abort things at that stage. Of course, we have no way of knowing if these thoughts ever occurred to Hutchinson, but for the sake of exploring the idea that he was responsible, it would by no means constitute unusual or unlikely serial killer behaviour.

Yes, but I suspect they all did so in an age when fingerprinting, cctv or DNA could identify them as indisputably at or near the scene, forcing them forward to give an innocent account of themselves.

Oh no, none of them were "forced". All of them had the option to lie low, sit it out, and hope that the coppers wouldn't come a' knockin. With the exception of Colin Ireland who was caught on CCTV, there was certainly no inevitability of any of them being captured as a result of modern technology and more sophisticated investigation techniques (none of Ivan Milat's DNA on his shooting victims in the woods of New South Wales for instance).

In Hutchinson's case, he had motivation beyond the need for concealment and the panic that all roads would lead to him. He was attempting to both gain insight into the progress of the investigation, and steer it in quite the wrong direction with the aid of the fictional Astrakhan suspect. And yes, almost certainly bravado played a role too, going on the strength of what we know of other serialists who have injected themselves into their investigations.

I disagree that he'd have been a fool to come forward if he was anxious to avoid other witnesses from previous murders looking him over. That would only happen if he hadn't already come forward voluntarily under a false witness guise; if he'd been identified by Lewis on the streets of Spitalfields or in a lodging house and dragged in as a suspect. I would argue that his proactive efforts avoided that outcome successfully.

but he didn't mention Lewis; she didn't name him; and the police didn't even connect her description with him.

Exactly, which is a bit of a result for Hutchinson of he was the wideawake man and did have something to hide.

Why would he return and check if he had no idea she was in danger at the time?

Not to check that she was in danger, but to check whether or not she still had company. He could have determined if Kelly was having an all-nighter relatively quickly and easily - by listening in and perhaps moving the pilot coat covering the smashed-pane window - without the need for for a 45-minute vigil.

Of course, we don't know that he didn't return, but maybe when all was quiet and dark he couldn't bring himself to disturb her rest.

In which case, he'd have endured a sleepless night on foot for nothing!

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Well, you pays your money and takes your choice and all that, but the behaviour you've outlined which you consider unlikely actually has a good deal of historical and criminological precedent. For instance, "hanging around" is precisely what the vast majority of known serial offenders have done when targetting their victim's homes and other indoor locations, because it affords them a measure of surveillance - monitoring the movements of the victim herself as well as her neighbours, thus enabling him to strike at the safest moment. A modern-day investigation would take the Sarah Lewis sighting extremely seriously for that reason.

Hi Ben,

Can you shed any light on what movements (in and out of the court or in the room itself) there would have been for Hutch to monitor for so long before deciding it was safe to enter the room and commit the murder? And if he was doing a good job of monitoring them, would he not have been aware that Lewis, for one, had clocked him and would probably go to the police when his crime was discovered and his purpose for loitering there suspected?

Serial killers coming forward voluntarily with bogus stories and pretending to be innocent witnesses is also very well-documented, and even anticipated (correctly) on occasion by law enforcement.

Yes, but I suspect they all did so in an age when fingerprinting, cctv or DNA could identify them as indisputably at or near the scene, forcing them forward to give an innocent account of themselves. In 1888, as you yourself have argued ad nauseam, there was no way for the police to put Hutch at the scene rather than 'walking about' aimlessly, and the unsupported word of some old gossip wouldn't have done it, even if Lewis had recognised him and named him to the coppers. If he feared witnesses to previous murders could have fingered him, he'd have been an even bigger fool to show his face and admit to being Lewis's man - but he didn't mention Lewis; she didn't name him; and the police didn't even connect her description with him. Pure bravado doesn't cut it either, because it must have deserted him afterwards and forced him to give up ripping, unless that was the plan anyway.

However, a problem I have with the suggestion that an "innocent Hutch" changed Blotchy into Astrakhan - which is far from unreasonable, to be fair, in comparison to some other "innocent Hutch" explanations touted - is his inexplicable buggering off at 3.00am and then failing to return and check.

Why would he return and check if he had no idea she was in danger at the time? He would assume she had an all-nighter with her, particularly if he knew she was in dire financial straits. Of course, we don't know that he didn't return, but maybe when all was quiet and dark he couldn't bring himself to disturb her rest.

If Hutchinson was the killer, it may be argued that he did precisely that (and that he found her alone shortly before 4.00, Blotchy having departed), but if innocent, popping back continually would have meant that at some point he would have found her murdered and mutilated.

If he did pop back while it was still dark, would he have been able to see anything much by moving the curtain aside? Perhaps he did see her body in there and took off again in a muck sweat, wondering over the weekend what the hell he should do.

Hutchinson had no reason to wait around for Kelly's company unless he thought there was a better than average chance of Kelly getting rid of her presumed client fairly quickly, and yet there was obviously nothing doing in room #13 according to Lewis (2:30) and Cox (3.00). On that basis, I'd submit that had Hutchinson turned up at 2.00ish hoping to spend time with Kelly, only to find a darkened room with two sleeping forms on the bed, he'd be quite the over-optimistic fool to plonk himself on Dorset Street and expect either to emerge before daylight.

But that contradicts your earlier point about his failure to return and check. He may well have been that over-optimistic fool, who finally had to concede defeat and conclude that neither would emerge before daylight.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Ben:

But three-day-late discredited witnesses like Hutchinson not included.

You are guessing away, as usual. And once again - true to your theory - you try to mail Hutchinson as discredited. His story suffered a loss of value, thatīs all. And that says nothing about Hutchinson himself. So we turn to the sources, and we look for people who can confirm that Hutchinson was either considered trustworthy or untrustworthy after the deal was done. And thatīs when I find things - and you donīt. Once again, as usual.

I wonīt drag this out too long, Ben. I will only answer your point:

Again, there is no evidence that Cox's evidence was mistrusted by the police.

...by saying that I never claimed that it was mistrusted, did I? I responded to your assertion that Cox was a far better witness than Hutchinson, since this is something that cannot be determined. Neither you nor I know whether Cox was on the money or not, since - just like Jon has told you - she was left uncorroborated. Therefore a number of possibilities exist, out of which I will demonstrate two:

A/ Hutchinson lied and Cox was truthful. You win.
B/ Hutchinson was truthful but honestly mistaken, whereas Cox made her story up. I win.

In the end, I of course win the argument whether Cox was a certifiedly better witness than Hutchinson - we canīt tell. Whether she was CONSIDERED a better witness than Hutchinson by the police is another story - but we donīt have the answer to that one either. But we may want to take a peak at the other prostitute volunteer witnesses from Millerīs Court, willing to speak of the "Murder" outcry ...

A piece of well-meaning advice: Dump Hutchinson and your theory. It wonīt wash in a million years. It was yesterdays news - and it was not good news at that stage either. Move on.

Thatīs all I am going to say this time over, Ben. You wonīt find me answering your next post. Just like Toppy Hutchinson the witness, Iīm no time-waster.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

But that does not have any influence on the fact that a female prostitute would have attracted less credibility than just about any other witness back in 1888. Extremely repulsive and ugly drunkard men included.

But three-day-late discredited witnesses like Hutchinson not included. Again, there is no evidence that Cox's evidence was mistrusted by the police. On the contrary, in the same article that declared Hutchinson's statement "discredited", it was observed that the only thing of value to emerge from the inquest was provided by Mary Cox.

They used other wordings. He could not be shaken, etc. It adds up to the same, justaboutish. And Dew gave him a nod in his book, as a man not to be reflected upon.

But Dew's book is "riddled with mistakes" and he got "lots of things terribly wrong", remember? At least that's what you told me once. If you think that only people who tell the truth "cannot be shaken", I'd guess again.

The account was discredited owing to some lack in it. That does not touch on the manīs overall credibility. Honest mistakes are just that - honest

You're about the only modern commentator who thinks Hutchinson made an honest mistake. Fortunately for the truth, however, the Echo makes clear from their direct and irrefutable communication with the police that the reason for Hutchinson's discrediting DID concern his "overall credibility".

Because they were on equal terms with men? Or because they were regarded unequal to men? Itīs an easy enough question.

Women most certainly were considered equal to men in terms of their ability to see and hear things, and then relate those sights and sounds. That's all the police and coroner wanted Cox for. Nothing remotely to do with expressing opinion on political matters.

But as Dew tells us very clearly - that was not something that made him reflect upon Hutchinson. Do you think that a man nailed as a liar or attention-seeker would get that verdict fifty years later by a top police authority?

But Dew wasn't a "top police authority" in 1888. He was a very junior official who needed to be informed that the police need no longer seek a man in an Astrakhan coat, but certainly didn't need to be told why. It wasn't his look-out, and he didn't enjoy a senior enough position. In any case, Dew makes perfectly clear the fact that he was voicing his personal speculations only, and certainly wasn't relating official information obtained from on-high, or else he'd have said so.

It is the only way that part of the Hutchinson saga will fit into your theory, so thatīs how it has to be - who cares about rationality?

Don't aggravate me, Fisherman. I'm not discussing any "theory" of mine. I'm simply correcting the same irritating misconceptions about Hutchinson that crop up whenever the subject is broached. But then, even more irritatingly, the same people always respond by abandoning any attempt at sticking to the original topic in favour of battling Ben instead.

Well, if that's the way the thread's going to go...

Just please don't repeat that Dew stuff again. We've had all that a million times, thanks.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

Yes, I most assuredly do "think". That's why I fecking said it, for crying out loud, Fisherman!

And that was why I decided to improve upon things.

The press described Mary Cox as a "wretched looking specimen of East End womanhood", which was an insult based purely on her looks. If any modern commentators wish to endorse this repugnant sentiment or otherwise argue that an individual's physical appearance detracts from the credibility of her sworn evidence, then shame on them.

Absolutely. But that does not have any influence on the fact that a female prostitute would have attracted less credibility than just about any other witness back in 1888. Extremely repulsive and ugly drunkard men included.

Ooh, let's desist with the unnecessary exaggeration if we could. The press did not describe Hutchinson as the "epitome of truthfulness".

They used other wordings. He could not be shaken, etc. It adds up to the same, justaboutish. And Dew gave him a nod in his book, as a man not to be reflected upon.

The statement was swiftly discredited owing to doubts about his credibility, and the credible newspapers - those with demonstrable communication with the police - reported as much.

The account was discredited owing to some lack in it. That does not touch on the manīs overall credibility. Honest mistakes are just that - honest.

This is completely irrelevant.

Not to the overall picture of how women were looked upon by society, itīs not. It may be subtle, but not irrelevant.

... are you suggesting that women were considered more likely to lie than men back then?

No. I am speaking of something else altogether - societyīs distrust that women were as accountable as men were. Why do YOU suppose they were not given the vote? Because they were on equal terms with men? Or because they were regarded unequal to men? Itīs an easy enough question.

Mary Cox attended the inquest where she gave her evidence under oath. She was taken seriously by the police, at least certainly more so that Hutchinson...

Hutchinson was taken VERY seriously by the police. Extremely so. It was not until it was discovered that something was amiss with his account that they realized that the story did not hold up in some respect. But as Dew tells us very clearly - that was not something that made him reflect upon Hutchinson.
Do you think that a man nailed as a liar or attention-seeker would get that verdict fifty years later by a top police authority?
Do you think that the police, when finding out that Hutch was a liar or attention-seeker, decided to keep that knowledge from their own ranks?

Yes you do, donīt you? It is the only way that part of the Hutchinson saga will fit into your theory, so thatīs how it has to be - who cares about rationality?

But meanwhile, back on topic, and I think we were exploring the premise that Jack was a policeman. Not impossible, but unlikely, I'd say.

There you go - score!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Irrefutably? You think?

Yes, I most assuredly do "think". That's why I fecking said it, for crying out loud, Fisherman!

The press described Mary Cox as a "wretched looking specimen of East End womanhood", which was an insult based purely on her looks. If any modern commentators wish to endorse this repugnant sentiment or otherwise argue that an individual's physical appearance detracts from the credibility of her sworn evidence, then shame on them.

He was described as the epitome of truthfulness by the press, and as a truthful source by Abberline (who we KNOW did not regard Hutchinsons story as "implausible" at all, when he heard it - on the contrary)

Ooh, let's desist with the unnecessary exaggeration if we could. The press did not describe Hutchinson as the "epitome of truthfulness". They were simply reporting the fact that it was initially endorsed by the police. Initially. But as I'm prepared to repeat for an eternity, or at least as long as the futile protestations to the contrary keep coming, this was not to last. The statement was swiftly discredited owing to doubts about his credibility, and the credible newspapers - those with demonstrable communication with the police - reported as much.

This was 1888. Women did not have the vote, since they were not relied upon to understand politics, and it would thus be foolhardy to let them have an influence.

This is completely irrelevant.

Mary Cox didn't need to understand "politics". She was simply called upon to relate what she saw and heard, which, despite the prejudices being what they were in those days, was still considered an expedient that men and women were equally capable of. Or are you suggesting that women were considered more likely to lie than men back then? (N.B. No hasty googling of obscure references please! We're off-topic enough as it is.)

She attended the inquest where she gave her evidence under oath. She was taken seriously by the police, at least certainly more so that Hutchinson, whose 3-day-late post-inquest description of a pantomime villain with a knife-shaped parcel was quickly discredited.

But meanwhile, back on topic, and I think we were exploring the premise that Jack was a policeman. Not impossible, but unlikely, I'd say.

Oh wait...one more.

I would place Hutchinson's word over Cox any time.

Then you'd be - reassuringly - in the extreme minority of opinion, Richard, given how astoundingly obvious it is that the evidence of an inquest witness who was taken seriously by the police should be considered more reliable than that of a non-inquest-attending witness who wasn't.

Exaggerating? Nope, no evidence of that at all in Cox's case. Her suspect description was very basic and scant on detail, whereas Hutchinson's was crammed with all sorts. Mary Kelly was perfectly capable of changing her clothes, and interestingly, Cox's description corresponds very closely to Maxwell's in that regard. But that is for another discussion.

Also we have the oral history related by Cox'x niece.
''A real toff he was'' which hardly relates to Blotchy.

I wouldn't worry about that crap, Richard. Line your birdcage with it. Cox herself obviously said nothing of the sort at any point.

At least Hutchinson's account does not vary, he said the same in the 1930s as he did in 1888. And yes I do believe without question, that Topping was the witness

I know you "believe" that, but it really isn't necessary to keep bringing Toppy up in every discussion that gets derailed in the direction of Hutchinson. While we're briefly - briefly! - on the subject, Hutchinson most assuredly changed his account when speaking to police and press, and Reg's tall tales of connections to royalty and Lord Randolph Churchill (which can be traced only as far back as 1992, not the 1930s) don't correspond in the slightest to what the real Hutchinson said in 1888.

Regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I would place Hutchinson's word over Cox any time.
Mrs Cox comes across as a person that elaborates , the clothing Mary she claims Mary was wearing when she was seen in the passage, differs entirely to what Kelly was seen to be wearing by Prater a couple of hours earlier.
Ah but was Mrs P telling porkies?
The description jacket and bonnet, has the truth confirmed by the presence of the bonnet that was only left by Mrs Harvey that previous evening, and appears to have been left with a purpose if one quotes Harvey's words'' I will be leaving my bonnet then''.
So I have to side with Praters account.
Also we have the oral history related by Cox'x niece.
''A real toff he was'' which hardly relates to Blotchy.
At least Hutchinson's account does not vary, he said the same in the 1930s as he did in 1888.
And yes I do believe without question, that Topping was the witness,I know Ben will strongly disagree, but he was the only man of that name who has admitted to being the man interviewed.
No other Hutchinson in the land has ever claimed to be George Hutchinson. friend of Mary Kelly, so what is the problem with accepting what we have?
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Cox is irrefutably more credible a witness than Hutchinson and "Mrs Kennedy", as the police provably believed themselves.
Regards,
Ben

Irrefutably? You think? Then listen: Mary Ann Cox was a woman and a prostitute. If I donīt misremember things, she was described rather unfavourably by - admittedly - the press.

George Hutchinson was a man and a labourer. He was described as the epitome of truthfulness by the press, and as a truthful source by Abberline (who we KNOW did not regard Hutchinsons story as "implausible" at all, when he heard it - on the contrary).

This was 1888. Women did not have the vote, since they were not relied upon to understand politics, and it would thus be foolhardy to let them have an influence. Historically, women were not even allowed to witness in many cultures. And prostitutes would have been at the absolute bottom of the list when it came to reliability - they were picked as witnesses when nothing else was to be had.

These are not MY sentiments. I merely state what the reality looked like back then. Hutchinson would be considered by far the better and more reliable witness - as mirrored by the interest and trust Abberline put in him from the outset, and as reflected by the press sentiments.

The best,
Fisherman

[Paddy]

Thompsons Weekly News

The Truth about the Whitechapel Mysteries told by Harry Cox Ex-Detective Inspector, London City Police. Specially written for "Thomson's Weekly News"
(15 years later)

We had many people under observation while the murders were being perpetrated, but it was not until the discovery of the body of Mary Kelly had been made that we seemed to get upon the trail.

It would seem that some evidence given regarding Mary Kellys death allowed the police to get upon the trail ?

Pat..................

[Ben]

You're not taking into account the issue of provenance, Jon, and whether that provenance is good or bad. It isn't all about corroboration or lack thereof. Your argument that all sources must be accorded an equal degree of believability until they can be corroborated, regardless of their origin, is certainly not one that is shared by serious investigators, and for fairly obvious reasons. If you're dealing with a police statement provided by a woman who also have her evidence under oath at a public inquest versus a third-hand piece of hearsay that appeared in a handful of newspapers for a very short time, overwhelming common sense and logic should prompt us to take the inquest witness more seriously - and that's to understate matters! Cox is irrefutably more credible a witness than Hutchinson and "Mrs Kennedy", as the police provably believed themselves.

When you're attempting to con someone, keep in simple, the more detail - the more likely you will screw up.

While that may constitute great advice to any budding liars out there, Jon, I'm afraid you're appealling to the glaring fallacy; that when the lie seems especially implausible, it isn't a lie at all! I remember years ago some of the Maybrickians used to argue along similar lines: because no forger would be SO stupid as to disavow any attempt at the real Maybrick's handwriting, the diary must be genuine. It also appeals to the fallacy that nobody would tell a bad lie under pressure.

Hutchinson gave an implausible statement which was quickly discredited, and no, he did not hang because his evidence was evidently believed to be the work of a publicity seeker, of which there had been several during the course of the investigation.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Now, I am not saying that Hutchinson equalled Einstein - but if he saw noone, then surely a nondescript man (Uuhhh, he was normal, sort of, not tall not small, but it was so dark in the street that I did not make out his clothing) would be a better suggestion on his behalf. I mean, Lewis did exactly that stunt - and got away with it.

When you're attempting to con someone, keep in simple, the more detail - the more likely you will screw up.
Commoners in Whitechapel knew all about the 'con', it was a part of day-to-day survival. They were more adept than we could ever be, so they would already appreciate that simplicity is the key.

And this was no game, if Hutchinson screwed up he would hang.
Hutchinson was telling the truth.

[Wickerman]

The difference is that cox story is corroborated by the fact that cox said Mary was singing when she was with blotchy and that is verified by other witness.

Catherine Pickett said Kelly was singing about 12:30.
Prater said there was no singing at 1:00 or even after.

Meanwhile Cox would have us believe Kelly was still singing at 1:00, when she returned home, and even shortly after when she left again.

So how does this corroborate Cox? - does she get the times all wrong?
Looks like conflict, not corroboration.

And, whether Kelly was singing or not has no bearing on whether this character Blotchy existed. McCarthy said Kelly was always singing when she got drunk.

The police likely believed Kelly was singing before 1:00, they had confirmation of that, but no confirmation of her singing at, or after, 1:00.
The more important issue was of this Blotchy, they had no confirmation of his existence whatsoever.

Cox gives her evidence of blotchy the day of the murder ......

So did Maxwell, so you believe Maxwell too?

No matter which way you look at it, the existence of Blotchy, and the time she saw him, relies solely on the word of Cox, and no-one else.
Which makes her story no more reliable than that of Hutchinson, or Kennedy, or Maurice Lewis, or Caroline Maxwell.
These are all uncorroborated stories.

[Fisherman]

Caz:


Hi Fishy,

I'm not married to my scenario for Hutch. Your hunch that he was describing events on the previous night is another possibility, and both to my mind are infinitely more likely than Hutch hanging around all that time and eventually going in and killing Kelly, then coming forward and literally getting away with murder by telling a story that should never have added up in those circumstances.

Weīll never make the Hutchinsonian club, Caz. Letīs face it. Weīre the wrong material altogether, both of us.

I can absolutely understand how an innocent Hutch, who had been hanging around for so long without ever entering the murder room, could have felt compelled to describe the man in there with Kelly (whether he had seen him or not) in order to give the police a 'last man in', lest they presume it was him, ie the man loitering long after Cox had seen Kelly with Blotchy.

Hmm. In a way, perhaps - if he decided that he needed to come forward, and felt that he would be in a mess by doing so with no suspect to offer.
But I would have thought that he would have chosen the other path - not to come forward at all - if this was the case.
Could be wrong on that, though.

If Hutch really was there, still waiting for a man to come out of Kelly's room at nearly 3am, he was a very important witness and must have known it. But what, or who, did he actually see? And what would you have done in the same position if you had left the man to it, with or without knowing what he looked like? That situation is not remotely complex or unlikely in itself, if Kelly had company and Hutch wanted her company too. But how bad could it have looked for him if there was nobody else for the police to focus on?

To begin with, he must have known that she DID have company, must he not? If he arrived there on a cold, wet and windy evening (he didnīt, but thatīs another story... ), would his first move not be to check on Kelly and ask to be let in? If he simply decided to hang around outside the court, he would not even know if she was in, would he?

And if he DID check and found her doing business, he could of course have decided to wait for his turn. Nothing complex about that.

But would he, when going to the police on realizing that he had been there on the murder night (he wasnīt, but thatīs another story... ), conjure up a very odd personality? The risk was obvious that the customer was NOT the killer, and so he could have come forward afterwards of his own accord. And if he proved NOT to be a toff clad in spats and astrakhan, where would that leave Georgie boy? Right - bogged down in a swamp of lies. And my personal guess is that the police would not take kindly to that.

Now, I am not saying that Hutchinson equalled Einstein - but if he saw noone, then surely a nondescript man (Uuhhh, he was normal, sort of, not tall not small, but it was so dark in the street that I did not make out his clothing) would be a better suggestion on his behalf. I mean, Lewis did exactly that stunt - and got away with it.

This is why I speak of overcomplication.

The best,
Fisherman