Hutchinsons statement....

[Bridewell]

Hutchinson's story is full of convenient devices, for example:


Hutchinson happens to be in Commercial Street at just the point when Mary Kelly, who happens to be an acquaintance, turns up and asks for money... then she happens to meet a suspicious stranger of remarkable appearance, whose face Hutchinson remembers in detail because the stranger happens to walk under a lamp-post where Hutchinson happens to be standing and, furthermore, the stranger happens to look straight into Hutchinson's face; Hutchinson then follows them and hangs around for 45 minutes and wanders around all night because he happens not to have a bed to go to.

There are others.

A sequence of events is a series of things that have happened. That doesn't make them a coincidence (or even 'a story full of convenient devices') - just a narrative. Also the stranger didn't 'happen' to look straight into Hutchinson's face. Hutchinson looked into his - and he wasn't very happy about it.

[andy1867]

can beat that easily, 12* in 52 overs, pening the batting. we were 17-7 and got a draw.


Steve

Thats pretty impressive...If we both had opened we could have batted it out for 27 off 73 overs....(Sheffield midweek had 8 ball overs)
Be like Boycott an' Tavare

[Bridewell]

Thats pretty impressive...If we both had opened we could have batted it out for 27 off 73 overs....(Sheffield midweek had 8 ball overs)
Be like Boycott an' Tavare

I once came close to carrying my bat through a completed innings without scoring a run. I think mine was the 8th wicket.

[Flower and Dean]

The only thing we DO know is that hutch engaged in stalking behavior.

No, we don't.

We have his word that he followed Kelly and a man around. We don't even know with certainty that he was telling the truth about seeing her and a man or following them.

If he was telling the truth, we don't really know why he did this. Sure, it could have been stalking, but he could have been simply curious, interested in the man's appearance (for £££), protective of Kelly, waiting for her hoping to spend time with her, etc..

The kind of stalking that criminals engage in imply a degree of danger and bad intentions that we simply don't know if it was the case here.

That's to say nothing of the fact that this was the story he told. We don't even know with absolute certainty that his story was true. If he was lying, we don't know what his intention was. He could have lied about seeing and following them to throw the authorities off his own tracks or he could have lied for attention/profit.

[c.d.]

I once came close to carrying my bat through a completed innings without scoring a run. I think mine was the 8th wicket.

I've dated a lot of women without scoring.

c.d.

[andy1867]

I once came close to carrying my bat through a completed innings without scoring a run. I think mine was the 8th wicket.

Hard luck mate....Thats the best thing about cricket..you can manufacture yer own heroism in most circumstances...
Its one of the reasons I discount Druitt....
He wouldn't have stopped at 5 without being "caught out"

[Herlock Sholmes]

Seems a reasonable suggestion to me.

Hi: after pretty much dismissing AM for years I recently had a bit of a re-think after comments on here. Then when I was reminded of Hutchinsons age I wondered if it had led him to describe a slightly better off man as a toff? So maybe he wasn't lying after all? Maybe he was just exaggerating? Intentionally or not. Who knows?

Regards

HS

[andy1867]

I also remember a "Rippercast" episode when one of the guests had said something like "His form had dropped off markedly towards the end
"..I paraphrase
But he had a five for..and and a 3 wicket haul from a total of 93 in what I see as his last 2 games...
Not too sloppy is it?

[Abby Normal]

No, we don't.

We have his word that he followed Kelly and a man around. We don't even know with certainty that he was telling the truth about seeing her and a man or following them.

If he was telling the truth, we don't really know why he did this. Sure, it could have been stalking, but he could have been simply curious, interested in the man's appearance (for £££), protective of Kelly, waiting for her hoping to spend time with her, etc..

The kind of stalking that criminals engage in imply a degree of danger and bad intentions that we simply don't know if it was the case here.

That's to say nothing of the fact that this was the story he told. We don't even know with absolute certainty that his story was true. If he was lying, we don't know what his intention was. He could have lied about seeing and following them to throw the authorities off his own tracks or he could have lied for attention/profit.

Yes we do. His waiting and watching is corraberated by Sarah Lewis.
That alone is stalking behavior.

[Sam Flynn]

A sequence of events is a series of things that have happened. That doesn't make them a coincidence (or even 'a story full of convenient devices')

I see them as convenient devices to explain otherwise extraordinary events and/or behaviours. Here's a fictitious dialogue to illustrate what I mean:

"How come you were in Commercial Street at two in the morning?" - "Because I couldn't get into my digs"

"Why was that?" - "Because I'd been down to Romford"

"How did Kelly know your name?" - "Because I've known her for three years"

"Why did she think you'd be able to loan her the money?" - "Because I've sometimes given her a few shillings in the past"

"Why couldn't you this time?" - "Because, like I told her, I'd spent it all coming back from Romford"

"How do you remember so much about his face?" - "Because I had a really good look when I bent forward to stare at him" [thanks for the correction, BTW]

"But surely it was dark?" - "Yes, but I happened to be standing under a street lamp, and he happened to pass right under it. That's why I can remember so much detail... not just his face, but everything else, right down to the buttons on his boots"

Like I say, it all strikes me as way too convenient.

[Wickerman]

Gareth.

A witness walking into a police station cannot possibly know in advance what questions, if any, he is going to be asked.
You are almost suggesting Hutchinson learned and followed a script, one wrong question and he is screwed. It presents an extremely contrived scenario, just too far over the top for what he could get out of it.

One of the reason's Hutchinson appears to have an answer for every question is, Badham is not about to write down what Hutchinson did not know.
Badham will sidestep all his "didn't see", "couldn't hear", "don't know's". The police are only concerned with capturing as many details that can help them, and, that Hutchinson knew the answer to.
It's a team effort, in a manner of speaking.

You are just seeing the result of an interview by a very capable Sergeant, but interpreting it as "a man who had an answer for everything".

[Sam Flynn]

You are just seeing the result of an interview by a very capable Sergeant, but interpreting it as "a man who had an answer for everything".

Amazing what three days' worth of preparation can deliver, isn't it?

[Abby Normal]

Amazing what three days' worth of preparation can deliver, isn't it?

Bingo

[Wickerman]

Nah, that don't work either.
Hutchinson only had an hour or two to throw something together based on Lewis's testimony.

[harry]

Not true.He only had an hour or so to decide whether to come forward.A story could already have been prepared,as Sam states.