A Different Take

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

What would be inherently wrong with the idea that Hutch was there, because he had simply wandered into Miller's Court on the off-chance of finding his friend Mary there and begging a bit of floor space?

Nothing disasterous wrong, except that if the truth entailed so innocent an explanation, why did he not avail himself of it? If he was so worried that the hangman would become suspicious that he was revealed to be the last man seen at the crime scene, all he needed to do was claim that he peered through the window and saw (heard?) a man inside. No need for Fashion Street encounters and red stone seals.

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

Hi All,

What would be inherently wrong with the idea that Hutch was there, because he had simply wandered into Miller's Court on the off-chance of finding his friend Mary there and begging a bit of floor space? When he reaches her room something tells him she's in residence but has already 'got a man in', so he waits, and waits, and waits.... and gives up.

He stews over the next few days, because if he doesn't come forward, anyone having seen him shuffling about damply for nearly an hour waiting to get into that room to kip down with that woman, but not seeing him shuffle off again disappointed, could make things very bad for him indeed. If he comes forward and tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, he's virtually telling the hangman that he was the last man known to be near the crime scene before the murder. He knows there was another man in that room after he left the court at 3am. But he can't prove it.

So he makes up the most detailed story he can about this man and what he looked like; how he came to be in the room and was still there when Hutch left; and how Hutch knew all about it.

As the meerkat in the adage would say: "Simples".

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

As to his coming forward after it was made known that someone had been seen, it simply could have been that that put the idea in his head.

...and appropriate the identity of the man seen, even though he wasn't there, and pretend to be a witness? It's possible, CD, but history is far from littered with examples of such behaviour, and I find it unlikely that he'd fail to give himself an accout of where he really was at that crucial "Oh murder" moment in time. "Walking about all night" seems at odd one to resort to unless he had little to no other options.

Ben

[Ben]

Hi Simon,

Either by personally attending the inquest itself, or simply joining the throngs around Shoreditch Town Hall, in which case it would simply have been a case of noticing Lewis enter the building and naturally expecting her to recount her wideawake encounter. It's equally likely however that he got wind of the sighting simply through work of mouth, which spread very quickly indeed (it was essentially what allowed "Leather Apron" to gather momentum). Mrs. Kennedy - which may be an alias of Sarah Lewis, or someone who parrotted her account - communicated with the press early as the 10th April.

All the best,
Ben

[c.d.]

Probably a poor choice of words on my part. I am certainly not the first person to suggest alternative motives for Hutchinson but it seems (to me anyway) that they are too quickly cast aside.

As to his coming forward after it was made known that someone had been seen, it simply could have been that that put the idea in his head.

c.d.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ben,

Fancy meeting you on a GH thread.

Just on a point of order, as far as I can ascertain Sarah Lewis's inquest testimony was not made public [i.e. appeared in the newspapers] until 13th November, so unless GH was at the inquest how did he learn that someone had been spotted opposite the crime scene?

Regards,

Simon

Why do we insist upon seeing Hutchinson in the worst possible light and assigning him the worst possible motives? He might have simply made the whole damn thing up. Could he have been someone who was mentally unbalanced or just trying to get his fifteen minutes of fame? Maybe he thought he could milk his story for a little bit of the reward money or possibly get something from the newspapers. It seems like these alternatives are never really considered. They would certainly be consistent with the police apparently giving up on him so quickly.

c.d.

Hi cd,

Im not sure how you came to conclude that his intentionally falsifying his claim for money or the spotlight hasnt been considered...fully.

Other than Ben looking at him as a possible culprit scouting locations, he and most everyone still believes he falsified his statement for whatever reasons he may have had.

The only thing we know thats fact is that his story became "disbelieved" within 3 days of his providing it.

He is in a category with Mathew Packer at this point...as a witness that sought to be a part of the goings on, and maybe to make some money while they were at it.

Best regards

[Ben]

Gosh, what an explosion of Hutchinson threads today!

Hi CD,

I wouldn't say those options are "never really considered".

I would consider all of them to be perfectly valid were in not for the fact that it doesn't satisfactorily explain the interesting coincidence of his coming forward with that publicity-seeking tale involving his presence outside a crime scene at 2:30 just after it was made public that someone really was seen standing outside the crime scene at 2:30am.

If others don't find that problematic, then the above explanations are fine and dandy. They don't quite work for me.

Ben

[c.d.]

Why do we insist upon seeing Hutchinson in the worst possible light and assigning him the worst possible motives? He might have simply made the whole damn thing up. Could he have been someone who was mentally unbalanced or just trying to get his fifteen minutes of fame? Maybe he thought he could milk his story for a little bit of the reward money or possibly get something from the newspapers. It seems like these alternatives are never really considered. They would certainly be consistent with the police apparently giving up on him so quickly.

c.d.