A Different Take

[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.

[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

[perrymason]

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

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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]

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

[c.d.]

Hi Caz,

If I had to place a bet, I would say that your scenario or one close to it was probably the most likely. My take on it would be that Mary told him that she had a client but didn't know if he was going to be an all nighter and simply told Hutch to wait for a while. At some point, he concluded the gent was in for the night and moved on.

c.d.

[caz]

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.

Hi Ben,

Right, but there's not much to fall back on if the police refuse to simply take his word for it, is there? Nothing to make them believe this man was really there, in the place where Hutch was soon hoping to be himself, for innocent reasons in his case. Nothing Hutch could have done after that to breathe life into this other character and make him take on the far greater role and significance, thus allowing his own to be minimised and treated like the passive one it actually would have been.

A brief glimpse or sound of a man he couldn't begin to describe could not be built up any further to sound more like an experience. He could have gone over the top to remedy that, thinking the more detail he could include, the more convincing it would be that he had a bit more than a brief encounter with Mary's last customer.

At the very least it would take a bit more looking into and buy him some time.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

The idea of a guy embellishing something a bit to make a few shillings makes the most sense to me. As Ben rightly says, the time of the sighting coincides with Sarah Lewis' testimony. Yet, the most likely reason for this is because he was there and saw someone. If, as Ben believes, Hutch came forward because he knew of Lewis' testimony, the most likely explanation (imo) is that he wanted to capitalize on her statement by bringing to life the culprit.
Money wins out here, I'm afraid. A young man of little means, but quick mind could very easily do something like this.

Mike

[Ben]

I'm afraid I'd be calling your bet there, CD, if not raising it.

If the truth was an innocent as all that, there was nothing preventing him from admitting as much to police.

Hi Caz,

Right, but there's not much to fall back on if the police refuse to simply take his word for it, is there?

No more than there would have been in the scenario that he did end up selling to the police. If the police didn't buy his "approaching Kelly's room" story, he was just as devoid of "outs" as he would have been in the Astrakhan version. In your scenario, wheren Hutchinson has no lodgings, tries Kelly but discovers her to be ensconced in her room with a companion, he could easily have stuck to the truth as closely as possible without the need for complicated shinanngans around Commerical Street. As it happens, the gist of your suggestion; that Hutchinson may have approached Kelly's room with the intention of gaining entry only to be thwarted by the presence of a man in the room, is an extremely viable one, but such a suggestion is far from at odds with his possible complicity in the crimes.

It was Garry Wroe who theorized in 2002 that Hutchinson approached Kelly's room, detected the sleeping presence of Kelly and Blotchy ensconced therein, and installed himself opposite the court from a convenient vantage point in anticipation of Blotchy leaving. Whether true or not, it neatly reinforces the fact that a hypothetical Hutchinson-as-late-night-visitor could have gone there with destructive, rather than contractual, intentions.

All the best,
Ben

[Jez]

But let's never lose sight of the possibility that every word Hutchinson said was the truth, as he saw it. Yes, he had a finely tuned sense of observation - as only few people have. It's interesting that he didn't trust his ears in the same way he did his eyes. One would have expected him to provide a complete dialogue - but he didn't.
"A man coming in the opposite direction to Kelly tapped her on the shoulder and said something and they both burst out laughing."
"He said something to her. She said alright my dear come along you will be comfortable."
How curious that Hutchinson didn't provide the whole dialogue, rather than just snippets. Isn't Hutchinson supposed to be a man with a false story - each and every detail carefully scripted in advance?

[Ben]

But let's never lose sight of the possibility that every word Hutchinson said was the truth, as he saw it.

I totally dispute that it is possible, Jez. Tests for photographic memory look positively pedestrian alongside Hutchinson's claims. A finely tuned sense of observation doesn't bestow implausible superhuman powers onto people, not even Milat, whose "witness" sighting was initially attributed to photographic memory.

How curious that Hutchinson didn't provide the whole dialogue, rather than just snippets. Isn't Hutchinson supposed to be a man with a false story - each and every detail carefully scripted in advance?

Not really. It would simply mean the difference between an amazingly bogus claim and an astronomically bogus, don't-be-bloody-ridiculous claim.

Gosh, Hutchinson debates do seem to be the flavour of the month, don't they? I do hope this turns into one of those interminable marathons. It'll be like 2006!

All the best,
Ben