A Different Take

[Ben]

Hi Tom,

Of interest to us as far as Mr. Wideawake's behaviour is concerned is not his loitering so much as his reported interest in what would later become a crime scene; "watching or waiting for someone" can be compared to other serial offenders who opted for a similar strategy of prior surveillance. Someone killed her, and given the paucity of reliable sightings, Wideawake must be considered a viable suspect in Kelly's death, in my view.

Hi Mike,

If you mean outward and visible signs of mental disturbance, yes, I'd agree that the police would have picked up on it, so no, it's unlikely that he conveyed any.

All the best,
Ben

[Malcolm X]

it's just so damn suspicious... my guess is that KELLY didn't go out again, this means the killer could've been Blotchy face..or he left well before 3am ...after she finished singing, but before her light went out

it's one of two things........ Kelly was in bed with BLOTCHY FACE after her light was seen to be out, or the killer broke in at 3am.

i would state one of these as a FACT, but which one?

Hutchinson is the ideal candidate for a 3am break in, he's stalked her exactly as required.. the times he mentions are spot on, but BLOTCHY face was actually seen going in, he is also a prime suspect.

now HUTCHINSON goes way overboard shifting the blame to a JEW, he did not see those two outside........almost definitely a fact! he either made it all up as an attention seeker, or he's our man.

which is it... well, i aint sure.... blotchy face fits other suspect descriptions give or take 60% ...yea, but so does HUTCH..

do you think she slept with Blotchy face?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Ben,

I hear what you're saying, but in the end, all Prater witnessed and all Hutch admits to is him loitering around an open street near a pretty whore's house and a pub. Such spots had men loitering around them 24/7. I don't see how this man Prater saw simply standing about has such a strong chance of being Kelly's killer. On any other night, you'd see men loitering around the same spot.

Michael,

I agree that we can rule out any derangement on Hutch's part as playing a motive in his fabricating the story.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Malcolm X]

Like you, I can see the merit in the view of Hutch as the murderer of Kelly, freaking out when he realizes he was spotted, and stepping forth to send suspicion in another direction. But before adopting this view, shouldn't there be at least ONE over-riding piece of evidence suggesting Hutch as the murderer? If there's not, then the 'Hutch as opportunist' slant would be more probable, would it not?

Also, anyone loitering around a spot for hours would HAVE to expect to be seen by many people. This is no big deal if he wasn't going to kill someone. But it WOULD be a big deal when someone did get killed and you realize your actions had put you in a suspicious spot. Again, like Leon Goldstein. My point is that had Hutch planned to kill Kelly, he would not have been seen loitering for an extended period of time and this whole argument we're now having would be mute because we'd have nothing to discuss.

Would you agree these are fair statements?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

yes, but it depends how he was intending to kill KELLY ( if he did kill her)
because this might mean that he has to wait outside for ages, for her light to go out / or a client to leave ...he has to be sure that she's at home and hasn't gone out again and more importantly that she's fallen asleep... thus he cant be sure if he leaves the area, he has to wait outside

but i do admit that Hutchinson could quite easily be innocent/ attention seeker...

[Ben]

Hi Tom,

A major difference seperating Leon Goldstein's activity on the night of a murder with that of Hutchinson is that "black bag man" simply passed the crime scene without exhibiting any interest in it, unlike the wideawake man, who seemed to be particularly fixated with the entrance to Miller's Court. This assumes an important resonance on two counts; firstly, Kelly was murdered probably an hour or so later within the very court he seemed to be monitering, and secondly, we know that other serial kilers have monitered their crime venues under similar circumstances before attacking, especially indoor locations. Robert Napper, Dennis Rader and Ted Bundy all spring to mind here.

On those grounds, I can't agree that the killer would not have allowed himself to be seen loitering in the vicinity of his crime, especially when there are very strong indications that the killer allowed himself to be seen with his victim at other crime scenes, and much closer to the accepted time of death - both of which entail a greater risk factor than simple loitering. Bear in mind that we only have it on his dubious authority of Hutchinson himself that he waited for as long as he claimed anyway.

Getting to the truly reductive essense of it, the man seen by Lewis has a strong chance of being Kelly's killer, and that same man has a strong chance of being Hutchinson, in my view. The activity reported by Lewis doesn't become any less suspicious simply because we have a good idea that the man in question may have been Hutchinson. If Lewis had reported a man passing on his way through Dorset Street, there would be far fewer grounds for suspicion, but as it happens, the wideawake man was behaving in a manner that appears suspicious in isolation from any question marks over his identity.

It is these reasons that propell Hutchinson's possibile complicity in the crimes to the top few reasonable explanations for his behaviour, or at the very least above that of the casual publicity seeker. Not that the latter is necessarily an unreasonable premise.

Out of interest, was there any confirmation behind Packer's claim that the police promised to pay him, or could that have been another invention on his part?

All the best,
Ben

Hi Tom,

When we only have the witnesses themselves to back up their story, we cant be sure of anything that they said. Fanny didnt see Schwartz or any of his alleged incident, Goldstein's Interpretor says he saw nothing...no-one witnesses the body first being discovered in Bucks Row, and in the case of Hutchinson, we have only his word that he was there at all....Sarah didnt get a chance to possibly ID the Wideawake Hat Man as the one who was calling himself Marys friend George on Monday.

I just posted this point on another thread...but George Hutchinson came in and claimed the best sighting of a probable killer of a Canonical victim and that he could recognize the man again......making him the single most valuable asset in the Ripper Investigation and the one figure that could help them arrest and convict the killer without having to catch him in the act or having physical evidence to support the claim....so, far exceeding what possibilities existed with Lawende based on his own words, ....but... Lawende was witnessed coming across Kate and her Sailor Man by his two chums, so at least we know what he claims was corroborated,..all 3 men saw the couple.

Hutchinson doesnt just give a story like Schwartz or Goldstein....Packer I leave alone because money would be such a powerful story stimulant, and his story has huge holes...Hutchinson comes in after the official business has already taken place to claim a title as Most Valuable Investigation Asset.

If the story was false as is believed...that would either make him a very dangerously disturbed individual, or someone with an agenda. Since he convinces what I assume must be an astute and professional man like Abberline....I think the "disturbed" angle may not be workable.

He creates a client seen with Mary after the evidence says she was already in her room...just like Schwartz's story brings in a suspect from outside the club. I think I may know why Schwartzs translated statement reads that way...what his agenda may have been...but Ill be damned if I can figure one reason for Hutchison that doesnt involve an agenda of some kind.

Cheers Tom, all.

[FrankO]

So, you're leaning away from the most common reasons?

Hi Mike,

I don't care much about whether reasons are common or not, I just interpret the little information we have at our disposal and then form an opinion. If that means I'm leaning away from the most common reasons or opinions, so be it.

And you are leaning in the direction of something more nefarious, but less likely?

I think Hutchinson came forward because he feared being suspected. But that doesn't necessarily mean he was there because he had some criminal activity on his mind. Could be anything from Caz's innocent suggestion to the most nefarious, that Hutchinson was Kelly's murderer. Although I certainly don't discard the latter possibility, I think it was the former rather than the latter.

Fair enough.

Thanks.

All the best,
Frank

[Tom_Wescott]

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.

Hi Ben and everyone. Leon Goldstein also recognized himself in the press (re: Fanny Mortimer's account in Berner Street) and came forward to clear himself. The difference between Leon and George was that Leon was enjoying good circumstances and simply wanted to clear his name. Hutch may have felt he needed to go 'above and beyond' to clear his name or - more than likely - saw the opportunity to gain notoriety and make some money and decided to take it.

Why do I say make some money? Matthew Packer stated that the police had promised to pay him for his time (although he was angry when they didn't make fast with the money), so it stands to reason Hutch would have asked for and received the same promise when they occupied his time for days, walking him around the East End.

Speaking of Matthew Packer, let's not forget that he fabricated a s suspect - and far more successfully than Hutch did - yet that doesn't mean he killed Liz Stride.

Like you, I can see the merit in the view of Hutch as the murderer of Kelly, freaking out when he realizes he was spotted, and stepping forth to send suspicion in another direction. But before adopting this view, shouldn't there be at least ONE over-riding piece of evidence suggesting Hutch as the murderer? If there's not, then the 'Hutch as opportunist' slant would be more probable, would it not?

Also, anyone loitering around a spot for hours would HAVE to expect to be seen by many people. This is no big deal if he wasn't going to kill someone. But it WOULD be a big deal when someone did get killed and you realize your actions had put you in a suspicious spot. Again, like Leon Goldstein. My point is that had Hutch planned to kill Kelly, he would not have been seen loitering for an extended period of time and this whole argument we're now having would be mute because we'd have nothing to discuss.

Would you agree these are fair statements?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Malcolm X]

Hutchinson's statement is not only riddled with faults ( his description of following Kelly) but it's also way too accurate in his description of the suspect, it's farcical for that time of night/ darkness/ drizzly rain etc etc... this has been discused so many times.

but there's something else far more subtle:- it's a very intense statement... he's really laying the blame on this suspect... painting him as a ``stereotypical theatrical bogeyman``...almost like the ``phantom of the opera``..or a ``Jeckyl and Hyde`` type...............sorry for my simplicity, but you know what i mean.... his statement is simply too loaded with suspicion... especially carrying the packet in his hand ``American cloth `` etc....no way, not that late at night, it's way too dark...

he's describing not a LA DE DA Jew.... but an evil person..it's like a gothic nightmare... ``he didn't look like somebody that could harm another man..plus he had a sullen look``.... Hutchinson is playing games with you, getting inside your head and it worked too...especially with the newspapers

there's something else not right in his statement that goes way beyond this... my guess is; he was the man seen outside Millers court and this spooked him.... does military in appearence mean... fit looking, strong and burly..or ``standing there dead still on guard duty...stalking``

Hutchinson was out late at night ( returning from Romford)... yea' sure

although the signatures match, this Hutchinson could still be the Ripper

you see, he messed up his description of following KELLY, got the pub name wrong etc etc, but this doesn't make sense from somebody that's supposedly so observant of his suspect..........i thus conclude:- he didn't see Kelly that night out on the streets, she didn't go out again.

or he lied about everything...but something tells me he was there.....because he came forward way too late, he would've gone to the police the next day... even if he was an attention seeker.... no no no, he went to the inquest to find out if anybody had seen him stalking outside MILLERS COURT, they had; so he went strait to the police

[Ben]

Hi Frank,

Good to see you here. Some important and sound observations there. I too feel the evidence militates against the notion of Hutchinson as a pure attention-seeker, particularly his coming forward so hot on the heels of Lewis' evidence becoming public knowledge.

If, however, it was in the waistcoat pocket, and Astrakhan man had not buttoned up his coats, it´s another thing altogether.

Only if he had a severe case of prodruding chest or Pectus Carinatum, Fish! Sticking a hanky where it would poke out from an overcoat would have looked very eccentric in the LVP.

All the best,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

So, I'm heavily leaning towards thinking that Hutchinson wasn't a reward or publicity seeker.

So, you're leaning away from the most common reasons? And you are leaning in the direction of something more nefarious, but less likely?
Fair enough.

Mike

[FrankO]

Hi all,

It strikes me that discussions regarding Hutchinson are usually centred around the description of Mr A. It’s not that people don’t come up with good reasons why his description could have been so detailed, but they seem to forget the rest of his account.

It wasn’t just the description that raises questions and would have needed addressing.

• Why was Hutchinson there in the first place?
• Why was he so interested in Kelly when she walked away from him towards Thrawl Street?
• Why was he so interested in Mr A, even though he probably couldn’t have had a good look at him until he approached him while GH was standing at the Queen’s Head?
• Why, if Mr A didn’t want GH to get a good look at him, did he pass GH so closely anyway, while he could easily have crossed the street before reaching him?
• Why did GH follow the couple?
• Why did he wait for so long after such a long footslog in such weather conditions?

Hutchinson’s story provides a very thin reason, if any, for his presence and actions, but does present a ‘larger-than-life’ suspect. As far as I’m concerned, the whole of his story seems to be a little too convenient and therefore fabricated, at least partly. Certainly when one considers that he only came forward after Lewis gave her testimony of the loiterer looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out.

So, I'm heavily leaning towards thinking that Hutchinson wasn't a reward or publicity seeker.

All the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I doubt very much that a pocket handkerchief would be visible beneath two coats."

It wouldn´t be, I assure you.

If, however, it was in the waistcoat pocket, and Astrakhan man had not buttoned up his coats, it´s another thing altogether. Not to mention if he wore it in a pocket of his Astrakhan coat!

Once again: It CAN be overcome!

"I jokingly wondered allowed which passtime you might prioritize."

That´s one of the great things with fishing - it gives you time to let your thoughts wander. Unless, of course, the random fish should favour your bait...!

"Hook a biggun for me!"

I´ll give it my best shot!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

Mmmm - but I have offered another possibility at times; that Hutch spotted the hanky sported from one of Astrakhan mans pockets as he took a look at him stooping down, and from a very short distance.

An interesting one to sure, but just a quick reiteration of why it doesn't strike on my particular box before moving swiftly on:

1) It's yet another component to add to all the other weird and wonderful clothing and accessories he claimed to have crammed into his cranium within a fleeting moment in near-darkness.

2) I doubt very much that a pocket handkerchief would be visible beneath two coats.

Please tell me you are pulling my leg...?!!

'Course I'm pulling your leg, Fish.

I jokingly wondered allowed which passtime you might prioritize.

Hook a biggun for me!

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"there's no possibilty that every single thing he told was utterly unembellished."

That, though, is what Messr´s Evans and Rumbelow write.... Not that we are going to be able to prove or disprove them on the point, but there you are.

"the very idea that someone so attired would venture into that locality and at that time so attired "engenders a feeling of scepticism", to borrow a wonderful piece of journalistic understatement"

Agreed. But that is not to say that it could not have happened - it´s just to be realistic and admit that it would probably not have been an everyday occurence.

"The couple were at the entrance to Miller's Court at the time, and the only placement we have for Hutchinson at that time is the corner of Dorset Street. That's a greater distance than the width of Duke Street, besides which I believe there was a lamp over the spot at which Eddowes and her companion were observed. Rob or Monty or someone can correct me if I'm wrong on that, but it wouldn't invalidate the crucial first observation."

Mmmm - but I have offered another possibility at times; that Hutch spotted the hanky sported from one of Astrakhan mans pockets as he took a look at him stooping down, and from a very short distance. The problem can be overcome.

"I'm afraid you'll have to forgo the fishing this afternoon, and all thanks to me."

You have been calling me all sorts of things over the years, Ben. You have tried to ridicule me, and you have scorned me and bespattered me.
I can live with that.
But if this prophecy of yours comes true, I will NOT forgive you. Outside, there is a bright sun shining, the wind has just fallen over in the west after three days of northern/northeastern winds, the temperature is rising in the water and the wawes are only barely crested with the slightest of foam. Such a day provides optimal chances of catching fat, silvery seatrouts of up to twenty pounds along our shores. But this type of day does not come along very often, especially not when you have the opportunity to make use of them.
Please tell me you are pulling my leg...?!!

A worried
Fisherman