Hutchinson Content---Moved from MJK crime scene thread

[paul emmett]

Hello, all.

On the one hand, I wonder why, if GH is turning up at the station to defuse Lewis's sighting of the man she saw at 2:30 according to the church bells, why wasn't he content to do just that? Earlier in this thread, I suggested that if I was GH defusing SL, I would have been more careful to put myself where she said I had been, and, recalling Sam's earlier suggestion, I would have had myself leave before 3:00, because Cox comes home at three. But upon reflection, I think that GH should have told his story about MJK and AM, then say he watched for a bit at 2:30, and finally just say that he got out of Dodge. Why turn himself into Loitering Man and heap even more suspicion upon himself??

But that's only "one hand"; on the other, I stll can't see GH coming up with such a stereotyped JTR in AM, coming in three days late, transforming himself into Loitering Man--all for the sake of some attention. He was suspected--indeed, "intrrogated"--all for a free drink at The Ten Bells?

So, I guess I end up in the seeming minority that sees some truth in what Hutchinson says.

[Suzi]

I can't see that there's anything VAGUE about Mr Lawende's statement....if it had come form Harry Harris, who walked away not liking the scenario , or Mr Levy who sort of half looked....then we could dismiss him...We cannot dismiss Lawende....at least he saw someone with Kate who was 99.9% 'The Ripper'

Also .... as to Hutch.........I'm damned sure that George saw him too!!!!! (Although who that was I won't commit to!)

A Mrs Maxwell fan me......

[Ben]

Hi Paul,

Why turn himself into Loitering Man and heap even more suspicion upon himself??

Probably because he realised he'd been seen at a crime scene at a time crucial to the murder, was oblivious to the extent of that sighting, and felt compelled to legitimise his presence there, electing to deflect suspicion in a convenient and false direction at the same time. So yes, I share your incredulity at the prospect of Hutchinson doing all this purely for the sake of "some attention" or "a drink at the ten bells". It seems more likely that his pre-emptive move was prompted more out of a desire for self-preservation.

Best regards,
Ben

[paul emmett]

he realised he'd been seen at a crime scene at a time crucial to the murder, was oblivious to the extent of that sighting, and felt compelled to legitimise his presence there,

Hi, Ben.

This seems like the Cox thing: if he learned the "dark and quiet" stuff from Cox's inquest statement, then he must have learned she came back at 3:00, too. If he learned he had been seen from Lewis's inquest statement, then he must have learned where he was standing and what time she saw him, too.

If he knew he'd been seen before the inquest, why wait so long to come in? If he knew he'd been seen all along, why kill?

Hi, Suzi.

I'm kinda a Maxwell fan too, so who ya got??

[perrymason]

Hello all,

Im interested by the raising of Lawende into this discussion, as if we need to compare his suspect to Georges, or to Wideawake.......

First off Lawende has never been confirmed as the "legitimate witness", he said himself that he could not recognize the man again, so the only reason to suspect that the killer known as Jack was a Jew is because some policemen say so.

Rationally, Hutchinsons suspect can be discounted by his attire alone, and its clear that the officials did just that before Nov 16th, installing Blotchy Man as the suspect description for Marys killing.

So what happened here had no relation to any alleged suspect sighting prior, and therefore offers nothing about the nationality of the suspect or his "clan" that can be utilized.

Mrs Caroline Maxwell was simply wrong, imperically, due to the state of rigor that Mary exhibited when they first examined her,... she did not die at around 10am.... so Mary was already dead when Maxwell has a conversation with her, therefore shes incorrect....but she need'nt have lied, whereas Hutchinson was perhaps incorrect on purpose, due to the immaculate description of a man police felt never actually existed, as of Nov 15th/16th.

My best regards all.

[Ben]

Hi Paul,

If he knew he'd been seen before the inquest, why wait so long to come in?

Any sooner, and he'd have been forced to attend the inquest, which meant being subjected to public scrutiny and questioning. In any case, he wouldn't have known necessarily that he'd been seen by Lewis, or even that she'd give evidence.

If he knew he'd been seen all along, why kill?

See above, but also for the same reason he'd killed after being seen with earlier victims - because he'd passed the point of no return...would be my guess.

All the best,
Ben

[perrymason]

Hi again,

One quick revision, I feel badly about how I portrayed Carrie as a Victorian "Lucy"....the only way that Caroline Maxwell can be correct, based on the corpse on the bed, is if it is not Mary Kelly's.

I dont believe that type of subterfuge, or any variation of, is what went on with The Millers Court investigation, but I will say that should you decide to try and have one corpse identified as someone else, the characteristic variables that exist between people would have to be minimized...height, weight, skin color, facial features, hair and eye color..

Mary Kelly is reclining with a leg drawn up, its hard to guess her actual height, Mary Kelly was emptied, making it virtually impossible to know precisely how thin or fat she may have been, and Mary Kelly has no face to speak of anymore.

Hope that appeases Caroline fans.

My best all.

[CitizenX]

If the police adopted this strategy with Lawende's evidence (clearly with the intention of lulling the killer into a false sense of security), and the press-reading public knew about it, what was to prevent them from doing it with Lewis' evidence?

Cheers,
Ben

Well Ben, Unlike Lawendes evidence, Sarah Lewis's description was never added to at a later date, so we can assume that her description at the inquest was all there was to give. Lets face it, it was very vague and could have matched many men around the area at that time, certainly not a description that would force somebody to come forward to absolve themselves from the investigation..That means that Hutch would need to come forward for other reasons...

1) Freindship...

Apart from Hutchinson himself, theres NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, that he even knew Mary.

If he was worried about Marys companion it would be very easy to let him know he was waiting outside to ensure she was safe.

If you were JTR and saw Hutch take such a good look at you AND follow you to the murder scene, would you carryon or find an easier victim?

2) Civic Duty...Hutch appeared from nowhere and disappeared to nowhere, certainly not the actions of a local "upstanding" member of the community worried about the population of the area.

3) Reward....At that point no substantial reward was being offered and GH never seemed to hang around long enough to claim any if someone had been caught....

The men in charge of the investigation at the time and in years later all either fully discounted GH statement or acted as if it never existed, therefore I think we should do the same now.

Kevin

[paul emmett]

Any sooner, and he'd have been forced to attend the inquest, which meant being subjected to public scrutiny and questioning. In any case, he wouldn't have known necessarily that he'd been seen by Lewis, or even that she'd give evidence.

Hi, Ben.

The first sentence here makes perfect sense; the second takes me back to my feeling that if he's gonna check inquest testimony, it would behoove him to check it well.

Hi, Michael.

There ain't nothing like appeasement. But you forgot the eyes, and the recent thread that demonstrated how quickly MJK's eyes would change color. When you say, "rationally, H's suspect can be discounted by his attire alone," my gut response is agreement, but then I get hooked on this dilemma: it would be stupid--and counterproductive--to make up such attire. And why did Abberline have to wait 'til the 16th to move away from AM? Why did he originally believe GH?

Have good evenings.

[Ben]

Well Ben, Unlike Lawendes evidence, Sarah Lewis's description was never added to at a later date, so we can assume that her description at the inquest was all there was to give

We can assume that, Kevin, yes, because we know it to be true, courtesy of hindsight. We know that her police statement didn't contain a more detailed description, just as we know that a fuller description didn't appear weeks after the inquest in the Police Gazette, unlike Lawende's evidence (which did). Hutchinson had no such luxury of knowledge. On November 12th, all he and any other press-reading Whitechapel resident knew was that Lawende's "vague" description" had been withheld, only to appear in full weeks later. For all he and anyone else knew, the police could employ precisely the same tactic with the next witness at the next inquest.

So it doesn't matter in the slightest if we - writing 119 years later - "know" that Lewis' description was vague. No such knowledge would have been available to Hutchinson or any other member of the public in early November 1888. It's also worth remembering that a "description" isn't the same as a "sighting". One can see something very easily and commit it to memory, wirhout necessarily having the ability to describe it very well.

But with regards to your 1), 2) and 3)...yes, I agree wholeheartedly. They don't hang together at all.

All the best,
Ben

[paul emmett]

Well Ben, Unlike Lawendes evidence, Sarah Lewis's description was never added to at a later date, so we can assume that her description at the inquest was all there was to give. Lets face it, it was very vague and could have matched many men around the area at that time, certainly not a description that would force somebody to come forward to absolve themselves from the investigation..That means that Hutch would need to come forward for other reasons...

1) Freindship...

Apart from Hutchinson himself, theres NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, that he even knew Mary.

If he was worried about Marys companion it would be very easy to let him know he was waiting outside to ensure she was safe.

If you were JTR and saw Hutch take such a good look at you AND follow you to the murder scene, would you carryon or find an easier victim?

2) Civic Duty...Hutch appeared from nowhere and disappeared to nowhere, certainly not the actions of a local "upstanding" member of the community worried about the population of the area.

3) Reward....At that point no substantial reward was being offered and GH never seemed to hang around long enough to claim any if someone had been caught....

The men in charge of the investigation at the time and in years later all either fully discounted GH statement or acted as if it never existed, therefore I think we should do the same now.

Kevin

But, Kevin, the fact that Lewis never added to her evidence can't effect GH on Inquest Monday. And once you prove that there was no reason for GH to come forward, what are we left with? He did come forward. We can't eliminate him to that extent.

[Suzi]

Hi all-
Thanks for the PM Paul- Now as to Mrs M who is a constant source of fascination to me........She lived at No 14 Dorset St semi opposite Mary and let's say knew her 'by sight' well at least knew who she was, and where she lived.
OK, she testifies that she saw Mary upright and alive (albeit vomitting in the street) at 8.30 on Friday morning,then again at 9 outside The Britannia talking to Mr Plaidy Coat.

Now the Anti Mrs M's say that this may well have been true but Mrs M 'Didn't know where she was for the days' ....(a wonderful Welsh use of words!)....confusing the Thursday for the Friday morning......

Mrs M asked Mary why she was up so early (saying something about Mary's recognised rising habits) and then recieves the rather wonderful 'I have the horrors of drink upon me,as I have been drinking for some days past' line...........

Now as Joe Barnett testified that he visited Mary on Thursday and that she was completely sober this doesn't tie in with someone who's been on 'The Wazz' for a few days does it?

Mrs M's statement coincides with her returning plates/buying milk or whatever and I'm sure that these bits of minutiae stick in the mind.Also she was sure in her own words because her husband finished work at 8.00 am and her description of the clothes that Mary was wearing ties in with clothes Mary was seen to have been wearing on a fairly regular basis....mind you I'm sure how large a wardrobe Mary had is of course spurious!.

Abberline did cross examine Mrs M to the extent that he even consulted Dr Dutton as to whether the killer could have been a woman.......hence the Jill/midwife/Jack in drag theories (Note to self...........must take more water with it before mentioning Dr D )

I'm CONVINCED Mrs M wasn't mistaken! (For what that's worth!) Below a painting I did years ago of Mrs M (complete with plates!)




Suz x

[Sam Flynn]

Abberline did cross examine Mrs M to the extent that he even consulted Dr Dutton as to whether the killer could have been a woman.

...ooh! That's a bit iffy, Suzi! Whenever I see Dr Dutton mentioned, I reach for the salt-cellar

Agree with what you say otherwise, and a very nice drawing

[paul emmett]

Hi, Suzi. I too agree with the statements, love the painting
(she certianly looks honest), and salt Dutton. Regarding what MJK was wearing, Maxwell said "'morone' shawl"; Cox said "red crossover." Both said no hat.

[Suzi]

Yep I do too Sam!!! Must have been the Reg Varney that brought on that Colin Wilsonish nasty moment of typing!!!!!!!!................
"I 'ate you Butler!!!!!" Hehe -why does that always make me laugh!!! (Stephen Lewis- blessim)

Paul-
Maroon shawl/Red crossover sound a tad similar and probably the same thing...No hat!.....well could have been worse.........could have been Red Hat....but there again probably right on both counts!!!!
Suz x

PS I like her too -I always thinks she looks a bit like Peggy Archer!!!