Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hutchinson Content---Moved from MJK crime scene thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    It seems to me that the statements of George Hutchinson, assumed by many here to be placing himself in danger of becoming suspected himself as a result, had the exact opposite effect.

    I believe Wideawake Man was a person of suspicion before Monday night, by Sarah Lewis's statements. I also believe she contributed to a 24 hour about face on Pardons for Accomplices.

    After George comes in, everyone makes him as Wideawake, and with a "friend" link inserted by him, the suspicious man became a concerned and overly curious friend.

    In a very real way Hutchinson may have created his own alibi for being there at that time. Is that worth the risk?

    Its hard to imagine that everyone would forget that Wideawake was odd when first mentioned, but based on the lack of tangible clues that he was suspected of anything, it seems that Wideawake and George walked off together without serious consideration.

    If it worked this way, Id have to consider him as Jack more seriously, because I think Jack had those kind of "eggs"...please forgive the crass reference.

    Best regards all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben
    replied
    Again though Caz, you're allowing yourself to be swayed by your own "reasoned" schematic about what you would consider prudent in X or Y situation. While interesting, that prudent judgement is instantly rendered irrelevent when we discover that other people (and in particular, real serial killers) have thought differently and acted upon it.

    Do you consider it prudent to kill prostitutes on the streets in a crowded built-up area with a nocturnally active population? Or was the killer "dicing with death" in so doing? The latter, I'd wager, which is why it should come as no surprise that serial killers have done both; killed repeatedly in precarious conditions and insinuated themselves into police investigations for various reasons. Whilst you might perceive an "obvious flaw" in doing so, it certainly isn't an "obvious flaw" in the premise that Hutchinson may have been the killer. Take it up with the Ridgeways, Huntleys and Armstrongs of this world.

    Hutchinson had nothing to fear from the possibility that he was already a person of interest. If that was the case, he'd have been approached well in advance of his coming forward. He did have something to fear from the possibility that Lewis had garnered a better sighting or description than she imparted at the inquest, which would have seemed especially perilous at that time given that the reality of suppressed witness evidence had only been brought into sharp focus weeks after the latest inquest. What if they tried that same trick again? It would introduce the possibility of Sarah Lewis recognizing him again in a close-knit locality and establishing an incriminating connection with witnesses from earlier murders. Introducing himself as a cooperative witness was better than being dragged in as a suspect and then being asked to explain his presence near a crime scene.

    Then there's the various other reasons for killers coming forward under false guises; bravado, insecurity, a desire to keep appraised of police progress, an intention to play the co-operative hand to neutralize police suspicious should it arrive later. Again, not a problem if people on a message board don't find any of those reasons "compelling". Historical precedent says it happens, so does expert opinion that has studied that historical precedent.

    Best regards,
    Ben
    Last edited by Ben; 05-22-2008, 04:02 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Chava View Post

    Quote [by caz]:
    If Hutch is the killer he knows that nobody who saw him, Hutch the Killer, could possibly have described him, Hutch the Killer in a way that resembled his Mr A - a very risky move if the police could be suppressing reliable witness sightings of the killer, ie Hutch himself.

    Yes, but Caz, now you're the one putting your head on Hutch's shoulders. This rather obvious flaw in his idea may not have presented itself to him. In the 21st Century, we have grown up with cop shows etc that demonstrate that the police always keep stuff to themselves and don't tell the press anything. But In 1888 I doubt that would have occurred to Hutch or anyone. They probably believed that the cops spilled their guts to the coroner and the press. They didn't have the benefit of movies and tv shows and books where that point is made over and over.
    Hi Chava,

    Please excuse my tardy arrival to explain myself.

    You needed to say all this to Ben (and I’m extremely surprised he didn’t tackle you on it), because it was his argument - not mine - that Hutch had every reason to worry that the police could be holding back details with the potential to put him near one or more murder scenes, and this was precisely why - according to Ben again - he would have felt compelled to come forward if he was the murderer. In short, Ben could not see the ‘rather obvious flaw’ in Hutch doing so on that basis.

    I was keeping Ben’s head firmly on Hutch’s shoulders for the purpose of taking his argument further and suggesting that IF this had been the case, Hutch would have been dicing with death. He’d have been banking on the cops either NOT holding back anything that could incriminate him (in which case he had no need to show his face at all) or, in the event that they already had enough to make him a ‘person of interest’, he’d have been banking on it only relating to the Miller’s Court murder, so he could set about selling himself as an innocent witness and hope to palm them off with a new ‘person of interest’ whose description was totally at odds with his own.

    You’d have to ask Ben why the killer would not have seen the ‘rather obvious flaw’ in taking such a tale to the police if he thought they might already have something on him - especially in regard to a previous murder. On the other hand, if the thought need never have occurred to him, as you rightly suggest, you’d have to ask Ben for another reason why the killer would have come forward. I haven’t seen a compelling one yet.

    The least tortured argument seems to be that a few convicted killers have come forward in the desperate and ultimately vain hope that by doing so they may just be able to divert unwanted attention and suspicion away from themselves. It’s fine to speculate that the ripper could have found himself in a similar situation. But try as I might, I can’t see it relating to Hutch’s situation. Speculation is not enough to take me there.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Suzi
    replied
    OK points made...But -Mary Ann Cox may have had a rather skimpy knowledge of men's hats or maybe she knew a man who called his billycock a wideawake or vice versa- Hehe! this is getting silly!

    OK lets agree that it was a hat!
    To be honest unless it was something totally outrageous it was an 'at!!
    Mind you a lot of Music Hall songs do relate to specific types of hat.. ref. Harry Champion's 'Everybody knows me in mi' old brown hat' ...specific type not mentioned in the song....just the fact that it was brown ...(and 'Only cost me a tanner down the gut and looks alright on mi' little wooden nut') Suzi x
    Last edited by Suzi; 04-07-2008, 07:59 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlowe
    replied
    Hi Suzi,

    The billycock is sometimes referred to as a "widewake". Of course, there is a difference between them but what matters is that some people consider them the same. Mary Ann Cox, on one occasion might have said "billycock" and on another occasion she might have said "wideawake". If she said "wideawake", then both desciptions would have been nearly the same.

    Leave a comment:


  • Suzi
    replied
    Hmmmmmmmmm a tad patronising I feel............You assume then that the man had two hats...or maybe it was two people...two totally different people in two totally different places...two separate witnesses etc etc ...tum ti tum

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlowe
    replied
    My dear, please try to follow the plot....[sigh]

    Leave a comment:


  • Suzi
    replied
    Click image for larger version

Name:	billycock1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	8.1 KB
ID:	653351
    Billycock

    Click image for larger version

Name:	billycock2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	19.3 KB
ID:	653352
    Wideawake of sorts

    Quite a difference between these two hat types when all's said and done!

    Click image for larger version

Name:	billycock3.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	50.8 KB
ID:	653353
    Mildly amusing- as an aside!!!
    Click image for larger version

Name:	billycock4.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	65.8 KB
ID:	653354
    Seriously amusing!!!Ooooooooooooooh 'eh Mrs......Come in Caz!
    Last edited by Suzi; 04-07-2008, 06:57 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben
    replied
    You could well be right about the Wideawake/Billycock issue, Marlowe, as I mentioned elsewhere.

    However, Hutchinson's failure to mention Lewis was probably an attempt to make it look less obvious that he came forward as a direct result of her evidence.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlowe
    replied
    Hi,


    Mary Ann Cox said she saw: a short, stout man...wearing a dark coat...and a billycock hat.

    Sarah Lewis said she saw: a stout looking man, not very tall...wearing a black wideawake hat.

    If it can be shown that Mary Ann Cox meant "wideawake" when she said "billycock", a very strong argument can be made that these two women were both describing the same man, who in all probability was the man with blotches on his face. This would indeed make him the huge favorite in suspect terms.

    If we paraphrase both statements, they would both read: short, stout man with a wideawake hat and dark clothes. Pretty powerful argument that this was one man, IMO.

    Mary Ann Cox placed her man in the court before Hutchinson claimed to have arrived. So it is quite logical for Sarah Lewis to have seen this man in or near the court.

    As Rosey O'Ryan recently pointed out, Hutchinson never mentioned seeing Sarah Lewis. Rosey asked why didn't he mention her. The answer might be because Hutchinson never saw Lewis and Lewis never saw Hutchinson. Perhaps Hutchinson was trying to protect the man Cox saw?

    I will try to prove that Cox might just as easily have said "wideawake" when she said "billycock". Let's just say I've got a Hutch ....


    Marlowe

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Although I personally have no problem accepting that Hutchinson may have been involved with Marys murder is some form,as Ben has intimated, it would seem though that some still have a problem with a possible suspect or killer himself placing himself at a crime scene...as a witness.

    Well...even though there are precedents for such occurrences, should you still be skeptical, you might just remember that Hutch did indeed put himself in Suspects shoes, not a Witnesses. Wideawake Man becomes odd but friendly after Hutch came in Monday night, switching the potential suspicious appearance of Wideawake outside a soon to be murder scene, to one of concern for Mary's safety.

    Anyone that suggests after months of pressure to offer Pardons to entice information, that they suddenly gave in on Saturday the 10th, within 24 hours of Marys investigation commencement, and after learning of a suspect seen watching the courtyard, is kidding themselves. When that paper was prepared and signed, it was due to the fact that they now had a witness account of someone watching someone near a supposed Ripper crime scene, before the crime occurs. Sarah gave them a possible Accomplice or possibly even the killer himself,scouting,... and Hutchinson changed him into a witness friend of Marys, just looking out for her, after seeing her with the most lavishly embroidered suspect description in all of these cases,... the last man seen with Kelly.

    To ask why was Abberline taken in disregards any humanity and the fragility of hope left in the man. To ask why wasn't Hutchinson a serious suspect himself..... after they dispensed with Astrakan, and reverted to Blotchy Man...who for the weekend, held the post of Suspect # 1.....is to me anyway, one of the most puzzling aspects of saga of the Police and George Hutchinson.

    Best regards all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Although I personally have no problem accepting that Hutchinson may have been involved with Marys murder is some form,as Ben has intimated, it would seem though that some still have a problem with a possible suspect or killer himself placing himself at a crime scene...as a witness.

    Well...even though there are precedents for such occurrences, should you still be skeptical, you might just remember that Hutch did indeed put himself in Suspects shoes, not a Witnesses. Wideawake Man becomes odd but friendly after Hutch came in Monday night, switching the potential suspicious appearance of Wideawake outside a soon to be murder scene, to one of concern for Mary's safety.

    Anyone that suggests after months of pressure to offer Pardons to entice information, that they suddenly gave in on Saturday the 10th, within 24 hours of Marys investigation commencement, and after learning of a suspect seen watching the courtyard, is kidding themselves. When that paper was prepared and signed, it was due to the fact that they now had a witness account of someone watching someone near a supposed Ripper crime scene, before the crime occurs. Sarah gave them a possible Accomplice or possibly even the killer himself,scouting,... and Hutchinson changed him into a witness friend of Marys, just looking out for her, after seeing her with the most lavishly embroidered suspect description in all of these cases,... the last man seen with Kelly.

    To ask why was Abberline taken in disregards any humanity and the fragility of hope left in the man. To ask why wasn't Hutchinson a serious suspect himself..... after they dispensed with Astrakan, and reverted to Blotchy Man...who for the weekend, held the post of Suspect # 1.....is to me anyway, one of the most puzzling aspects of saga of the Police and George Hutchinson.

    Best regards all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlowe
    replied
    Thanks Ben,

    It's odd, but I had originally written two fairly long posts saying roughly the same thing regarding how the two hats were frequently used interchangably. But both posts disappeared somewhere? lol....So I decided to post a short one just in case...

    Anyway, I think the main point here is that some people used wideawake and billycock interchangably, whether or not they were technically the same. Probably Mary Ann Cox could just as easily have said "wideawake".

    If so, then it changes the chess board positions of the knights...on that night.

    New possibilites arise!


    Marlowe

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben
    replied
    Hi Marlowe,

    It's possible, I guess, although the wideness of the brim is slightly (if not appreciably) at variance.

    Billycock:

    http://www.hatshapers.com/images/Dic...y/Dictio17.gif

    Wideawake:

    http://www.gentlemansemporium.com/st.../001068_sm.jpg

    Not quite the same, and yet not hugely dissimilar. In fact, a quick google reveals that the two are occasionally regarded as synonymous.

    Of possible interest here is Ada Wilson's description of her attacker; 5"6' in height, wideawake hat and sunburnt complexion. Not a bad match for either Cox's or Lewis's suspect, and Rosacia is a medical condition that may cause a face to appear blotchy and sunburnt; exacerbated, rather than caused by, excessive alcohol consumption.

    Best regards,
    Ben
    Last edited by Ben; 04-05-2008, 07:16 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlowe
    replied
    Hi All,

    In all probability, Cox and Lewis were both describing the same man.

    A short, stout man, wearing a dark wideawake(billycock) hat. AKA - the man with blotches on his face.


    Marlowe

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X