Hutch and an alibi?

[Jane Welland]

Hi Harry

Hutchinson would have had no alibi if he had come forward sooner and admitted to having been at the scene (or thereabouts) in the early hours of the morning - very close in proximity in time and space to Kelly's murder. Had he ventured forward sooner, he would have looked a good deal more suspicious to the police than he apparently did, I think.

Note that he didn't come forward sooner.

As soon as he became aware that Lewis had reported seeing him, however, he had an alibi for his presence there. It strikes me as possible, perhaps even probable in the circumstances, that Lewis' description of a man apparently 'waiting' informed his story concerning Mr A.

In simple terms, Lewis says she saw a man apparently waiting, Hutchinson thinks 'I'll say I was doing that' and does so, inventing Mr A as he goes. It's a pretty good reason for being there - the concerned acquaintance/friend, backed up by an independent witness who apparently saw him.

But because I find it all rather too convenient for reality, I suspect that what he told the police was not, in fact, the reality at all, and that he was up to no good. Other than Lewis' testimony, we have only Hutchinson's word that any of what he recounted actually took place - and how likely is that?

He sees a man intrinsically unlikely to have been there (for reasons discussed ad infinitum elsewhere...) who nobody else sees? He then offers to go and look for said man, but that apparently leads nowhere.

It's a little unlikely, isn't it?

All the best

Jane x

[Ben]

No fatal objections there, Jane.

Quite the opposite - you've raised some interesting points.

Self preservation is just one of the reasons serial killers have introduced themselves to police as witnessess or informers. Others do so out of pure bravado; a display of one-up-manship over the police, and there are also those who come forward out of a desire to keep appraised of police progress. Lewis' evidence may well have provided him with the opportunity to come forward, if indeed he was the killer.

Best regards,
Ben

[Jane Welland]

Here's a question,everyone...

As we're considering Hutchinson's alibi - and this is kind of related ( ) then I wonder -

What are the odds that Hutchinson and Blotchy were the same man? I think from the witness descriptions that it is quite possible.

I know I'm speculating here - again - but I hope not entirely wildly and without foundation!

If they were one and the same -and also the killer - then a possible scenario would have been that Hutchinson/Blotchy was with Kelly earlier in the evening - left to allow her to go to bed, waited until he was sure she was asleep, then re-entered her room to kill her.

But, the reason I think the possibility is interesting in the context of this present discussion is that if it were the case that they were one and the same, and Hutchinson was not identified at the time as Blotchy, then Blotchy in effect gives him another alibi, as in the absence of Mr A - who may well have been discounted by the authorities, Blotchy becomes the last man to be seen with Kelly and thus No. 1 Suspect.

And Blotchy and Hutchinson have this in common - they both remain unidentified.

Think I'm done for the moment.

Jane x

[Ben]

Hi Jane,

You might also consider Ada Wilson's description of her attacker, as reported in the East London Observer:

"Aged about 30, height 5 ft. 6 in.; face sunburnt, with fair moustache; dressed in dark coat, light trousers, and wideawake hat."

Some fairly strong correlation there with the Cox and Lewis descriptions.

All the best,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

And Blotchy and Hutchinson have this in common - they both remain unidentified.

For some, maybe. For most, Hutchinson has been identified. Blotchy, not yet.

Mike

[Jane Welland]

Hi Michael - not to get too far off topic here, but if you think that Hutchinson was Topping Hutchinson - in your opinion, would that rule out the possibility of him also being Blotchy?

Although I admit I'm leaning towards some nefarious goings on on the part of Hutchinson, at least, I realise it may be the case that he was not the killer of Kelly - I'm not sure I see why he and Blotchy couldn't have been one and the same, though?

If Toppy=Hutch, as some believe, then could he not also have been Blotchy and still been innocent of murder?

Ben - thanks for the tip - I haven't decided what I think that signifies yet - whether this coincidence of description does mean that it was a fairly commonplace appearance in that place at that time; or whether the similarities therein indicate that we may well be looking at the same man?

Somebody with greater knowledge of commonplace dress would be better able to address that question, I should think - any volunteers?

Thanks for your responses.

Jane x

[The Good Michael]

jane,

I think Blotchy was a guy from the Court, and not necessarily a customer. Could have been a husband, one of McCarthy's men, anyone. He had a pail of beer and they seemed to be a bit familiar and raucous. I don't think it was Hutch, but it could have been, though blotchy and military appearance don't seem to fit together for me. In the case of Blotchy, military appearance was not noted. In the case of Hutch, that was the only description of him (if I'm not mistaken).

I think it was a guy from the Court and they were chums, maybe even had a client/customer relationship at times.

Mike

[Jane Welland]

That seems completely reasonable, Mike.

Jane x

[Ben]

For most, Hutchinson has been identified.

It isn't "most" at all, Mike.

Some believe that Hutchinson has been identified. That would be a true statement.

But this ain't no Toppy thread.

As for the only surviving description of Hutchinson, one man's "military appearance" could easily be another man's "thick-set and muscular", for example. Hutchinson was also described as "apparently of the labouring class".

Hi Jane,

With regard to "commonplace" dress, I can only work from the basis of pictorial evidence. I've seen images of the East End that feature a sea of peaked caps interspersed with a very small number of billycock/wideawake hats. I wouldn't like to speculate as to how many of that very small number had a sunburnt or blotchy complexion, but it can't have been very large!

All the best,
Ben

[Jane Welland]

Hmm, Interesting...

I wonder if it really was uncommon, Ben? It would be interesting to see if it was - if that were possible.

If it was, perhaps it was the same hat in all instances - you know - Hutchinson's favourite hat? Worrying....

But on another track - it has also occurred to me this afternoon that Mr A is virtually the antithesis of the descriptions given by Cox and Lewis - it's not just different - it's almosst the polar opposite.

It makes me wonder if perhaps a hypothetical 'creation' of such a figure would do rather well in steering suspicion away from Blotchy/Hutch types....?

Makes you think, doesn't it? Well, it makes me think, anyway....!

Best regards, Ben

Jane x

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I've seen images of the East End that feature a sea of peaked caps interspersed with a very small number of billycock/wideawake hats. I wouldn't like to speculate as to how many of that very small number had a sunburnt or blotchy complexion, but it can't have been very large!"

Yes, Ben - given the number of people we are dealing with, it could have been quite a large number of people.
I took a look at the first two sets of photos depicting crowds on the East end streets on the "East end pictures" thread. Incidentally, both sets were provided by Jake Luukanen. You find them as posts 5 and 23/24.
On them, a round dozen or so, lots of people are shown with differing headgear. A very rough estimation tells us that somewhere around a third of the men are wearing billycocks/wideawakes. How representative this is, I could not say. But probably representative enough to tell us that perhaps a hundred thousand men or more wore them - for sure, back in 1901 there were around 140 000 jews living in London, just for comparison.
How many of these guys would have been blotchy or sunburnt? Ada Wilson was attacked in late March, and that is a time when you actually can get a tan if subjected to the sun, and blotchy people are not all that uncommon.
In conclusion, the PERCENTAGE of people who would be blotchy/sunburnt and billycock/wideawake wearers would reasonably be quite small - but one percent of the jews only adds up to 1 400 people - add the rest of the inhabitants, and we are obviously dealing with thousands of viable suspects, Ben.
Does not mean that the point is uninteresting, of course - but no imminent arrest would be at hand using those parametres.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jane Welland]

Fisherman!

Good Evening! How are you today?

I like your post - but I'm a little confused (easily done!). I can see when you put it like you do that perhaps the number of men with Wideawake hats may have been larger than I guessed, and maybe some of them could have been blotchy or sunburned as well?

I just thought we were talking about the specific people that appeared in the various witness statements?

I would have thought the odds of those people being separate individuals go down significantly if that were the case - or do you think it likely we have different men, all looking similar, and all seen in connection with Whitechapel Murders?

See? Told you I was confused!

All the best

Jane x

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

I wouldn't disagree with your observation that no arrest was likely to result purely from eyewitness descriptions, but as Jane points out, we'd be narrowing down the criteria, in this case, to encompass only those who wore billycock/wideawakes, had a sunburnt or blotchy complexion, were 5"5 or 5"6 in height, and were last seen in the company of women who shortly thereafter became the subject of an unprovoked knife attack. It cannot be ruled out that more than one individual met this criteria (similar age too), but I'd argue that the correlation is noteworthy at the very least.

Best regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

Hi Fish,

I wouldn't disagree with your observation that no arrest was likely to result purely from eyewitness descriptions, but as Jane points out, we'd be narrowing down the criteria, in this case, to encompass only those who wore billycock/wideawakes, had a sunburnt or blotchy complexion, were 5"5 or 5"6 in height, and were last seen in the company of women who shortly thereafter became the subject of an unprovoked knife attack. It cannot be ruled out that more than one individual met this criteria (similar age too), but I'd argue that the correlation is noteworthy at the very least.

Best regards,
Ben

I would disagree with you both.......my bet is if they had a witness they thought was iron clad they would have taken only circumstantial evidence with the witness ID statement to court if they had caught him. What was this alleged Seaside Home incident but an attempted ID of a mans description by the witness who gave it.....did anyone see him with a knife over Kate? Leaving the scene bloodied? did the witness even get a good look at his face?

They would have arrested an Astrakan...had he existed as decribed... based on some fur and a story,...I think grasping at straws is what we see going on by that November. Its what gave Hutch his 15 minutes of Victorian Era fame.

All the best Ben, Fish, Jane, all.

[The Good Michael]

I would suggest that many men who drank heavily, had blotchy faces. I believe sunburned faces would not be questioned, as anyone who picked hops would have had a propensity towards at least some sunburn. We know that many people did supplement their income from hop-picking. Blotchiness seems to be a product of drinking, though I've seen a few people in my life with huge facial birthmarks that appear blotchy as well. I don't want to get into social stigma and other things regarding that condition, however.

I thought about the possibility that Blotchy was from the Court and that Cox didn't know him, and the likelihood of such a thing. I have been in my apartment building 5 months. There are 19 people in my building. We are all teachers in the same building, yet 1 teacher I have yet to meet, though I saw him from a distance, and another, though I've met, I wouldn't recognize a second time. This is because they are on different floors and work opposite hours from me. The same kind of thing was true when I live in the States. I knew about 75% of the people by sight, and I lived in the same condo for 2 years. There were only 24 units. My experience at least negates some if the idea that Blotchy couldn't have been from the court.

Anyway, I don't think Hutch needed an alibi, because he didn't do anything but lurk a bit. Blotchy was the guy who needed an alibi, and my guess is that he had one being from the Court and a friend of Kelly. It makes me wonder if Bowyer had a bit of rosacea. Blotchiness could also be a condition of having had an illness such as the common cold or flu, sneezing and coughing making the nose and cheeks red.


Sunburn seems unlikely to have been called 'blotchy'

Cheers,

Mike