Hutch and an alibi?

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I'd argue that the correlation is noteworthy at the very least."

Noteworthy it is - as long as we keep in mind that it may be completely misleading. Just like Mike points out, there is a correlation between alcohol and flamy, "blotchy" skin. And it does not necessarily take being a heavy drinker before this comes into play - there are those who cannot have a glass of wine before the skin starts protesting. Normally, the neck is the area where it becomes evident first, but very often the condition spreads to the face too. And we know that Blotchy carried what seemed to be a can of beer and that he was accompanied by an apparently drunk woman. A good case can be built for them coming fresh frpm the nearest pub.
On Ada Wilsons attacker and his sunburnt face, another thing must be considered. It has been suggested that Wilson was a prostitute, and Rose Biermans testimony lends credence to this, just as it seemingly implies that the man who cut Wilson may have been with her for some time before he did so. Wilson´s own version, though, tells us that she had answered a knock at the door, and on doing so she was faced with her attacker who immediately demanded money and subsequentially wounded her with his knife.
If this later version is true, then we are dealing with a man who was set on attacking Wilson and who may well have been emotionally agitated when he knocked at the door. And emotional agitation is another thing that is often reflected in a hich colour tone of the face. People who get mad with someone or something are often subjected to this, just as people who are shy and blush. And, of course, there is no need to believe that this man must have been sober at the time of the attack, and so alcohol may have played a role here too.
It is all very little to go by, and it may have been gone the moment Wilsons attacker set foot on the pavement outside her house. Just like you say, Ben, it should be noted, since it is represents an interesting coincidence - but my suggestion is that it should be treated with great care.

The best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Jane Welland asks:

"do you think it likely we have different men, all looking similar, and all seen in connection with Whitechapel Murders?"

As you will know by now, if you have read my post to Ben, I am not at all sure that we have men with a reddish skintone attached to the case, Jane, other than under certain circumstances! To take it a bit further, I don´t think that the man who attacked Ada Wilson was the Ripper. And, of course, it never was a murder at all, although it has been connected to the Whitechapel deeds.

The way I see things, the only probable sighting we have of the Ripper, was that of Lawende - and even that has to remain uncertain, since it was not made in direct connection with the strike, and since the woman seen in Church passage was seen from behind.
The rest of the possible observations are even more tenuous than this, and that means that when we are dealing with descriptions of middle-aged men of average height, wearing a headgear that was worn by perhaps fifty thousand OTHER middle-aged men of average height in those parts of London, I am not very much inclined to go out and buy champagne.
Place a man with a wooden leg and a pink tattoo saying "Granny" on his left shoulder on two or more of the scenes, and I would be a lot happier about things, Jane!

Oh, and don´t try and sell me that "confused" stuff - sharp as a razor, you are...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

...and no, post 46 should not be signed "The best, Ben", but instead "The VERY best, Fisherman".

In case anybody wondered, we have not yet become synonymous...

Fisherman

[harry]

When I write he(Hutchinson) had no alibi,it is in the sense that his story was never verified.He could not prove another person's presence,or put Kelly on the street at 2am or thereabouts.However Hutchinson does put himself at the scene.
As to 'Blotchy face',I would not put too much reliance on that description.A witness (Prater)describes the court at 1.30am being completely dark,(I see no reason why it was not so at 2am or thereafter)and Cox by her own admission was always behind him.Where is it stated she was ever in a position to observe the male full face?Even so,we would have the same situation as the handkerchef,would the complexion be conspicuous in the dark?
If there was something to be gained by Hutchinson's tale it was by the midnight visitor.Surely he would have to have left,if Hutchinson is to be believed.And if ,as has been suggested,the midnight visitor and Hutchinson were one and the same, perhaps the coming forward was as much a ploy to distract attention from the midnight man,as to supply a reason for the 2.30 situation.In that case,the risk of coming forward,might have seemed a risk worth taking.

[Ben]

I believe sunburned faces would not be questioned, as anyone who picked hops would have had a propensity towards at least some sunburn

In March, Mike?

Doubtful in the extreme, as this would have been a long way off the conventional hoppers' holiday in summer. I think your suggestion of rosacea has merit, however. It is a skin condition that is exacerbated, rather than caused by, excessive alcohol consumption. A blotchy face can easily be mistaken for a sunburnt one, and vice versa. Check out the following, for example, and observe that the aforementioned skin-condition can be described as both sunburnt and blotchy in appearance.

http://www.internationalrosaceafoundation.org/

It remains a possibility that Blotchy lived in the Court, but I'm disinclined to think so. Mary Cox seemed to be pretty au fait with the male occupancy of Miller's Court, even to the point of knowing which ones worked in the Spitalfields Market.

Anyway, I don't think Hutch needed an alibi, because he didn't do anything but lurk a bit.

Well, that's all he said he did. He could have done more for all we know, and given both his proximity and apparent interest in the court, an alibi would have been a useful asset to say the least. Hutchinson disposes of that problem by claiming that he "walked about" at the generally accepted time of the murder, a solo activity that could be neither verified nor contradicted.

Hi Fisherman,

I don't buy Wilson's own version.

It would appear from Rose Bierman's account that Wilson had perhaps embroidered aspects of her account to conceal the fact that she was engaging in prostitution on the day of her attack. It would be the most logical explanation for the starkly contrasting versions of events, and "seamstress" was a common euphemism for a prostitute. I discussed this in some detail on the recent podcast. As such, I don't see how or why the man in question - ostensibly a client - would flush red to the point of appearing sunburnt for the brief interval encompassing the Wilson encounter, before resuming his "normal" complexion.

Alcohol may well be a contributory factor, but while it may exacerbate an existing skin condition, it isn't generally a cause, at least not as far as rosacea is concerned.

For what it's worth, I believe Ada Wilson's attack to be a very likely candidate for the ripper's early offences, since it would tally very well with what we've since learned about serial offenders and their propensity towards haphazard or unplanned attacks prior to honing their strategy.

But that's for another thread.

I won't quibble with your cautionary observation against reading too much into potentially unreliable witness descriptions, but the correlation here is noteworthy at the very least, and the sightings proffered by Mmes. Cox and Wilson have perhaps more congruity with each other than any other two eyewitness descriptions to have emerged from the investigation.

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
A lot of us seem to dismiss Hutch as a credible witness, simply because by the 16th one report used the term 'discarded', and therefore assume that his statement was hogwash.
Discarded , need not imply that his account was not true, just that other points were more relevant by then , and that may have included the possibility that his Astracan man was no longer in the frame.
I would be surprised if the police did not continue to follow up Maxwells sighting, dispite her uncertainty that she could identify the man seen talking with kelly at 845am, she would at least have an idea of his appearance.
Also do we honestly believe, that she was not asked to view the body before the inquest, when initially the police would have disbelieved her account, so much easier to allow her the opportunety to say she was 'Mistaken', then submit the woman to the inquest.
We know Abberline believed her, we should assume that the police nust have had doubts about the time of death to produce her at the inquest, to give evidence which would contridict there own police doctors.
Hutchinson viewed the body on the tuesday morning, having claimed to have seem Mary on the friday morning, to make sure that he had the right person, so its a fair bet, that the obvious way to disregard Maxwell was to allow her to do the same before the inquest,
If this happened ,then along with the other checks to verify maxwells movements , for her to swear on oath, even after the coroners warning, it would suggest one of two possibilities.
1] Kelly was killed after 845am
2] Maxwell was attempting to give someone a alibi.
Suggestion two.. is very fictional, so its number one folks.
Hutchinson was discarded .. not because police did not believe him, just that they concentated efforts on a different suspect.. who?
THE LAST MAN SEEN WITH MARY KELLY.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

Discarded , need not imply that his account was not true, just that other points were more relevant by then

But you don't just "discard" or "discredit" an account purely because "more relevant" issues arise. You file it away, you keep it in reserve, you have its originator at the ready for identity parades in the event of a viable suspect emerging. Thanks to Garry Wroe's recent discovery, we've sinced learned that a reduced importance was attached to the Hutchinson account because of grave suspicions that "the authorities" entertained concerning its author. Why he waited for the inquest to finish was one such pressing concern.

Hutchinson was discarded .. not because police did not believe him, just that they concentated efforts on a different suspect

He was discarded because the police did not believe him (or at least, didn't trust him), as we learn from The Echo of 13th November, after which time investigative focus was levelled in the direction of Mary Cox's suspect, rather than Maxwell's. From The Star of 15th November:

"As we have already said, the only piece of information of any value which has yet transpired is the description given by the widow Cox of a man - short, stout, with a blotchy face and a carroty moustache - who at midnight on Thursday went with the murdered woman into her room."

The heading of the article ran as follows:

Worthless Stories Lead the Police on False Scents - Scares also Keep Them Busy

All the best,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben.
When we talk about a man called Hutchinson, who has not been identified[ like you believe] we can discuss a man with all sorts of intentions, a person that could be anything from a Liar, right through to being a murderer.
We can do all of this because this guy is known by name only, with no character references/history, to base our opinion.
But Ben, we do have a name , a very plausible name, we have copies of his handwriting , which have similar styles[ being unbiased], we have knowledge of his family, his hobbies, his work, we have oral history, from his eldest son[ deseased] Reg that has him as the witness Hutchinson, and we have coincedental proof of authenticity, via the Wheeling report, as mentioned in previous posts.
Topping is the only person, in one hundred and 21 years, that has placed himself as the witness, no one else has.
So we have a character reference of that witness, so we must ask ourselves.
Do we honestly believe , he was Stupid. lazy, crazy, a habitual liar, a violent man, a pimp, a man of stalking tendencies, and finally a cold sadistic killer.
I dont, do we honestly believed he lived with all that guilt, producing a large family, and working right up to his death?
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I don't buy Wilson's own version."

Nor do I - just like you, I think the good lady was trying to conceal her line of profession as best as she could.
Sure of it, however, I cannot be, and therefore the possibility remains that Wilson was telling the truth. The attacker could easily have followed in the footprints of the possible/probable customer(s) that Bierman saw.

Any which way, if Wilson was attacked in the fashion she claimed, I think it is perfectly feasible that the colour of the attackers face was somewhat high due to agitation.
On the other hand, if Wilson was lying about things, I see no reason why she could not have lied about the mans appearance too, if he was a customer or somebody she somehow feared. Of course, one could reason that he had subjected her to nearly deadly violence, but then there is always Frank Gusenberg, the only guy that still lived - though only barely -when the police reached Bugs Moran´s garage after the St Valentines Day massacre. When the detectives saw that he still breathed, they sad "Hell, Frank, this is a slaughterhouse - they did not give you any chance. Who did the shooting?", whereupon Gusenberg replied "There was nobody doing any shooting" - and died.
The two red faces are of course interesting, and they make up a congruity, just like you say. But red faces are not like tattoos and missing teeth and such - they may well change from minute to minute. That is why I say that it is at best very little to go by - at worst, it is nothing.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

That's a completely seperate discussion, Richard.

That's all Toppy-related, and nothing to do with any potential alibi or why his account was discredited.

But Ben, we do have a name , a very plausible name, we have copies of his handwriting , which have similar styles[ being unbiased],

But I don't think he is plausible candidate, and I think the signature differences outweigh the similarities.

we have knowledge of his family, his hobbies, his work, we have oral history, from his eldest son[ deseased] Reg that has him as the witness Hutchinson

And none of that appears to mesh up very well with what we know of the "George Hutchinson" of Miller's Court notoriety.

and we have coincedental proof of authenticity, via the Wheeling report, as mentioned in previous posts.

No offense, but you were completely wrong in describing the Wheeling Report as "coincidental proof". It was nothing of the sort - irrefutably so.

Topping is the only person, in one hundred and 21 years, that has placed himself as the witness, no one else has.

Which doesn't really tell us anything, since there's no rule that asserts that descendants of ripper-related personalities must make themselves known at some point. Indeed, most of them haven't.

Do we honestly believe , he was Stupid. lazy, crazy, a habitual liar, a violent man, a pimp, a man of stalking tendencies, and finally a cold sadistic killer.

Toppy? No.

The real George Hutchinson? Well, I don't think he was stupid of lazy, and I doubt he was a pimp.

I dont, do we honestly believed he lived with all that guilt, producing a large family, and working right up to his death?

In principle, there's nothing remotely problematic about such a scenario. Psychopathic serial killers enjoy their crimes, and don't derive any sense of guilt from their actions. Dennis Rader clearly didn't, and he went on to have a family and a decent job. In this case, however, I find no evidence that the Whitechapel murder produced a large family or worked "right up to his death".

Can we please revert to the topic of the discussion now?

There are other threads for prolonged Toppy-fests.

Thanks in advance,
Ben

[Jane Welland]

Good Afternoon, Fisherman!

Oh, and don´t try and sell me that "confused" stuff - sharp as a razor, you are...!

Granted! Sorry Fisherman! I can see I’ll have to get up pretty early in the day to catch you out!

Still – however my tone may have been light-hearted, there was a serious question in there – and I think it still applies.

The whole question of Blotchy=Hutch/not Hutch is an interesting one for me, especially as to how generic his appearance was.

I take all the points made recently on board, and I think that there is some merit in those that view the appearance of the mid-height man with the Wideawake as generic. Agianst that, I would put the sunburned/blotchy appearance that apparently goes with it in specific instances, and which appears to be rather less generic.

I think, of course, that if a person worked outside a lot, then they would tend to have a more weather-beaten appearance (indeed, I know it to be the case) and since a lot of folk did just that at the time, it would have been common. But in the cases of Cox’s Blotchy, and in Wilson’s sunburn – what they observed was distinctive: as we know, because it was what they remembered - and therefore, it went above and beyond what you would expect to see in general. I think it possible, at least, that they did see the same man.

Another point, which must be taken into account here imo, is that generic or not, the appearance of the Wideawake man in these events does not necessarily tell us that these were separate individuals.

Indeed, that’s just the point. Hutchinson’s Mr A was a highly distinctive character. Blotchy wasn’t – only his blotchiness separates him from the crowd. Blotchy was ordinary in appearance – and so, as far as we can tell, was Hutchinson. In neither case does it indicate that they weren’t the killer of Kelly, any more than Mr A’s astonishing appearance indicates that he was.

Hutchinson/Wideawake Man/Blotchy – whether one and the same or not – I doubt that you’d have noticed them in a crowd.

Best to all

Jane x

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

Any which way, if Wilson was attacked in the fashion she claimed, I think it is perfectly feasible that the colour of the attackers face was somewhat high due to agitation.

In the Wilson-described scenario, that remains a possibility, but since we seem to be in agreement that the Bierman version stands the best chance of being the correct one, there was no indication of any great agitation on the part of her attacker, at least not to the extent that his complexion would appear sunburnt. I'd be surprised if she lied about the man's appearance considering he attacked her so viciously. Much better, surely, to give as good a description as possible to ensure that such an occurance can be avoided in the future? It's also rather unlikely that such a lie would just happen to coincide with the physical particulars of a real man subsequently seen in the company of a murder victim.

That is why I say that it is at best very little to go by - at worst, it is nothing.

When taken as a whole, though (i.e. in tandem with his other physical particulars), the correlation must be described as a strong one. I have my doubts that a florid or "agitated" countenance can be construed as sunburnt.

This is also taking us beyond the realms of Hutchinson's alibi.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Jane Welland writes:

"it went above and beyond what you would expect to see in general. I think it possible, at least, that they did see the same man."

I would caution about trying to determine any specific and established high degree of colour in any of the two mens faces. Also, when you say what was observed was distinctive, the same thing applies. In the Wilson case, for example, we only have the term "sunburnt" to go by. If it had been said that there was skin peeling off from the face, for example, it would have been another matter, but as it stands, we only have "sunburnt". And how do we tell that somebody has been sunburnt? Because of the reddish colour, and nothing else. There are no other distinguishing features coupled to the term. And so, if somebody is agitated and turns red from that reason, who could tell the difference?

Ben writes:

"I have my doubts that a florid or "agitated" countenance can be construed as sunburnt."

You are welcome to those doubts, Ben, but I would like to know what kind of differences we are to expect inbetween the two.
And, of course, it remains good advice never to take anything at ... face value!

Incidentally, sunburn and blushing out of agitation are two differing things medically: The former is due to the melanocytes (pigments) of the skin turning darker when exposed to the sun, and the latter is due to blood rushing to the finer vessels of the face. The result, however, is exactly the same (at least until the sunburn turns darker in the later stages): red skin. It can also be added that the ones who diagnozed the conditions in these two cases were one woman in a dark yard late at night and another woman who was subjected to an attack. Not, perhaps, the best of conditions to establish very much at all.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jane Welland]

Hi Fisherman

I think we're posting at cross-purposes!

What I mean by distinctive is that the blotchy/sunburned appearance of these men was marked as distinctive by the witnesses in both cases.

I think that has some significance above the ordinary.

Of course, I recognise that such a condition - whatever it in fact was that they were seeing - may have been temporary, caused by a number of factors, etc. But it's what we have, at the end of the day, and it deserves due attention imo

And yes, I realise that it cannot be viewed as distinctive in the same way as a tatoo reading 'Jacky Boy' would have been (for example). A little frivolous, perhaps - but you get my drift, I'm sure! In other words - not a certainly permanent feature or mark of distinction.

Jane x

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

You are welcome to those doubts, Ben, but I would like to know what kind of differences we are to expect inbetween the two.

Blotchiness, surprisingly enough (!) coupled with a certain degree of skin-peeling. Put simply, a sunburnt individual is readily distinguishable from an "agitated" one, since the vast majority of temporarily agitated people cannot possibly flush as beetrooty as the average sunburnt individual purely on account of agitation. In order for that to happen, the agitated individual must already possess a fairly florid complexion. So I'd have to disagree that sunburn and agitation produce "exactly the same" results.

Try typing "sunburn" into Google Images, and decide for yourself if the extent of floridity featured therein could really be the result of temporary agitation. It would surprise me enormously, unless the individual in question already had a fairly blotchy or red face. There is absolutely no way I could flush as red as any of the depicted sufferers purely on account of agitation, and I know, I've posted on Hutchinson threads. Stick me in a sauna or on a beach in Bora Bora for a couple of hours, maybe.

If it had been said that there was skin peeling off from the face

But if she had already specified "sunburn" that could well have encompassed peeling skin, thus eradicating any need to mention it.

Best regards,
Ben