Hutch and an alibi?

[babybird67]

i posted this originally on the wrong thread so am reposting...

apologies if this has been said before by anyone...

but regarding the Hutch alibi...and why he would put himself there if he did not have an alibi...

perhaps Mrs Lewis's sighting was his alibi. If, indeed, he was the one inside with MJK, surely being seen outside, if he had no other alibi because he couldn't possibly have had one, by another witness was his best bet? So that he could say, see i must have been there because someone else saw me there...that was me...not sure if i have expressed what i am trying to say...or whether it has been said before, but anyway...
what does everyone think?

[Sam Flynn]

The problem with the Hutch/Lewis linkage is that Hutchinson himself didn't make it. If he'd really been the "Wideawake Man" who was staring intently up Miller's Court, then one would think he'd have spotted Sarah Lewis's arrival and mentioned it in order to support his story - but he doesn't. I've yet to hear a convincing explanation as to why this should have been the case.

[babybird67]

perhaps he thought it was too obvious Sam?

in that, if he knew she had already identified someone there, and intended himself to be taken as that person, it would just be a natural assumption on everyone's part that, "Oh that explains the man Sarah saw."

[Sam Flynn]

in that, if he knew she had already identified someone there, and intended himself to be taken as that person, it would just be a natural assumption on everyone's part that, "Oh that explains the man Sarah saw."

The problem with that is that, when Hutchinson was asked whether he'd seen anyone whilst he was on his Dorset Street vigil, he only mentions seeing a man "going into a lodging-house" and a policeman passing down Commercial Street.

[Ben]

Some excellent suggestions there, Beebs.

As for why Hutchinson didn't refer to Sarah Lewis in his account, firstly, he may well have mentioned her but the detail wasn't included in the body of the statement. The detail that he had known Kelly for three years and had given her a few shillings on occasion was equally absent from the text, and it was of arguably greater significance than a woman who entered the court after Kelly had ensconced herself in her room with the Astrakhan man. Hutchinson's reference to the "lodging house" man was probably in response to being quizzed as to whether he had seen any other men (i.e. viable suspects) in the vicinity.

Either that or he deliberately avoided any mention of Sarah Lewis to avoid making it obvious that it was her evidence that forced his hands.

Both explanations make infinitely better sense than the notion that Hutchinson's claim to have waited for someone outside the crime scene at 2:30am just happened to coincide with Lewis' descriotion of a man doing precisely that - same time, same place.

All the best,
Ben

[Jane Welland]

Moved...

Perhaps so.

Sarah Lewis said the man she saw appeared to be waiting - and sure enough, that was what Hutchinson said when he gave his statement - that he was waiting to see if Mr A and Mary Kelly would come out of Millers Court again. How lucky! It all fits very well, doesn't it?

Perhaps it does, but then, once again I think you go back to why he didn't come forward sooner. Ok, so maybe it all was legitimate - I know it cannot be proven one way or the other now.

Maybe though, he hardly even noticed Sarah Lewis, or the other people on the street at the time that he omitted to mention when he gave his statement to the police - but whom Sarah Lewis saw?

And - to speculate wildly for a moment - maybe that was due to the fact that he was waiting - not for Mr A to emerge - but to make sure Mary was asleep and that the street was empty before he entered the room.

Because, whilst Sarah Lewis may have seen him waiting, nobody saw him leave, did they?

Jane x
__________________

[Ben]

Yours is a very reasonable explanation too.

Perhaps Hutchinson's preoccupation with the court (for whatever reason) was such that he failed to fully register the arrival of Sarah Lewis at the time?

Best regards,
Ben

[Jane Welland]

Yes,

That's what I meant, really.

[The Good Michael]

If Lewis saw Topping, and he didn't see her because he was watching for Kelly and whomever, why didn't he see her? If he was a murderer, intent on killing Kelly as soon as he had the chance, why didn't he notice Lewis out and about? The most obvious answer is because he was doing nothing but lurking. Possibly he did so with the hopes that he could get some money out of someone, Kelly's customer perhaps, but the idea of someone lurking to commit murder and being oblivious to a likely intoxicated witness, who had no reason to be treading silently, smacks of the improbable to me. I would think a killer would be extremely aware of the surroundings of his victim unless he cared nothing about being caught.

Hutch (Topping) was an observer and an embellisher. He couldn't make a buck that evening, so he made it a different way, through the addition of somewhat odd elements to the description of a man he saw with Kelly. That's the most logical solution I have to date. But wait! It may change.

Mike

[Jane Welland]

I think that depends

On whether Hutchinson (Topping or no) was extremely intent on whatever he was doing. He may not have registered Sarah Lewis because he considered her as being of no significance. He may have seen her, but disregarded her becuase she was drunk - to run with the idea that she was likely intoxicated. If that was the case, then perhaps he thought she wouldn't remember him.

None of those considerations need have taken more than a split second.

Especially not if he was about to become the murderer of Kelly, knew her as he said, had planned what he was about to do, and had the key to her room in his pocket. For example.

I think then he may have paid very little attention to Lewis, or any other casual passerby.

Whilst on the other hand, if he was just loitering, waiting to see if Kelly and/or Astrakhan would re-emerge, then I would expect him to be more aware of what else was going on.

No, he doesn't notice Lewis as significant, imo. I think there are a couple of reasons for that - more probably, but I can't think of them just now!

He may have been the killer, as posited above. Or, he may have had a vested interest in Kelly - emotional, financial, for example, that made her important to him.

Or possibly both.

The other scenario to consider imo is that he wasn't there at all, and just used Lewis' testimony to give himself an alibi - was Lewis called upon to identify Hutchinson as the man she saw, for example? Likely she couldn't really be certain.

As an aside, with so many people not seeing other people or seeing things differently, or having differing accounts of the same event throughout the witness testimony in this case, the testimony of Hutchinson does stand out in stark constrast for it's incredible detail, doesn't it?

There are so many questions here, it's hard to know where to start, or how to proceed.

Jane x

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Why did a man named Hutchinson make that statement on the 12th.
Three scenerios, and one of them is right.
1] He came foreward out of public duty , albeit a few days after the event, with no sinister motives.
2] He came foreward because of fear, believing that he had been seen with the deseased at 2am, and actual went with her to her room, however he did not kill her, but left her room,leaving behind a distinctive red hanky, and that item was then incorporated into a yarn which he then told Abberline.
To simplify he was relaying to the police what actual occured between him and the victim, but had himself as a witness , and Astracan as him.
3] He was Jack the Ripper. waiting to move in for the kill, and he came forward out of fear of being reconized, and the whole statement was a fabrication... he simply was paronoid.
Question folks.
Which seems the most likely?
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
I should have said... I vote for answer 1.
Richard.

[Jane Welland]

Hi Richard

I like your alternatives - they're interesting. I hadn't thought of Hutchinson spinning a yarn to the police in which he substituted Mr A for himself.

I don't think 1, personally - too much that concerns me to just accept him as an innocent witness. 2 is possible - yes. Although, I think you'd then have to wonder what he was doing in Kelly's room to begin with at that time of night? Well, there could be reasonable, if not exactly innocent explanations for that - but then, if he had left after he was seen by Lewis ad 2.30am - then who came in after him and killed her? Or are you here adhering to the theory that Kelly was killed the following morning, and that Maxwell was, in fact, correct in her sighting of her?

Anyway, I have another one for you - How about - Hutchinson was Jack the Ripper and came forward because it gave him a thrill - especially once he knew he'd been seen by Lewis?

No? I don't think it would be so odd - a person who kills women in what is, by any admission, a highly risky set of circumstances, may plausibly enjoy the danger of the experience. One of the things that bothers me about Hutchinson is that he volunteered, apparently, to go and see Kelly's remains the day after his statement. Why would he do that? Why was it necessary? She had already been identified and the inquest held.

I'm not saying, definitively that it is, but it could have been because he wanted another look at his handiwork. Thrill-seeker.

Going back to the whole alibi thing for a moment - which is what we're after on this particular Hutchinson thread - I do think that what Lewis said gave him the perfect opportunity to come forward and identify himself - because from that moment onwards, he did have an alibi for that moment in time - and it proved that he wasn't inside Kelly's room. Of course, Astrakhan Man is entirely necessary, from this perspective, because Hutchinson firstly required a reason for 'waiting' outside the Court; and because otherwise, he would have been the last person to see Kelly before her demise - an honour that goes to Astrakhan, if you believe Hutchinson's story.

That's all, until I think of what I want to say next!

Best wishes, Richard

Jane x

[Jon Guy]

Hello Richard

This is another option too, how about he saw an opportunity to either make a quick buck, view the body, a little bit of fame, or even get in on a reward.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Jon,
Agreed ... another option, but a extremely dangerous one.
Make a quick buck.... by placing himself at the murder scene, at a time where the deseased was close to death..... That fathoms believe
View the body... That would be so sick wouldnt it?
Fame.. Instant recognition.... from who?
Reward... How can a man be bought to justice, if he never existed, so where would the reward be?.
Cant get my head around that option, although feasible.
Regards Richard.