Hutch and an alibi?

[Fisherman]

Jane writes:

"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."

...and there we go again: agreed!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben!

We have no recording of any peeling skin, and that is why we cannot conclude that Wilson would have been right. And searching the net for pictures will only help so much; what you get are pictures of severe burns, mostly, and we know nothing of how red or burnt Wilsons man appeared.
She obviously noticed that he was red in the face, and she opted for a sunburn. She may have been right, and she may have been wrong. It is all very simple, unless you want to argue that a sunburn and blushing skin could not possibly be mistaken for each other...?

After that, anybody who wants to think that they can establish the exact degree to which the face of Wilsons man was red, and who wishes to add peeling skin and a note of Piz Buin sunprotector in the air of Wilsons budoir, are free to do so, as long as they realize that they are no longer dealing solely with the recorded facts.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jane Welland]

Old Wideawake...

Sure we've seen one of these before, but in case anyone hasn't -



Wideawake - so called because it had no nap.



It's True!

Jane x

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

We have no recording of any peeling skin, and that is why we cannot conclude that Wilson would have been right

But since "sunburn" encompasses the conditions that often accompany it, including peeling skin, it would have been superfluous to mention it if "sunburn" is what she described. I'm not suggesting that her diagnosis was correct, and that the man really was sunburnt - only that his face clearly conveyed that impression. I'd simply argue that this impression was more likely to have been the result of a skin condition or a naturally beetrooty complexion than mere "agitation "for two reasons: A) The man, as described by Rose Bierman, did not appear to be agitated, and B) Most people don't look sunburnt (severely ot otherwise) when they're agitated.

That's not to say that agitation cannot "possibly" be miscontrued as sunburnt. I do find that very unlikely, though.

Best regards,
Ben

P.S. The pictures are chiefly of "normal" sunburn.

[Fisherman]

Ben, please have it your way if you need to - my own sunburns NEVER include peeling sking until a few days into them, and at that stage they are no longer sunburns - they are tans. Up til that time, my skin is red, with no peeling or any other "conditions" - and, I assure you, quite easily confused for a blush.

But that, Ben, is just me.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Fish -- if your blushes look like sunburn, all I can say is it must be a real bummer trying to conceal your farts on a crowded train!

Best regards,
Ben

[Chris2307uk]

Do we have a reliable description of George Hutchinson? If so, is it anything like the description of the man who was seen smoking a pipe around the area when Liz Stride was seen being assaulted and who gave chase to the witness?

[The Good Michael]

There's a reputed photo of him when he's older. He was said to be a man of military bearing. His photo, though of him when he was an old man, seems to bear this out. This is of course if the photo actually was of Hutchinson. I believe so, but some want to argue against it for the sake of argument.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Chris,

Hutchinson was described by the press as "apparently of the labouring class, but with a military appearance", while Sarah Lewis described the man with the wideawake (probably Hutchinson, short of odd coincidence) as "not tall, but stout". Interestingly, the pipe-smoking man from Berner Street appears to have sported similar headgear to the Wideawake man, and both were passively loitering when observed. I don't believe the photograph referred to above depicted the correct George Hutchinson, and in any case, the old gentleman doesn't seem to have a military appearance at all, and certainly wasn't stout.

Contrary to the above insinuation, I "argue against it" because the evidence suggests a mismatch as far as I'm concerned, not because I'm looking for an argument.

Hope this helps,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Fish -- if your blushes look like sunburn, all I can say is it must be a real bummer trying to conceal your farts on a crowded train!"

I don´t blush when I fart, Ben. Maybe you should do the blushing yourself, considering that you are telling me that the red colouring of a face, owing to pigment affecting is incredibly and totally different to the red colouring of a face owing to blood travelling to the finer vessels.
In case you have not noticed, red blotches are the result of blood vessel colouring, whereas sunburn is the result of pigmentation colouring. So, basically, if you are right, Ben, the two men spotted by Cox and Wilson would not look anything like each other. Then again, if you are wrong, the could have been mistaken for each other.
It´s your choice.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Whoah there, Fish!

You just told me to "have it your way if you need to", so I decided to take that advice and end with a dose of good-natured banter. What's the matter now?

I don't know about "incredibly" or "totally" different, but I'm very confident that the average human being's sunburn is very unlikely to resemble the average human being's embarrassment or "agitation" blushes. Again, I'm not suggesting that Wilson's man was genuinely sunburnt, but I believe that both descriptions (hers and Cox's) may well have referred to an individual with either a skin condition or a naturally florid or beetrooty complexion.

I was only kidding around with the fart joke...

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

You are quite welcome to fart jokes, Ben - I have a twelwe year old boy, so I´m accustomed to them.

In this case, though, it remains that if you tell us that blood vessel reddening is different from pigment reddening, then the two men observed would have been dissimilar instead of similar.

The best,
Fisherman

[Observer]

Hi Ben

Well, that's until you actually study other serial killers and discover that some of them have come forward under the guise of witnesses after discovering that they'd been seen by independent witnesses, just as many of them have monitered their crime scenes from discreet vantage points prior to attacking. What evidence exists in support of Hutchinson's culpability is far from conclusive, but's it's better than we have for any other named suspect.

Far from conclusive? I'd say. We can not place him in that room Ben, despite his loitering, despite the fact that he came forward on the Monday following the murder to give evidence. Furthermore we can not place him within 10 miles of Millers Court at 4: 00 a.m. Nov 9th, in all probability the TOD of Mary Kellys death, he has nothing to answer for.

HI Jane

Hi Observer - I guess that probably is true - what sort of evidence would you expect though? We have no evidence that Hutchinson was considered a suspect (as far as I know, although as usual I stand to be corrected by those who know better than I do). So if he was culpable, he did a pretty good job, didn't he?

Looking at the evidence Blotchy is more likely to have killed Mary Kelly than George Hutchinson, he was seen entering her room in her company hours before her death. Thats the type of evidence I'd expect if we are to put George Hutchinson in the suspects category, he's a non runner Jane, plain and simple.

all the best

Observer

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

Furthermore we can not place him within 10 miles of Millers Court at 4: 00 a.m. Nov 9th, in all probability the TOD of Mary Kellys death, he has nothing to answer for

Not conclusively, but if you've already decided that he was at least "loitering" at 2:30am, it's slightly unrealistic to envisage him wandering ten miles away from Miller's Court by 4.00am, isn't it? He has "nothing to answer for" if he was presented before a jury, based on the extant evidence, but from a crop of decidedly unconvincing candidates, he fares a good deal better than most, based on crime scene evidence and subsequently garnered knowledge of serial killers.

he's a non runner Jane, plain and simple

With the greatest respect, I rather wish people would avoid this habit of making unreasonable ex cathedra pronouncements, and then adding "plain and simple" afterwards in the hope of making their flawed observation seem more persuasive. Of course Hutchinson is a runner. There is evidence that Hutchinson lied about his actions and movements outside a crime scene at the very least, which is more than can be said for most suspects. By all means argue that Blotchy is a better bet if you feel that way, but it certainly wouldn't make Hutchinson a "non runner".

Best regards,
Ben

[Jane Welland]

Hi Observer

A 'Non-Starter' you say?

Well, whilst not quite being prepared to point the accusatory finger at Hutch for the Ripper Murders just yet, I'm not sure I think he's quite that.

I can't absolve him of any nefarious doings until I can reconcile the problems with his witness account. Which may, of course, never happen at all, since the information we have is unlikely now to change.

I have my own list of questions for Hutch, and I can't find satisfactory and innocent answers to any of them so far, I'm afraid!

I'd be happy to elaborate, but there are quite enough Hutch debates going on at the moment as it is!

Best wishes

Jane x