Hutch and an alibi?

[perrymason]

I'm sure there was more than a little bit of "press-trawling" behind much of Hutchinson's story.

Hi Sam, I would back you on that to the hilt....and I think this article or another one or two like it over the weekend may have formed the basis for the story itself.

The Daily News on November 10th..

"There are conflicting statements as to when the woman was last seen alive, but that upon which most reliance appears to be placed is that of a young woman, an associate of the deceased, who states that at about half past 10 o'clock on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset street. Kelly informed her that she had no money, and it was then she said that if she could not get any she would never go out any more, but would do away with herself. Soon after they parted, and a man who is described as respectably dressed came up and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money. The man accompanied the woman to her lodgings, which are on the second floor, the little boy being sent to a neighbour's house."

I find it interesting that:

a) There is no evidence given at the Inquest by any woman who alleged Mary spoke to her about money that night and then she saw Mary pick up a well dressed man and go into the court together..after her and Mary "parted" of course.
b) Both features are in Hutchinson's story...the money issue, and the well dressed chappie.
c) Due to the number of factual errors in this article, and like in many others run over the weekend, this story may have been largely forgotten or discarded as early, incorrect, reporting.

I can see the man formulating the idea based on his reading the papers on the weekend. Why? Well, why did thousands of hoax letters get written?

I dont understand the motivator myself, but I can see the trending.

All the best Gareth

[JennyL]

Why was his statement given any authority at all for any period of time? Surely the police then were just as up on what the press was writing, the fact that he'd waited til after the inquest to come forward, etc.

And since it was deemed important, why was he eventually "discredited"? There is no date nor written explanation that has ever surfaced for that change-is there?

I'm not saying I believe Hutch, but if he was clever enough to get his story from press-trawling, wouldn't it stand to reason that he'd be much more likely to describe a man that looked like "blotchy" or one of the several others i.e. "salt&pepper", "peaked cap", fair moustache or "weak eyes" suspect descriptions, had he wanted to be believed?

Or describe someone who looked more like himself, assuming he really was hanging about there for whatever reason and simply wanted to alibi his presence?
Why, if making up a totally imaginary figure, would you put in so many details that would obviously not jibe, not only because he's a whole-cloth invention but because no one loitering about Dorset Dt. tended to look anything like that?

I like the way Paul Begg (I'm currently enjoying his excellent "Definitive History") puts it[to paraphrase]: how incredibly stupid would a man have to be to stroll down one of the most criminally infested streets in London at 2am wearing a gold watch etc prominently displayed!
I guess I'm just being devil's advocate and saying that it's almost too ridiculous not to have some truth in it, perhaps. You'd otherwise think Abberline would have tossed it all out immediately.

[Ben]

Gareth's suggestion that there may have been some press-trawling behind Hutchinson's account has significant merit, and I share his view (and Mike's) that the 10th November account may have been one of the press articles "borrowed" from.

Hi Jenny,

I'm not saying I believe Hutch, but if he was clever enough to get his story from press-trawling, wouldn't it stand to reason that he'd be much more likely to describe a man that looked like "blotchy" or one of the several others i.e. "salt&pepper", "peaked cap

Unless of course the primary purpose of the press-trawling exercise was to deflect suspicion away from himself - and by extension, anyone of his generic, ostensibly local Joe Average appearance - and in the direction of the popular scapegoat around; the surly foreign outsider with medical knowledge. If he was the man spotted outside the court by Sarah Lewis, as appears likely, it's little wonder that he resorted to such a suspicion-deflecting tactic; a sort of semi-veiled "Yes, that was me loitering near the crime scene around the time of the murder, but only because I was watching the scary man who looked nothing like me".

Additionally, if his intention was to validate, or at least explain away, his 45-minute preoccupation with Miller's Court, it wouldn't have made sense to describe a local Joe type, since there wouldn't have been anything remotely interesting or noteworthy about someone of that description entering the court with a common prostitute. There needed to be a convincing reason for such an extended interest in Miller's Court, and the excuse he gave to the police was that the man's appearance was so incongruous with the company that his curiosity was piqued.

You'd otherwise think Abberline would have tossed it all out immediately.

No statement could have been tossed out "immediately" or else Abberline would have found himself on the receiving end of heavy criticism. However, the fact that the authorities had smelt a rat by the very next day, and that a "reduced importance" was consequently accorded to Hutchinson's statement, should speak volumes for the speed with which his account was dismissed.

All the best,
Ben

[JennyL]

Hello Ben-and many thanks for the thoughtful response.

What you say about the possible reasons for an elaborate description of a very out-of-place type by Hutchinson does make sense.

I should say one of the very first of those questions that simply won't go away one gets re: JtR was the great big hole of "what exactly was Hutchinson doing, hanging around-by his own admission-for such a length of time, to no ultimate effect?"

It's obviously very odd and even if one believes everything he said (or especially then) it makes little sense that he did what he says he did-and that's it. He waited around...because...he was suspicious of the toff/worries for Marie's safety? Supposedly.
But he knew MJK was a prostitute. He would know why they were going into Miller's Court. If he really were that concerned why not say something to her/him? Why simply peer at him, ducking down for a good look--then when the man looks at him "stern"--just lean on the opposite wall and hang out? Why not go on up the Court itself and listen for trouble if he's so concerned, or find a policeman, or rouse a passerby or McCarthy, or something? Since the smart gentleman didn't leave after all that time wasn't that a reason to be even more worried rather than simply wander off elsewhere? After all he had nowhere to go until something like 6am, correct? And if he wasn't so very concerned it's even stranger that he stayed there so long. It's so odd!

I'd entertain the idea that Hutch murdered Kelly, but an obstacle for me is-why didn't the police entertain that idea too?

By the by, in the Rippercast on Hutch/Kelly that I listened to not long ago, there was some doubt expressed about a killer himself approaching police freely to offer an alibi or otherwise expose himself to possible scrutiny and arrest.
As was pointed out, it does happen with some serial killers that they make the first move to "help" police; this gesture as a matter of course will usually get them at least a cursory once-over by investigators, yet it often(in certain famous cases) doesn't result in their being arrested when in plain sight! Due partly to the police not being absolutely infallible, and also sometimes tending towards pursuing a line they've already set upon.

Anyay, thanks again for suffering a newbie's ruminations. I'm sure you've all heard it before.

[Ben]

As was pointed out, it does happen with some serial killers that they make the first move to "help" police; this gesture as a matter of course will usually get them at least a cursory once-over by investigators, yet it often(in certain famous cases) doesn't result in their being arrested when in plain sight! Due partly to the police not being absolutely infallible, and also sometimes tending towards pursuing a line they've already set upon.

Absolutely, Jenny, and I'm very pleased to hear that the observations I intended to convey at the time (i.e. on the podcast) were understood correctly. The above echoes my sentiments precisely, and I'm reassured that my contributions to that episode of Rippercast reflected as much.

All the best!
Ben

[The Good Michael]

I'd entertain the idea that Hutch murdered Kelly, but an obstacle for me is-why didn't the police entertain that idea too?

The obvious answer is that they did, and they checked him out and verified his identity.

The real answer is that he was a criminal mastermind with years of experience lying to the police at the tender age of 22, and was so believable and charming that he entranced these ignorant coppers, and led them a merry chase around the East End. They took his statement gratefully as he exuded such honesty to these simpletons, they gave him some money from petty cash and sent him on his. In the many years between now and then, the senior officers passed on wistful memories of having been enamored of such a wonderful fellow, and the officers who heard the story tearfully passed it on to the next generation of coppers, until everyone knew about how wonderful a man Hutchinson was. And so, the truth remained obscured for lo these many years until a few stalwarts came on the scene, and because it is right and proper to second guess those who lived an event and dealt with it properly and professionally, modern 'investigators' have created the real truth.

Cheers,

Mike

[JennyL]

The obvious answer is that they did, and they checked him out and verified his identity.

The real answer is that he was a criminal mastermind with years of experience lying to the police at the tender age of 22, and was so believable and charming that he entranced these ignorant coppers, and led them a merry chase around the East End. They took his statement gratefully as he exuded such honesty to these simpletons, they gave him some money from petty cash and sent him on his. In the many years between now and then, the senior officers passed on wistful memories of having been enamored of such a wonderful fellow, and the officers who heard the story tearfully passed it on to the next generation of coppers, until everyone knew about how wonderful a man Hutchinson was. And so, the truth remained obscured for lo these many years until a few stalwarts came on the scene, and because it is right and proper to second guess those who lived an event and dealt with it properly and professionally, modern 'investigators' have created the real truth.

Ah! well, it's all up for discussion, you know. And in all honesty, even experienced professionals make wrong guesses or have by various circumstances a guilty party slip away or be dismissed-it happens all the time, even sometimes to the most proper of pros. I would imagine in their own department, in their own time they actually argued amongst themselves. They needn't have been simpletons to be mistaken.

[The Good Michael]

I would imagine in their own department, in their own time they actually argued amongst themselves. They needn't have been simpletons to be mistaken.

Yes, and in all the moments of clarity and professionalism, and in all the history of detective work, we choose this particular moment in time, arguably one of the most important in the LVP to look back on and point fingers at the police for ineptitude. Sort of silly isn't it? That's why Hutchinson as Moriarity is so much more appealing.

Cheers,

Mike

[Jane Welland]

Press Trawling..

Much as the image of Hutchinson trawling through a pile of dailies over the weekend so as to have his toff Jew well prepared for his Monday night confession....er...I mean Statement -

He wouldn't have needed to imo - I'm sure everyone was talking about who the Ripper was, and had been for weeks, long enough for Hutchinson to have absorbed the information he needed to make up the mysterious Mr A.

I'm not saying he didn't read the papers - pretty clearly, since he signed his name on at least three occasions, the man was very likely literate. I don't think this is necessary though - the information he used could have been orally transmitted.

Best to all

Jane x

[Ben]

The obvious answer is that they did, and they checked him out and verified his identity

If you think that's obvious, it's clear you need to get a little better acquainted with the "checking" powers available to the police. I don't know if you're expecting some vast identity-base or DNA bank or what, but since the identitfy of the victim - i.e. the person all of London were talking about - couldn't be established, it's a little naive to expect that anything different should have occured in Hutchinson's case.

The real answer is that he was a criminal mastermind with years of experience lying to the police at the tender age of 22, and was so believable and charming that he entranced these ignorant coppers

If you think you need to be a criminal mastermind to dupe an investigating police force, or that the police force must all suffer from collective "ignorance" when that happens, it seems you don't have much familiary with true crime or the behaviour of serial killers either. Jenny was able to disabuse you of that fallacy herself. Peter Sutcliffe was interviewed several times without eliciting any suspicion from the police, and in that same investigation, George Oldfield allowed himself to be "duped" by the alleged tape-recorded voice of the Yorkshire ripper, despite it being later emerged that it was a hoax perpetrated by someone of "tender years".

There's no evidence that Hutchinson was 22 at the time either.

In the many years between now and then, the senior officers passed on wistful memories of having been enamored of such a wonderful fellow, and the officers who heard the story tearfully passed it on to the next generation of coppers, until everyone knew about how wonderful a man Hutchinson was

Really? I thought his statement discredited a few days after he approached the police?

Jenny is absolutely right in her response of 7:07am, and I would dearly hope that if you were really intreresting in learning anything, you'd take the time to shed a few of these misconceptions about liars and the police. Otherwise it's just refutation for refutation's sake, and I know you hate that.

[caz]

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

Hi Ben,

When you posted this you were considering it a reasonable possibility that Hutchy and Blotchy were one and the same.

But if the ripper’s shortish height, sunburnt-cum-blotchy complexion and fair-cum-ginger moustache are supposed to have been noted on at least two of his murderous outings (Wilson attack/Kelly murder) how the hell is this same man meant to have waltzed into the cop shop without anyone saying: “’Ello ello ello, what ’ave we ’ere then, if you ain’t short, stout, with a blotchy face and a carroty moustache - in fact the very model of the geezer seen by the widow Cox going with the murdered woman into her room at midnight. And you say you knew the woman, often gave her money but had none to lend her that night when you happened to bump into her two hours later? But you followed her back to her room anyway and kept watch on it for how long? And why was this exactly, and when did you take your own leave exactly? Three am? Hmmm, I see Mr Blotchinson, er, Hutchinson…”

What value a “walking about all night” alibi then? They’d now have an additional piece of valuable information - that Mary either had two short, stout admirers with red faces and orange whiskers that night, or just the one, who was apparently in and out of her company from midnight onwards like a fiddler’s elbow.

It doesn’t just beggar belief that Blotchy aka Hutchy aka Flemmy aka Jacky (any more for any more??), who was seen at, near or entering three or more of his crime scenes (assuming Lawende saw him too), would have presented himself for a close-up physical inspection by the cops, three days after the latest sighting of his ruddy chops; it also beggars belief that he could have got away with pulling a stunt like that if he really had been just crazy enough to try it.

I’m not sure which theory has least going for it: this Blotchy Ginger Nutcase, Curious George or Hutch’s original one-man Self-preservation Society. Certainly it makes no sense at all that Hutch would have been forced forward by Lewis’s sighting of him to explain his presence in the way he did if he risked being instantly recognised as the man Cox saw disappearing inside No.13 with Mary at midnight. Talk about a tangled web he’d have been weaving for himself if the cops hadn’t all been colour blind or thick as pig shi*.

Still related to alibis, I see that you wrote on another thread:

I personally doubt that Astrakhan was found and dismissed on the grounds of an alibi. The time of death was too ambiguous for any alibi to hold water, and if Astrakhan had been ensconced with Kelly in the room as late as 3.00am, there's almost no chance of him procuring an alibi for the generally accepted time frame for the murder so shortly afterwards.

It’s good. It’s logical. In fact I can find nothing wrong with your reasoning here. I too personally doubt that the police would have dismissed a man who had apparently shown a very personal interest in Mary or her room that night, and had no alibi that could hold water because the time of death was too ambiguous.

Now just extend this to Hutch, who claimed to be loitering near Mary’s room as late as 3am. You always insist it wouldn’t have mattered a jot that he had absolutely no chance of ‘procuring an alibi for the generally accepted time frame for the murder so shortly afterwards’, because even if the police did suspect his motives, they were powerless in the face of a claim to have “walked about all night”. If you stand by that, don’t you have to apply the same safety valve to Astrakhan, who could simply have said he had stayed home alone all night and accused Hutch of being a lying bigot who was probably trying to save his own neck by picking on a Jew he had seen around Petticoat Lane?

If you are right about the police being obliged to dismiss Hutch on the grounds of an alibi they couldn’t have broken, they’d have had to dismiss Astrakhan on the same grounds. If both were supposedly right there at the soon-to-be-crime scene at 3am it was a case of one man’s word for who was there last. In those circumstances I can’t imagine either being wholly trusted, or dismissed and then forgotten about, after a light grilling.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

With the greatest respect, I think you may be in danger of complicating a fairly straightforward premise here. Firstly, I wasn’t exactly nailing any firm colours to the mast with my suggestion that Hutchinson may have been the man seen by Mary Cox. It was chiefly an acknowledgement of the superficial physical congruity between the suspects seen by a number of witnesses - specifically Cox, Lewis and Wilson - and that since Hutchinson is a prime candidate for one of the three for very good reason, it ought not to take too great a stretch of the imagination to place him in the shoes of the other two.

I wouldn’t exaggerate the extent of Blotchy’s physical uniqueness either. If the suspect really did have a sunburnt or blotchy complexion, he was very unlikely to have represented a significant minority of the populace. Poor diet, alcoholism and infection would all have been contributory factors to any skin complaints, and since all three of those things were a feature of the district, it’s a strong probability that many men and women suffered from varying degrees of facial blemishes. If he was shortish and stout, that wouldn’t narrow down the physical criteria in the slightest for obvious reasons, and a thick moustache of any colour could easily be removed or reduced.

Bear in mind also that Mary Cox had ostensibly garnered a rear sighting of the suspect, having followed them to Miller’s Court which, coupled with the darkness of scene at 11:45pm, is another reason to avoid warping this particular suspect into Shakespeare’s Bardolph for no good reason. Even if he was, the “walking around all night” alibi would retain its value because having bad skin was very unlikely to have placed a noose around his neck. A direct accusation along the lines of “Hutchinson, you are the Blotchy bastard we seek!” wouldn’t have done much good. Hutchinson had only to say “prove it” and walk away. Granted, it would potentially have been disastrous had other witnesses been asked to confirm Cox’s (or Lewis’) identification, thereby establishing a link with other ripper-attributed crimes, but we know that there is no evidence to suggest that Lawende or Schwartz were being used in identity parades at that time, or that Ada Wilson was ever used for such a purpose. Hutchinson didn’t have that luxury of knowledge.

We know that even if the cops had immediately jumped to the conclusion, “Aha, my psychic powers have told me what serial killers will do in the future, so on that basis, j’accuse! Pizza face!” they were essentially powerless to convert any suspicions they may have harboured into confirmation or otherwise of guilt.

A study of this and other serial cases compels us to reject the “He wouldn’t have done that because it’s too risky” premise. The simple fact of the matter is that serial killers expose themselves to great risk for a goodly portion of their serial career, and their combined efforts would make the above proposal seem reserved by comparison. Not that it represents my favoured explanation necessarily, but it remains a reasonable one.

“If you stand by that, don’t you have to apply the same safety valve to Astrakhan, who could simply have said he had stayed home alone all night and accused Hutch of being a lying bigot who was probably trying to save his own neck by picking on a Jew he had seen around Petticoat Lane?”

Yes, of course, but that wouldn’t have been an excuse for the police to have both dismissed the Astrakhan man as a viable ripper-sighting and discredited Hutchinson’s account, and yet both of those things apparently occurred. A witness account from a member of the public doesn’t become “discredited” purely on the grounds that another member of the public accuses him or her of lying, unless the latter had proof, otherwise it’s one word against the other, not a reason for discrediting anything. Even if one Astrakhan man was able to prove he was elsewhere at the time of the alleged sighting, all Hutchinson had to do was say “Sorry, must have picked out the wrong bloke”, and his account remains “credited”. The only realistic explanation is that the Astrakhan description was discredited for another reason, i.e. one that didn’t involve any real Astrakhan men being identified.

Best regards,
Ben

[caz]

...I think you may be in danger of complicating a fairly straightforward premise here.

Hi Ben,

I think you meant that your premise is in danger of being rendered anything but straightforward if I introduce any more complications.

Firstly, I wasn’t exactly nailing any firm colours to the mast with my suggestion that Hutchinson may have been the man seen by Mary Cox.

Just as well, really, wasn't it? The colours being blotchy red and hairy orange, naturally.

...it ought not to take too great a stretch of the imagination to place him in the shoes of the other two.

Thank Christ those shoes weren't patent pink then, or your imagination would have to stretch to buggery and beyond.

I wouldn’t exaggerate the extent of Blotchy’s physical uniqueness either. If the suspect really did have a sunburnt or blotchy complexion, he was very unlikely to have represented a significant minority of the populace. Poor diet, alcoholism and infection would all have been contributory factors to any skin complaints, and since all three of those things were a feature of the district, it’s a strong probability that many men and women suffered from varying degrees of facial blemishes. If he was shortish and stout, that wouldn’t narrow down the physical criteria in the slightest for obvious reasons, and a thick moustache of any colour could easily be removed or reduced.

That's hardly the point though, is it? The mere fact that the police were looking for a man with these features would surely have stopped them in their tracks if Hutch had presented his shortish, stoutish self, complete with blotches and moustaches (natural or dyed) or a blotchy shaving rash, and admitted to being there that night - even if it didn't strike Hutch himself as a distinctly bad idea. However many other men could have roughly fitted the same description, it would still have been his description if he was the murderer and he knew Cox had clocked him. I can't imagine the cops thinking: "Well, we've got one here who appears to fit her description, but of course so many men in the populace would, so it's no big deal that he says he was actually loitering near the scene until 3am".

Even if he was, the “walking around all night” alibi would retain its value because having bad skin was very unlikely to have placed a noose around his neck. A direct accusation along the lines of “Hutchinson, you are the Blotchy bastard we seek!” wouldn’t have done much good. Hutchinson had only to say “prove it” and walk away. Granted, it would potentially have been disastrous had other witnesses been asked to confirm Cox’s (or Lewis’) identification, thereby establishing a link with other ripper-attributed crimes, but we know that there is no evidence to suggest that Lawende or Schwartz were being used in identity parades at that time, or that Ada Wilson was ever used for such a purpose. Hutchinson didn’t have that luxury of knowledge.

Well there you go again - all over the place. If all Hutch had to do was to challenge the police to "prove it" and walk away, he could have waited to see if they would come to him, and if he was very unlucky and they did manage to track him down and question him, he could have done exactly the same thing. No indeed, if Hutch was guilty he did not have the luxury of knowing that he was unlikely to find himself stuck in front of Lawende and co, so all the more reason for the murderer not to have tempted fate unless fate came knocking for him and he had to play his "prove it" bluff.

You can’t describe it as potentially ‘disastrous’ had Hutch been picked out by the other witnesses, and then claim that the police were ‘essentially powerless’ to convert any suspicions into an arrest. It’s a circular argument to say that because no witnesses were apparently asked to identity any suspects at that time, they would have been powerless even if they had suspected Hutch. I could just as easily argue that if they had considered his presence in the court or physical appearance remotely suspicious, they’d have got the witnesses in a good deal sooner. No point doing that until they’ve got someone who fits a witness description and can’t prove they were elsewhere when the sighting/murder took place. If Hutch had matched one or more of the witness descriptions and been unable to improve on his “walked around all night” bluff, I dare say he wouldn’t have slipped through their hands and disappeared with such indecent haste.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

“I think you meant that your premise is in danger of being rendered anything but straightforward if I introduce any more complications.”

No, I meant what I said. The premise is perfectly straightforward, and it is bolstered by historical precedent. Too many of the “complications” you are currently introducing are dependent on the existence of lost reports. You’re relying too much on the idea that if event “A” occurred, they must automatically have jumped to conclusion “B”, and moreover, that they were in the best position to do anything about it. Usually it’s the suspect theorists who rely on lost reports and lost evidence of suspicion to advance their case, but in this case you’re relying on them to argue for the exclusion of an individual from the “legitimate suspects” list, and you really shouldn’t.

“That's hardly the point though, is it? The mere fact that the police were looking for a man with these features would surely have stopped them in their tracks if Hutch had presented his shortish, stoutish self, complete with blotches and moustaches (natural or dyed) or a blotchy shaving rash, and admitted to being there that night”

Of course it’s the point. Not much use the police being “stopped in their tracks” if the general physical particulars they were looking for could potentially have applied to thousands of men in the district, and again, it depends how accurate Mary Cox’s description was. By her own admission, she had followed him and Mary Kelly (i.e. from behind) down a darkened street, offering her little, if any opportunity for a face-to-face encounter. These are mitigating factors that any responsible and self-respecting police force would take into consideration when assessing eyewitness evidence. It’s really not a case of them dismissing a potential physical congruity as “no big deal”. It’s more a case of circumstances preventing them from converting suspicions into a fast conclusion – the bane of every investigator’s existence. In this scenario, the following questions would need to be considered:

1) How accurate was Cox’s description?

2) Does it signify much given that it could apply to many?

3) If the answers to the previous questions are “very” and “yes” respectively, what can we realistically do about it?

And if the answer to number three involves the hoped-for existence of a load of reports, don’t bother, unless you’ve actual tangible evidence.

“If all Hutch had to do was to challenge the police to "prove it" and walk away, he could have waited to see if they would come to him.”

Of course he “could have” done, but we know from studying other serial cases (at least, we should by now) that other serial offenders have come forward under false guises to deflect suspicion away from themselves in spite of the ever-present alternative of waiting to be tracked down by the police. Why they do it is anyone’s guess. Perhaps they actually wanted to come forward for the thrill it afforded them – the knowledge that they were pulling the wool over the eyes of their pursuers and nailing their colours to the “cooperative witness” mast in the process; “spiking their guns in advance” as Nathan Leopold described it. Whether you think they were prudent to do so is of no significance whatsoever, except insofar as it illustrates that they didn’t share your approach to risk assessment. Frankly, if they did, I doubt they would have become serial killers in the first place (with all the risks that pastime entails).

“You can’t describe it as potentially ‘disastrous’ had Hutch been picked out by the other witnesses, and then claim that the police were ‘essentially powerless’ to convert any suspicions into an arrest.”

Why not?

IF one or more witnesses had identified Hutchinson as the man they had seen, the outcome would have been potentially disastrous for him, especially if he hadn’t “spiked their guns in advance” and got his story in first. That was an outcome that Hutchinson had legitimately to fear if he was the killer, which is why a pre-emptive strategy may have seemed attractive. We know of no evidence of eyewitnesses being used in identity parades contemporary to the murders themselves, with the apparent exception of the cluster of witnesses from Mrs. Fiddymont’s pub, and WE know that even if they were, the nature of the sightings in question was unlikely to have led to subsequent recognition. Such knowledge was not available to Hutchinson.

“I could just as easily argue that if they had considered his presence in the court or physical appearance remotely suspicious, they’d have got the witnesses in a good deal sooner.”

No, you couldn’t.

There were plenty of characters adjudged suspicious by the police who emerged on the scene well in advance of Hutchinson making himself known, but do we have any evidence of any of them being subjected to eyewitnesses from previous murders? No. Take Barnett, for example. Unlikel Hutchinson, we know that Joe Barnett was treated as a suspect, at least initially, and there’s certainly no evidence of him being paraded before Lawende and co.

“Walking about all night” is looking pretty unassailable from my perspective, blotches or no blotches.

Best regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

Bear in mind also that Mary Cox had ostensibly garnered a rear sighting of the suspect, having followed them to Miller’s Court which, coupled with the darkness of scene at 11:45pm, is another reason to avoid warping this particular suspect into Shakespeare’s Bardolph for no good reason.

Best regards,
Ben

Hello my friend,

On the above segment, isnt it the case that Mary Ann Cox saw them, spoke with Mary Jane, and saw them enter the room, all the while a light shone into the court towards Marys door from above either Julias or the Keylers door?

I think the reason that Blotchy is Suspect #1 by the data available is because they felt this was a valid interaction and a good sighting. I dont think this man fits what we can surmise was Hutchinsons appearance. Blotchy sounds "street", Hutch sounds like someone who might have worn ties occasionally...even though likely as poor as Blotchy.

What we dont have with him is a reason to kill Mary that we know of, therefore he would have to be a random stranger killer like many believe, the bloodthirsty mutilator. What we dont have with the evidence of the crime scene and the statements of some women who were closest to that room at critical times, is evidence that suggests her killer was in fact a stranger.

That puts Blotchy in safer light I think, as a potential killer here.

Lets not forget that we are told that there are "certain factors" that make this murder likely to have included accomplices, if only after the fact.

Cheers amigo.