Proof of identity

[Ben]

The act of coming forward under a false guise to divert attention/suspicion away from onesself is well-documented and occasionally even anticipated, whereas coming forward under a false guise to divert attention/suspicion away from someone else is, I suspect, a rarer animal. That said, I too have heard worse explanations Hutchinson's role in the Dorset Street saga. I just find it simpler to condense it to one person.

I discovered only recently that a "wideawake" is often interchangable with a "billycock", which, coupled the similarity in height and weight, introduces the intriguing possibility that Wideawake man and Blotchy may have been the same man. Spookier still when we consider Ada Wilson's description of a wideawake-wearing attacker with a sunburnt complexion. Skin conditions such as rosacea cause the sufferer to appear both blotchy and sunburnt, and are often exacerbated by excessive drinking.

[caz]

Hi Fisherman,

I have just read Osbourne’s piece on Hutchinson and I like the cut of his jib. I too have seen far worse attempts to explain Hutch's role in the night’s events.

Colin Pitchfork was the first criminal caught and convicted for murder as a result of mass screening for DNA evidence. He raped and murdered two girls a century after Mary Kelly was butchered. The case almost beggars belief in two ways: 1) the initial prime suspect was a teenager who admitted to one of the crimes, and would almost certainly have gone down for murder had DNA tests not been available, which put him in the clear for both crimes. 2) The real killer, Pitchfork, somehow managed to persuade a work colleague to take the DNA test in his name, without ringing any serious alarm bells concerning why he couldn’t take the test himself. Eventually, after 5,000 local men had been tested and no matches found, it was the colleague’s loose tongue regarding his role swapping antics that led to Pitchfork’s downfall.

So along with Ben’s murderers who have come forward in vain attempts to divert suspicion away from themselves, we must add in all the idiots who have put themselves in the frame with lies and false confessions and the complete twats who have danced to a monster’s tune for no obvious advantage to themselves.

I can easily imagine a number of tricks the ripper could have employed to get someone dancing: a plausible hard-luck story, involving him being the innocent victim of harassment on account of his resemblance to Blotchy; hard cash inducement or threats of violence; threats of setting Hutch up for the murder, or a promise to grass him up for some other offence, if he doesn’t succeed in getting the heat taken off Blotchy; more cash or unbroken bones if he does succeed.

Persuasion can take many forms, and it certainly doesn’t depend on a close relationship between the parties involved. In fact it would be a distinct disadvantage to the one doing the persuading, if and when it all starts to unravel, if he could be identified and traced by the person he managed to persuade.

If Pitchfork could get someone to do it for him, without arousing suspicion, and with no threats or promises, then I see no reason why the ripper would have had much trouble a century earlier. By the time Hutch’s tale unravelled and was discredited (for whatever reason), Blotchy could have been long gone, with no DNA tests to worry about.

Hutch may have had no way of tracing him again or identifying him, and no chance in hell of being taken seriously if he goes back to the cops: “Sorry, I gave you the wrong man. It was Blotchy. No really, it was. Take yer ’ands orf me collar and I’ll tell you everything. He got me to lie for him. That’s the God’s honest truth. He even told me to say the Jew gave Mary a red…. hang on, I’m being serious this time….etc etc” (as they frog-march him off the premises).

Foolproof or what?

I see a troubled future for Blotchy. It could put a whole different complexion on him.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Don´t think we´re advancing very much by now, Ben. No sense flogging a dead horse, so I will just leave it where it lies, but for one thing:

"That same argument could be applied, if desired, to the royal conspiracy. Still doesn't stop it being silly!"

I would not agree that nobody has recognized that Stowells hobby project was a scam, Ben. And it did not last a 120 years - 120 minutes is more like it, as far as credibility is concerned.

The very best, Ben!
Fisherman

[Ben]

We KNOW that Abberline readily accepted it from the outset, and we KNOW that it resulted in firing the starting shot for a search for Astrakhan man.

I know, Fish, but he did precisely that with the witness Mrs. Kennedy, whose evidence was quickly discredited even before the inquest, most probably because she was "chinese whispering" the evidence of a real witness - Sarah Lewis. But I fully agree with your observation that dubious witness testimony might be more readily recognised as such today.

And like I said, it never had to be an alibi, since it could have been the simple recognition of Hutch being a very unreliable character, coming from somebody on the force who had had previous experience of Hutch

Quite possible.

Let´s skip Blotchy´s motive, Ben, and just make the assumption - as Osbourne does - that he did kill Kelly, only to forget that he left a clue in her room. Later he returns, takes a long peek into the court to see if the coast is clear, is seen by Lewis - something he may have recognized himself - and thereafter returns to the court to retrieve whatever it was that he left

Not my favourite scenario, but it makes much better sense if that man was Hutchinson as it eradicates the need for any implausible unrealsitically self-sacrificing accomplice. I don't remotely buy into the idea of a "pay-off". It would have to be one whopper of a sum to get Hutchinson to put himself out on so precarious a limb; a sum that was probably beyond the means of an ostensibly shabby local. The same problems arise with the "favour" hypothesis - it would have been one whopper of a favour.

They theory is only viable if condensed to one person. No, I don't think there's a "reasonable chance" that Lewis' man and Hutchinson were one and the same. I think it's possible, rather than probable. The best you can say is that there's no "proof" the man was Hutchinson.

Now, dubbing all of this "silliness" only functions til you realize that nobody has seen through the scam for 120 years - if it is what happened.

That same argument could be applied, if desired, to the royal conspiracy. Still doesn't stop it being silly!

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben!

It´s a good thing we dont offend each other with our respective views! And it goes without saying that I respect your stance on this matter, just as I do on other issues where we have differed.

Clearly, I see your point when you compare the magnitude of the witnesses involved, but I will stand my ground when it comes to this; Hutch WAS a different thing than Violenia, Maxwell et consortes.
I do not for one moment think that you are right in writing "And Hutchinson's impossibe description gave him away effectively", since the only written proof we have points in the exact opposite direction. We KNOW that Abberline readily accepted it from the outset, and we KNOW that it resulted in firing the starting shot for a search for Astrakhan man.

You yourself is very adamant on the issue; to you, there is no way that Hutch could have recorded all them details, and so you are a firm believer in what you write, of course - that the testimony gives him avay. Maybe you are right on the point - from what I have learnt about different witnesses and "memory champions" and such, I think that I will only go as far as to say that it was a massively improbable feat - but even if you ARE right, then we are speaking present tense: Today such a testimony would have been very much questioned. Back then, you were obviously wrong, at least from the outset.

"It certainly wasn't a 3:30 "alibi".
Not agreed, Ben. You will be hard pressed to come up with proof of that assumption. And like I said, it never had to be an alibi, since it could have been the simple recognition of Hutch being a very unreliable character, coming from somebody on the force who had had previous experience of Hutch. Bearing the silent exit of Hutch in mind, it is perhaps more probable, but to rule out what can´t be ruled out does nobody any good.

Finally, you write:
"For what possible reason? What a bizarre, inexplicable and totall implausible act of self-sacrifice on Hutchinson's part. It's quite possible that wideawake and billycock were one and the same - I can't rule that out - but it's equally possible that both descriptions referred to Hutchinson himself. Better than any silliness involving accomplices, especially if we're being asked to believe that Blotchy went there not expecting to kill Kelly but eventually did so over a financial dispute!"

Let´s skip Blotchy´s motive, Ben, and just make the assumption - as Osbourne does - that he did kill Kelly, only to forget that he left a clue in her room. Later he returns, takes a long peek into the court to see if the coast is clear, is seen by Lewis - something he may have recognized himself - and thereafter returns to the court to retrieve whatever it was that he left.
Aware of the fact that he has been seen, he turns to his friend Hutch, and the latter agrees to masquerade as the loiterer.

Now, dubbing all of this "silliness" only functions til you realize that nobody has seen through the scam for 120 years - if it is what happened. And the motivation on Hutch´s part could have been a number of things. He could have been payed for the trouble, he could have owed Blotchy a favour or he could have been very uninterested to find out whether Blotchy was mad enough to take a look inside a male abdomen.

Of course it is all conjecture, but it is conjecture that makes use of a man with short, stout stature in the role as Lewis´ loiterer, a man who we know can be put at the scene earlier that night. I have seen worse tries to explain what happened that night - much, much worse.

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Marlowe!

Thanks for updating me! And yes, there is a possibility that Cox and Lewis were speaking of the same man, the way I see it. It is hard to be too sure about such a thing, though. Anyhow, I think that there is at least a very good chance that Lewis´ man and Hutch were not one and the same.

The best, Marlowe!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Violenia, Maxwell, Packer... no offense, Ben, but their cases were quite different to that of Hutch. To accept Maxwell, for instance, we have to discredit Phillips

None taken, Fisherman, but I disagree most profoundly.

Those cases aren't different at all. They were all witnesses whose evidence was subsequently discarded for whatever reason. Nothing big or scary about disagreeing with Phillips either. We have to do precisely that if we wish to attribute Eddowes and Chapman to the same killer, or believe that the latter died around 5:30am, or believe that the killer didn't have any great surgical skill and so on and so forth. Phillips was probably wrong about a few things, and so was Abberline.

And Violenias morbid interests gave him away effectively.

And Hutchinson's impossibe description gave him away effectively.

There was never the initial this-is-the-real-thing-feeling on behalf of the police as far as these witnessses is concerned.

Yes, but there was a "this-is-the-real-thing" belief that Mrs. Kennedy had told the truth. There was a "this-is-the-real-thing" belief that Isenschmidt was the probable killer, then later Joseph Isaacs, and it is usually Abberline at the forefront of the "this-is-the-real-thing" brand of optimism. Doesn't mean it can't fizzle out after a while as it did in those cases. I don't know if it was a "smallish" thing or not that utimately led to Hutchinson's discrediting, but a series of press disclosures that seriously contradiced his first story and an impossible claim about a disappearing policeman certainly doesn't count as "smallish" in my book and it certainly isn't a hunch. Or it may have been something else. It certainly wasn't a 3:30 "alibi".

Osbourne theorizes that Blotchy was the killer as well as the loiterer, and that Hutch was called in to cover for him

For what possible reason? What a bizarre, inexplicable and totall implausible act of self-sacrifice on Hutchinson's part. It's quite possible that wideawake and billycock were one and the same - I can't rule that out - but it's equally possible that both descriptions referred to Hutchinson himself. Better than any silliness involving accomplices, especially if we're being asked to believe that Blotchy went there not expecting to kill Kelly but eventually did so over a financial dispute!

[Marlowe]

Hi Fisherman,

I've been arguing on the other Hutchinson thread that the hat discrepancy might be explained simply by Mary Ann Cox using the word "billycock" when she might just as easily have said "wideawake". It appears if you search the WEB, that some people considered them to be the same.

I've been trying to find other statements made by Cox to she if she ever used the description of "wideawake" to describe the hat she saw. If she did, then it seems very likely that both Lewis and Cox saw the same man.

Marlowe

[Fisherman]

Hi Ben!

1903, Ben - that was fifteen years down the line, and LOTS of water under the bridge. I really don´t think that we have to accept that long a time to have passed. In all probability Abberline was as ready to discard Hutch as he had been ready to accept him very soon after he left his description. And that is why I say that a hunch on his (Abberlines) behalf would not have done the trick. Something happened that opened his eyes, and Hutch was discarded as a result of that, if my guess is right.

Violenia, Maxwell, Packer... no offense, Ben, but their cases were quite different to that of Hutch. To accept Maxwell, for instance, we have to discredit Phillips or more or less buy into a theory where Kelly was not the woman on the bed. And Violenias morbid interests gave him away effectively. There was never the initial this-is-the-real-thing-feeling on behalf of the police as far as these witnessses is concerned.
With Hutch, there was. The whole police machinery was put into action, searching the streets for Astrakhan man. There would have been great hope that they finally had a terrific description of their man, knife-sized parcel and all, and exactly right in the time schedule.
The decision was made, but something overruled it. It could not possibly have been a smallish thing. That just does not make any sense.

Osbournes view, that the man seen by Lewis may have been Blotchy, sounds feasible to me; stout, on the short side - only the hat differs, and that may perhaps be understandable. Osbourne theorizes that Blotchy was the killer as well as the loiterer, and that Hutch was called in to cover for him, filling out the loiterers role when Lewis´testimony surfaced. To me, it sounds at least as credible as any other theory I have heard on who the loiterer was, and what he was doing there. Plus it answers to Lewis description in a striking manner.
You may of course be right, Osbourne may be wrong. But I fail to see what evidence you can use to discharge him.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

But Abberline probably stayed convinced that Hutch´s description was a credible one - as proved by the "null hypothesis" (ehrm)...

On the contray, Fisherman, Abberline had clearly revised his opinion in accordance with all the other senior policeman who had discredied his account by 1903. In reference to earlier witness sightings, he stated that the witnesses who had described a man with a foreign appearance had only acquired a rear view of the suspect. Either that or its peaked caps. Thus leaving "room" only for Schwartz, Lawende and Long, all of whom were (not so coincidentally) appended to a list of witnesses drawn up by Donald Swanson.

I respect your opinion that something "mega" and decisive needed to have occured in order for Hutchinson's evidence to have been discarded, but when we consider the other dubious witnesses who were discarded without anything "mega" being need to rule them out, it seems pretty clear to me that nothing of that nature was required. If there was any turning point in relation to Hutchinson's favour with the police, it probably coincided with the dodgy press versions of his testimony, and the numerous additional disclosures that compromised his initial version of events.

Best regards,
Ben

[Observer]

Hi Ben

Depends if there was anything to check, Observer. Even if they did check it and discover it to be true, it wouldn't verify his later actions and movements.

That's true, But it would mean that he had no time earlier in the evening of the 8th in which to reconoitre Kelly's movements

Observer

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

If he was following his assumed "normal" routine of going to bed at the Victoria Home every night, then verifiying his movements was practically impossible. No lodging house deputy or doorman could have a hope in hell of recalling if Hutchinson was one of the 500 or so dossers that passed through the door six weeks previously.

Ben

[Fisherman]

"Clearly not, Fish, because they ultimately discarded his evidence as a viable ripper-sighting"

...and that need NOT owe to anybody saying "nobody could be that exact and detailed". You yourself usually point out how completely unbelievable it would be for Hutch to remember all the parts he claimed to have seen - that should make it so much more obvious to you that Abberline did NOT have an inner warning bell saying "this can´t be true".
Abberline originally believed Hutch, and what finally proved to be the thing that sent him on his way is something that neither you or I know. But Abberline probably stayed convinced that Hutch´s description was a credible one - as proved by the "null hypothesis" (ehrm)...

Osbournes wrong? Or Osbournes PROVEN wrong?

"Fabulous, and we just pluck his imaginary existence from frickin' nowhere, stick him in Hutchinson's company at 3:45am in the morning of 9th November in Banbury or wherever you want him to have been and suddenly Hutchinson's got an alibi? Oh, and a report detailing that alibi that also got lost or blitzed?"

I never knew that we hade filled the measure of how many reports that can go missing, Ben. I am much more of the mind to say that IF a number of reports obviously have gone missing, guess what it proves?
And please do not boil my thoughts on the matter down to a situation where I have staked my life that there WAS an alibi. I have suggested that something rather radical MAY very well have been what caused the uninterest from the police´s side, and that may have been a number of things. Imagine, for example, if one of the police officers involved knew from earlier experience that Hutch was a publicity seeker, or that he was just released from Colney Hatch, or something along some such lines - that would probably not go down in any report, it would just ensure him a quiet goodbye from the police investigation, no more.

The possibilities are plenty. But I still say that we may have to look for something much more conclusive than newspaper reports here.

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

[Observer]

Hi

And what of his time spent at the Victoria Home? Surely someone in authority there could shed some light on Hutchinson's movements during the period of the murders.

Observer

[Ben]

Depends if there was anything to check, Observer. Even if they did check it and discover it to be true, it wouldn't verify his later actions and movements.