The Red Handkerchief...

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

You’ve well and truly set up camp in Hutchville these days, haven’t you?

Great to see.

“There must have been scores of men considered as potential suspects, or persons of interest, at one time or another, for whom no records have survived - that's why nobody can claim it as a definitely ascertained fact that Hutch was never among them”

Quite so, but a study of other serial cases will quickly reveal that the real killer will often turn out to be one of the “scores of men considered as potential suspects”. Gary Ridgway was one such killer, and was only found guilty of the murders many years later when advancement in DNA technology succeeded in implicating him. The fact that people get suspected during the course of an investigation does not necessarily mean that those suspicions will always be resolved there and then. More often than not, they aren’t, and this ought to serve as a cautionary tale for those arguing that IF Hutchinson was ever suspected, he must have been found to be innocent. That’s a two-fold assumption with nothing to back it up, and a century’s worth of criminological insight to suggest it is probably wrong.

“What he would have known, if he heard what Lewis had said at the inquest, was that she didn't know him, by name or by sight, or her account would have been very different and a lot less vague.”

Not true at all.

Joseph Lawende’s description of the Church Passage man was extremely vague, and yet we know he provided a much fuller and far more detailed sighting to the police, which was released two weeks after the inquest on 19th October. We also know that this fuller description was deliberately withheld at the behest of Crawford. If Hutchinson was the killer (and accordingly the man seen by Lawende and chums), we might assume that he monitored these inquest proceedings and was consequently well aware of the fact that superficially vague descriptions provided at the inquests did not represent the totality of what the witnesses saw and were able to describe. For all Hutchinson knew, Lewis’ description had been suppressed just as Lawende’s had been before.

“So making off on his toes where no witness could spot him and recognise him again (if he really was worried enough about this to come forward) would have been no gamble at all.”

We need to look at what serial killers have actually done, as opposed to what we think they ought to have done in certain situations. The reality is that serial killers have often come forward, not scarpered, when they felt that certain pieces of evidence might incriminate them.

“Did he know, for instance, that the police in his day would have been above dirty tactics to break him, if they suspected he was involved but the evidence was lacking? If so, how?”

No, he wouldn’t have known for certain, but then nor did the other serial killers who came forward. What sort of “dirty tactics” are you envisaging anyway? If the consequence of employing such tactics was Hutchinson blabbing to the press about the appalling way the police treat innocent witnesses who were just trying to help, I think you can imagine the shytestorm that would result from that. Not to mention the huge deterrent it would have against any potential witnesses coming forward in the future. I think Hutchinson was fairly safe in the assumption that the police were unlikely to be that daft.

“Wearisome, yes, but probably because nobody has yet been able to reconcile this connection being totally missed by everyone on the planet at the time except canny old Hutch”

I’m not sure where you’re getting “nobody” from. I’m far from alone in acknowledging this reality – and that’s what it is: a reality. Had the Lewis-wideawake connection been noticed, it would have been alluded to in the press, absolutely unquestionably so. Can its absence be attributed to the press not regarding the connection as “coincidental” enough? Doubtful, considering that no other bods were seen standing alone on Dorset Street. It was just the one bloke, no “extras” to speak of, and he seemed to be doing precisely what Hutchinson claimed to be doing – watching and waiting for someone to come out of Miller’s Court at 2:30am. Thus, given the absence of any other loitering men in either Lewis’s account or Hutchinson’s (at that time believed) narrative, the inescapable conclusion for anyone comparing the two accounts was that Hutchinson and Lewis’ loiterer were one and the same, with the identical activity, time and location pretty much clinching it. But since no connection was ever alluded to in the press, the only acceptable (well, only possible) explanation is that the connection passed unnoticed.

“It's also too bad that his delay in coming forward, resulting in his information not being given under oath at the inquest, was not something that took hours or days to dawn on the authorities”

If you examine the Echo’s wording, they made it quite clear that the “very reduced importance” Hutchinson’s account received by 13th November was “in light of later investigation”. It cannot, then, have been a case of it suddenly “dawning” on the police that his late appearance and no-show at the inquest were problematic for his credibility. A more sensible explanation is that whatever excuses Hutchinson gave to Abberline for his “delay in coming forward” were undermined by the “later investigations” alluded to by the press. It only “wasn’t an issue” at the time of the initial Abberline interview because, as I’ve pointed out a great many times, there wasn’t the means of verifying his claims in the tiny amount of time that elapsed between the end of the interview and the penning of the police report. Whatever excuse Hutchinson gave for his late appearance, Abberline could only have accepted it on faith until such time as that excuse could be tested, and tested it was, a day later, to the detriment of Hutchinson’s credibility.

“However, if enquiries into Hutch's story subsequently revealed that the silly sod had got the wrong night”

Then the Echo would have printed as much after visiting Commercial Street police station and ascertaining the truth about the Hutchinson saga there. But instead we hear a completely different reason for this “very reduced importance”, and one that related to doubts over his credibility. Hutchinson, moreover, would have been a very VERY silly sod indeed to get the wrong night, and there would need to have been two men stationed at 2:30am on successive nights, both watching and waiting for someone to come out. But that’s another argument altogether…

The Echo did not “speculate”, illogically or otherwise, at least not in this instance. Why would they need to when they were being supplied by the police with what we know for certain to be accurate information?

“You mean like the chances he was so mentally or physically challenged that he couldn't have got himself out of the immediate area if he genuinely feared bumping into Lewis again and being recognised?”

It would arguably have generated more suspicion had he departed the area immediately after the murder, leaving any potential employer to wonder why and possibly alert the police. Remember that whatever you think would be a prudent and wise move should always play second fiddle to what actually happens in reality, i.e. that serial killers will approach the police whilst remaining effectively under their noses and in the immediate area the whole time.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Continued…

“They must have gained at least a little experience along the way, then, in how to go about discovering what was true and what was not”

Such experience can have both positive and negative effects, though – positive in the sense that the police were unlikely to swallow whole any old story at face value, and negative because it could result in false prejudices and preconceptions being established. For instance, if the vast majority of discredited witnesses the police encountered prior to the 12th November were chaotic dodgy weirdos like Violenia, they may have been too hasty in giving Hutchinson a temporary clean bill of health on the grounds that he presented a far more favourable impression.

Who says they “cocked up royally” with him? One particular detective on the ground gave him the benefit of the doubt pending investigations - that’s all. It’s hardly a ****-up if the result of those investigations undermined the extremely short-lived faith-based approval by the first Johnny-on-the-spot.

“You said yourself they 'discovered' Violenia's claim wasn't true, so why could they not have discovered the truth or untruths behind Hutch's account”

“Discovered” was the wrong word. I’m not aware of any evidence that proved conclusively that Violenia was not where he said he was on the night of the Chapman murder. They simply came to the conclusion that he wasn’t. Just so with Hutchinson, about whom we learn from irrefutable sources that his account had suffered a “very reduced importance”, i.e. as opposed to a total eradication of importance due to proof being procured to the effect that he was wrong, lying or whatever. The Violenia example “helps me” insofar as he was not converted into a murder suspect, despite his claim to have been the last man to see the victim alive (placing himself at the crime scene at the time of the murder), and despite being suspected of lying. In this regard, his case parallels Hutchinson’s. Violenia was treated no differently to* Hutchinson.

“Really? I thought you recently argued that two or more females were going round parroting Sarah Lewis's accounts. How did they get hold of this juicy gossip if not from Lewis herself? How very noble of her to observe an official request not to talk to the press, before or after blabbing to women who had no such discretion.”

There is nothing remotely problematic or unlikely here. You seem to have it in your mind that Lewis was a super-helpful, proactive witness who sought out the authorities whenever they needed help dotting i’s and crossing t’s, but let us recall the circumstances of her coming into contact with police. She didn’t seek them out herself. She emerged to find herself detained inside the Court, pending information from the residents about a horrific murder that had occurred approximately ten feet from where she slept. There is nothing remotely unusual about a reluctant witness – and a “doleful little body” according to reporters at the inquest – honouring her agreement with police not to blab to the press, and yet confiding in female friends and acquaintances with whom she felt more comfortable.

“It amazes me how you can speak for people who are long dead, and judge what they would or wouldn't have done with new information.”

But that is precisely what you’re doing with your claim that there was “every reason” for Lewis to approach the police of her own volition (with a connection that she had “every reason” to conclude the police had already made themselves). Your assertion is in obvious conflict with what we can reasonably infer from the evidence regarding her character, and about the likelihood of her approaching the police voluntarily.

“Evidence, Ben? What percentage of serial killers have injected themselves into their investigations?”

You first, please.

You made the original assertion that it was only a “tiny minority” of serial killers who have done this, thus implying knowledge that I suspect you do not, in reality, possess. I don’t know the exact percentage, but I know it must be significant, or else seasoned veterans of law enforcement and criminology would not predict that certain uncaught, unidentified offenders would do precisely that, and with successful results confirming that expectation. Of course, that is precisely what has happened. Bear in mind that percentages can be misleading when dealing with a small group. Less than 10% is a “tiny minority” according to you, but if a self-respecting statistician discovered that one in ten among a study group had blue fingers and a pet giraffe, he is hardly going to dismiss that as insignificant and a rarity, is he?

Have a read of my Casebook Examiner article if you haven’t already as I provide a number of examples there. I also intend to contribute to Bridewell’s thread on this subject when time permits.

“And there you have it. Every reason for the police to have needed to establish exactly what he was doing there”

But because the police were very unlikely to have entertained the concept of a real serial killer coming forward and pretending to be a witness, they had to fall back on what they knew, which was publicity-seeking witnesses. If a voluntarily-offered witness account seemed dodgy, nine times out of ten it was because the witness wasn’t there when he claimed to have been and was simply after fame and/or money. Indeed, this is the category into which the police apparently consigned Hutchinson, and it would be tempting for us to accept that as the truth were it not for the evidence of Sarah Lewis, and the unmistakable connection linking him to the crime scene, which was unfortunately overlooked at the time.

*Only “(sic)” me where appropriate, please. And have a read: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/wo...rom-than-or-to

[Ben]

A bit more…

“…I meant 'generally speaking' - in that most people back then may not have found it remotely coincidental to have more than one man hanging around the vicinity at any one time of night.”

But it wasn’t “just hanging around”. It was engaging in identical activity – watching and waiting for someone to emerge from the Miller’s Court entrance – at the same ungodly hour of the morning and in the same location. That would only NOT be considered extraordinarily coincidental to people who have run away with the idea that Miller’s Court was the ultimate hotspot for the finest prozzies money can buy. Did the press run away with such an idea (a wrong idea, just so that’s established)? It’s remotely possible, I guess.

“It would only take two men, just missing each other, for Lewis to have seen the first, and for him to have left just before Hutch arrived for his much more lengthy vigil.”

Nah.

If you prefer the explanation that Hutchinson told the truth, you’ll recall that both he and Lewis claimed to have noted the time from the two church clocks in the vicinity: St. Mary’s and Christ Church for Hutchinson and Lewis respectively. Accepting that neither witness misread the clock face or misheard the chimes, Hutchinson would realistically have been 15 minutes into his vigil by the time Lewis arrived on the scene by the time at 2:30am. So I’m afraid the “two men, just missing each other” argument just doesn’t work.

“if Hutch really was the ripper, and was supposedly waiting for the coast to clear before he could safely enter MJK's room and do her in, why did he have to wait so long, if by his own account there was no other bugger around all that time?”

Because two women had entered Miller’s Court at the inconvenient times of 2:30 and 3.00, prompting him to wait until they had settled down to sleep before entering, reasonably secure in the knowledge that they weren’t likely to venture out again during a hairy moment, such as Kelly waking up and being alerted – however briefly and inconveniently – to his presence. Another option, as we’ve already discussed, is that he was waiting for Blotchy to leave the room.

“Doesn't sound like the same fearless killer who operated on Chapman virtually under the neighbours' noses, then did the same for Eddowes between police beats, and very shortly after being seen with her by three witnesses.”

Sounds a lot like the same fearless killer who perhaps realised that a more cautious approach was needed if he wanted to continue evading capture, hence a different type of crime scene for starters – a private dwelling as opposed to the open street. What if Mary Cox turned out to be another Pissy-Pants Cadosche, hanging around the area when he wanted to get on with his grisly business? It was sheer luck that Cadosch didn’t venture a peek over that fence, and unless he made sure that the coast was a lot clearer with future kills, that luck was bound to run out at some point.

Now drop everything you’re doing, forget all the other threads, including the one about the apron (in fact, watch it recede into oblivion as we get all nice and fired up about Hutchinson again), and let’s get some lovely long arguments going.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“I don´t think that the police would miss out on the part where a man was placed very close to the murder site at the approximate correxct time for the murder in favour of a story about a person the witness had met days before.”

Not just days before. Remember that Lewis thought she saw the same man talking to a woman near the Britannia pub just moments before she spotted the man believed to be Hutchinson, and unlike our wideawake-wearing friend, the first man caused her considerable alarm. Which of the two men were the police likely to be more interested in tracking down – a man standing on his own, or a man who caused two women panic by attempting to inveigle them into quiet back alley, and who may have been the same man talking to a woman just yards from the murder side and an hour before that murder was committed?

With the focus on the more overtly “suspicious” individual in Lewis’s narrative, it is quite understandable that both wideawake and the “passing along” couple should have taken a back seat. Indeed, that has been precisely the case for well over a hundred years until a few researchers chose to investigate Hutchinson as a suspect. And now he’s all the rage. Now it’s a case of “Oh, he’s so terribly suspicious, and they must have found out who he was and who he wasn’t, and they must have tidied it all up in a need little package that got conveniently obliterated by German bombs in the 1940s – bugger!”. I’m afraid I will continue to call nonsense on that one.

“It could equally be that everybody knew that no connection could be made, so let´s not jump the gun here!”

No it couldn’t.

Because had the press spotted the potential connection, they would have reported on it way in advance of anybody else having the chance to inform them that they too had independently spotted it, investigated the possibility, but determined that no connection existed. There isn’t a magic wand for that sort of stuff, and the press would have got there first. The absence of any mention of the potential connection in the press can only mean that they failed to spot it. There is no other possibility.

“Are you saying that no two people have ever stoood at the approximate same place, looking at a house on two consecutive days?”

During the small hours of a miserable and cold night, engaging in precisely the same watching and waiting activity with a fixation on a particular doorway? Yes I am saying that, because that has never happened in all human history, Fisherman.

“It may just as well be that the press simply recognized the fact that Hutchinson was wrong - out on the days”

If they recognised it, they would have reported it – plain and simple, and they certainly wouldn’t have reported that his account had suffered a diminished importance because of his failure to come forward earlier and appear at the inquest, and yet the latter is what we see in the Echo. Nothing about any “wrong date” befuddlement.

“We do not know if they noticed it or not, Ben - we only know that in the accounts we have, they did not mention it. My presumption is that they first printed the sensational Hutchinson story, only to find out a short time later that he was wrong”

Why would they not mention it? You presumably acknowledge that on the morning of the 14th November, when the mainstream newspapers published “the sensational Hutchinson story” supplied to them by the Central News agency, they were all ostensibly advertising it as a truthful and accurate account? Good, I agree. Remember, these same newspapers were also familiar with Sarah Lewis’s story, having published it a day or two earlier, and if they did compare and contrast the two accounts, they would have registered that Hutchinson had to have been the man in her account. Unless one party was lying or mistaken, there was no other possibility. That being so, why would the press neglect to mention it? You’ve just argued that the investigative focus would have been on establishing wideawake’s identity, so why remain silent when faced with the solution? Quite simply, the press would have piped up had they noticed the connection, and yet we hear nothing, which tells us that they did not notice it.

Obviously, we can forget the idea that the police had tipped the press off prior to the release of Hutchinson’s account on 14th that the connection didn’t exist. That would only hold true if the account had already been dismissed as wrong or false or whatever, and yet we both agree that this was not the case at that stage.

“Sorry, but I am not very inclined to have a poster whose wiews I disbelieve tell me not to listen to a detective that was there at the time of the murders. It would be very illogical.”

So I guess it would be “very illogical” not to pay heed to the views of detectives “that were there at the time of the murders” who were unanimous in their verdict that Charles Cross was a truthful witness and not Jack the Ripper?

By the way, I said I was looking for evidence that the police were actively pursuing Astrakhan types according to official orders. I’ve never disputed the Echo article, and I’m quite sure that in the absence of any actual proof that Hutchinson lied, there may well have been some among the authorities who wondered if his “considerably discounted” tale might just have legs after all. I wonder who, though? Not Abberline, Anderson, Swanson or Macnaghten at any rate, or their later interviews and memoirs would make no sense at all.

“But the police reaction tells the whole story - a "much reduced importance" was attached to Hutchinsons story after they found out about the muddling of the days, which is exactly what should be expected.”

The “very reduced importance” was due to Hutchinson’s failure to come forward earlier and present himself at the inquest – reasons which are inextricably linked to doubts over his credibility. That is the reason provided for the “very reduced importance” alluded to, not “muddling of the days”.

“However, if the police had ever been convinced that Hutchinson was a liar/attentionseeker, they would NOT take any interest in a person they believed to be an invention. Subsequently, the Echo would NOT report about Astrakhan man being sought for on the 19:th.”

But the Echo didn’t “report about Astrakhan man being sought”, and nor have you provided any evidence that Hutchinson’s account was considered “important police work” as late as the 19th. They reported that some of the authorities still believed his account, evidently after the most senior police officials had rejected it, which is perfectly consistent with the account being dismissed on the opinion – just opinion, granted - that the described “suspect” was an invention.

“There is nothing at all saying that he would have felt compelled to go and stand outside Crossinghams for some reason.”

Don’t start all this again please, and certainly don’t tell me I have to “live with” your bizarrely rigid interpretation. There is “nothing at all saying he would have felt compelled” to remain on the northern pavement either, unless of course there was a big scary dragon on the other side that nobody told me about, and which he was avoiding. We’re talking about a man playing the 45-minute waiting game for whatever reason in an exposed location on a cold night – he’d walk about a bit, realistically speaking, pacing here and there. And no, not just on the “northern” side. It’s an amusing distinction to attempt to make in this case, anyway – north and south – considering that the street was separated by little more than a car’s length. Do you stow away your fishing tackle after a session in the southern end of your car, or your boot? Unless we’re talking about the buildings themselves, which weren’t mobile, north versus south is a bit of a silliness really. He stood outside the entrance to Miller’s Court, which is perfectly consistent with the location Lewis gave for her wideawake man, as accepted for decades and for good reason.

“If you think that there is no possible way he could have told Abberline that he stood on the northern side only, then you are fooling yourself. This is one example of details that may have revealed to Abberline that the loiterer and Hutchinson could never have been one and the same.”

“Could have”…

“May have”…

My auntie “may have” bollocks that she’s been concealing from me all these years - in which case, she’d be my uncle. Whooda thunk it?

“I second that very much - waiting for three quarters of an hour would not be good sense. He needed to get in there as quickly as he could, since hanging around could potentially have him spotted.”

A reality which held true for various other serial killers who “hung around” their crime scenes, often for extended time periods, prior to committing their crimes. Ted Bundy is one example, Dennis Rader was another, then there’s Robert Napper. Often the main purpose of their “hanging around” is to case the joint first; to conduct some surveillance and to determine the likelihood of intrusion from neighbours, family, partners etc.

“I for one have never understood how a man behaves to look as if he is "waiting for somebody to come out" ...”

I would be happy to demonstrate for you physically, Fisherman.

My quotes are confidential.

“That means that he had been in Kellys room with her for two and a quarter hours as Hutchinson took up his vigil. That sounds like a hefty amount of time if Blotchy was a punter.”

I agree, but then Kelly’s singing the moment she and Blotchy entered the room doesn’t sound like a punter situation either, which inevitably introduces the possibility that he wasn’t one.

“Anyway, the scenario begs another question: If Hutchinson stayed outside because Blotchy was with Kelly - how did he know this?”

By walking up to the room itself, reaching through the broken pain and pulling aside the pilot coat covering the window…as suggested by Garry Wroe, who goes on to argue – very compellingly in my opinion – that he only admitted to the newspapers that he approached Kelly’s room to cover himself in the event that someone spotted him entering the court sometime after 3.00.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben: Hi Fisherman,

Which of the two men were the police likely to be more interested in tracking down – a man standing on his own, or a man who caused two women panic by attempting to inveigle them into quiet back alley, and who may have been the same man talking to a woman just yards from the murder side and an hour before that murder was committed?

The lone man. On account on him being at the murder spot at the approximate time Kelly was killed. That should be pretty obvious.

No it couldn’t.

Because had the press spotted the potential connection, they would have reported on it...

It all went rather quick, Ben, and we don´t know the exact remove in time when the press did find out. And much as we wish the press would have done things we want them to, they don´t always accomodate to such wishes. The fate suffered by the Hutchinsons story illudes us to a very large degree, and if the press had been interested in telling it all at all times, then we would not be having this problem.

During the small hours of a miserable and cold night, engaging in precisely the same watching and waiting activity with a fixation on a particular doorway? Yes I am saying that, because that has never happened in all human history, Fisherman.

I´m sorry, but that´s just wrong. And the exactituyde you speak of is something that you perceive, nothing else. We don´t know to what degree Hutchinson and the loiterer behaved in "precisely the same watching and waiting". Hutchinson may well have told Abberline a number of things that did not correspond with Lewis´story - and that in it´s turn may have been the reason the story was awarded much less interest afterwards.

If they recognised it, they would have reported it.

See my previous answer. The press did not give us the key, no matter what it looked like.

Why would they not mention it? You presumably acknowledge that on the morning of the 14th November, when the mainstream newspapers published “the sensational Hutchinson story” supplied to them by the Central News agency, they were all ostensibly advertising it as a truthful and accurate account? Good, I agree. Remember, these same newspapers were also familiar with Sarah Lewis’s story, having published it a day or two earlier, and if they did compare and contrast the two accounts, they would have registered that Hutchinson had to have been the man in her account. Unless one party was lying or mistaken, there was no other possibility. That being so, why would the press neglect to mention it? You’ve just argued that the investigative focus would have been on establishing wideawake’s identity, so why remain silent when faced with the solution? Quite simply, the press would have piped up had they noticed the connection, and yet we hear nothing, which tells us that they did not notice it.

See my previous answer.

So I guess it would be “very illogical” not to pay heed to the views of detectives “that were there at the time of the murders” who were unanimous in their verdict that Charles Cross was a truthful witness and not Jack the Ripper?

They never said that Lechmere was not Jack the Ripper, Ben. If they had conducted an inquiry into the man, they could perhaps have reached that conclusion. But we will never know, since they did not.
There is an ongoing discussion about Long and whether he really knew where Eddowes´apron was at 2.20 or not. Many people allow themselves to rule Longs testimony out on account on his flawed record as a policeman. The trouble is that they look away from the case evidence.

When I choose Dew over you, it´s because his words do belong to the evidence.

When I say that Lechmere is a viable bid, it is because there is evidence that points in his direction.

If I was to choose your views over Dews, I would be doing it the opposite way: listening to a posters unsubstantiated personal take on things, and discarding the views of a policeman who was involved in the case.

By the way, I said I was looking for evidence that the police were actively pursuing Astrakhan types according to official orders. I’ve never disputed the Echo article...

Well, in it, the police say that they are following up on Hutchinsons lead. And that lead was an Astrakhan type.

The “very reduced importance” was due to Hutchinson’s failure to come forward earlier and present himself at the inquest – reasons which are inextricably linked to doubts over his credibility. That is the reason provided for the “very reduced importance” alluded to, not “muddling of the days”.

Se my MUCH previous answers.

But the Echo didn’t “report about Astrakhan man being sought”, and nor have you provided any evidence that Hutchinson’s account was considered “important police work” as late as the 19th. They reported that some of the authorities still believed his account...

If they believed his account, then they of course believed in Astrakhan man. It goes without saying.

Don’t start all this again please..

I don´t see why I would not raise this objection, since it is of the utmost importance.You don´t hear me saying "Don´t start saying that Hutchinson was dismissed on account on arriving too late to the cop shop, do you?

If your take on things is that it is outright silly that anybody waiting in a street for 45 minutes would do so on one side of that street only, all I can say is that you are wrong. Of course people will do so. It´s not as the other side of the street will be irresistible, is it?
I know I waited outside my son´s badminton hall for half an hour only a few weeks ago, and I stood by the door the whole time. I could have walked over to the bikeshed opposite the entrance, but I didn´t. And all the while I stood there, I never once felt a freak for staying put.

“Could have”…

“May have”…

My auntie “may have” bollocks that she’s been concealing from me all these years - in which case, she’d be my uncle. Whooda thunk it?

You are arguing that Hutchinson "could be" the killer, right?

Or are you outright saying that he was?

Surely you must realize that I cannot say that Hutchinson must have told Abberline about standing on one side only? I cannot know that for sure, but I can present it as one possible and viable reason for why the story was ultimately regarded less valuable.

A reality which held true for various other serial killers who “hung around” their crime scenes, often for extended time periods, prior to committing their crimes. Ted Bundy is one example, Dennis Rader was another, then there’s Robert Napper. Often the main purpose of their “hanging around” is to case the joint first; to conduct some surveillance and to determine the likelihood of intrusion from neighbours, family, partners etc.

But how would Hutchinson see or hear anything at all from his stance at Crossinghams, where you want to put him? How would he know that Kelly was with somebody, standing there?
Bundy paced along, looking for victims and trying his luck with numerous persons, Rader spied actively on his victims. None of them placed themselves a fair way away from the action, where they were kept away from any information they could have made use of. Stalkers are looking for that information - not for a spot from which they can overview a facade.

I would be happy to demonstrate for you physically, Fisherman.

I would probably be a lot less happy. If a man leans slightly forward and gazes into a passageway, how do we know that he has not spotted a rat in it? Why would we conclude that he is waiting for somebody to come out? I don´t see any demonstration changing that.

I agree, but then Kelly’s singing the moment she and Blotchy entered the room doesn’t sound like a punter situation either, which inevitably introduces the possibility that he wasn’t one.

A singing prostitute arm in arm with a man with a pail of beer, entering a room in the middle of the night - and that does not sound like a punter situation to you...?
This makes me even less confident that you could pull of that demonstration; we very obviously read different things into what people do.

By walking up to the room itself, reaching through the broken pain and pulling aside the pilot coat covering the window…as suggested by Garry Wroe, who goes on to argue – very compellingly in my opinion – that he only admitted to the newspapers that he approached Kelly’s room to cover himself in the event that someone spotted him entering the court sometime after 3.00.

So, Ben - when he arrived at 2.00, why did he not go directly into the court? How did he AT THAT STAGE know that she was not alone?
Perhaps he first went to her room and pulled the pilot coat to the side, thinking:
-Bugger; I´ll have to wait.
Then he took up his vigil outside Crossinghams (but told Abberline that he stood on the other side; presumably he wished not to place himself too close to the fire). And there he waited for the longest.
Then, at 2.30, Lewis comes walking down the street, and turns into the court. And here Hutchinson has the perfect opportunity to prove to Abberline that he was in place outside the court at this stage. But no, when asked about if there were any persons around that night - and that question was put to him to try and establish what corroborative factors there were - he leaves Lewis out, and mentions only a few other people.
Anyway, he now waits outside the court for another half hour, and then he takes another peak behind the pilot coat. And this carries on until the guest in Kellys room leaves, whereupon a cold and tired Hutchinson finally can take on the guise of the Ripper and go to work.

Does this work? Not for me.
I am not excluding it, I am merely saying that it is not my cup of tea.

The best,
Fisherman

[Scott Nelson]

Just like old times again. Yawn.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

You’ve well and truly set up camp in Hutchville these days, haven’t you?

Eh? I haven't been near this Godforsaken place in nearly a month! Get over yourself.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Are we assuming, for the sake of argument, that Hutchinson approached the police with knowledge of the case from the inquest?

If he is lying then wouldn't it have made more sense to say he met Kelly on the street about 11:30 pm rather than 2:00 am?

He would say he saw Kelly who was tipsy, and she was accompanied by a shabby little man, and he watched them both go up the court together.

This at least would be confirmed by Cox who saw Kelly & Blotchy come up the court together at 11:45.

If Hutchinson was lying altogether then picking a time consistent with Cox's story makes more sense than the Lewis story.

no, because he was not lying altogether. he was there per lewis at 2:15 so he has to revolve his aman story around that time.

[caz]

Then, at 2.30, Lewis comes walking down the street, and turns into the court. And here Hutchinson has the perfect opportunity to prove to Abberline that he was in place outside the court at this stage. But no, when asked about if there were any persons around that night - and that question was put to him to try and establish what corroborative factors there were - he leaves Lewis out, and mentions only a few other people.

Hi Fishy,

Yes, this is the bit that jars with me too. The usual argument for Hutch crossing his fingers and hoping the connection would not be made between his account and Sarah Lewis's always sounds so contrived and convenient, and doesn't even make much sense. Lewis claims the man was watching the court as if waiting for someone to come out. Hutch hears about this and comes forward immediately after the inquest to claim he was watching the court at the right time, waiting in vain for 45 minutes for Astrakhan Man to come out. But he doesn't mention seeing Lewis, oh dear me no, for fear that it will give away his only reason for coming forward. That's what we are asked to believe.

Now how in hell was he hoping or expecting such a starkly drawn similarity between his story and Lewis's to escape everyone, when that very similarity is meant to have propelled him forward to explain himself? And if he was really loitering there and felt this sudden and belated urge to admit it, while offering a supposedly innocent explanation, would he not have been infinitely better off mentioning this woman when asked who else was around, to help establish his own truthfulness as a naturally reluctant but ultimately co-operative witness? Nobody would feel all that comfortable rushing to the cops at the first opportunity to put themselves so close to the scene of a prostitute murder, and for fairly obvious reasons. Blotchy never did offer an explanation, and understandably so, but he could have been just another entirely innocent friend, invited guest or punter, who happened to engage with a victim in the minutes or hours before she was found murdered. He could have been in far hotter water than Hutch if the police had tracked him down and hauled him in for questioning, but sensibly he steered well clear.

I wouldn't rule out Hutch not knowing a blessed thing about Lewis's sighting when he came forward, with the result that Abberline alone made the connection mentally and believed Hutch was being honest about his presence there. Alternatively, Abberline may well have asked Hutch directly if he might have seen Lewis during his lengthy vigil, and again the answer - either way - could have struck him as truthful and to the best of Hutch's knowledge.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Hi Fishy,

Yes, this is the bit that jars with me too. The usual argument for Hutch crossing his fingers and hoping the connection would not be made between his account and Sarah Lewis's always sounds so contrived and convenient, and doesn't even make much sense. Lewis claims the man was watching the court as if waiting for someone to come out. Hutch hears about this and comes forward immediately after the inquest to claim he was watching the court at the right time, waiting in vain for 45 minutes for Astrakhan Man to come out. But he doesn't mention seeing Lewis, oh dear me no, for fear that it will give away his only reason for coming forward. That's what we are asked to believe.

Now how in hell was he hoping or expecting such a starkly drawn similarity between his story and Lewis's to escape everyone, when that very similarity is meant to have propelled him forward to explain himself? And if he was really loitering there and felt this sudden and belated urge to admit it, while offering a supposedly innocent explanation, would he not have been infinitely better off mentioning this woman when asked who else was around, to help establish his own truthfulness as a naturally reluctant but ultimately co-operative witness? Nobody would feel all that comfortable rushing to the cops at the first opportunity to put themselves so close to the scene of a prostitute murder, and for fairly obvious reasons. Blotchy never did offer an explanation, and understandably so, but he could have been just another entirely innocent friend, invited guest or punter, who happened to engage with a victim in the minutes or hours before she was found murdered. He could have been in far hotter water than Hutch if the police had tracked him down and hauled him in for questioning, but sensibly he steered well clear.

I wouldn't rule out Hutch not knowing a blessed thing about Lewis's sighting when he came forward, with the result that Abberline alone made the connection mentally and believed Hutch was being honest about his presence there. Alternatively, Abberline may well have asked Hutch directly if he might have seen Lewis during his lengthy vigil, and again the answer - either way - could have struck him as truthful and to the best of Hutch's knowledge.

Love,

Caz
X

maybe he forgot about her. he was out and about for a while and surely we cant expect someone under those circumstances to remember everyone they saw-especially 3 days later.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Fishy,

Yes, this is the bit that jars with me too. The usual argument for Hutch crossing his fingers and hoping the connection would not be made between his account and Sarah Lewis's always sounds so contrived and convenient, and doesn't even make much sense. Lewis claims the man was watching the court as if waiting for someone to come out. Hutch hears about this and comes forward immediately after the inquest to claim he was watching the court at the right time, waiting in vain for 45 minutes for Astrakhan Man to come out. But he doesn't mention seeing Lewis, oh dear me no, for fear that it will give away his only reason for coming forward. That's what we are asked to believe.

Now how in hell was he hoping or expecting such a starkly drawn similarity between his story and Lewis's to escape everyone, when that very similarity is meant to have propelled him forward to explain himself? And if he was really loitering there and felt this sudden and belated urge to admit it, while offering a supposedly innocent explanation, would he not have been infinitely better off mentioning this woman when asked who else was around, to help establish his own truthfulness as a naturally reluctant but ultimately co-operative witness? Nobody would feel all that comfortable rushing to the cops at the first opportunity to put themselves so close to the scene of a prostitute murder, and for fairly obvious reasons. Blotchy never did offer an explanation, and understandably so, but he could have been just another entirely innocent friend, invited guest or punter, who happened to engage with a victim in the minutes or hours before she was found murdered. He could have been in far hotter water than Hutch if the police had tracked him down and hauled him in for questioning, but sensibly he steered well clear.

I wouldn't rule out Hutch not knowing a blessed thing about Lewis's sighting when he came forward, with the result that Abberline alone made the connection mentally and believed Hutch was being honest about his presence there. Alternatively, Abberline may well have asked Hutch directly if he might have seen Lewis during his lengthy vigil, and again the answer - either way - could have struck him as truthful and to the best of Hutch's knowledge.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz and Fish
you make good and valid points about hutch not mentioning lewis-he places himself there anyway so why not mention her to make it more believable and be corroborated. I see your point.

On the other hand he may have thought that mentioning lewis would tip his hand to the police on WHY he came forward. and the police might find it suspicious if they thought he came forward because he had been spotted, rather out of the goodness of his own heart.

or perhaps, as in my previous post, he forgot about her.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“On account on him being at the murder spot at the approximate time Kelly was killed. That should be pretty obvious.”

Oh, I see. So the front of Crossingham’s Lodging House suddenly qualifies as the “murder spot”, despite being situated all the way over on the “southern” side of Dorset Street, where loiterers for Miller’s Court apparently dared not venture? Interesting. I’ll come back to this observation later on in this post.

“It all went rather quick, Ben, and we don´t know the exact remove in time when the press did find out.”

Indeed, it did all go “rather quick”, but we’re still talking about a great many representatives of a great many newspapers being aware of both the Hutchinson and Lewis accounts, and all labouring under the impression that both witnesses recounted their experiences truthfully and accurately, for the best part of two days at least. If they were ever to spot the Lewis-Hutchinson connection, it would have happened within that time frame, and yet we hear nothing. And that silence on the subject only makes sense if nobody noticed the connection, since it would be hopelessly ridiculous to argue that the connection was noticed and inexplicably not commented on (by journalists who couldn’t give two hoots about taking the credit for that “eureka” moment, and advancing their careers?).

“We don´t know to what degree Hutchinson and the loiterer behaved in "precisely the same watching and waiting". Hutchinson may well have told Abberline a number of things that did not correspond with Lewis´story - and that in it´s turn may have been the reason the story was awarded much less interest afterwards.”

We go with the evidence, is what we do. We don’t conjure up far-fetched and improbable “may haves” in an effort to sever what is obviously a strong evidential link. Even if you want to argue that Lewis was mistaken in her impression that her loitering man appeared to be watching and waiting for someone to emerge from the Miller’s Court entrance, you’d still be confronted with the fact that this supposedly mistaken impression coincided precisely with what a real person claimed to be doing in reality at that location and at that time. Like it or not, you cannot escape arguing in favour of an enormous and unusual “coincidence” if you’re determined for wideawake man not to be Hutchinson. For those of us who accept that they were probably one and the same, there is no such problem and certainly no epic “coincidence”, but rather a logical acceptance that the two transparently similar descriptions applied to one person.

No wonder it has become the mainstream and popularly accepted explanation.

“They never said that Lechmere was not Jack the Ripper, Ben.”

They never said they thought he was either. Their “verdict” was that he was an innocent and truthful witness. You can argue that they never investigated him as a suspect, but then I would simply argue (as I’ve argued very successfully long before you ever fingered Cross) that they never suspected Hutchinson either. Some have argued that the police suspected Robert Paul, and if you want to argue the same, that’s fine, but then out of the window goes any possibility that the thought did not occur to police to investigate the other carman.

“When I choose Dew over you, it´s because his words do belong to the evidence.”

But...but...you said he was “a bit of a freshman” who “got lots of things terribly wrong” in his 1938 book, which was “riddled with mistakes”, according to you. I listened to you when you said these things, Fisherman, just as I listened when you argued (at great length, for many years, and with your usual excitable passion) than Stride wasn’t a true ripper victim. So what changed, and why?

“When I say that Lechmere is a viable bid, it is because there is evidence that points in his direction.”

No, it is because you THINK there is evidence that points in his direction. Trouble is, very few people think the same.

“If your take on things is that it is outright silly that anybody waiting in a street for 45 minutes would do so on one side of that street only, all I can say is that you are wrong.”

But where’s the evidence that Hutchinson committed himself in his account to any particular side of the street? He said he went “to the court”, which, accepting he did not mean actually inside the court, could apply to anywhere on Dorset Street that was situated in front of the Court. That’s a tiny area of a few square feet. Remember that you yourself have just described the area in front of Crossinghams as “the murder spot”, despite the actual spot being – what – an admittedly negligible 25 feet away? You can’t claim that the “southern” Dorset Street pavement overlooking the court qualifies as the “murder spot” but doesn’t qualify as “to the court”. That makes no sense. If I’m standing at the corner of Trafalgar Square I’ve still been “to” Nelson’s Column.

“But how would Hutchinson see or hear anything at all from his stance at Crossinghams, where you want to put him? How would he know that Kelly was with somebody, standing there?”

By entering the court first, registering that Kelly was asleep with a man beside her, and waiting for him to leave from a vantage point.

“Bundy paced along, looking for victims and trying his luck with numerous persons, Rader spied actively on his victims. None of them placed themselves a fair way away from the action, where they were kept away from any information they could have made use of."

Not true.

When it came to Bundy’s final murders in Tallahassee, he had targeted a particular location, and had installed himself at a discreet vantage point prior to breaking in – no chatting or “trying his luck” this time. Same with Rader, who also selected an equally suitable spying spot from which to monitor his intended victims – the Oteros. Same with Robert Napper when he targeted Samantha Bissett, having previously attacked random victims opportunistically (like Bundy). The purpose behind this strategy is to monitor the comings and goings of neighbours, partners and family members in order to gauge the best time to strike. The locations were also sufficiently distanced from the crime scenes to as not to attract attention, or render obvious the fact that he was interested in the targeted individual.

“If a man leans slightly forward and gazes into a passageway, how do we know that he has not spotted a rat in it?”

Because his body language would tell us so. I can throw in the “man sees rat” demonstration too, for no extra charge. It involves a lot more neck and shoulder movement as the subject peers downwards. The problem, of course, is explaining why a two-a-penny urban rat would detain a man at 2:30 at night in the cold November rain. I do love the way a rat is now required to scurry onto the scene in order for wideawake man not to be Hutchinson!

“A singing prostitute arm in arm with a man with a pail of beer, entering a room in the middle of the night - and that does not sound like a punter situation to you...?”

No.

Not even slightly.

Not when the typical East End prostitute transaction involved two shunts and a grunt, and with some loose change being tossed onto the cobbles after the deed. This happened several times during an average night as the women sought to get through as many clients as they could as quickly as possible. Hour-long boozy serenades didn’t generally come into it. This was Mary Kelly; alcoholic destitute prostitute, not Nicole Kidman’s character from the Moulin Rouge belting out “Come whaaat mayyy! Aaaah will love you..until MY dyyyy-iii-yyy-ii-iiing daaaaaaay!”

“So, Ben - when he arrived at 2.00, why did he not go directly into the court? How did he AT THAT STAGE know that she was not alone?
Perhaps he first went to her room and pulled the pilot coat to the side, thinking:
-Bugger; I´ll have to wait.
Then he took up his vigil outside Crossinghams (but told Abberline that he stood on the other side; presumably he wished not to place himself too close to the fire).”

Yes, that is a strong possibility, originally suggested by Garry, although as we’ve established, Hutchinson never claimed to have stood on any particular “side” of the street.

“Then, at 2.30, Lewis comes walking down the street, and turns into the court. And here Hutchinson has the perfect opportunity to prove to Abberline that he was in place outside the court at this stage. But no, when asked about if there were any persons around that night - and that question was put to him to try and establish what corroborative factors there were - he leaves Lewis out, and mentions only a few other people.”

Where have I ever suggested that he wanted to “prove” to Abberline that “he was in place outside the court at this stage”? If Hutchinson (as ripper, for the sake of argument) had his way, he’d have wanted the police to believe he was a million miles from the court at that stage. But he also wanted to avoid being identified as Lewis’ loiterer and dragged in as a suspect, so I suggest he pre-empted that outcome by coming forward with a witness account that “innocently” explained his loitering presence there BEFORE and IF he was ever identified as Lewis’ man. That does not mean he had any incentive to force the connection, which he would have done had he mentioned Lewis.

Abby’s suggestion is the best one – Hutchinson deliberately omitted any reference to Lewis in order to avoid making it appear absurdly obvious that it was Lewis’ evidence that forced his hand into coming forward.

“whereupon a cold and tired Hutchinson finally can take on the guise of the Ripper and go to work.”

As opposed to what? The not-remotely-tired, warm and cosy actual ripper, who we know operated in the small hours of the night, in cold weather, after presumably spending considerable time on those streets in search of a suitable unsuspecting victim? Really..?

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

“The usual argument for Hutch crossing his fingers and hoping the connection would not be made between his account and Sarah Lewis's always sounds so contrived and convenient, and doesn't even make much sense.”

So “contrived and convenient” that it has occurred - as we’ve just discovered – to level-headed posters such as Abby who aren’t hardened Hutchinsononians or even suspectologists. Interesting, that. Please read my response to Fisherman. It is perfectly feasible that Hutchinson, being mindful of the fact that Lewis’ evidence of the loitering wideawake man was what spooked him and forced him out of the woodwork, wished to conceal this reality from the police, hence his non-mention of Lewis in his account. What were the consequences of his account being doubted in the event that it was noticed that he ought to have seen Lewis had he stood where he claimed? That’s right – he would have been suspected of not being there when he claimed; that he lied about even being there, and was just another false lead.

Precisely what did happen to Hutchinson in reality, in other words.

So much for the suggestion that Hutchinson’s non-mention of Lewis was a poor move if he was the killer.

Think about it – if he was the killer, he got away with his diversionary tactics when he was discarded, erroneously, as a publicity-seeker who wasn’t even there. That would scarcely have been possible had he mentioned Lewis, as it would have forced the Hutchinson-wideawake connection, obliterated any consideration that he lied about the whole thing (the fame-seeker escape route), and made either a star witness or potential serial killer out of him. There was only danger for Hutchinson if he was believed to have (a) lied, and (b) been at the crime scene as Lewis’ man. His non-mention of Lewis ensured that (b) never happened, even if (a) apparently did.

“He (Blotchy) could have been in far hotter water than Hutch if the police had tracked him down and hauled him in for questioning, but sensibly he steered well clear.”

Not if he wasn’t the killer, had an alibi for the likely time of the murder, knew he could demonstrate his innocence for previous crimes, and knew he had little to fear from earlier witnesses.

“I wouldn't rule out Hutch not knowing a blessed thing about Lewis's sighting when he came forward”

Only if you want to cry “coincidence” that he only came forward as soon as it became public knowledge that Lewis had seen someone “watching and waiting for someone” to emerge from Miller’s Court at 2:30am on the murder night – consistent with Hutchinson’s self-confessed location and activity at that time.

“I haven't been near this Godforsaken place in nearly a month! Get over yourself.”

Only because I haven’t had the chance to post in that time, but I’m back now, so it’s Hutch time for you!

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

I´m sorry, Ben, but I am not wasting any more time on the discussion. You add nothing new, opting instead to cling to your old misconceptions. I have pointed it out, but change it I cannot.
It´s discussion over for this time.

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Hi Caz,



So “contrived and convenient” that it has occurred - as we’ve just discovered – to level-headed posters such as Abby who aren’t hardened Hutchinsononians or even suspectologists. Interesting, that. Please read my response to Fisherman. It is perfectly feasible that Hutchinson, being mindful of the fact that Lewis’ evidence of the loitering wideawake man was what spooked him and forced him out of the woodwork, wished to conceal this reality from the police, hence his non-mention of Lewis in his account. What were the consequences of his account being doubted in the event that it was noticed that he ought to have seen Lewis had he stood where he claimed? That’s right – he would have been suspected of not being there when he claimed; that he lied about even being there, and was just another false lead.

Precisely what did happen to Hutchinson in reality, in other words.

So much for the suggestion that Hutchinson’s non-mention of Lewis was a poor move if he was the killer.

Think about it – if he was the killer, he got away with his diversionary tactics when he was discarded, erroneously, as a publicity-seeker who wasn’t even there. That would scarcely have been possible had he mentioned Lewis, as it would have forced the Hutchinson-wideawake connection, obliterated any consideration that he lied about the whole thing (the fame-seeker escape route), and made either a star witness or potential serial killer out of him. There was only danger for Hutchinson if he was believed to have (a) lied, and (b) been at the crime scene as Lewis’ man. His non-mention of Lewis ensured that (b) never happened, even if (a) apparently did.



Not if he wasn’t the killer, had an alibi for the likely time of the murder, knew he could demonstrate his innocence for previous crimes, and knew he had little to fear from earlier witnesses.



Only if you want to cry “coincidence” that he only came forward as soon as it became public knowledge that Lewis had seen someone “watching and waiting for someone” to emerge from Miller’s Court at 2:30am on the murder night – consistent with Hutchinson’s self-confessed location and activity at that time.



Only because I haven’t had the chance to post in that time, but I’m back now, so it’s Hutch time for you!

Regards,
Ben

All this conjecture would require Lewis to have known Hutchinson and Hutchinson to have known Lewis and Hutchinson to have thought that Lewis recognized him in Wideawake Man.

I think there's a good chance that Wideawake and Hutchinson were the same man. But there's no evidence to suggest that Lewis knew who Wideawake was. She didn't even offer any conjecture, so the idea of Hutch trying to nip a problem in the bud doesn't really register as more than conjecture, and even if that were true, it would be just as likely that Hutch went to the police just because he thought he had been seen, and not because he was guilty of anything. This argument for Hutch as killer requires a lot of 'ifs' making it really unpalatable still.

Cheers,

Mike