The Red Handkerchief...

[Ben]

Hi Abby,

I agree with much of what you say, although I would argue that Hutchinson's act of coming forward is unquestionably a "positive" in favour of candidacy, whether he was the actual assailant or not. In the minds of the criminologically clued-up (which, unfortunately, is a description that doesn't apply to my most vocal detractors), a person who lies about his reasons for loitering outside a crime scene is a good suspect for that crime, and certainly no less so because his communication with the police was voluntarily offered. Quite the reverse, considering what we know of other killers-cum-witnesses who have injected themselves into their investigations. I don't think it likely at all that he was in pursuit of Kelly's companionship, for the simple reason that if the truth behind his appearance opposite Miller's Court was so innocent (and did not, as you sensibly suggest, involve an Astrakhan man), there was nothing preventing him from admitting as much to the police.

Hi Harry,

What Ben has shown is that HUtchinson stands as a good suspect,because there is good grounds for believing he lied,among other things,and he can be placed,on his own admission,at the scene of the Kelly murder,the night she died.What more needs to be known,to raise suspicion.

I appreciate you saying so, and indeed, this is really all I'm getting at. Very little is known about the vast majority of "suspects" touted as such, and yet what little we know about Hutchinson is more than sufficient to "raise suspicion". I also agree 100% with your observation regarding serial killers supposedly "fleeing" when the going gets tough. You rightly highlight the fact that it rarely happens that way in reality, and yet for some reason, this hasn't stopped a few "ripperologists" (as distinct from true crime researchers) insisting that Hutchinson would have fled London had he been guilty, as opposed to staying put and derailing the investigation from under the noses of law enforcement.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

You've just admitted that you react to what annoys you, and that you force the repetition because you are annoyed.

I never said I "react" out of annoyance.

Historical debate can get heated, and irritation can be an unfortunate by-product of that. All I'm saying is that the discussions in question wouldn't get quite so "heated" if the more reasonable proposals weren't dismissed out of hand by those more interested in getting the upper-hand in personality clashes than actually learning anything.

[Ben]

Hi Roy,

I appreciate you providing that map, as I've never really considered the distances involved until now.

As Harry observes, if Hutchinson was an honest witness, we might assume he would have approached the police well in advance of the inquest, and received his summons in common with all the other witnesses. The "coincidence" - as expounded above - between Lewis and Hutchinson is sufficient for us to determine that the latter must have been aware of the inquest details somehow, even if it meant a personal visit to Shoreditch. He was unlikely, in my opinion, to have been oblivious to news of the upcoming inquest at Shoreditch Town Hall, especially when we consider that several news stories advertising this fact were freely available for Hutchinson's perusal in the Victoria Home common room.

All the best,
Ben

[Scott Nelson]

What if the Victoria Home "common room" didn't have free newspapers?

[Wickerman]

Hi Roy
that may be the case. but then why wait so long to go to the police?
In one of hutchs statements he said he thought the man lived in the area and that he had seen him again, that he spoke to a PC in the street about it, and that a friend at the lodging house gave him advice he should go to the police.

But Abby, you must have read that even today reluctant witnesses are not uncommon? We shouldn't assume every witness was 'chomping at the bit' to get into the police station to tell their story.

Does not really sound as if hutch was clueless as to what happened until the last second he went to the station does it?

Hutchinson most likely did know that Mary had been murdered by Sunday morning, but the press reported her supposedly alive as late as 9:00 am, so how important would his 2:00 am sighting be?

[Abby Normal]

I Beleive Barnets brother and also Fleming were staying at the time at the Victoria. I imagine the news of Mary's murder went around the Victoria home rather soon.

[Abby Normal]

But Abby, you must have read that even today reluctant witnesses are not uncommon? We shouldn't assume every witness was 'chomping at the bit' to get into the police station to tell their story.



Hutchinson most likely did know that Mary had been murdered by Sunday morning, but the press reported her supposedly alive as late as 9:00 am, so how important would his 2:00 am sighting be?

Hi wick
But hutch sure did not act like a reluctant witness once he came forward did he? Going to the press, walking around with the police, making statements that he thought the man lived in the are, could id him again and that he thought he saw him again.
I get the feeling he was chomping at the bit for that inquest to be over.

And yes his 2:00 sighting would still be important no doubt about it.

[Wickerman]

Hi wick
But hutch sure did not act like a reluctant witness once he came forward did he?

Hutchinson's reluctance can be readily seen in his own words, that it was a fellow lodger who advised him to go to the police. The inference from that is that he had no intention of going himself - he had to be talked into it, possibly due to him not seeing it as important.

Going to the press,...

He didn't go, they came to him, at the Victoria Home.
So Hutchinson was not chasing publicity.

...walking around with the police,

Because he was requested to do so?

...making statements that he thought the man lived in the are, could id him again and that he thought he saw him again.

Not sure why you think that is suspicious, if he genuinely recognised the guy then what else could he say?

I get the feeling he was chomping at the bit for that inquest to be over.

We don't even know if HE knew there was an inquest that day.

And yes his 2:00 sighting would still be important no doubt about it.

Ok, lets just rationalize this.
Nichols was murdered about 3:30 am, so what was she doing at 8:30 pm the night before, and why is it important to her murder?

Chapman was murdered about 5:30 am, so what was she doing at 10:30 pm, the night before, and why is it important to her murder?

Hutchinson's sighting is as important as that, in his mind.
A lot can happen in seven hours..

[harry]

Maybe he was reluctant to come forward if he was the killer,but the realisation that he could be linked to Kelly,he says there had been an eighteen month acquaintance,created a bit of a problem.The longer the delay,the more suspicious the delay would appear,and the less likely his story believed.That acquaintance,and the money he says he gave Kelly,might have been something not easily missed by police investigations.

[GUT]

G'day Jon

Hutchinson's reluctance can be readily seen in his own words, that it was a fellow lodger who advised him to go to the police. The inference from that is that he had no intention of going himself - he had to be talked into it, possibly due to him not seeing it as important.

But you can be advised, or encouraged, to do something that you are already planning to do.

Also is it possible that it was through the "fellow lodger" that he heard of MJK's murder?

[Wickerman]

But if he was the killer, why come forward at all?

A woman like Kelly would have known plenty of men. The fact he claimed to have known her for the past three years does not make him any more suspicious in the eyes of the police.

[GUT]

G'day Jon

But if he was the killer, why come forward at all?

Good question.

The suggestion has been made before that t was because he had been seen, standing outside Crossingham's.

But that doesn't add up to me.

[Wickerman]

Good question.

The suggestion has been made before that t was because he had been seen, standing outside Crossingham's.

But that doesn't add up to me.

No-one knew who it was standing outside Crossinghams, just a dark silhouette in a wideawake hat.
If this 'loiterer' was so concerned about being recognised he wouldn't have walked up the court, past McCarthy's shop which was still open, to stand outside Kelly's room.

[GUT]

G'day Jon

That's my point, if no one knew who it was, how did that encourage Hutch to come forward.

I more lean towards him not having heard about it for a few days.

[Wickerman]

That's my point, if no one knew who it was, how did that encourage Hutch to come forward.

I more lean towards him not having heard about it for a few days.

When you say "heard about it", do you mean Kelly's murder or, the loiterer seen outside Crossinghams?