Hutch and the Hairdresser

[Rubyretro]

[

QUOTE=Lechmere;182247]Miss Rubyretro – it is painful for me to remind you, but Hutchinson personally disposed of your proposed alibi (the original ‘alibi disposal’?) by admitting from the outset that he was too late to gain entry.

Lechmere -
As I said to Ben, if Hutchinson only came forward after 'panicking a bit' (I believe that is a quotation from a police officer talking about why Restivo
involved himself in his own case), due to being seen by Mrs Lewis, then he was obliged to improvise an explanation of why he was out on the street.
If he had been a very cold blooded killer who planned in advance (and I don't think that he would have waited so long in Dorset Street on the mere offchance that Mary would have forgotten to lock her door -he knew that he had the means to enter the room), then if he was like Restivo he would have covered his back by preparing an alibi in advance.
He would have had to have thought of an alibi for the early hours of the morning, and something a bit more 'official' and less suspicious than 'walking about all night' or bribing someone else to lie about him (which would have involved someone else and might have alerted their suspicions after the murder).
Restivo chose the presence register at NACRE, where he would normally be found at his computer course - a (putative) presence register at the Victoria Home would have done Hutchinson very well.
Hutchinson obviously didn't plan on being seen or getting caught, so I'm thinking of an alibi where, if the Police investigated the lodging house and it's inmates, and looked at a register for the night in question to see who was
present or absent that night, his name would appear. I'm not thinking that he planned for the fact that he was personally going to be investigated.
If Hutchinson was planning to murder Kelly, though, he was never intending
to really sleep at the Victoria Home.
It has never held water that the witness, Hutchinson would have walked back from Romford and not have left enough time to arrive at the Home.
Why didn't he stay the night in Romford ? or if he was forced to sleep out, spend the night on the road, which would have broken up the walk ? I don't think that he ever intended to sleep at the Home.

[QUOTE]If Hutchinson did intend to get a mate to take his bed he would have run the risk of this mate grassing him up,

should he come under suspicion

.
This is exactly my point. Had Mrs Lewis pointed the finger at Hutchinson and he had denied being in Dorset Street, he would have been investigated as a 'suspect'. He couldn't have claimed to have been in the Victoria Home, because his mates could have grassed him up. Having been demonstrated that he concocted a false alibi, would be a further indication of guilt.

After all the only purpose of acquiring an alibi of this sort would be in the event of his coming under suspicion

.
No -it would be to prevent himself ever coming under suspicion in the first place, if his lodging house and all it's usual lodgers were looked at to see if there were any notable absences for the time of the murder.

Any plan where you share the details runs the risk of being compromised.
And no one likes to be compromised

.
I totally agree. However, Hutchinson's mates would have thought that he had found a job in Romford, had he not come forward -nothing sinister about that. When he did come forward, it was to admit entirely that he was in Dorset Street at the time of the murder. That would hardly makes his mates think that he was a secret murderer who had planned a false alibi.

But you yourself, Lechmere, have always insisted that Hutchinson would have been 'checked out', and the Victoria Home would have been a good starting place.

So what if he was discretely checked out -as a witness, not a suspect -(so we're not talking about tracing men who were in the next beds) and a glance at your register showed that Hutchinson was listed as present at the time of the murder. Hutchinson never claimed to have slept at the Home -so he could hardly have been suspected of using a false alibi.
It would maybe just lead to Hutch being 'dropped' as a witness, and some speculation as to whether he hadn't just got his days mixed up ?

[Lechmere]

Miss Rubyretro – it is painful for me to remind you, but Hutchinson personally disposed of your proposed alibi (the original ‘alibi disposal’?) by admitting from the outset that he was too late to gain entry.
Note - he didn’t say he couldn’t gain access because he had no money, which leads me to suppose he had a pre-paid weekly ticket, but didn’t have the late night pass which (as is clear from the texts we have at hand) is a totally separate item. The tickets were only issued internally each night. The only establishment I am aware of that didn’t allow late entrants was the Victoria Home.
If Hutchinson did intend to get a mate to take his bed he would have run the risk of this mate grassing him up, should he come under suspicion. After all the only purpose of acquiring an alibi of this sort would be in the event of his coming under suspicion.
Any plan where you share the details runs the risk of being compromised.
And no one likes to be compromised.
Or do they?

[FrankO]

One thing that Restivo has more in common with JTR than Napper is that the former two weren't rapists although their murders were sexually motivated.

Hi Lesley,

Why I brought in Napper, is because he did plan his most gruesome, indoors murder as well, whilst we don't know if the Ripper planned to any great extent. Certainly in his outdoors murders he doesn't seem to have planned much.

Both Restivo and JTR were into collecting trophies (Restivo hair, and JTR organs), but Napper wasn't as far as I know.

Neither was Napper into mutilation.

Where did you get that idea? Samantha Bisset was mutilated in Ripper fashion. She died as a result of a number of stabs, 4 of which to the heart. This had taken place at the door. Her killer then moved her to the living room, where he mutilated her. Her complete trunk had been cut open and her rib cage pulled back so that her organs were exposed. She was found lying on her back in front of the gas-heater with a large pillow under her hips, her legs open. Her arms were beside her head and she was wearing a bloody gown with 3 cuts at the right shoulder, stockings and a bra. Her trunk and face were covered by the gown and all sorts of linen from the kitchen. Napper had taken a piece of abdominal wall with him.

All the best,
Frank

[Rubyretro]

I'm writing this especially for Lechmere..

Well, I was musing over the 'false alibi' question all day, and just wondering what sort of false alibi Hutchinson (if he were the killer) could possibly concoct that would fit my hypothosis. It seemed impossible to speculate on
someone that I know so little about, to deal with a time in the morning coinciding with Kelly's death when there would be few opportunities for an alibi, and the gaps in my knowledge about what would be possible to lie about convincingly in the Whitechapel of the time..

Since this thread is about Restivo, lets go back and see what he chose for a false alibi :

Restivo was regularly attending a computer course; for which he was paid for by the State, and in order for him to be paid he had to figure as 'present' on the register on the day in question. Students were supposed to arrive at 9am, but they knew that even if they arrived an hour or so late, then they
would still be marked as 'present' on the register, and still be paid.

So to convince the Police of his alibi (and it worked at first), Restivo banked on having his name on an 'official' register, marked 'present,' for the time of the murder.
(It took a great deal of Police forensic work to prove that Restivo wasn't infact present for the short time it took to kill Heather Barnett).

So, let's go back to 1888 and Hutchinson, if he was JTR, and if he wanted to fabricate a false alibi. Hutch was also someone who was regularly in a place (the Victoria Home) at an hour that Kelly's murder occurred

He was also someone who regularly figured in an 'official' register, if I go totally with what you say :
How would the deputies know whether someone who presented themselves had pre-paid for a weekly ticket? 'In Whitechapel' tells us:
‘Here also (unlike ordinary lodging-houses) registers are kept. Every man’s name and occupation is entered in the books, and these records against the names are filled up and made brief histories’.

I would suggest that it isn’t appropriate to extrapolate from rules that applied to other lodging houses and assume they would also have applied of the Victoria Home – particularly as we have several contemporary articles to refer to specifically relating to the Victoria Home.
The ‘Daily Telegraph’ article referred to the Victoria Home as:
‘the only one of its sort in London’.

Infact, Lechmere, you have now convinced me that the Victoria Home would have been the lodging house which best suited a Restivo 'type' killer (and Hutchinson, if they were similar) -it was the only type of lodging house that would give him a serious alibi, if his name was marked 'present'.

How many men slept in the Victoria Home ? Something like 300 ? more ?

How many people worked on the door, writing in your register ?

I'll guess, one person, most of the time -but maybe not 365 days of the year.
They maybe had a day off sometimes -for the Lord Mayor's Show for example. Would a person working only occasionally be able to know personally each person with a ticket individually ? I think not.

We can pretty much take for granted that money was hard to come by, and
a free bed was a gift horse that another casual labourer wouldn't look in the mouth..

So, let's imagine that Hutch suggested to a 'friend' that he had a right to a free night at the Victoria Home, and sadly he would be in Romford and unable to take up the offer, but that it was a terrible shame to waste the bed ?
All the friend had to do was present himself as George Hutchinson, and be thus marked in the register.

There would be people sleeping in ajacent beds -but they might have known this '?' person, or have occasionally proposed the same thing to their mates
for innocent reasons, or just not have cared.

If the Police had just 'checked' a person that they considered innocent -they might have got a good report and a name in a register.

Had Mrs Lewis accused Hutch -and he had not come forward- they might have discovered that the Hutch on the register wasn't the man who had slept in the bed on the night of Kelly's murder.

ps : Hutch said that he went to the Home in the morning -but he may only have sat in the kitchen, until 'his friend' left early (4am ?) for work.


I think that you may be on to something, Lechmere..

[Rubyretro]

Even though there are obvious JtR elements involved, what Restivo did is more reminiscent to me of the crimes committed by Robert Clive Napper. He was a serial rapist

One thing that Restivo has more in common with JTR than Napper is that
the former two weren't rapists although their murders were sexually motivated.

Both Restivo and JTR were into collecting trophies (Restivo hair, and JTR organs), but Napper wasn't as far as I know.

Neither was Napper into mutilation.

There is gossip on the net -and it is only gossip for the moment, as the Police have denied any investigation (well, at the moment they are waiting for Restivo to be extradited to Italy to be tried for the murder of Elisa Claps).
The gossip is about a spate of murders in the Perpignan area of France, and in Majorca, in the late 1990s, where the victims had their breasts cut off, and in one case, organs removed.

Heather Barnett was found , posed, with hair in one hand, and different hair under the other. One clump of hair was her own, but the other was from an unidentified woman who never came forward even after many Police appeals.

Police initially hoped to corner Restivo for the Barnett murder, by linking him to the woman from whose head this hair was cut. They had the hair (which was about 9 months growth) tested and the results analysed and they found (BBC news):
"The results revealed the owner was a UK resident who had visited eastern Spain, between Valencia and Almeria, or the Marseille to Perpignan area of southern France, for up to six days, some 11 weeks before the hair was cut.

They then went to the urban area of Tampa, Florida, US, for eight days some two to two-and-a-half weeks before the hair was cut, and had changed their diet twice in the previous months".

There is nothing to link Restivo to the Perpignan or Majorca murders....but Perpignan is a very small dot on the map, so you have to wonder !

He certainly had a photograph on his computer of a woman missing in Aosta, so one presumes that he was reading about her case.

I wonder what would have happened, had JTR had access to Ryan Air ?

[FrankO]

A very interesting (& disturbing) case, Lesley, so thanks for sharing it and keeping us posted.

Even though there are obvious JtR elements involved, what Restivo did is more reminiscent to me of the crimes committed by Robert Clive Napper. He was a serial rapist before, in 1992, he killed Rachel Nickell by stabbing her 49 times in a park, and, in 1993, Samantha Bisset in JtR fashion in her own home, after having watched her home for some time.

As to a comparison to Hutchinson, I think that they are similar in the sense that they both tried to see to it that they were seen as innocent witnesses by doing something that wasn’t expected of a brutal killer. That is, if Hutchinson was a killer at all.

All the best,
Frank

[babybird67]

thanks Ruby

this is a really interesting thread.

[Rubyretro]

There are obvious parallels with Hutchinson here, as you've pointed out.

As far as "false alibis" are concerned, Hutchinson would have been very limited in his options if he was the murderer, and had been seen by Lewis. I have suggested in the past that he created the "walking about all night" excuse because this was the only non-alibi that didn't render him vulnerable to contradiction. An alternative claim to have slept in a doorway, for instance, carried the risk of being challenged by the people who used the doorway in the early morning.

All the best,
Ben[/QUOTE]

Hi Ben !

Yes, but the non-alibi that Hutchinson gave was clearly improvised after he felt impelled to come forward and volunteer the imformation that he had been at the murder site, to Police.

One thing about the Restivo case that I think is interesting, is that if the 'result' (ie the murder, type of mutilations, and circumstances) of Heather Barnett's death is similar to that of Mary Kelly's, then it is worth considering that the 'causes' were also similar.

The Police in the Barnett case pointed out that this was a cold blooded murder which had been well planned by Restivo in advance. They point to the fact that Restivo had stolen Barnett's key, gone to her house prepared with
weapons and a change of clothing, and constructed a false alibi. This was
not an opportunist spur-of-the-moment murder.

Whoever killed Kelly, her murderer also went to her room prepared with a weapon, and he must have done something to protect himself from large quantities of blood -and I suggest that he also thought about that in advance. Kelly, like Heather Barnett, was also missing a key, and I think that
it is likely that it had also been stolen by her killer (the door being left open would mean it wasn't planned, but pure chance).

If those things are true, then it is worth speculating that the killer of
Kelly also covered his back by setting up a false alibi for the time of her murder.

However, if that killer was Hutchinson, and if the unforeseen happened and
he suddenly feared being identified by Lewis -then he would be faced with a
stark choice : pre-empt Lewis by admitting in advance that he was at the murder site and explain it away, or deny everything and stick to his alibi.
The trouble is though, that if his alibi was false, it could be exposed as such by the Police, and there could be no explaining that away. So, I think that he chose the former action which made him appear innocent.

I will just remind you, that although Restivo had no visible links to Barnett's murder, and a false alibi for her TOD, when he started worrying about any possible DNA from Barnett being found in his house should the Police ever
investigate him in the future, he prefered to purposefully contaminate himself from the murder scene and make himself known to Police.

Despite Hutchinson being dropped as a witness, he never became a suspect
although concerns about him were raised by some of the Press. Surely the discovery of an 'alibi' which would seem to point to him not having been in
Dorset Street at all, would account for him slipping through the net? Lewis
never identified him. Why would the Police attempt to demolish an alibi of someone who was not a suspect, and was already trying to say that he was
at the murder site ? Fisherman, quoting Dew, thinks that 'the wrong night'
could be the only explanation for Hutch both telling the truth in his statement,
and not becoming a suspect when A Man was shown to be a false lead.
If Hutchinson acted in a similar way to Restivo then it's not the only explanation.

[Ben]

Thanks so much for keeping us appraised of the latest developments in this case, Lesley.

There are obvious parallels with Hutchinson here, as you've pointed out.

As far as "false alibis" are concerned, Hutchinson would have been very limited in his options if he was the murderer, and had been seen by Lewis. I have suggested in the past that he created the "walking about all night" excuse because this was the only non-alibi that didn't render him vulnerable to contradiction. An alternative claim to have slept in a doorway, for instance, carried the risk of being challenged by the people who used the doorway in the early morning.

All the best,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

An interesting case but I don't see a strong parallel with Hutchinson.

Although, I think that there are strong parallels with the Ripper case in general, there are obviously only parallels with Hutchinson if he were the killer.
We don't know that he was at all, but when people theorise on the possibility, or not , of his being the culprit, then various points usually come up for discussion:
1) is that Hutchinson willingly put himself under the Police spotlight and was
interrogated by Abberline, who initially believed his story.

The 'naysayers' say that it is ludicrous that the killer would do such a thing, when he could have stayed well away, and also that Abberline was an experienced Police officer who would not have been easily fooled.

Here is proof, that in a murder case with similar circumstances -a woman who had a missing key, was murdered by an intruder into her home, and then had her throat cut and her body mutilated and posed in a sexually motivated
attack although she was not raped- her killer did infact offer himself up to the Police as a witness when he could have stayed well away. Restivo even tried to contaminate himself from the murder scene (by cuddling the children).

Despite everything that we know today about serial killers, Restivo initially fooled the Police when his statement was taken, because -given the ferocity and macabre nature of the murder, the Police were looking for a 'crazed lunatic'and Restivo did not seem capable of such a crime.

If Restivo could do that today, Hutchinson could have done that in 1888. I'm not saying anything proves that he did -but we can't say that it's a ludicrous suggestion.

For example, he could have had a good ‘false’ alibi for Kelly’s estimated time of death, but we have no reason to think he did.

2. There is alot of discussion on exactly why Hutchinson was 'dropped' as a witness, but never became a suspect, despite his very suspicious statement.

We can see that in a very similar murder case, the crime was planned in advance and the cunning murderer took pains to create a false alibi.

It is you yourself, Lechmere that always insist that the Police would have checked Hutchinson out.

So, what if Hutchinson, like Restivo, had planned the murder in advance and
prepared a false alibi ? What would happen if he pannicked a little over Mrs Lewis and decided that, knowing his alibi to be false, if Lewis ever identified him the Police might discover that he had concocted a false alibi -and that was something for which he had no excuse. So he volunteered the information that he was in Dorset Street. When he was checked, his alibi was discovered to some consternation, and he was quietly dropped (with later speculation from Dew as to whether he had got the dates mixed up).

As for the police assuming that a murderer would flee the scene of crime and put as much distance between them and the victim – there is the example of Lipski from the year before. He was found for some perverse reason hiding under his victim’s bed after he had locked himself in her room.

That is not the same as a murderer, not ostensibly linked to the crime, quickly leaving the area where the crime had been committed. Restivo could have left Bournemouth -he wasn't under arrest. He chose to stay.

Just as a point of interest, Restivo was a near neighbour of his victim, and an aquaintance. I could go further and say that his relationship with Barnett was one of prospective customer/spending money. He used this excuse to visit her home and check it out and steal a key.

Hutchinson lived a short distance from Kelly, admitted being acquainted with her, in a relationship where he gave her money. Kelly was selling sex to strange men -Barnett let them into her home to order curtains. Kelly also had a key go missing a short time before her murder.

[Lechmere]

An interesting case but I don't see a strong parallel with Hutchinson.
For example, he could have had a good ‘false’ alibi for Kelly’s estimated time of death, but we have no reason to think he did.
As for the police assuming that a murderer would flee the scene of crime and put as much distance between them and the victim – there is the example of Lipski from the year before. He was found for some perverse reason hiding under his victim’s bed after he had locked himself in her room.

[Rubyretro]

But isn't it the case that he was a major suspect even though they couldn't pin it on him and the police warned the hospitals and his contacts about him.

He wasn't a major suspect when he and his wife took the children back to his own house, after arriving home as they discovered their mother's body (as he kvew they would).

He was obviously interviewed by the Police -as he knew he would be- and the Policeman is quoted as saying that they didn't suspect him as he seemed just a "local bumbling idiot", and they felt that the killer must have been a
"crazed lunatic". Which Restivo did not appear to be. A policeman also says that he had prepared his statement very well in advance and he was convincing, and he had an alibi.

Restivo hadn't left any clues at the murder scene which immediately pointed to him, and had it been 1888 -or even 1978- then he would not have been a suspect for this murder.

It is because Police had the use of computers and learned that Restivo was a major suspect in the disappearance of Elisa Claps in Italy, and they realised
that he had a hair fetish -and Barnett's body had been posed with cut hair-
that he became the suspect no. 1

Even then, they needed advances in DNA testing, computer forensics, video and bugging surveillance and public appeals (for girls with cut hair to come forward) -and crucially Elisa's body to be found -to bring Restivo to justice.

Had the witness George Hutchinson been suspected of murder elsewhere, or
stalked women, or indulged himself in dodgy behaviour (and even most of the girls with cut hair in the Restivo case, hadn't reported it at the time) -and particularly if he changed his name- then the Police of 1888 were incapable of checking it out.

Restivo had planned a false alibi which included buying a bus ticket for his trip to the computer course on the morning of the murder. It is only because
of computer forensics and a camera footage that we know that he actually went on a later bus. He was marked 'present' at his course, even though he was late. In 1888 a clever alibi would have been almost impossible to demolish. Had the Police in 1888 checked Hutchinson and discovered that he seemingly had an alibi for Kelly's murder -although he said he was in Dorset Street- that might account for his being dropped, but not becoming a suspect, and speculation over a mix up over dates.

In 1888 the Police may also have assumed that Hutchinson would have left the area quickly, had he been the murderer. However, even when Restivo
knew that the Police were following him, he stayed in the same house.

[Lechmere]

But isn't it the case that he was a major suspect even though they couldn't pin it on him and the police warned the hospitals and his contacts about him.

[Rubyretro]

Mr James said: "I believe that what we saw down at Throop was his need to kill again, his desire to kill again and I think if we hadn't have been following him and been very aware of him at that time he would have killed then and very likely killed again."

Mr James said he told Restivo "that we've been following him, that we've got major concerns for him and we will continue to follow him because we can't allow a man to be walking around Bournemouth following lone women with a knife".

Foreign language students who were staying at Restivo's address, at his girlfriend's invitation, were told they were at risk and hospitals where Restivo applied for work were warned.

The above is also from the BBC Dorset.

If Restivo had not been suspected of Barnett's murder due to modern
communication techniques, it seems clear that Bournemouth would have
had it's very own JTR on the loose.

"If we hadn't got that DNA from the towel I don't know where we would have been."

Computer science also changed and "a forensic expert was actually able to refute Mr Restivo's alibi 100%", he added.

Mr James said he thought Restivo had been "very cunning and clever" to comfort Ms Barnett's children on the day they found their mother's body, so he could explain away, if needed, why his victim's DNA was on his body

If it was that difficult to corner Restivo today, it would have been impossible in 1888 to corner a "very cunning and clever" killer that decided to involve himself in his own case for 'damage limitation'.

[Rubyretro]

Extract from BBC News Dorset :

"Dorset Police initially discounted Restivo, 39, as a suspect - he was just the "local bumbling idiot", Mr James said.


Click to play
AdvertisementSurveillance officers filmed Danilo Restivo watching lone women at a Dorset beauty spot
The Italian national also had a plausible alibi, that he had been attending a computer course at the time of the murder.

It was initially thought such a violent death would have been carried out by a "crazed lunatic" but detectives soon realised the killer had been very "forensically aware", Mr James said.

"You realise it's a man that has planned to do this. It's a man who brought with him his own hammer, a man who brought with him his own knife, potentially a scalpel to undertake the mutilation," Mr James said.

"It's a man who brought with him head hair. It's a man that brought with him a change of clothing and a change of shoes so he could change out of his blood spattered clothes and shoes before he left."

So for all those that think that Abberline would have seen through witness George Hutchinson , because he was 'experienced', you can see that -even with the knowledge that the Police have about serial killers today, they made a judgement about witness Danilo Restivo (initially a witness, since he was the first adult at the murder scene, arriving home to 'comfort' Heather Barnett's children), because he did not appear to fit the idea that they had of the killer.

Police only 'got' Restivo because they were able by computer to make the link with the disappearance of Elisa Claps, and because of advances in DNA testing. It took 8 1/2 years to convict him.