Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hutch and the Hairdresser

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Lechmere
    replied
    If you say so

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben
    replied
    I meant "account for" as in provide a satisfacory account of the behaviour of the lodgers in a way that lessened the suspicion attached to them. In both cases, this probably took the form of a positive account of their characters, i.e. "I've known Lodger A for years, and he has never caused any trouble". Nothing to do with any "alibi".

    Leave a comment:


  • Lechmere
    replied
    Still sticking to the same mantra I see.
    But Ben wasn’t this you...

    “I'm pretty sure the Larkin arrest was unrelated to that of the man with the butcher's knife, as they were both mentioned in the same edition of the Walthamstow and Leyton Guardian on 20th July 1889. It would mean, of course, that the poor hassled deputy was called in twice to account for his lodgers,”

    Or did some one hack your account?

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben
    replied
    Ben you seem to be forgetting that you claim on another tread that the deputy from the Victoria Home provided two suspects with convenient alibis.
    No, you must be confusing me with somebody else, Lechmere.

    I have never stated that anyone from the Victoria Home was given an "alibi".

    Neither Packer nor Violenia were ever considered suspects despite it being very obvious that they were dismissed as lying witness, just as Hutchinson apparently was. We've been here before many times, and we can go there again many many more times if you like. It really is up to you.

    There is absolutely no evidence that Hutchinson was checked out as a suspect, and absolutely no reason to assume, in the absence of evidence, that he "must have" been. The police were extremely limited in terms of what they could realistically have "checked out" in any case, and even in the extremely unlikely event that the police did suspect Hutchinson, they were essentially powerless to make any progress with mere suspicions.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lechmere
    replied
    Ben you seem to be forgetting that you claim on another tread that the deputy from the Victoria Home provided two suspects with convenient alibis.
    I have no idea whether anyone at the Victoria Home vouched for Hutchinson – but it is possible.

    We know Packer wouldn’t have become a suspect – we have discussed that already.
    We know Violenia was given a good grilling.

    We don’t know that Hutchinson was ‘checked out’. The surviving records tell us nothing on the matter. But as I have pointed out before, the reluctance of the 'Hutchinsonites' to concede that logically he would have been and that his ‘checking out’ must have satisfied the police and not left a load of straggly loose ends is in itself telling.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben
    replied
    We know the Hutchinson case had nothing in common with Packer and very little in common with Violenia, despite your repeated coupling of their names as if they were an earlier version of Morecombe and Wise.
    You really do enjoy antagonizing people, don't you? I can't see that my brief reply contained anything to warrant such an attitude. The three individuals in question (Packer, Violenia and Hutchinson) had in common the fact that they were discredited as witnesses, ostensibly because the police considered them to be money/fame/attention-seeking liars. It is clear that they were never entertained as suspects, not because they were "exonerated" as such, but because the idea of their potential culpability never occurred to the police.

    Hutchinson was evidently "checked out" as a witness, and ultimately failed that check, as we know from the Echo-police communication that he came to be "considerably discounted" because of doubts surrounding his credibility. There is no evidence that he was ever considered a suspect. To suggest he was is to engage in pure speculation, unlike the Echo-police communication, for which we have irrefutable proof. To make matters worse, this same speculation is being used to support the even less sustainable conclusion that he was exonerated. Forget this fancifully ghastly and nonsensical idea. Forget the ludicrous notion that the Victoria Home provided lodgers with a convenient alibi if they needed one. Unless you can provide any evidence that either of these occurred, I'm afraid there's a lot of piddling into the wind going on.

    I know you're eager to advance the "case" against Cross, and think that this can only be achieved by getting Hutchinson "out of the way" first, but you're on to a loser with that particular mission.

    Of course in absolute terms, a rigorous 1888 style ‘check out’ and a glowing testimonial from a Victoria Home deputy is not proof of innocence.
    There is NO EVIDENCE that Hutchinson received either of those things - not even the vaguest intimation that it occurred, and even if it did, it would not effect what you describe as his "culprit status" in the slightest.
    Last edited by Ben; 07-07-2011, 04:02 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lechmere
    replied
    Ben
    We know the Hutchinson case had nothing in common with Packer and very little in common with Violenia, despite your repeated coupling of their names as if they were an earlier version of Morecombe and Wise.
    Do we know that Packer or Violenia were publicity seekers? Can anyone say that they know their motivation?
    We cannot say that the ‘discrediting’ of Hutchinson was ‘clearly’ the result of anything as we simply do not know.
    All I would say about Hutchinson is that he would almost certainly have been ‘checked out’ and probably somewhat more rigorously than most given his apparent transient background and the nature of his story.
    Unless of course a deputy at the Victoria Home vouched for him. Incidentally I doubt whether a lodging house deputy’s say-so would exonerate a suspect unless he was from the Victoria Home, as it was (contrary to the attempts of some here) regarded more highly than the others.
    But if he was exonerated in this manner it would imply that he was well known at the Victoria Home and this would have negative implications on his culprit status.
    Just as a rigorous ‘check out’ would have a negative impact on his culprit status.
    Of course in absolute terms, a rigorous 1888 style ‘check out’ and a glowing testimonial from a Victoria Home deputy is not proof of innocence. But it’s more than most of Hutchinson’s contemporaries would have had.

    Ben you aren’t bored and following me around by any chance are you? Just asking.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben
    replied
    I rather think that Hutchinson never gravitated from being a discredited witness to being a suspect as whatever ‘checking out’ was done did not give grounds for suspicion and there were no loose ends (eg unresolved questions about him)
    Sort of, Lechmere, yes.

    If they suspected him of being a publicity-seeker (a la Packer or Violenia), the police would have dismissed him as witness without considering him a potential suspect. Unfortunately, the possibility remains that this decision was made in error. The "discrediting" was clearly the result of police opinion, rather that proof that he was lying, mistaken or whatever else.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lechmere
    replied
    I rather think that Hutchinson never gravitated from being a discredited witness to being a suspect as whatever ‘checking out’ was done did not give grounds for suspicion and there were no loose ends (eg unresolved questions about him).
    In general agree that at some point he was discounted or at least regarded as being of reduced importance.
    It doesn’t mean that the Police thought he was elsewhere necessarily. Witnesses are notoriously unreliable for all sorts of innocent reasons. The police, even in a nascent state, were quite used to that. Those reports regarding the Larkin arrest in the McKenzie case state that numerous useless reports and statements were given to the police.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Rubyretro View Post
    I think that they would only check with the Home to make sure that Hutch
    was a resident -which is what he said in his witness statement. If he had a good character reference (and I expect that even Danilo Restivo could have got a good character reference drom NACRE), and he was marked as present
    in the register, why would the Police question that ?

    Afterall, Hutchinson was a witness, not a suspect, and he was willingly saying that he was in Dorset Street on the night of the murder.

    Why should the Police think that someone would go to the trouble of setting up a false alibi, not use it, and then willingly say that they were lurking at a crime scene ? Someone who didn't appear to be the "crazed lunatic" they imagined the killer to be ?

    Still, there must be a reason that when Hutchinson was dropped as a witness
    he didn't become a suspect -when even some of the Press were suspicious.
    Seeming proof that he was elsewhere at the time would account for it. It would also account for Dew's opinion of the matter.

    If (!)Hutchinson did plan Kelly's murder in the same way as Restivo planned Heather Barnett's -then Restivo did plan a false alibi, and he used a presence register (and a bus ticket, to do so). It's worth looking at how Hutchinson might have done the same.

    In both cases a lone serial killer couldn't use a willing accomplice -far, far too dangerous, as Lechmere said.

    But due to differing circumstances, Hutch might have been forced to use an unwitting accomplice. Had he stayed away from the Police, been identified by Mrs Lewis, and investigated as a suspect -rather than as a witness- then an unwitting accomplice would become a liability, because he'd tell the truth.

    That's why I think that Hutch spoke to a mate (and news would spread ) in the Victoria Home, about the story that he was preparing to give the Police before he actually gave it. It would be to admit to them that he was in Dorset Street but with an innocent reason, to get the story straight that he had got back to Romford too late to sleep at the Home -and no mention of him doing a mate a favour by passing his bed there under his name because he had originally intended to get a job and stay in Romford.
    Hi Ruby

    and he was marked as present in the register, why would the Police question that ?

    Because he told them he was in Dorset street and then walked about all night

    Leave a comment:


  • Rubyretro
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    Hi Ruby
    Highly interesting thread.

    Per the idea that hutch created a false alibi: If police had checked out the Victoria home and found out that fake Hutch was there that night and given that he said he was not-don't you think that would lead to more questions and follow up from police to clear up this discrepency? Let alone if they found out that it was not Hutch at all at the Victoria but a mate claiming to be Hutch?

    I think this would lead down the path of the police being more suspicious of Hutch, don't you?
    I think that they would only check with the Home to make sure that Hutch
    was a resident -which is what he said in his witness statement. If he had a good character reference (and I expect that even Danilo Restivo could have got a good character reference drom NACRE), and he was marked as present
    in the register, why would the Police question that ?

    Afterall, Hutchinson was a witness, not a suspect, and he was willingly saying that he was in Dorset Street on the night of the murder.

    Why should the Police think that someone would go to the trouble of setting up a false alibi, not use it, and then willingly say that they were lurking at a crime scene ? Someone who didn't appear to be the "crazed lunatic" they imagined the killer to be ?

    Still, there must be a reason that when Hutchinson was dropped as a witness
    he didn't become a suspect -when even some of the Press were suspicious.
    Seeming proof that he was elsewhere at the time would account for it. It would also account for Dew's opinion of the matter.

    If (!)Hutchinson did plan Kelly's murder in the same way as Restivo planned Heather Barnett's -then Restivo did plan a false alibi, and he used a presence register (and a bus ticket, to do so). It's worth looking at how Hutchinson might have done the same.

    In both cases a lone serial killer couldn't use a willing accomplice -far, far too dangerous, as Lechmere said.

    But due to differing circumstances, Hutch might have been forced to use an unwitting accomplice. Had he stayed away from the Police, been identified by Mrs Lewis, and investigated as a suspect -rather than as a witness- then an unwitting accomplice would become a liability, because he'd tell the truth.

    That's why I think that Hutch spoke to a mate (and news would spread ) in the Victoria Home, about the story that he was preparing to give the Police before he actually gave it. It would be to admit to them that he was in Dorset Street but with an innocent reason, to get the story straight that he had got back to Romford too late to sleep at the Home -and no mention of him doing a mate a favour by passing his bed there under his name because he had originally intended to get a job and stay in Romford.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Hi Ruby
    Highly interesting thread.

    Per the idea that hutch created a false alibi: If police had checked out the Victoria home and found out that fake Hutch was there that night and given that he said he was not-don't you think that would lead to more questions and follow up from police to clear up this discrepency? Let alone if they found out that it was not Hutch at all at the Victoria but a mate claiming to be Hutch?

    I think this would lead down the path of the police being more suspicious of Hutch, don't you?

    Leave a comment:


  • Lechmere
    replied
    The Alice McKenzie suspect - Larkin - was known by name and face by the Victoria Home deputy. That is the crucual difference . The police did not rely on the register. Also Larkin was not released purely on the say so of the deputy - there were also 'other accounts' which led to his release. Larkin was 'checked out' as thoroughly as the police could at that time. It wasn't a case of the deputy popping in and saying "I know Larkin", and he was released.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rubyretro
    replied
    So the police checked the registers and found he was listed as being there. Yet he claimed he was not there. Do you think they would then just quietly drop him?
    Well, maybe 'yes'.
    We're back to the crux of the matter, and that is that first of all that Abberline formed an initial opinion of Hutchinson that he was honest, and also
    that he didn't fit the profile of the murderer capable of mutilatating Mary Kelly
    to the extent that she was.
    I already pointed out that, even in 2004, and with the vastly superior knowledge that Police have today of serial killers, the Police didn't initially
    suspect Danilo Restivo when they took his statement as they saw him as a
    " bumbling local" and, after seeing the carnage and mutilations of Barnett's body, they were looking for a "crazed lunatic", and they couldn't equate that description with Restivo.
    So it is impossible to argue that Abberline couldn't have reacted in the exact same way to Hutchinson.
    Further more, Hutchinson had come to the Police of his own accord and volunteered the information that he had been watching Mary Kelly's room,
    just before her murder. That would surely disarm Abberline.
    Other false witnesses had come forward to this and other murder cases, and
    that didn't make them murderers -only time wasters or people who had made genuine mistakes.
    I think that the thinking would go that if the real killer had made a false alibi, he would hardly say that he was at the murder scene.
    Besides which, it was shown on another thread (talking about Alice MacKenzie) that the Police had faith in someone vouched for by the Victoria Home.
    I think that if the Police discovered that Hutchinson was 'elsewhere' at the time of the murder -and a written register would seem to be concrete proof- then they would react with consternation, but not suspicion that he was JTR.
    If they were convinced that he was honest and helpful they might speculate
    -like Dew- that a mix up in the days must be the only explanation and just drop him.

    And his mate who had taken his place? He wouldn’t say anything – or Hutchinson as the Ripper would be confident he wouldn’t say anything after he read Hutchinson’s story in the papers
    Well, they might very well say something if they read in the paper that Mrs Lewis had identified George Hutchinson as the lurker who she'd seen in Dorset Street, but Hutchinson was claiming to have been tucked up in bed at the Victoria Home at the time. But Hutchinson said that he had not found a job in Romford, got back too late to get into the Home -and of course he couldn't go to the Home if someone had taken his place there- and then followed Kelly to Dorset Street. He was being 'honest'.

    Here's another thing, Lechmere -Hutchinson claimed to have told a mate at the Victoria Home the A Man story before going to a Police Station and giving his statement. So maybe he engaged in some damage limitation with the men first (maybe some of them were friendly with Lewis ?).
    He might have put it something like "I haven't yet gone to the Police because I didn't want to get X and me into trouble here" and his mate could have replied "you must go to the Police, but you don't need to mention X -that's nothing to do with it".
    And do you think that the police tallied the Lewis wide-awake hat-wearing not-tall-but-stout fellow with Hutchinson’s military appearance... or not.
    [/QUOTE]

    I have to go to work, Lechmere..can't answer that now..

    Leave a comment:


  • Lechmere
    replied
    Miss Retro (for short),
    Much as it pains me to say it I have offered numerous common place explanations as to why or how this could have happened:
    “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.”

    But if we pass that by, I was just starting to like your theory when I got to the last bit...
    “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 ?”


    So the police checked the registers and found he was listed as being there. Yet he claimed he was not there. Do you think they would then just quietly drop him?
    And his mate who had taken his place? He wouldn’t say anything – or Hutchinson as the Ripper would be confident he wouldn’t say anything after he read Hutchinson’s story in the papers? Or maybe he didn’t know him as Hutchinson? Eh?
    We know that the police dropped ‘leads’ quickly (perhaps far too quickly in some cases) when their story tallied but not when they didn’t...
    And do you think that the police tallied the Lewis wide-awake hat-wearing not-tall-but-stout fellow with Hutchinson’s military appearance... or not.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X