Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[Garry Wroe]

As far as I’m aware, the possibility that Hutchinson and Lewis’ loiterer were the same person was first mooted in the mid or late 1990s, over a hundred years since the murders were committed.

It was certainly current when I first took an interest in Hutchinson in the mid-Eighties, Ben. I'm fairly sure that Colin Wilson and Robin Odell made the connection in their Summing Up and Verdict, and I think that Don Rumbelow referred to it even earlier.

[Abby Normal]

It was certainly current when I first took an interest in Hutchinson in the mid-Eighties, Ben. I'm fairly sure that Colin Wilson and Robin Odell made the connection in their Summing Up and Verdict, and I think that Don Rumbelow referred to it even earlier.

Hi Garry

This got my attention and begs the question:

Who was the first person to make the connection between Sara Lewis's loitering man and Hutch being one and the same?

I think that person should be commended heartily for their keen perception.

[Fisherman]

Bob Hinton:

" If you are saying he was so concerned about her safety he followed MJK and the stranger, how come all his concern seems to have evaporated after he found out she was dead?"

"Seems" being the key word here, right? I have over and over again pointed to the important factor that people are claiming things on behalf of George Hutchinson that really only can adher to the public on the whole.

You seemingly (popular word, that!) think that Hutchinson knew about the killing from Friday morning, but did nothing. There is, however, no evidence to back such a thing up with, is there? The simple truth is that neither you nor me can tell how long Hutchinson had known the full story when he approached the policeman on Sunday morning. He could have known it for two full days, and he could have had ample opportunity to sound the alarm, but refrained from it.
But he could also have heard about it from somebody in the market on Sunday morning, realized the potential impact of his sighting, turned round, seen the PC, and thereafter approached and spoken to him.

You are welcome to join the others who see Hutchinson as the culprit, and start speaking of probabilities and such, but I must warn you that so far, it has not impressed me all that much! For I don´t think that we can estimate the probabilities as such (though others may think that they are cut out to do just that with exactitude), and even if we could, all of us should understand that they would still leave us with one "for" and one "against" option.

I could go into a longish discussion about how I think that other parameters must be weighed in before we make any sensible call in all of this, but I will resist that temptation for now ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

John Winsett:

"Actually I was saying Hutchinson made it all up. The only reason anyone gives credence to Hutchinson is Abberlines opinion he was being truthful. I think Abberline was fooled, and desperate for any break he could get."

All very interesting, I´m sure. But that was not what you posted about, was it? You posted that nobody who had walked 14 miles, and who was tired and pennyless, would make an observation of somebody´s eyelashes. That´s why I put my scenario to you. And that is why it would be nice to hear what role you think you would have played in such a scenario - would you have gone home, or would you try and get a good look at the guy?

The best,
Fisherman

[John Winsett]

John Winsett:

"Actually I was saying Hutchinson made it all up. The only reason anyone gives credence to Hutchinson is Abberlines opinion he was being truthful. I think Abberline was fooled, and desperate for any break he could get."

All very interesting, I´m sure. But that was not what you posted about, was it? You posted that nobody who had walked 14 miles, and who was tired and pennyless, would make an observation of somebody´s eyelashes. That´s why I put my scenario to you. And that is why it would be nice to hear what role you think you would have played in such a scenario - would you have gone home, or would you try and get a good look at the guy?

The best,
Fisherman

I probably would have gone home, since MJK did not seem to be in danger and I really had no reason to suspect the man she was with of being a killer.

[Fisherman]

Frank:

"Although I think it would have been better to go to one of the 3 nearby police stations, I don’t think it would have been illogical to approach a PC."

Exactly. I agree on both counts.

"There are some posters who’ve suggested that the PC approached by Hutchinson might not have done so for a variety of reasons. That’s what I’ve reacted to, because, even though it’s possible, I don’t think it’s the most likely explanation for why nothing seems to have come from the alleged encounter between Hutchinson and this PC."

Admittedly not. But I really think that the streets would have been teeming with "tips", most of them completely wrong or useless. And that would - to an extent - affect the standards of the job the PC:s put in.
But we also must consider that all this talk about how strange it is that the PC never caried the news further, is grounded on the fact that we have no such report. But who is to say that it was not there at the time? We know that the squads that research high-profile murder cases today are swarmed with material, often having mountains of tips and comment to sift through. If the PC:s generally noted down all they were told and left it to their superiors to decide about it, then it would have been like looking for a needle in a haystack.
The report may have been there, Frank. It is not as if we knew it never was.

"I have to admit that I struggled with how to put it myself. On second thought, it would have been better if I’d used something like ‘discouraged’."

You know my answer to that one, Frank: Who can tell that he was discouraged? How do we know that the PC did not say "Thank you very much, Sir, I´ll make sure this reaches the approipriate people!"

There is no mentioning anywhere about any attitude at all on behalf of the Sunday morning PC, which is why I very much wish to leave that issue as open as possible.

"1. the PC made note of GH’s account, but didn’t do anything with it.
2. the PC advised GH to go to the police station, where they could take his statement, but as GH found that too much trouble, he was discouraged and didn’t follow through at that point.
3. the PC wasn’t helpful and told GH to take a hike, which obviously discouraged him, so he left it at that."

I´d opt for number one here, if I had to choose. But i prefer number four, the one I mentioned before: It was reported, but got lost in the heaps of inflowing material. It may also have been formulated in a manner that made it less clear, we just can´t tell.

"Where did I write or suggest that GH knew earlier about the murder than Sunday morning?"

Since you ask, you probably never did. Then again, it´s not a bad guess on my behalf, is it? Still, sorry about that!

"So, in this case ‘as soon as’ means Sunday morning, when we quite safely assume that he did know about Kelly’s brutal murder."

... and then we DO have him contacting the police, quite possibly believing that he had done enough. Who knows, maybe the PC even assured him that he would be hearing from them? Sort of don´t call us, we´ll call you?

"Well, then it's a good that I aint claiming he ‘must have known’ before Sunday morning, Fish. If he left the area again on Friday morning, after he’d first returned to his lodgings, I think there would still be a good chance that he came to know it before Sunday, but that’s not claiming he ‘must have known’. If he remained in the area, I think the chances that he didn’t know earlier than Sunday would be very slim indeed."

See, Frank? This is why I like to post against you - you take all possibilityies into account, and present a fair case at all times. I agree with this to a very large extent. Of copurse, it should be weighed in that once he got wind of it, the message may have been less than full, omitting for example the name, or even faulty, for example giving the wrong name. We know that this mistake appeared in the papers. But on the whole, yes if he was in place, the absolutely best bet would be that he had heard about it before Sunday morning.
Turning it around, though, one may do some thinking about what lies behind a person turning to the police in errands like these. The overwhelming majority of people who do so, do it because they want to help with the investigation, right? And if the investigated phenomenon is the murder of an aquaintance of yours, then so much more reason to be as fast and as accurate as possible! Therefore, people who are in this situation will normally approach the police at the first possible occasion.
Analogically, if we work from the assumption that Hutchinson was what Dew asserts us that he was - a man with the best of intentions - then the reasonable thing to assume, emiprically and statistically, would be that George Hutchinson DID approach the police at the first possible occasion. And if that is true, the he was unaware that Kelly had been killed until late in the process.
It´s all about perspectives, I guess. And when there are more than one potentially functioning perspective around, one needs to take a close look at all of them.

And you do just that, Frank, thankfully!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

John Winsett:

"I probably would have gone home, since MJK did not seem to be in danger and I really had no reason to suspect the man she was with of being a killer."

But if you DID think that the man may have been the killer? Then what?

The best,
Fisherman

[John Winsett]

John Winsett:

"I probably would have gone home, since MJK did not seem to be in danger and I really had no reason to suspect the man she was with of being a killer."

But if you DID think that the man may have been the killer? Then what?

The best,
Fisherman

I think the question you should ask is what would be the trigger for me to think she would be in danger. If Hutchinson really thought MJK was in danger why not bring a cop to Millers Court that night? Why not wait until the guy left and make sure MJK was ok?

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"This is where people tend to become confused, Fish. Hutchinson in fact claimed to have harboured no suspicion whatever regarding Astrakhan. He was quite explicit in this context, and stated, 'I did not think he would harm another.' His interest in Astrakhan, he maintained, was stimulated as a consequence of Astrakhan's well-to-do appearance. Nothing more."

And why do you secure a very good look at the face of such a man? Because you want to know how the faces of wealthy men look, generally?

Why do you note all the things Hutchinson noted mentally, about such a man?

Because ... ehhh ... well, why?

Put yourself in Hutchinson´s situation, Garry, and make a leap of fantasy. Imagine that you DO think that the man you are seeing with your woman friend may be the Whitechapel fiend. You have read the rags, you have heard the gossip on the town about a murderous toff, quite possibly a very wealthy man, killing off prostitutes. It would not be a very strange deduction to make that he may be the real McCoy, would it?

On we go: Now, further make the assumption that Hutch calms himself and tries to convince himself that he must be wrong, mistaken. He cannot let go of the suspicions, though, and so he stands around, hoping for Kelly to emerge alive, showing him that he was wrong. But that does not happen. He even goes into the yard to try and see if he can get a sign of things, but - nothing.
In the end, he decides to leave. "Silly me, why would that man be a killer? Stupid!" He convinces himself that all was well, and walks away.

Three days later, he is standing in the police station, and needs to tell Abberline either that "Yes, I felt sure that it could have been the killer, I reaslly suspected it, but I decided to do nothing about it" or "I was initially suspicious of the man because of his wealth, but I felt quite certain that he was not a killer".

Now, which of these alternatives would you opt for? The "I suspected it but did nothing about it"-alternative, or the "I will help out as much as I can, but I really never saw the danger"-alternative?

Why would anybody not be "impressed", "taken aback" or "flabbergasted" by wealth, by the way - why would they instead be "suspicious" about it? In what manner is wealth something to be suspicious or frightened about?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

John Winsett:

"I think the question you should ask is what would be the trigger for me to think she would be in danger. If Hutchinson really thought MJK was in danger why not bring a cop to Millers Court that night? Why not wait until the guy left and make sure MJK was ok?"

On the latter question: What makes you think that was not what he was trying to do? He even went into the court to try and get some sign.

On the second: He could not be sure, could he - and barging into a prostitute´s room with a cop following would perhaps not be all too appreciated by any parts - but for the PC who could make an arrest for soliciting.

On the first: The trigger would be a correlation in appearance between the written-about killer and the man you saw.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"It was certainly current when I first took an interest in Hutchinson in the mid-Eighties, Ben. I'm fairly sure that Colin Wilson and Robin Odell made the connection in their Summing Up and Verdict, and I think that Don Rumbelow referred to it even earlier."

Really?? Geniuses! How on earth could they do that???

Yes, Garry, you are quite correct. And I could not resist a bit of jestering here, since it is formidably obvious to me that even a blind donkey would have made the connection.

We should not, however, hope to see this connection made in the years following immediately upon the murders and investigations - for at that stage, I very much suspect that everybody involved in the case knew full well that the connection could not be made. There would have been knowledge around that Hutchinson´s story and Lewis´ditto were unreconcilable, and that knowledge would have been what threw Hutch´s testimony out.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Right, answered almost everybody! Only Ben left, and since any discussion with Ben tend to get repetitious, I think I will opt for finding just three things to answer, and let the rest stay uncommented.

Let´s see now, what have we got...? Ah, there we are:

1. "You know absolutely full well that others have provided specific reasons for doubting the “date confusion” hypothesis, and yet you pretend that they haven’t, and that their criticisms have been limited to “I don’t think…” with nothing of substance beyond this. Unless you suffer from a particularly severe case of selective memory, you know full well why people reject your proposal. The overwhelming probability that Hutchinson was the man Lewis saw on the morning of the 9th November for one. Then there’s the obvious reality that what you outline as anomalies (such as walking around all night on a cold, wet night) can far more logically be chalked up to fabrication than “date confusion”.

You apparently misunderstand me, Ben. What I am asking for is objections that show that I am wrong. Not choosing to believe that the weather anomalies came about because Hutch lied. The weather anomalies REMAIN anomalies, and as such, they speak FOR my suggestion very much. The much inspired guess that Hutchinson lied does nothing to change that.

So, I am still waiting - which objections can be made, proving that my perspective does not work? Or does it in fact work in all particulars?

2. " it would be an odd detail to include. “Please understand, sir, that I was never on the Crossingham side. Heavens above, no!” "

Funny, Ben! Not bad at all! Of course, it is of no use in the discussion, but still!

No, we should not assume that the interrogation consisted of Hutchinson offering what he wanted to offer. That is not how an interrogation happens. It is the other way around totally - the police ASKS questions, and the witness ANSWERS them. Therefore, the more credible conversation would have been along these lines:

"Well then, Mr Hutchinson, after you had left the corner of Dorset Street, following this couple, what did you do.?"
"I went to the court, to see if..."
"To the court, you say?"
"Yes, I wanted to ..."
"Just a minute, Sir, and let us get this straight. When you say you went to the court, do you mean that you went into the court?"
"No, no - I went to the corner of the court"
"To the corner outside the court, in Dorset Street? On the sidewalk?"
"Yes"
"Which of the corners?"
"The eastern one."
"And did you stay there throughout the time you waited?"
"Yes, I did."
"You did not leave the corner at any stage?"
"Not that I can remember, no. Why would I do that?"
"For no reason at all, Sir - we are merely trying to establish, as best as we can, your exact movements during the morning. That will make us able to confirm other witnesses´ testimony."
"Oh, I see! No, I never left the corner as such, I´m sure of that."

It is not by any standards as funny as your story, Ben, I am the first to admit that. But you see, police work relating to high-profile murder cases seldom IS funny. It is instead about being as meticulous as possible, trying to establish as many factors as possible.
But you perhaps think that my suggested interrogation scenario is totally incredible too? Maybe you believe that policing was in it´s infancy and all that, and that Abberline asked about how Hutchinson´s uncle was doing?

3. " Lewis was a genuine witness and was recognised as such."

Let´s lend an ear to Donald Swanson, and hear what he had to say about another witness who first said he saw nothing, and then changed his story:

(The witness) "made different statements" (and therefore) "any statement he made would be rendered almost valueless as evidence".

This, Ben, is what happens to witnesses who take the leap from "I could not say" to "Wait a sec! I CAN say!"

Bad-a-bing, was it...? I think I will settle for just the "Bad" if you don´t mind.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

One more thing that I have been wanting to say, relating to all this business with identifications and descriptions: I am told that Hutchinson´s statement that his man had dark eyelashes means that we can conclude that he was a liar and a killer.
This, I find, may be a tad premature. Take a look at this picture:

http://www.trueknowledge.com/q/facts_about__uday_hussein

and I will tell you why. The picture (of one of Saddam Hussein´s sons) shows a man of typical mid-east colouring. He has darkish olive skin, dark eyes, black hair, black beard and moustache, and blonde eyelashes.

Nah, just kidding - he of course has dark eyelashes too - people of this coloration always have that. And I think that Astrakhan man was somebody displaying this exact colour type. He had dark hair, dark eyes, dark moustache, darkish olive skin - and it is small wonder that he had dark eyelashes too.

And that would be what Hutchinson took in - he did not do any hairstrand-by-hairstrand analysis, he simply recognized the man as somebody with the sort of heritage that is set off in these dark colours. They are all invariably dark eyes and dark eyelashes-types, it typically travels together and it will only take a fraction of a second to see that.
Hutchinson may well have noted it long before he stooped down, by the way. It is something you do not miss easily; anybody of us who saw Uday Hussein (the guy in the pic) standing in a street corner would immediately be able to recognize him as a man with dark eyes and eyelashes. It only takes one look at the picture to see what I am talking about.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Ben
I would suggest that an individual who is initially reluctant to get involved in an activity, then trying it and enjoying it (this could be a description of Hutchinson’s behaviour) is not a rarity. Such behaviour is a lot more commonplace than psychotic/sociopathic serial killing.
Accordingly as a possible explanation for Hutchinson’s behaviour it is not implausible, and indeed is more plausible than that he ‘did it’. Even if Hutchinson was in Dorset Street on the night of the murder. It is a relatively commonplace explanation. It is as simple as that.
What we are left with are a limited series of events that you give a murderous slant to, each of which can each be given an entirely different and entirely innocent (of murder anyway) slant.
There are relatively commonplace explanations for Hutchinson’s behaviour throughout.

Why he was late back from Romford
How he managed to remember that level of detail in his description
Whether someone like the A-man may have been out and about
Why he went to Dorset Street
Why he didn’t mention seeing Lewis (i.e. maybe he didn’t see her)
Why he didn’t come forward on Friday or Saturday
Why he didn’t press matters with the policeman on Sunday
Why he didn’t come forward until after the inquest

Also we simply don’t know what version of Kelly’s time of death Hutchinson heard about.
And why on earth is the newspaper claim that there was a known but unspoken reason for Hutchinson’s delay in coming forward ‘a deeply silly smoke and mirrors claim’.
Why should ‘a few distinctly B-Team newspapers’ wish to exonerate Hutchinson in this manner?

As I said I am suspicious about aspects of his story myself but in my opinion the evidence (such as it is) points to him being an opportunist on the make – a little bit like your old chum Violenia.
It may well be that he involved himself for a bit of dough then backed out by saying to the police
‘Now I think of it – maybe I was out by a day’.....

In putting Hutchinson in Dorset Street in a wide-awake hat (which he may not have possessed of course) we also have to put a lot of weight on Lewis’s testimony – a witness who at one point was characterised as someone who couldn’t verbally describe someone... until she managed to get over that disability.

On the side of the road he was on – didn’t Hutchinson say that he went actually down Miller’s Court for a closer look at one point, so he must have crossed Dorset Street?

And – bad-a-bong – we don’t know that Hutchinson was discredited as a liar – that is your interpretation Ben. It is one of those things which you are desperate to turn into an established fact when it isn’t.

[Lechmere]

Far be it for me to wish to pick holes in Monty’s lines of reasoning but if we are to accept testimony, what are we to make of conflicting testimony which is no rare thing?
Some say nowadays that as Lewis’s testimony marries up with Hutchinson’s testimony it is a fair assumption that the Wide-awake man equalled Hutchinson. Therefore Hutchinson had to be in Dorset Street in the early hours of Friday morning.
Even though no one (police or media) at the time made that connection. And the beat PC didn’t notice him. And there is an apparent contradiction between the description Lewis gave of the man she says she saw (not tall but stout) and the press description of Hutchinson (military appearance).

But what of Maxwell’s testimony - is that to be believed because it is testimony?