Hutchinson and Blotchy

[Darryl Kenyon]

It was 2 am in the morning, Hutch mentioned that AK man was wearing a thick gold chain clearly visible. He was also carrying a parcel with no attempt to conceal it which may have contained something of value. Hutch also said he stooped down to look AK man in the face and that it is likely that he followed him and Mary up Commercial st.
They then turn into a notorious street, with all the while Hutch trailing them. Mary then leads her punter up a darkened alleyway into a court with one entrance in and one out only, and into her room where anyone could have been there. While Hutch is standing some form of guard across from said court.

A man of, at the least looking like he had some form of means, and some random guy who had just been talking to Mary looks AK man directly in the face and then follows them. And AK man isn't bothered about any of this ? For all he knows Hutch could have been Mary's pimp and that he was going into some form of trap to be mugged.
And without a policeman [ as far as I am aware], in sight.

Not for me.
Regards Darryl

[Fleetwood Mac]

I'm sure he did see Lewis, just as sure as I am that Lewis was not the only woman walking along Dorset St. He no doubt told Badham about this young woman who came down Dorset St., but Badham isn't interested in women. He is interested in whether there were any other men in the street at that time, and more to the point, specifically suspicious men.

How do you account for Hutchinson stating something like: I saw this person, that person and the other person, including a policeman, and I saw no one else. I've read a lot of things on this board, some of which is incredulous, but what you're suggesting is the most ludicrous idea I've heard. Completely nonsensical. You clearly have a proposition in mind that necessitates Hutchinson is only talking of 'suspicious' people. Whatever that proposition is, forget about it Jon because what you're suggesting is by anyone's standards a whole load of bollocks.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The point is though that AK man was dressed well but for the area he was in this was not extraordinary as is sometimes portrayed. It may have been risky at that time of night for sure but I don't see it as something that could not be true. It is sometimes used to discredit Hutchinson but it is pretty clear as I keep saying well to do people lived in the locality and others were very comfortable earning a good wage meaning they had the means to be dressed as AK man was. Thrawl Street had a majority of ordinary earners and towards one end of the street were semi criminal elements. At the other end you encountered the well to do. Such was life in the east end.

I think Hutchinson was genuine. I think he told the truth and I would argue AK man was our best chance of identifying JTR. Surmising again but I do wonder if the killer got spooked by Hutchinson's statement to the papers. Was the description quite accurate to spook him? Was Hutchinson fancying he had seen him at Petticoat Market and saying he lived in the area send him underground until re-emergeing with Alice McKenzie months later?

No, that's not the point.

The point is that had you walked down that area at 2 in the morning, there would have been assorted locals over the moon. They would have soon relieved you of whatever you had worth taking.

The aforementioned point is not guesswork or an interpretation of the statements, it is historical fact. The common lodging houses were known locally as Thieves' Kitchens, these aren't places where the police would have saved you, the reason being they preferred not to go down there. You would have been on your own at the mercy of whatever the local thieves had in mind for you. These areas weren't ran by the police, they were ran by the local landlords and the like, and more often than not an over zealous policeman was bribed to look the other way.

I think you're hugely underestimating how dangerous it would have been in that area in the middle of night. Don't believe me? Read about it. There is plenty of literature out there.

[Wickerman]

It was 2 am in the morning, Hutch mentioned that AK man was wearing a thick gold chain clearly visible. He was also carrying a parcel with no attempt to conceal it which may have contained something of value. Hutch also said he stooped down to look AK man in the face and that it is likely that he followed him and Mary up Commercial st.
They then turn into a notorious street, with all the while Hutch trailing them. Mary then leads her punter up a darkened alleyway into a court with one entrance in and one out only, and into her room where anyone could have been there. While Hutch is standing some form of guard across from said court.

A man of, at the least looking like he had some form of means, and some random guy who had just been talking to Mary looks AK man directly in the face and then follows them. And AK man isn't bothered about any of this ? For all he knows Hutch could have been Mary's pimp and that he was going into some form of trap to be mugged.
And without a policeman [ as far as I am aware], in sight.

Not for me.
Regards Darryl

I said much the same in an earlier post, I think Astrachan was concerned. This is the reason I think they stopped, or rather Astrachan paused for a few minutes, he must have noticed Hutchinson following them. In my view he was hesitant to go down the passage. Kelly words could be interpreted as her attempt at calming him down.
Then she changes the subject by claiming to have lost her handkerchief, she wins him over....

[Wickerman]

How do you account for Hutchinson stating something like: I saw this person, that person and the other person, including a policeman, and I saw no one else. I've read a lot of things on this board, some of which is incredulous, but what you're suggesting is the most ludicrous idea I've heard. Completely nonsensical. You clearly have a proposition in mind that necessitates Hutchinson is only talking of 'suspicious' people. Whatever that proposition is, forget about it Jon because what you're suggesting is by anyone's standards a whole load of bollocks.

I think you're exaggerating, I already explained what Badham is interested in, twice now.

Until you can see an interview from an investigating officers point of view, then your opinion has no value. It's not based on anything.

[Wickerman]

No, that's not the point.

The point is that had you walked down that area at 2 in the morning, there would have been assorted locals over the moon. They would have soon relieved you of whatever you had worth taking.

The aforementioned point is not guesswork or an interpretation of the statements, it is historical fact. The common lodging houses were known locally as Thieves' Kitchens, these aren't places where the police would have saved you, the reason being they preferred not to go down there. You would have been on your own at the mercy of whatever the local thieves had in mind for you. These areas weren't ran by the police, they were ran by the local landlords and the like, and more often than not an over zealous policeman was bribed to look the other way.

I think you're hugely underestimating how dangerous it would have been in that area in the middle of night. Don't believe me? Read about it. There is plenty of literature out there.

Did you know there were actually tours of the East End, including it's most degraded streets, by entrepreneurs from the West End, taking wealthy Ladies & Gentry out for a nights entertainment touring Whitechapel?
Journalists never had any problems, day or night, whether it be canvassing the darkest hovels, or the crowded lodging-houses?
I suspect your problem is you read books by modern authors who like to overplay the scene. If you read what was written at the time we don't see anything like what modern authors describe.

[Abby Normal]

its not that hutch described the man as rich thats tje problem, its the amount of specific detail down to small items which would have been near impossible to see in the dark, and the script like movements and conversation thats bullshit

[Wickerman]

its not that hutch described the man as rich thats tje problem, its the amount of specific detail down to small items which would have been near impossible to see in the dark, and the script like movements and conversation thats bullshit

Abby.

It's called eidetic memory.
Did you know Teddy Roosevelt had a photographic memory, so do lots of ordinary people. Kim Peak, the actual person the Rain Man movie with Dustin Hoffman was based. He could recite every book he had ever read, about 9000 books.

It has been determined that between 2 and 10% of children are eidetic, they have the ability to immediately recollect random dot patterns and obscure shapes. The ability does fade when children turn into adults, meaning less than 10% of those adults remain eidetic.

Scientists debate over whether so-called Photographic Memory really exists. Some say if a person can recite a full newspaper page then he has photographic memory (as if he is looking at a photograph), but if he cannot do it backwards then it cannot be Photographic Memory (he is not looking at a photograph).

What is clear is the condition exists, the problem is, no-one can agree on an acceptable term to describe it.

And no, "bull$it" doesn't qualify

[Sunny Delight]

its not that hutch described the man as rich thats tje problem, its the amount of specific detail down to small items which would have been near impossible to see in the dark, and the script like movements and conversation thats bullshit

You are not reading Hutchinson's statement if you are peddling this. He clearly states that he stood under a lamp as AK man and Kelly came towards him. That gave him a good view. He also stood watching them for three minutes or so as they stood outside the Court before entering. Again this gave him a long look at AK man. I dont know what you mean by script like movements. AK man walks with Kelly towards her lodgings and then into it and the conversation was only heard at times. Hutchinson clearly stating Kelly was speaking in a loud voice in some instances like when she declared she had lost her handkerchief.

What we do have is Hutchinson's Police and Press statements. Both are very similar. Unlike say Matthew Packer whose story did change Hutchinson's remained mostly the same. That is the characteristic of someone being truthful. Walter Dew years later didn't take umbrage with Hutchinson in any way and stated he had been an honest witness. He felt he could have mistaken the day not that his statement was too perfect or the description of AK man too detailed. In many ways a mistaken day is not out of the question. Apart from being truthful I think it's the next most likely scenario.

[Abby Normal]

Abby.

It's called eidetic memory.
Did you know Teddy Roosevelt had a photographic memory, so do lots of ordinary people. Kim Peak, the actual person the Rain Man movie with Dustin Hoffman was based. He could recite every book he had ever read, about 9000 books.

It has been determined that between 2 and 10% of children are eidetic, they have the ability to immediately recollect random dot patterns and obscure shapes. The ability does fade when children turn into adults, meaning less than 10% of those adults remain eidetic.

Scientists debate over whether so-called Photographic Memory really exists. Some say if a person can recite a full newspaper page then he has photographic memory (as if he is looking at a photograph), but if he cannot do it backwards then it cannot be Photographic Memory (he is not looking at a photograph).

What is clear is the condition exists, the problem is, no-one can agree on an acceptable term to describe it.

And no, "bull$it" doesn't qualify

you have to be able to see things to remember them. i guess he had night vision too.

[Aethelwulf]

Abby.

It's called eidetic memory.
Did you know Teddy Roosevelt had a photographic memory, so do lots of ordinary people. Kim Peak, the actual person the Rain Man movie with Dustin Hoffman was based. He could recite every book he had ever read, about 9000 books.

It has been determined that between 2 and 10% of children are eidetic, they have the ability to immediately recollect random dot patterns and obscure shapes. The ability does fade when children turn into adults, meaning less than 10% of those adults remain eidetic.

Scientists debate over whether so-called Photographic Memory really exists. Some say if a person can recite a full newspaper page then he has photographic memory (as if he is looking at a photograph), but if he cannot do it backwards then it cannot be Photographic Memory (he is not looking at a photograph).

What is clear is the condition exists, the problem is, no-one can agree on an acceptable term to describe it.

And no, "bull$it" doesn't qualify

i don't think you need to resort to photographic memory to explain this. he saw something unusual and it stuck in his memory. Hutchinson does not belong on any sort of suspect list

[Wickerman]

you have to be able to see things to remember them. i guess he had night vision too.

Where do you get the idea he couldn't see what he claimed to see?

Who better to judge than those who lived at the time.
Officers who are present sign off on the witness statement, if they are not satisfied, they don't sign.
Badham, Ellisdon & Arnold all signed his statement. Which means they accepted his story, which also means they knew he was not too far away to see what he claimed to see.

After Abberline interviewed him, he also accepted the story.

So why do we get modern armchair detectives complaining, he couldn't have seen this, or that.


Many objections against Hutch, are just inventions.

I'd still like to know what "newspaper tattle" means.

[The Macdonald Triad]

So many things wrong with Hutchinson. One little thing that irks me is him saying he actually stooped down to glare at his face because AK was avoiding eye contact. If AK was real why would he go through with killing MK after being peeped out like that? Hutchinson's story almost seems like he's Mr Helpful with an answer for everything.

[The Macdonald Triad]

Abby.

It's called eidetic memory.
Did you know Teddy Roosevelt had a photographic memory, so do lots of ordinary people. Kim Peak, the actual person the Rain Man movie with Dustin Hoffman was based. He could recite every book he had ever read, about 9000 books.

It has been determined that between 2 and 10% of children are eidetic, they have the ability to immediately recollect random dot patterns and obscure shapes. The ability does fade when children turn into adults, meaning less than 10% of those adults remain eidetic.

Scientists debate over whether so-called Photographic Memory really exists. Some say if a person can recite a full newspaper page then he has photographic memory (as if he is looking at a photograph), but if he cannot do it backwards then it cannot be Photographic Memory (he is not looking at a photograph).

What is clear is the condition exists, the problem is, no-one can agree on an acceptable term to describe it.

And no, "bull$it" doesn't qualify

I had it as a kid. I won every book report contest and any book I read the teacher could go to any page and read a few lines and I could explain right where they were. Not always line for line but close enough. I'm still pretty good but Stella's and medicinal weed gum up the works sometimes lol.

[Wickerman]

How do you know he is the killer?
Would your opinion of Hutchinson change if AK was not the killer?