Vetting Hutchinson

[John G]

The problem is the press reports vary so clearly cannot be totally relied upon. From the Pall Mall Gazette: "I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for three-quarters of an hour to see if they came down again, but they did not, and so I went away. "

Now it seems to me that this version implies that he stood on the fringes of the court, "I went to look up the court...", in order to get a better view. It certainly does not imply that he entered the court.

[Abby Normal]

Exactly, Mike.

The only possible motive for interpreting it rigidly as 'waiting outside the court the whole time and not venturing one step forward to improve my chances of actually seeing the couple inside the court' is to introduce a significant - and supposedly suspicious - change in his story.

In my experience, if the whole point of going 'to' a theatre is to try and see a play there, your best bet is not to stay in the foyer, hoping to catch a glimpse of it from there.

Love,

Caz
X

not if your following someone there Caz.
CONTEXT.

Police:
went to the court (45 minutes)

press:
went up the court (couple of minutes)

If I said I followed someone to their house, does that mean I went into the house? No.

If I said I followed someone to the court, does that mean I went into the court? No.

CONTEXT.

[Abby Normal]

Police version:

I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away.

Press version:

I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house or hear any noise.

In what world are these the same version of events and in what world is this not someone changing there story significantly?

Police version-45 minutes outside the court
Press version-couple of minutes inside the court

But the obvious(maybe not so obvious) difference-In the second version he places himself very near the murder scene, but more significantly(since he indicates that since there was no light or noise from the house)-he KNOWS exactly where Kelly lives. According to the police version-he does not know this.

uh-oh.

[caz]

The initial quote does not say he didn't go into the court as some would have us believe. He went to the court. Doesn't say he waited outside.

Mike

Exactly, Mike.

The only possible motive for interpreting it rigidly as 'waiting outside the court the whole time and not venturing one step forward to improve my chances of actually seeing the couple inside the court' is to introduce a significant - and supposedly suspicious - change in his story.

In my experience, if the whole point of going 'to' a theatre is to try and see a play there, your best bet is not to stay in the foyer, hoping to catch a glimpse of it from there.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The exact words used by Hutchinson in his police statement are:
" I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not."

The Press version is almost exactly the same:
" I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not."

As can be seen the words are for all intents and purposes the same.
So, it is a fabrication to suggest he told the police one thing and the press another.
He told them both the same.

What he did do, likely in response to questions, is elaborate on what he told the reporter by adding:
" I went up the court, and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house, or hear any noise."

I agree entirely, Jon. I think a few posters are making something out of nothing here. If we look at this logically, Hutch's stated reason for going 'to' the court at all was to see if he could see the couple again there. When he failed to see them from the entrance to the passage, he'd naturally have gone 'up the court' to improve his chances - unless Ben's scary invisible dragon was stopping him. Still not seeing them, he assumed they had gone indoors and waited 45 minutes for one or both to emerge again.

The alternative, which I just don't buy (sorry, Abby) is that he volunteered a carefully thought out statement to the police, presumably as a result of being seen watching the court, and claimed to have done all this watching from the Dorset St entrance. Then he decided to tell the whole world, via the press, that he actually went right into the court where the victim's room was! What was he thinking, if this is the true version?

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

The exact words used by Hutchinson in his police statement are:
" I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not."

The Press version is almost exactly the same:
" I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not."

As can be seen the words are for all intents and purposes the same.
So, it is a fabrication to suggest he told the police one thing and the press another.
He told them both the same.

What he did do, likely in response to questions, is elaborate on what he told the reporter by adding:
" I went up the court, and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house, or hear any noise."

Badham apparently did not ask him to expand on that point, but as has been pointed out before, Badham's questioning was limited to non-existent.

The initial quote does not say he didn't go into the court as some would have us believe. He went to the court. Doesn't say he waited outside.

Mike

[harry]

As I see it,Badham was establishing that when Hutchinson reached the court,he (Hutchinson) could not observe anyone being in the court.How many questions did Badham need to put to establish that?How many times for Hutchinson to state it?How many times did it need to be included in the statement? How could Badham,or Aberline establish the truth of that particular statement?

[Wickerman]

The exact words used by Hutchinson in his police statement are:
" I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not."

The Press version is almost exactly the same:
" I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not."

As can be seen the words are for all intents and purposes the same.
So, it is a fabrication to suggest he told the police one thing and the press another.
He told them both the same.

What he did do, likely in response to questions, is elaborate on what he told the reporter by adding:
" I went up the court, and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house, or hear any noise."

Badham apparently did not ask him to expand on that point, but as has been pointed out before, Badham's questioning was limited to non-existent.

[Wickerman]

Detective Constable and Police Constable are (contrary to what some of the former might claim!) the same rank, but within different departments. Certainly the two roles are not mutually exclusive. Both police - and both detect.

Right, but there was a police department before there was a detective department.
The latter was created to broaden the service, so yes, Constable is the rank, but you are either a member of the Police Service, to prevent crime, or you are a member of the Detective branch, who investigates crime.

[Bridewell]

Dew was a Detective Constable, not a Police Constable, you appear to be confusing the two. Dew's responsibilities was to "Detect", not to "Police".

Detective Constable and Police Constable are (contrary to what some of the former might claim!) the same rank, but within different departments. Certainly the two roles are not mutually exclusive. Both police - and both detect.

[Abby Normal]

Fair enough, Abby, so maybe you'd like to take a stab at what I asked Garry?

If you are correct, would it not suggest Hutch was merely guilty of putting himself nearer to centre stage for the press than he did for the police? Would a man guilty of actually committing this horrific murder have made such a significant change to his account for public eyes, not expecting the police to notice?

Love,

Caz
X

hi Caz
Thanks for the response.

If you are correct, would it not suggest Hutch was merely guilty of putting himself nearer to centre stage for the press than he did for the police

?

It suggests that Hutch is a liar, whether for embellishment or more nefarious reasons.

Would a man guilty of actually committing this horrific murder have made such a significant change to his account for public eyes, not expecting the police to notice

I don't know if he thought the police would notice or not, but liars change their story all the time-whether intentionally, for the reason I gave before or unintentionally, because they cant remember their lies.

They tell the police one thing, the press another, friends and family another-happens all the time.

If the police noticed the change hutch could just say-I thought I said that. Or if he thought he had been spotted in the alley- he could say I didn't try to hide that I told the press-its written right there.

Remember, the standing in the court was only one of several significant additions hutch made to the press-he also told them he saw the man again and that he told a PC. I think if hutch was the killer he was,as are most serial killers, very vain and smarter than the police and was toying with them

[John G]

I think that any discrepancies in Hutchinson's account are fairly minor, especially when you consider the numerous points of corroboration between the press account and police statement-at least 40 according to Sugden (2002).

In fact, what I do find extraordinary is that most posters seem to accept Schwartz's evidence without question despite far more serious discrepancies. I mean, in the press account Pipeman is transformed from a man smoking a pipe- according to the police report- into a knife-wielding accomplice of BS man, who rushes Schwartz with the weapon!

[caz]

Hi Caz
If I may.

Hutch told the police he stood outside the court, waiting to see if they came out.

Hutch later told the press he went into the court, standing near her place.

simple and straightforward.

To me, experience has shown that this smacks of classic lying behavior, where the subject, after saying they were somewhere, later thinks someone saw him somewhere else, and changes his story accordingly.

Fair enough, Abby, so maybe you'd like to take a stab at what I asked Garry?

If you are correct, would it not suggest Hutch was merely guilty of putting himself nearer to centre stage for the press than he did for the police? Would a man guilty of actually committing this horrific murder have made such a significant change to his account for public eyes, not expecting the police to notice?

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

Hi Amanda.
I think the most reasonable assumption to make is that this was in response to a question like, "had you been drinking at all?".
The reporter apparently did ask him questions, they are typically just not given in the article.

[Amanda]

He is reputed to have said:
" I was quite sober, not having had anything to drink all day."

Thanks Jon,
I guess that answers my question.

Although, it does seem to imply that 'not having had anything to drink all day' was quite an unusual occurrence for him. Do you think he was a heavy drinker when money allowed?

Amanda