Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

An hypothesis about Hutchinson that could discard him as a suspect

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

  • #31
    if Aman was real, and hutch saw him and mary as he said, then Aman is an important suspect and hutch an important witness. He wouldn't need to change anything about Amans appearance-because what he saw was important enough-Jack the freaking ripper! Regardless of what hutch's original intentions with Aman might have been.
    Good points, Abby.

    Also, if Hutchinson was meant to have alluded to such pricy-looking accessories in order to draw attention to his secret robbing motive, it’s a wonder that Abberline didn’t cotton on and encourage him to spill the beans about his true reason for tailing the man. It was proposed a few years ago that there may have been some sort of “off the record” confession, but this makes very little sense considering that no mention of any such disclosure was made in Abberline’s internal missive to his superiors. “Off the record” does not mean concealing vital information from the police hierarchy.

    Another problem - unaddressed by the "robbing" scenario - is the absurdity of anyone being so insane as to venture into that locality at that time, dressed and blinged-up in a manner that would make robbery an inevitability.

    All the best,
    Ben

    Comment


    • #32
      “Of course, Hutchinson could have killed MJK, i.e. on the basis that he claimed to be near the scene of the crime on the relevant date.”
      No, not purely on that basis, JohnG; on the basis of a strong correlation between his decision to come forward with what would ultimately be considered a discredited eyewitness account very shortly after the termination of the inquest, and the public airing of Sarah Lewis’s evidence at that same inquest involving a man standing outside of, and seemingly monitoring, the court entrance shortly before Kelly was murdered. Unless “freak coincidence” is an appealing option, it is obvious that he learned of Lewis’s evidence, recognised himself as the man in the wideawake hat, and approached the police with the intention of “legitimising” both his presence and witnessed behaviour there.

      Does that automatically make him the murderer? No, but serial killers have been known to both loiterer outside their intended crime venues and inject themselves into the police investigation with bogus information designed to deflect suspicion away from themselves, making it an irrefutably valid proposal in this case. They also tend to live relatively centrally to their chosen murder spots, which is true of Hutchinson (as it is of hundreds of other men, naturally, although none of whom can be argued to have acted suspiciously in relation to a murder scene).

      “I'm not remotely saying that Lave killed Stride, but simply illustrating that the evidence against Hutchinson seems to be extremely weak”
      Except you didn’t illustrate that very well at all, and I’m afraid the “extremely weak” thing is your attempted comparison with Lave, to whom none of the forgoing applies.

      All the best,
      Ben
      Last edited by Ben; 01-05-2016, 09:31 AM.

      Comment


      • #33
        “Lawende did not come forward, the police had to track him down. The authorities had to locate many witnesses.”
        Yes Jon, we know that, but as I hoped you'd be aware by now, it is not so much Hutchinson’s failure to come forward that might be viewed as suspicious, but rather his decision to do so only after the completion of the inquest, where Lewis’s evidence was provided. We have no idea whether or not Lawende would have come forward before the inquest had he not been “tracked down” first.
        “That desperate argument used against Hutch' completely fails when applied to Blotchy.”
        Now what are you on about? What argument are you referring to, who has “applied it” to Blotchy, and why would it have the slightest effect on the likelihood or otherwise of Hutchinson being a murderer? I suggest you read Caz’s post again, paying particular heed to this bit: “Blotchy chose to stay well away, which is understandable because he was definitely seen going into the room with the victim”. Just so, and a person “seen going into the room with the victim” has considerably less leverage to play the bogus voluntary witness card than a person situated across the road from the crime scene when last observed.

        “If Hutch believed he had just stood face to face with the killer (even though Hutch said before the murder that he looked harmless), that might be good enough reason for him to lay low for a few days to think it over.”
        …and then terminate that “thinking it over” period as soon as the inquest finishes and he realises he had been seen at the crime scene. Only then does Hutchinson decide it is high-time to divulge all about Mr. Scary-Fancy-Pants.

        Regards,
        Ben

        Comment


        • #34
          Just a point :recognition...if Galloway could recognize Blotchy from the description in the paper Lewis would surely be able to recognize her Wideawake Man if she ever saw him again.
          Michael Richards

          Comment


          • #35
            The trouble for Hutch, if he did know Mary and Miller's Court reasonably well, and is meant to have entered the room uninvited and killed her some time after Blotchy had left, is that he could not have been 100% certain that nobody could have watched him entering or leaving, and perhaps even recognised him. If he came forward because he considered Sarah Lewis to be a potentially dangerous witness, he took a risk that nobody else had seen him doing something more directly incriminating, eg while his attention was fully on gaining entry
            It's a good point, Caz, and one best resolved by the much-discussed disparity between the account of his movements he gave to the police and the subsequent press version(s). In the latter, Hutchinson enters the court passage itself and hovers outside Kelly's window before retreating back into Dorset Street. It was Garry Wroe's suggestion that this "up the court" embellishment was included in order to account for the "unknown witness factor". It is possible, as you note, that if Hutchinson was the killer he may have been seen entering the passage; in which case he may have been conscious of his failure at the initial police interrogation to legitimise this activity, and eventually did so when interviewed by the press.

            All the best,
            Ben

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by caz View Post
              Hi Jon,

              Blotchy chose to stay well away, which is understandable because he was definitely seen going into the room with the victim. He had to rely on Mrs Cox not seeing him again, recognising him and screaming for the police. It must have suited him down to the ground to have someone like Hutch come forward and put Mary back on the streets after his own encounter, and with a man who could not have looked more different. I still wonder if this was no coincidence but a nice little earner for Hutch. He and Blotchy could have known one another and been regular visitors to Dorset Street.

              The trouble for Hutch, if he did know Mary and Miller's Court reasonably well, and is meant to have entered the room uninvited and killed her some time after Blotchy had left, is that he could not have been 100% certain that nobody could have watched him entering or leaving, and perhaps even recognised him. If he came forward because he considered Sarah Lewis to be a potentially dangerous witness, he took a risk that nobody else had seen him doing something more directly incriminating, eg while his attention was fully on gaining entry.

              On the other hand, if Hutch was indeed hanging around hoping to mug Mary's latest client as he left, and possibly end up in her bed as a bonus, his reluctance to come forward straight away would have been understandable, even though he must have realised the man was very possibly the maniac and needed to be stopped. I can also see why Hutch might big up the man's bling in case he was forced to admit his real motives for following the couple. His 45-minute wait would look all the more credible if his target appeared to be of above average means for the district.

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              Hi Caz

              The trouble for Hutch, if he did know Mary and Miller's Court reasonably well, and is meant to have entered the room uninvited and killed her some time after Blotchy had left, is that he could not have been 100% certain that nobody could have watched him entering or leaving, and perhaps even recognised him. If he came forward because he considered Sarah Lewis to be a potentially dangerous witness, he took a risk that nobody else had seen him doing something more directly incriminating, eg while his attention was fully on gaining entry.
              Exactly! Which is why he may have added the bit about going into the court and standing out side marys room in his later version to the press.

              Ive said it before a zillion times re hutch and his changed police and press accounts-its classic guilty lying behavior:

              They say something about where they were, later think that someone may have seen them somewhere else (usually much more incriminating) and then change there story accordingly.

              Classic lying guilty behavior and its a very common occurance.
              "Is all that we see or seem
              but a dream within a dream?"

              -Edgar Allan Poe


              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

              -Frederick G. Abberline

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                Hi Caz



                Exactly! Which is why he may have added the bit about going into the court and standing out side marys room in his later version to the press.

                Ive said it before a zillion times re hutch and his changed police and press accounts-its classic guilty lying behavior:

                They say something about where they were, later think that someone may have seen them somewhere else (usually much more incriminating) and then change there story accordingly.

                Classic lying guilty behavior and its a very common occurance.
                By the time Hutch came forward anyone who had seen anything would have already come forward..he didn't present his story until 4 days after the fact, and after most of the press have covered the murder fairly comprehensively. Ergo, when he finally came forward, if he was in fact the Wideawake Man, then he would know only Sarah saw him.
                Michael Richards

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                  By the way, you asked for a copy of an article in the Pall Mall Gazette. I wasn't sure if what I posted covered what you were looking for.
                  Sorry about that. Howard sent it to me by e-mail. Thanks a bunch.
                  Is it progress when a cannibal uses a fork?
                  - Stanislaw Jerzy Lee

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Observer View Post
                    Shortly after the Mary Kelly murder the authorities proposed an amnesty should the killer have had an accomplice. They were obviously impressed with Lewis's loiterer, I believe they may have come to think that this man was an accomplice. Now, if they believed the loiterer to have been an accopmlice, then it follows that they did not believe that man to have been Hutchinson.

                    By the time of the amnesty offer I believe the police had some kind of evidence which proved that Hutchinson was on the night in question, nowhere near the scene of Mary Kelly's murder.
                    Not sure I understand what you mean.
                    Chronologically, the amnesty offer happened on the 10th, the inquest wasn't even open yet.
                    Is it progress when a cannibal uses a fork?
                    - Stanislaw Jerzy Lee

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Hi.
                      If I am right then Hutchinson was not a killer. or a mugger, or a stalker, or a pimp.
                      He was a man living in a lodging house, living from day to day, and being approx two years younger then Kelly, had known her for the time he stated.
                      He met the poor lady as stated, he saw the man known as Mr A, as stated, he followed the couple as stated, and did everything he related to the police, as stated.
                      Hutchinson was George William Topping Hutchinson, born Oct 1st 1866, son of Reg Hutchinson..that I first became aware of in the 1970's, years before it became media knowledge.
                      Nobody on Casebook,takes notice of my ramblings, but I am convinced the above is accurate.
                      Regards Richard.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                        By the time Hutch came forward anyone who had seen anything would have already come forward..he didn't present his story until 4 days after the fact, and after most of the press have covered the murder fairly comprehensively. Ergo, when he finally came forward, if he was in fact the Wideawake Man, then he would know only Sarah saw him.
                        Isn't it therefore likely that he was aware that Lewis had only given a general description of the loiterer, and clearly had not made a positive identification? Therefore, if he was Kelly's murderer, would he have risked coming forward, placing himself near to the scene of the crime, when there was probably only a very small chance that, based upon Lewis' description, he would be subsequently identified.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Barnaby View Post
                          Hutch aside, good bet someone would rob Astrakhan man. Which is another reason to believe that there was nobody dressed like that in the first place; most people, including serial killers, aren't that crazy.
                          People did get mugged, and in that part of town, so therein lies the proof.
                          It's also true to say you can get killed crossing the road, day or night. Have you ever crossed a road?
                          Of course you have, it'll not happen to you though, right?
                          Well, that's what all those mugging victims thought.

                          It's human nature, to assert "nobody would dress like that because....", is rather pointless. People always have and always will.
                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                            ... Lewis would surely be able to recognize her Wideawake Man if she ever saw him again.
                            If Lewis could tell his age, or height, or whether he wore a moustache, sidewhiskers, beard, glasses, etc. Don't you think she would have told the police all that?

                            Cox described Blotchy so well because they passed within a foot or two at the end of the same passage, while Lewis saw a man about 25 feet away across a dark street, describing basically a silhouette, nothing more.
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                              By the time Hutch came forward anyone who had seen anything would have already come forward..he didn't present his story until 4 days after the fact, and after most of the press have covered the murder fairly comprehensively. Ergo, when he finally came forward, if he was in fact the Wideawake Man, then he would know only Sarah saw him.
                              Ergo. Negative.
                              More like Non Sequiter.

                              Of course you totally missed what I said per usual.

                              My point was about the time period between his police statement and his press statement.

                              You have no idea what he thought heard or saw between that time.

                              And the FACT remains that he changed his story substantially, now putting himself directly outside the murdered woman's door.

                              Why?

                              One explanation i put forth is simply that he has done what thousands of criminals have done before and since. That is change his story when confronted with a different opposing explanation.

                              But I guess I'm not surprised you totally missed it and blathered on with your already pre conceived ideas MR as its par for the course.
                              Last edited by Abby Normal; 01-05-2016, 04:43 PM.
                              "Is all that we see or seem
                              but a dream within a dream?"

                              -Edgar Allan Poe


                              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                              -Frederick G. Abberline

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Hi John,

                                Therefore, if he was Kelly's murderer, would he have risked coming forward, placing himself near to the scene of the crime, when there was probably only a very small chance that, based upon Lewis' description, he would be subsequently identified.
                                A vague description by no means equates to an inabity to recognise the same person again; nondescript people are quite capable of being recognisable. In addition to which, and as I've mentioned before, if Hutchinson had been monitoring press coverage of past inquests, he would have known that Lawende's full description had been deliberately suppressed. For all he knew, the authorities may have been attempting the same ploy, albeit without advertising the fact this time, with Lewis's evidence.

                                All the best,
                                Ben

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X