An hypothesis about Hutchinson that could discard him as a suspect

[Garry Wroe]

It is likely, as you suggest, that this voluntary witness simply conveyed a favourable impression.

Abberline subjected Hutchinson to a standard witness interrogation, Ben. This constituted a lengthy period of questioning which encompassed elements specifically designed to trip up an untruthful witness. Whereas Violenia's responses mediated suspicion amongst his interrogators, Hutchinson's did not. It's as straightforward as that.

[Scott Nelson]

Ben, that hypothesis about Hutchinson that could discard him as a suspect, did it?

[Ben]

Isn't it possible that Mary and Hutch met up on Commercial Street, discussed the fact that they were both skint and devised a cunning plan between them, by which Mary would invite the first gullible looking customer she saw back to her place and earn herself some rent money, while Hutch would wait for him to emerge and relieve him of some more?

But what would Hutchinson's reaction have been when it became apparent to him that Kelly was reneging on the deal? Not more expectant loitering before abandoning ship completely, that's for sure. At the very least, one would expect Hutchinson to return at some point with the intention of either seeing the original plan through to completion (if the man was still there) or asking Kelly what on earth she was playing at (if he wasn't). A superior option by far to the bizarrely defeatist "walking about all night" at any rate.

Sounds to me like he was reluctant to say why he was really there, but would have needed a back-up plan in case Abberline snorted: "Pull the other one, you'll stay here until you tell me why you were really there".

I agree, and for all we know he may well have had a "back-up plan". If so, he evidently didn't need to use it because we know Abberline accepted his "curiosity" excuse, lame or not. Had it been otherwise, and Abberline had said something like "pull the other one", then yes, Hutchinson might have wheeled out a back-up excuse; "I wanted to rob the man", "I'm totally soppy for Kelly and just wanted to spend the night with her" - any variant of this and similar excuses could have been just an untrue as the original "curiosity" ploy.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

“How much 'leverage' would Hutch have had in the event that Sarah Lewis had been so curious about her loitering man that she had secretly watched him from a window to see what he was up to, and had seen him gaining entry to Kelly's room?”

Well, he would have seen her looking from her window had that been the case, which we know it wasn’t.

Also, if we’re to credit him with some degree of ability for proper risk assessment, he would have realised that the chances of anyone peering out of their bedroom window at nothing were extremely remote at 3:30am, and that a swift and quiet entry into room #13 wouldn’t have enabled any window-gazing insomniac to see anything beyond the back of a man in dark clothes and a hat. Contrast that with the full and clear realisation that a woman had definitely seen him, and not just from the back, and we have a rational anxiety, as opposed to the sort of irrational behaviour that would surely have prevented him from committing any murders in the first place.

I've suggested in the past that the killer may not have struck until well after 3.00am in order to allow time for the recent entrants to the court to settle to bed and to sleep. If the killer had been monitoring proceedings from a vantage point, as Hutchinson arguably did, this may explain the time lapse between Mary Cox's arrival at 3.00am and the cry of "murder" nearly an hour later, when the risk of window-peekers was considerably reduced.

“How could he have known otherwise, or that this part of her account, together with a more detailed description of him, wasn't being suppressed as in Lawende's case, not only to protect Lewis from a killer's revenge, but also to lull him into a false sense of security?”

Well yes, there was always that, just as there bound to have been “worst case scenarios” associated with all the other killers who inserted themselves into their own investigations, posing as witnesses, but if these men were prepared to take the gamble and risk it anyway, I don’t see why Hutchinson would not have done so if he was the killer.

“So would Hutch have been playing the bogus voluntary witness card for business or pleasure? Would he have felt forced into the open by what Lewis had said about him publicly, or would he have gone for kicks in spite of anything else she may have seen and told the police about privately?”

Either or both. He might also have considered it a golden opportunity to keep appraised of police progress. It strikes me as very unlikely that the serial killers who did approach the police primarily out of fear (at incriminating evidence) would not also have derived a “thrill” from brazenly lying and posing as an innocent party right in front of his oblivious pursers.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

“It wouldn't be 'vital' (as in relevant) information if Abberline was merely able to establish under interrogation that Hutch had been hoping to mug this man of means.”

I’m afraid I strongly disagree, Caz.

If Hutchinson’s entire motivation for being in a position to witness what he alleged to have witnessed was a desire to mug Kelly’s companion, and admitted to same under interrogation, there can be no question that Abberline would have disclosed as much to his superiors in his private, internal police communication. Otherwise, he would have been withholding information that was very much “relevant”, as well as supplying bogus information to Swanson – in collusion with Hutchinson – regarding the latter’s true reason for loitering where he did, and for as long as he claimed. The reason Abberline didn’t “elaborate” on his reason for believing Hutchinson is because he couldn’t. There simply hadn’t been the time available to investigate Hutchinson’s claims before the report was submitted, which meant that his “opinion that the statement is true” could only have been a face-value, faith-based impression, and one that evidently didn’t last very long. It is likely, as you suggest, that this voluntary witness simply conveyed a favourable impression.

“Whether Hutch invented the man entirely, or artificially blinged him up a bit, or described him accurately, Abberline - who was in a far better position than you will ever be to make the assessment - did not find it absurd or insane, even if he thought it would have been risky.”

Well, the description was discredited shortly after Hutchinson first provided it, which it wouldn't have been if Abberline had continued to accept it as a valid sighting of a potential ripper. Abberline famously theorized that Klosowski the Ripper acted on an prostitute organ-harvesting commission from an American doctor, and then crossed the Atlantic to commit more crimes having failed to secure enough innards for his boss in London. That’s arguably wackier even than the notion of a ludicrously blinged-up killer.

Abberline wouldn’t necessarily have swallowed every detail as true and accurate. He might, for instance, have accepted the barebones of Hutchinson's Astrakhan man, but wondered if he might have fleshed it out a bit in his zeal to be cooperative. Equally, a person without any experience of mutilating serial killers might well have made allowances for extremes (of dress, behaviour, whatever) that they would not have extended to the ordinary person. In other words, the "extraordinary" may have been considered acceptable in the context of the real killer, i.e. a person who engages in some extreme activities might be "extreme" in other respects too.

This particular blinged-up man would also have been tooled up and well able to defend himself if he was the ripper.

That's not really the point, though. I doubt very much that the ripper went on the hunt for victims fully prepared and expecting to fend off hoards of criminals who would inevitably be drawn to his appearance. He sought to avoid those people, with the potentially disastrous consequences for his killing spree they would have if they were to take an interest, and the best way to acheive that - as well as not deterring his intended targets by looking obviously out-of-place - was to blend in.

And no robberies would ever have taken place in this crime-riddled district if nobody with any bling or other valuables dared venture outdoors with them

These valuables would have been concealed, no doubt, as opposed to paraded on ostentatious display.

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

Hi Caz

and anyway if hutch and mary did come up with this scheme which included robbing Aman-it never materialized, when it very simply could have.

Hi Abby,

How could it have materialised if Hutch was outside waiting for Mary to finish her part of the scheme, while the man was inside, taking his pleasure by butchering her? Hutch was hardly going to shout through the window: "Hurry up in there, will you Mary, I'm waiting to rob him as soon as he puts his trousers back on".

He could never be forced to say he was there to rob a man and as a matter of fact did use "the lamest excuse of all" for his reason to be there-which seemed to not bother Abberline at all.

If Abberline swallowed this frankly daft excuse without further question I'd be amazed, and Hutch would have been far luckier than he deserved or could have expected. If the truth was that he had hoped to rob the man, don't you think he'd have owned up to it if the alternative was to face arrest on suspicion of murder, had Abberline not been satisfied that he was telling the truth?

In fact, let's assume Hutch was the ripper and Abberline hadn't been satisfied with his given reason for waiting there so long. How do you think Hutch would have tried to resolve the situation? Wouldn't some kind of admission to a lesser wrong have been as good a way out as any?

Love,

Caz
X

[pinkmoon]

deconstructing jack

I think you should all read simon woods excellent deconstructing jack( which in my opnion is the best general.book.written about the ripper murders).The chapter about mary kellys murder will make you look at george hutchinson and the ripper murders in a totally different way .

[Michael W Richards]

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.

Aside from your other predictable nonsense I was attempting to illustrate that whatever story he gave or modified it would only have to address the possibility of being seen by one witness.

As for the description she gave it was of a short, stout man wearing a black Wideawake, anyone have a description of George Hutchinson to compare that with? And does anyone know if this is the same George Hutchinson that appeared in Thames Court in 1887 for stealing a watch?

[caz]

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.

How much 'leverage' would Hutch have had in the event that Sarah Lewis had been so curious about her loitering man that she had secretly watched him from a window to see what he was up to, and had seen him gaining entry to Kelly's room? How could he have known otherwise, or that this part of her account, together with a more detailed description of him, wasn't being suppressed as in Lawende's case, not only to protect Lewis from a killer's revenge, but also to lull him into a false sense of security?

Of course, the fall-back position here is to argue that some serial killers get a thrill from taking exactly this kind of risk, and will walk boldly into the lion's den not knowing or perhaps even caring if the police might be holding back an incriminating witness account that corresponds with their physical appearance and attempt to clear themselves.

So would Hutch have been playing the bogus voluntary witness card for business or pleasure? Would he have felt forced into the open by what Lewis had said about him publicly, or would he have gone for kicks in spite of anything else she may have seen and told the police about privately?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

That doesn't make much sense, Ben. Hutch did more than allude to the man's flashy appearance - he described it in detail. So whether it was true or not (and you don't believe it was!) and why he said it is irrelevant. It is a wonder that Abberline didn't 'cotton on' and encourage him to spill the beans about why he really tailed a man who was practically begging to be robbed.

It wouldn't be 'vital' (as in relevant) information if Abberline was merely able to establish under interrogation that Hutch had been hoping to mug this man of means. He didn't mug him, but such an admission would have rung true and helped explain why he was able to witness all that he did. The brief report did not go into why Abberline believed his statement to be true. Maybe he just came across as a decent enough sort. Or maybe there was more to it than that. Either way, Abberline felt no need to elaborate, and his superiors could always have asked if they'd wanted to know.

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.

Whether Hutch invented the man entirely, or artificially blinged him up a bit, or described him accurately, Abberline - who was in a far better position than you will ever be to make the assessment - did not find it absurd or insane, even if he thought it would have been risky. This particular blinged-up man would also have been tooled up and well able to defend himself if he was the ripper. And no robberies would ever have taken place in this crime-riddled district if nobody with any bling or other valuables dared venture outdoors with them.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Are you not over thinking this a bit? Isn't it possible that Mary and Hutch met up on Commercial Street, discussed the fact that they were both skint and devised a cunning plan between them, by which Mary would invite the first gullible looking customer she saw back to her place and earn herself some rent money, while Hutch would wait for him to emerge and relieve him of some more? Wasn't this a pretty common double act to pull in this neck of the woods, on anyone who appeared to be an easy target? Could this explain why Hutch didn't suspect Mary was in any danger from this man? He just didn't seem the type to cut up rough? Do you really think men who visited prostitutes and got fleeced after departing typically went to the police about it?



A million reasons, Abby, for following Mary and this apparently harmless, extravagantly attired man back to Miller's Court and waiting there for nearly an hour in inclement weather? I don't think so, or why did he fall back on the lamest excuse of all - that he was merely "curious" and wanted to have another gawp at the man? Sounds to me like he was reluctant to say why he was really there, but would have needed a back-up plan in case Abberline snorted: "Pull the other one, you'll stay here until you tell me why you were really there". He'd then have been forced to come up with something more plausible, which could have included a failed plan to rob a man of evident means, or a failed plan to share a prostitute's bed, or both. Neither involved committing an actual offence, and either would be a million times better than being suspected of a successful plan to murder the woman.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

Are you not over thinking this a bit? Isn't it possible that Mary and Hutch met up on Commercial Street, discussed the fact that they were both skint and devised a cunning plan between them, by which Mary would invite the first gullible looking customer she saw back to her place and earn herself some rent money, while Hutch would wait for him to emerge and relieve him of some more? Wasn't this a pretty common double act to pull in this neck of the woods, on anyone who appeared to be an easy target? Could this explain why Hutch didn't suspect Mary was in any danger from this man? He just didn't seem the type to cut up rough? Do you really think men who visited prostitutes and got fleeced after departing typically went to the police about it?

No I don't think Im overthinking it. More like simplifying-youre the one coming up with very creative and complicated scenarios in which there is not a shred of evidence for.

and anyway if hutch and mary did come up with this scheme which included robbing Aman-it never materialized, when it very simply could have.

A million reasons, Abby, for following Mary and this apparently harmless, extravagantly attired man back to Miller's Court and waiting there for nearly an hour in inclement weather? I don't think so, or why did he fall back on the lamest excuse of all - that he was merely "curious" and wanted to have another gawp at the man? Sounds to me like he was reluctant to say why he was really there, but would have needed a back-up plan in case Abberline snorted: "Pull the other one, you'll stay here until you tell me why you were really there". He'd then have been forced to come up with something more plausible, which could have included a failed plan to rob a man of evident means, or a failed plan to share a prostitute's bed, or both. Neither involved committing an actual offence, and either would be a million times better than being suspected of a successful plan to murder the woman.

He could never be forced to say he was there to rob a man and as a matter of fact did use "the lamest excuse of all" for his reason to be there-which seemed to not bother Abberline at all.

[caz]

One thing to consider(and I do not believe this idea has been put forth) is that if hutchs motive was robbery, he would have to consider that Aman would have known that hutch and mary knew each other, and therefore Aman could have told the police that-putting hutch AND Mary in hot water.

Not to mention putting a serious strain on the friendship between hutch and Mary.

As in mary being pissed off at him for not only getting her dragged into it, from a police standpoint, but also for messing up her livelihood, if Aman was a client, and or if not, messing up her potential with her Aman as her friend/lover/potential sugardaddy.

Hi Abby,

Are you not over thinking this a bit? Isn't it possible that Mary and Hutch met up on Commercial Street, discussed the fact that they were both skint and devised a cunning plan between them, by which Mary would invite the first gullible looking customer she saw back to her place and earn herself some rent money, while Hutch would wait for him to emerge and relieve him of some more? Wasn't this a pretty common double act to pull in this neck of the woods, on anyone who appeared to be an easy target? Could this explain why Hutch didn't suspect Mary was in any danger from this man? He just didn't seem the type to cut up rough? Do you really think men who visited prostitutes and got fleeced after departing typically went to the police about it?

Hi Caz
Not sure what your reasoning here is. 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.

Changing his appearance falsely would jeopardize any opportunity for Hutch to cash in on being an important witness.

And I also don't see why hutch need to be worried about his original secret robbing motive-how would the police be able to force him to reveal it?
Theres a million things he could have said of why he was there and following them, which would have been overshadowed by the fact that he probably saw the ripper anyway!

A million reasons, Abby, for following Mary and this apparently harmless, extravagantly attired man back to Miller's Court and waiting there for nearly an hour in inclement weather? I don't think so, or why did he fall back on the lamest excuse of all - that he was merely "curious" and wanted to have another gawp at the man? Sounds to me like he was reluctant to say why he was really there, but would have needed a back-up plan in case Abberline snorted: "Pull the other one, you'll stay here until you tell me why you were really there". He'd then have been forced to come up with something more plausible, which could have included a failed plan to rob a man of evident means, or a failed plan to share a prostitute's bed, or both. Neither involved committing an actual offence, and either would be a million times better than being suspected of a successful plan to murder the woman.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

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

[Abby Normal]

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.

[Wickerman]

... 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.