An hypothesis about Hutchinson that could discard him as a suspect

[caz]

Hi Caz
sorry for the late reply-just saw this.

No problem Abby, my replies are usually even later.

I'm not sure what they concluded-but it was probably along the lines of questioning his credibility and reliability as a witness. But if I had to bet I would say they probably concluded he was there, but never saw Mary or A man.

Yet they never established what he was really doing there, if they concluded he had not been waiting there for some unusually flashy client of Kelly's to emerge, and had never even seen either of them that night? Never connected his now unexplained and lonesome loitering presence with Sarah Lewis's unexplained and lonesome loitering man? Never had any suspicions that he might have been up to good since he had no apparent business being there at all?

But what are the police going to do? By his own admission, he has no alibi.

But he chose to admit he was there, right outside the crime scene, so he presumably wasn't expecting to need an alibi, nor to supply one unless the police began to suspect his motives. There is always a chance that he was spinning a yarn for fame and a bit of much needed cash (hence his late arrival at the police station, followed by his indecent haste to give his story to the papers) in which case he may very well have had an alibi if things became uncomfortable and he had no alternative explanation for his claimed presence in Miller's Court.

Bottom line. They initially believed him, came to not believe him, and perhaps some had suspicion, but not enough that it was written down anywhere or able to be followed up on.

Only if he really was where he said he was though, Abby, and not in a lodging house bed, with witnesses to confirm it. For me, that would be the only sure way of being dropped as a discredited witness without further ado. We don't want to invoke the spectre of missing paperwork (for Ben's sake ), but surely there would have been something in writing about the need to keep close tabs on him for the foreseeable future, and what they did about it, if they had failed to establish what he may have been up to near the crime scene, after similarly failing to establish he was somewhere else?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hutchinson's ultimate failure to demonstrate any such "business" would only have weakened his claim to have been there at all, and yet in your recent post to Abby, you suggest the reverse was the case - that the absence of demonstrable "business" would have made it more likely (in the minds of the police) that he was there in the capacity of a killer/accomplice, as opposed to being a publicity-seeker who wasn't. I don't quite get that.

Hi Ben,

Well Abby would 'get' it:

I'm not sure what they concluded-but it was probably along the lines of questioning his credibility and reliability as a witness. But if I had to bet I would say they probably concluded he was there, but never saw Mary or A man.

If Hutch was guilty, the best outcome possible for him was for the police to conclude he was never there and made the whole thing up.

Second best was for the police to believe he was there, but for innocent motives.

Worst was for the police to conclude he was there (especially if they had gone on to make the connection with Sarah Lewis's lurker, which is what you argue prompted him forward in the first place, while hoping they would not link his sudden appearance with her inquest testimony) but reject his sighting of Kelly and client along with his excuse for being right outside her room that night.

...if he was the killer, it was imperative to stick to his story. What if he had made a false confession to making the whole thing up (his presence at the crime scene included), only for some eagle-eyed journalist to then make the connection with Lewis's wideawake man? No such inference had been made at that stage, but could he rely on his luck to hold? It is Lewis's evidence - and Hutchinson coming forward hot on the heels of its publication - that establishes the latter's probable identity as the wideawake man (disregarding freak "coincidence" as an alternative explanation). Had this been registered at the time, Hutchinson would naturally have been treated with suspicion, but unfortunately it was not.

And here's the rub, because if he volunteered his story to the police and every eagle-eyed journalist on the planet, as a direct result of what Sarah Lewis saw, he was inviting everyone to register the connection, without saying a word about it himself, and was surely anticipating that someone would register it, upon which he would 'naturally have been treated with suspicion' - the same suspicion he supposedly came forward to avoid. It's a bit of a dog's breakfast, isn't it? And that's without knowing if he had the time or the opportunity to absorb Lewis's entire testimony, appreciate his dilemma, fashion an account of his own to fit in with hers, then turn up at the nick when he did to spew it all out and receive Abberline's initial seal of approval.

Love,

Caz
X

[packers stem]

Read the Lewis account, PS, and you’ll see that Sarah was on Bethnal Green Road with her sister on the Wednesday. I’ve long suspected that Mrs Kennedy and this sister were one and the same, and that she simply hijacked Sarah’s story in order to make some easy cash from a news-hungry journalist.

Hi Gary
Sorry just spotted this as the post has been brought back up the thread.
It may well have been that Sarah Lewis and Mrs kennedy were sisters but it could be that Kennedy and Lewis were the same person and that her story altered markedly over a couple of days.
Kennedy would have been interviewed on the ninth by the star journalist. Why, other than the ending being the same as Lewis, is it completely different in every aspect?
If Sarah had told her what she she had seen and she was trying to hijack the story like you say, why would she change the details of the first part completely?
Reading the Kennedy version it just does not read made up whereas there are issues with the Lewis statement including the crossing out.

[caz]

Sarah Lewis’s story was not in the public domain at the time Hutchinson came forward. She had related it first under police questioning and then as a witness at the Kelly inquest. Since Abberline gave evidence at the inquest it is safe to assume that Hutchinson could not have been in attendance – unless, of course, one supposes that Abberline failed to recognise Hutchinson at Commercial Street Police Station just a few hours later. Thus it may be inferred that Hutchinson knew nothing of the Lewis narrative at the time he made his police statement.

Whoa there, Garry. So you and Ben have very different views on what prompted Hutchinson to come forward. I have always found it tricky to believe he could have known the full extent of Lewis's account, recognised himself and tailored a story to explain why he was watching and waiting there, while hoping nobody would think he was the same man Lewis saw.

So what do you think his motives were for coming forward if he was the killer and had no knowledge of any witnesses who could realistically have caused him grief if he had stayed away and kept a low profile?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

For my part, I think its possible, Hutch heard what sarah said at the inquest, or got wind of it, or even maybe knew that she was there that was the catalyst for him to come forward of his own accord.

But even if he didn't, I think it also possible that the mere sight of her that night and the possibility in his mind that she saw him there and that she might know him might have done it.

Garry mentioned the interesting possibility that it was Cox who might have seen him IN the court that night that prompted his changing his story to the press. Im wondering if garry also might think she was the one who prompted him to come forward to the police in the first place.

What I don't quite get is why the killer would go ahead with his plans, and stay (more or less cornered) in that little room acting them out for a comparatively long time, if he was aware of any witness who saw him lurking there beforehand, who might fetch a policeman to investigate if they were suspicious, or could later describe him and his behaviour and possibly identify him.

On the other hand, if he had an overwhelming compulsion to do the deed regardless, or had no fear at the time of any witnesses such as Lewis or Cox seeing him, or didn't know he had been caught watching, he must have had considerable misgivings afterwards to put himself under the spotlight and try to put a plaster over it all, with the sensational statements he made to the police and the press. Clearly as the killer, he knew that neither Lewis nor Cox, nor any other witness around at that time, would have seen anyone remotely like the suspect he claimed Kelly had picked up and taken back to the court just before he began his own vigil there.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

One other thing...

If no connection was made by the police between Lewis's lurking man and Hutchinson (either because there would be surviving paperwork, or because they apparently concluded he was never there), would there not have been any paperwork referring to police attempts to track down and identify the man Lewis did see, given that he was watching the court as if waiting for someone to emerge at a time when Kelly could already have been murdered; could have been in the process of being mutilated; or could shortly have been attacked by a client or an intruder?

It seems that for whatever reason the police did not consider Hutch for the role of Lewis's lurker; did not treat Lewis's lurker as a potential suspect; or if they did, their enquiries led nowhere and the paperwork is - er - missing.

Oh and the fact that neither Lewis nor Cox appear to have realised that Hutch must have been the man they saw, from the various newspaper accounts (or if they did they kept their traps well shut for a change), makes it doubtful that Hutch thought they knew him or had seen him about locally, and could have got him identified had he failed to come forward of his own accord.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fleetwood Mac]

Something hit me recently, and I'm probably not the first to come with the idea.

I've been reading The Darkest Streets and The Worst Street in London, just to get some context about pauperism in late Victorian London.

A few things jumped in front of my eyes (unfortunately, I can't remember to which of the two books they relate)
- Garotting: There were several cases where prostitutes would lure men only for them to be welcomed by muggers who would take their money, jewelry and clothes.
- Spitalfields: There was even more resentment in Spitalfields against the Jewish community, mostly because many buildings were bought in the Southern part to be torned down, and housing for Jewish families built instead.
- Dorset Street: people were very suspicious of rich/higher class people on Dorset Street.

Now, let's imagine that Hutchinson did say the truth. Would it be far fetched to think that the reason he described the man so well, and waited in front of Miller's Court was because he had the intention of robbing him?

Which also makes him reluctant to talk to police until he hears that someone spotted him and gave description at the inquest.

Not saying he was a recurring criminal.

I think the grievance against Jewish immigrants, and not just Jewish immigrants, was that they were prepared to live in over-crowded conditions and so push rents up. Most of these things are economic.

I suppose the flaw in your argument is that Hutchinson didn't have a prostitute in tow and he could have just robbed him there and then in the street.

I personally don't think Hutchinson was even there and his involvement was driven by reward.

That said, unlike most I don't think it's a stretch to think he could have remembered such details. Some people have an eye for detail more than others.

[Wickerman]

It seems that for whatever reason the police did not consider Hutch for the role of Lewis's lurker; did not treat Lewis's lurker as a potential suspect; or if they did, their enquiries led nowhere and the paperwork is - er - missing.

Hi Caz.

On a street full of doss-houses, a man standing by himself watching people pass would be common. It is only us today who try to paint it as "suspicious".

If you recall, Macdonald barely showed anything more than a passing interest in Lewis's "loiterer", in fact he showed more interest, and posed more questions about the man she passed outside the Britannia.

In her police statement Sarah Lewis described the Britannia man as "suspicious", not the loiterer, and quite naturally Macdonald picked up on this in his questioning:

[Coroner] Have you seen any suspicious persons in the district ?

Yet we have no surviving paperwork concerning a police search for this man.

The police had no cause to search for the loiterer because of three possibilities:
1 - Hutchinson admitted to being this man.
2 - The police did not consider the man to be "suspicious", or
3 - The description of the loiterer provided by Lewis was next to useless for identity purposes.

[Abby Normal]

Yes and no, Abby.


Try looking at the issue from a slightly different perspective, Abby. Hutchinson lived but a stone’s throw from Dorset Street and probably frequented the district’s drinking dens. Sarah, too, was a local and was sufficiently well acquainted with Miller’s Court that she was able to secure a bed there in the small hours of the morning. Thus I think it more than plausible that Hutchinson knew Sarah by sight, recognized her on the night of the Kelly murder, saw her enter Shoreditch Town Hall on the day of the inquest, realized that she was an official witness and simply assumed the worst.

We, of course, are aware that the authorities’ principal interest in Sarah lay in her evidence relating to the cry of ‘Murder!’, which in all likelihood indicated the approximate time of death. Hutchinson, however, was not privy to such information. Thus, in his ignorance, he perhaps assumed that Sarah’s evidence related to her sighting of the wideawake man she saw monitoring the court shortly before the murder – in other words, Hutchinson himself. On this basis he may have supposed that Wideawake had assumed significance in the murder enquiry and began to fear that Sarah might have recognized him too. Even if she didn’t know his name she would have been aware that he lived and socialized locally. Worse still, she would almost certainly have been able to identify him in the event that he was picked up amid a police trawl of local pubs and lodging houses.

Albeit speculative, this scenario provides what to my mind is the most persuasive explanation as to why Hutchinson came forward when he did, and why he did so with the palpably absurd story involving Astrakhan and Kelly. It does not require that Hutchinson knew anything of Sarah’s police statement or inquest testimony. It merely requires that he knew she had become an official witness.

Everything about Hutchinson’s police statement appears to have been geared up to provide justification for his presence on Dorset Street shortly before the murder – not least the inclusion of an archetypal pantomime villain. To my mind this provides a clear indication that it was a fear of the potential consequences of the Lewis sighting that motivated him to come forward. No mention to investigators of his having wandered into Miller’s Court shortly before three o’clock. That particular revelation only emerged later after Hutchinson had had the time to consider his position a little more thoughtfully. Perhaps this is something that ought to be borne in mind by those who believe that George was a misunderstood individual who was merely doing his civic duty.

OK-got it. Thanks!
yes-seems about right to me!!

[Fleetwood Mac]

Yes and no, Abby.


Try looking at the issue from a slightly different perspective, Abby. Hutchinson lived but a stone’s throw from Dorset Street and probably frequented the district’s drinking dens. Sarah, too, was a local and was sufficiently well acquainted with Miller’s Court that she was able to secure a bed there in the small hours of the morning. Thus I think it more than plausible that Hutchinson knew Sarah by sight, recognized her on the night of the Kelly murder, saw her enter Shoreditch Town Hall on the day of the inquest, realized that she was an official witness and simply assumed the worst.

We, of course, are aware that the authorities’ principal interest in Sarah lay in her evidence relating to the cry of ‘Murder!’, which in all likelihood indicated the approximate time of death. Hutchinson, however, was not privy to such information. Thus, in his ignorance, he perhaps assumed that Sarah’s evidence related to her sighting of the wideawake man she saw monitoring the court shortly before the murder – in other words, Hutchinson himself. On this basis he may have supposed that Wideawake had assumed significance in the murder enquiry and began to fear that Sarah might have recognized him too. Even if she didn’t know his name she would have been aware that he lived and socialized locally. Worse still, she would almost certainly have been able to identify him in the event that he was picked up amid a police trawl of local pubs and lodging houses.

Albeit speculative, this scenario provides what to my mind is the most persuasive explanation as to why Hutchinson came forward when he did, and why he did so with the palpably absurd story involving Astrakhan and Kelly. It does not require that Hutchinson knew anything of Sarah’s police statement or inquest testimony. It merely requires that he knew she had become an official witness.

Everything about Hutchinson’s police statement appears to have been geared up to provide justification for his presence on Dorset Street shortly before the murder – not least the inclusion of an archetypal pantomime villain. To my mind this provides a clear indication that it was a fear of the potential consequences of the Lewis sighting that motivated him to come forward. No mention to investigators of his having wandered into Miller’s Court shortly before three o’clock. That particular revelation only emerged later after Hutchinson had had the time to consider his position a little more thoughtfully. Perhaps this is something that ought to be borne in mind by those who believe that George was a misunderstood individual who was merely doing his civic duty.

The problem with that is he would have had two bites at the cherry if he had kept his head down - had he been the killer.

First off, keep his head down and hope he wasn't recognised.

Second chance, in the event he was recognised then he could come up with a **** and bull story.

Putting himself at the scene gives him only one way out.

Although some people argue that killers inject themselves into a crime investigation, many more don't. And crucially not many murderers place themselves at a crime scene during a conversation with the police.

The likelihood is that he was in for a few quid, although I wouldn't rule out the possibility that what he said is what he saw.

[caz]

If Hutch had only given his account to the police I might have been a bit more open to his motives being sinister. But the fact that he willingly gave a more detailed story to a reporter so soon afterwards gives me pause. What would the killer have had to gain from that? Putting himself virtually at the crime scene for all the world - and the police, indirectly and belatedly - to see would perhaps not be the wisest act if he didn't want to begin raising eyebrows which had been very nicely in place thank you following his initial statement and interrogation.

The argument typically is that he began worrying that a witness - Cox or Lewis, for example - may have seen him much closer to Kelly's room. But if that were the case it would be something the police would look into, not the reading public, so Hutch's best bet would have been to go back to the police with this additional info with an apology for not making his movements clearer - and avoid giving the press what would look like a conflicting and (to certain modern eyes at least) a potentially incriminating account.

If Hutch was in it for the hope of making some money it all makes more sense. A more dramatic story for the papers, putting himself right at the heart of things (sorry!), could easily have been designed with that money in mind. He must surely have realised that the police would only be generous if they actually found a likely suspect who was a good fit for the man he had described. Otherwise his luck rested with the press.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz.

On a street full of doss-houses, a man standing by himself watching people pass would be common. It is only us today who try to paint it as "suspicious".

If you recall, Macdonald barely showed anything more than a passing interest in Lewis's "loiterer", in fact he showed more interest, and posed more questions about the man she passed outside the Britannia.

In her police statement Sarah Lewis described the Britannia man as "suspicious", not the loiterer, and quite naturally Macdonald picked up on this in his questioning:

[Coroner] Have you seen any suspicious persons in the district ?

Yet we have no surviving paperwork concerning a police search for this man.

The police had no cause to search for the loiterer because of three possibilities:
1 - Hutchinson admitted to being this man.
2 - The police did not consider the man to be "suspicious", or
3 - The description of the loiterer provided by Lewis was next to useless for identity purposes.

Cheers, Jon.

Fair points all, and it doesn't look like Hutch the Ripper need have had any fear of being tracked down, identified and grilled as a suspect, had he merely continued to stay away from the limelight he wasn't actually in.

Love,

Caz
X

[Garry Wroe]

I have always found it tricky to believe he could have known the full extent of Lewis's account, recognised himself and tailored a story to explain why he was watching and waiting there, while hoping nobody would think he was the same man Lewis saw.

I tend to think, Caz, that he assumed investigators would link him to Wideawake, hence the Astrakhan story which provided an innocent explanation for his presence and demeanour on Dorset Street as witnessed by Sarah Lewis.

It seems that for whatever reason the police did not consider Hutch for the role of Lewis's lurker; did not treat Lewis's lurker as a potential suspect; or if they did, their enquiries led nowhere and the paperwork is - er - missing.

Forget any missing paperwork, Caz. The simple fact of the matter is that neither the police, the press, nor Coroner MacDonald suspected Wideawake of having any involvement in the Kelly murder. As far as I’m aware the Hutchinson-Wideawake connection wasn’t made until the 1970s when either Colin Wilson or Don Rumbelow made reference to it. My suspicion, therefore, is that Wideawake was assumed by investigators to have been a Crossingham’s lodger up to nothing more sinister than taking a breath of air.

Oh and the fact that neither Lewis nor Cox appear to have realised that Hutch must have been the man they saw, from the various newspaper accounts (or if they did they kept their traps well shut for a change), makes it doubtful that Hutch thought they knew him or had seen him about locally, and could have got him identified had he failed to come forward of his own accord.

Perhaps you should re-read my earlier posts, Caz. First of all, Mrs Cox saw no-one in the court as she made her final homeward journey on the night in question. The scenario I have proposed is that Hutchinson was lurking by Kelly’s windows as Cox passed by. Although he was hidden amongst the shadows, I think it likely that it later crossed his mind that he might have been seen and thus amended his story when speaking to reporters. This would explain why he made no mention of entering the court proper when dictating his police statement, but later told a journalist that he’d stood directly outside Kelly’s room for several minutes shortly before departing the scene at three o’clock or thereabouts.

With respect, Caz, you also appear to be missing the point with regard to Sarah Lewis. The hypothesis I outlined in an earlier post involved Hutchinson knowing Sarah by sight. He might have seen her from time to time on the street, at the various markets, or in the local shops or drinking dens. He recognized her as she made her way to the Keylers but attached little or no significance to the incident. Three days later, however, when he saw Sarah enter the Shoreditch Town Hall, it dawned on him that she had become a police witness and he wrongly assumed that her relevance to the investigation related to the Wideawake sighting. He now began to fear that she had recognized him too. Even if Sarah didn’t know his name she perhaps knew where he shopped, socialized, or possibly where he lived. She didn’t need to know him in the strictest sense of the word. A description of him circulated amongst the local shops, pubs and lodging houses would almost certainly throw up his name. Once it had Sarah would be able to identify him. Or so Hutchinson feared.

In other words, it doesn’t matter what Sarah knew or saw. The issue is what Hutchinson imagined she might seen or known. This is of special significance when one reads Hutchinson’s police statement. Everything about this account signifies an attempt on Hutchinson’s part to justify his presence on Dorset Street at a time when Sarah Lewis was making her way to the Keylers. Why else would he have concocted the palpably absurd story involving Kelly and Astrakhan if not to explain his presence and demeanour on Dorset Street as observed by Sarah?

Whatever one may think of the above, the one inescapable fact is that Hutchinson failed to come forward for three days following the death of Mary Kelly. Something obviously brought him out of the woodwork. I’m simply exploring the possibilities as to what that trigger might have been.

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

"And here's the rub, because if he volunteered his story to the police and every eagle-eyed journalist on the planet, as a direct result of what Sarah Lewis saw, he was inviting everyone to register the connection, without saying a word about it himself, and was surely anticipating that someone would register it, upon which he would 'naturally have been treated with suspicion' - the same suspicion he supposedly came forward to avoid".

Only if he failed to get his "innocent" story in first.

I quite agree that he had every reason to expect the press to both register and allude very publicly to the Lewis connection (in the event neither happened, which was a stroke of good fortune if he really was there and up to no good), but having offered his story voluntarily, he was in a position to respond to anyone who inferred a connection with "Yep, you see? Right where I said I was, and doing exactly what I said I was doing". He certainly wouldn't have expected the actual outcome - that his account was ultimately discredited as the offerings of a probable time-waster. This would have been quite the fortuitous result if he was the murderer, and only made possible by the failure of police and press to explore the possibility that he was Lewis's wideawake man.

My views are not particularly at variance with Garry's with regard to Hutchinson and Lewis. I've suggested on several occasions that he may have seen Lewis enter the Shoreditch town hall as a witness and "assumed the worst", as Garry put it. He raised another interesting point, though, and one I hadn't previously considered. If Hutchinson had no means of accessing Lewis's evidence (because he didn't attend the inquest, and because her statement hadn't appeared in the papers by the time he came forward), he may well have assumed that wideawake man would be the central focus of her evidence, as opposed to the brief footnote it ended up being. He would not have bargained on the bulk of her evidence being more concerned with the spooky black bag man who had accosted her the previous Wednesday.

It should come as no surprise that scant attention was paid at the time to Wideawake. It was not uncommon to see men loitering near lodging house entrances, and this particular loiterer wasn't even observed in the company of a woman, less still the actual victim. This marginalisation of the wideawake man - and understandable preoccupation instead with men observed with women - may go some way to explaining the failure of the contemporary police and press to register (what we now consider to be) very strong similarities between the reported location and behaviour of wideawake man, and those of Hutchinson.

Again though, Hutchinson could not have anticipated such an outcome, and had no way of knowing that Mr. Widewake would not be the central bogeyman of Lewis's account.

Oh and the fact that neither Lewis nor Cox appear to have realised that Hutch must have been the man they saw, from the various newspaper accounts (or if they did they kept their traps well shut for a change), makes it doubtful that Hutch thought they knew him or had seen him about locally, and could have got him identified had he failed to come forward of his own accord.

Why would Lewis inform the police that she suspected that Hutchinson of being the loitering man (and there's no evidence that she did)? If she read the account in the papers, she would probably have registered the very positive response it received, accepted Hutchinson as the genuine witness everyone took him for at that early stage, and assumed that the police had already registered the connection without her "help". She would have come away with the impression that one eyewitness (herself) just happened to cross paths with another on the night of the murder. Approaching the police as an amateur sleuth and pointing out something already in the public domain would have been unnecessary and supererogatory, irrespective of whether or not she "knew him or had seen him about locally".

I'm not sure what you mean, incidentally, about Lewis and Cox "keeping their traps well shut for a change". Sarah Lewis was, by all accounts, a very reluctant witness who might well have kept her trap firmly shut had she not been detained in the court by the police before she had an opportunity to leave it on the morning of the murder. She was also one of the few Millers Court witnesses not to go blabbing to the press.

The argument typically is that he began worrying that a witness - Cox or Lewis, for example - may have seen him much closer to Kelly's room. But if that were the case it would be something the police would look into, not the reading public, so Hutch's best bet would have been to go back to the police with this additional info with an apology for not making his movements clearer - and avoid giving the press what would look like a conflicting and (to certain modern eyes at least) a potentially incriminating account.

No, I disagree.

Returning to the police station with such obvious bum-covering "tidy-up" efforts as "Hello, me again - I might have omitted to mention that I stood directly outside the victim's window" would only have invited suspicion. At least by communicating with the press, he could always protest that he had been misquoted or misunderstood if the police ever confronted him with the apparent contradictions; or failing that, claim he included that "extra" information because the journalist just happened to quiz him along those particular lines (I know one of my regular debating opponents considers the latter a perfectly reasonable explanation for the various press/statement discrepancies).

I'm not suggesting the press interview was necessarily the most prudent move on Hutchinson's part if he was the killer, but he might have considered it a necessary evil if he still harboured concerns that he had been clocked by a witness entering the court.

The suggested "financial" motive is all very well, but its fatal flaw lies in its dismissal of Hutchinson as Lewis's man, which, short of astonishing "coincidence", he clearly was.

On the other hand, if he had an overwhelming compulsion to do the deed regardless, or had no fear at the time of any witnesses such as Lewis or Cox seeing him, or didn't know he had been caught watching, he must have had considerable misgivings afterwards to put himself under the spotlight and try to put a plaster over it all, with the sensational statements he made to the police and the press.

Well, at this remove it is difficult to speculate at what stage this particular serial killer's "overwhelming compulsion" overrode more prudent considerations, and I'm no psychologist, but it is quite possible that Hutchinson - if the killer - was emotionally beyond the point of no return by that stage. I've suggested before that if the "murder" cry heard at approximately 4.00am by Lewis and Prater signalled the time of Kelly's death, it is possible that the killer, having previously monitored the various comings and goings to the court in the small hours, elected to "stall" his activities until he could be reasonably safe in the assumption that those pesky female witnesses had settled to sleep. Mary Cox, remember, made her final return trip at 3.00am.

Talking of sleep, just a minor point to conclude with; you suggested to Abby that if Hutchinson was lying about his presence there that night and was instead tucked up in bed, there would have been fellow lodgers to "confirm" as much. This is unlikely for two reasons. Firstly, if proof had been secured that he was snoozing in the Victoria Home when he claimed to have been out Astrakhan-spotting, his account would have been rejected outright, as opposed to being merely "reduced" in importance, as the Echo gleaned from the police. Secondly, unless Hutchinson was an especially gregarious soul who everyone took notice of, his presence or otherwise in the building was unlikely to have been registered. The Victoria Home saw some 500 lodgers doss down at varying hours of the night, and even boasted single "cubicles" for a few pence extra. Unless people were actively keeping tabs on Hutchinson, his dossing down (or not) would have passed unnoticed.

All the best,
Ben

[Columbo]

Hutchinson has always fascinated me since he wasn't(as far as we know)considered a suspect.

Here's another idea that can throw fuel on the fire. Suppose Hutch made up Astrakhan man (which I believe he did) to cover up murdering MJK?

Let's say he waited until her last customer left, went into her room for a freebie. She fights, he kills her and tries to make it a copy-cat killing?