Mary Kelly-By Luck, or Design?

[richardnunweek]

Hi Jane,
It is assumed by many on Casebook , that the man Hutchinson was a very suspicious individual, and he was up to all sorts of evil deeds on that friday morning.
I personal do not see anything wrong with his statement, in the words of his son Reg' If he said he saw it , he saw it'.
He could only relate to the police what he witnessed, and he would have been extremely foolish to invent such a scenerio, for one thing 'what would he have gained?
A Reward? hardly, how can he point out a man, that would have been convicted, if he didnt exist?
Fame... What fame? there were loads of witnesses throughout that autumn, i hardly think he would have instantly been in Whitechapels 'Hall of fame'.
So no benefits, but look at the downfuls...
By placing himself at the crime scene, at a time medical opinion believe Kelly was killed, stating that he knew the woman well, without any alibi for the relevant time, would to say the least been really silly, with possible serious consquences.
Why wait until monday evening before approaching the police?
That was explained fully by GH, but again is not believed by the majority of Casebook.
We should remember, that in the form book, GH did not see the last male with MJK..Maxwell did, so if Astracan existed, does not mean he was her killer.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Oh, we're having a Hutchinson debate.

Well, I'm playing, obviously.

Just to clarify things, Jane, it should be pointed out that Lewis never specifically pointed Hutchinson out, and so nobody said that they saw Hutchinson at the scene.

Strictly speaking, Fish, you're quite right, allthough we're left with one heck of an implausible coincidence of detail and timing if Lewis' man was anyone other than Hutchinson.

despite the fact that we are aware of killers who have contacted the police, it remains the less credible thing to do statistically.

But virtually every action a serial killer ever takes will, of necessity, place those actions in the "less credible thing to do statistically" catergory, with the obvious exception of killing people, which suffice to say is a theme common to all serial killers! The majority of serialists don't extract organs, the majority don't engage in excessive mutilation, the majority don't write letters. There's no such thing as a serial killer who does what the majority of them do all the time. Wisdom instead lies in exploring behavioural trends that have occured on several occasions. It permits us to conclude that such a thing could well happen again if the offender found himself in a predicament that might occasion such behaviour.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

in the words of his son Reg' If he said he saw it , he saw it'.

Ah but Richard, that means you're taking things entirely at face value, which isn't a sound approach. You need to actually assess the content before making determinations such as these.

and he would have been extremely foolish to invent such a scenerio, for one thing 'what would he have gained?

That depends why he invented such a scenario. If he was looking for money and publicity, then yes, I agree, pretending he was loitering near a crime scene and failing to provide an alibi doesn't make a lot of sense. However, if he really was at the crime scene for nefarious reasons, but realised he'd been seen, the Astrakhan invention doesn't seem all that foolhardy at all. He'd legitimise his presence and deflect suspicion in a false direction, thus covering himself in the event that he is identified by Lewis.

I still can't get over the fact that generic Kelly threads are inevitably Hutchward-bound.

All the best,
Ben

[Jane Welland]

Hi Richard

I take your points on board - but how about this - what was Hutchinson doing loitering outside Millers Court on a cold, wet, November night at 2 in the morning in the first place? It doesn't seem a little curious to you?

I mean, why there exactly? If the case were current today, I really do think he would have been treated as most suspicious. Ok, so he came forward eventually and gave a statement - but if he was as suspicious about Mr A as he said in his statement, and given that by his own admission, he had known Kelly for 3 years - why didn't he come forward sooner?

He knew, of course, of the Whitechapel Murderer - don't you think, if he did know Kelly, he might have said something at the time - either to her, or to the police the next day?

No, sorry, Richard, something's very wrong with all of this. Do I think Hutchinson was the killer - well, it's possible, isn't it? I think at the very least, there is more to his tale than he told - he was up to something - had to be, because it just doesn't add up imo.

Ben - of course generic Kelly threads will end up here - bound to, since Hutchinson was the last person to see her alive - that we accept. It seems that Maxwell's testimony is usually discarded.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"virtually every action a serial killer ever takes will, of necessity, place those actions in the "less credible thing to do statistically" catergory"

It will, Ben. Which is why I added that I spoke relating to statistics. This case, as any other case, will have it´s own inherent qualities, and therefore my pointing to statistics will be more or less useful - but it belongs to the discussion.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jane Welland]

Statistics

We compile them so that we can try to understand behavioural patterns - and this clearly does have its benefits, since at one level, people are relatively predictable. On the other hand, people are all individual, too - so I wouldn't expect any two serial killers to behave in exactly the same way - unless by design.

In this case, there seem to me to be too many unknowns and variables to be certain of much - better to rely on what little we know (beyond reasonable doubt) to be so.

Jane x

[Ben]

Indeed, Jane, a very good point. I'd also endorse your observation about his alleged presence opposite the crime scene being considered suspicious "if the case were current today".

Thanks for clarifying, Fish.

All the best,
Ben

[Jane Welland]

Ben writes:

Indeed, Jane, a very good point. I'd also endorse your observation about his alleged presence opposite the crime scene being considered suspicious "if the case were current today".

Why thankyou Ben! How Kind!

Yes, it's an interesting game to play (one I might possibly win (see below) and makes a change from Scrabble) to consider a parallel case today - I think it might be viewed somewhat differently.

I have considered, in all fairness, an innocent Hutch scenario, and I just don't think it works so well. I think that's because there's something missing from the picture whichever way you turn it. By that I don't mean that we don't know everything - that's the case with the entire case, isn't it?

I mean that it doesn't make sense.

Hutchinson's statement to the police survives. Have you ever wondered why that is, when many others have not? Hmm?

Coincidence? Or not?

But I think that's probably for another time.

I think the problem here is actually with what Hutchinson said. Maybe it's me, but I do come back to the question of what he was doing there to begin with? If he was hoping for a place with Kelly for the night, why not say? For example.

Besides, there must have been other ways to acquire shelter - even if it was only a doorway. I think it's suspicious.

Jane x

[perrymason]

I think its important to remember that being selective about what portion of Hutchinsons story might actually be true is not what the officers concerned did.......as his status indicates by Nov 16th, the witness was "discredited".

Not that his suspect was dismissed, that he himself was discredited.

Sarah Lewis didnt see George Hutchinson as Wideawake unless he was actually there at the time....and it would appear the police didnt support any of his account, so it would seem they likely did not believe any of it.

I accept their judgment even while knowing I cannot know why they made that judgment, ....but I do accept that looking into the mans eyes and investigating his story gives them the right to make the comments.

For Hutch to have any value at all.....that one element of his discredited story must be authentic.......and based on their comments, I wouldnt back it myself.

My best regards all.

[Ben]

Sarah Lewis didnt see George Hutchinson as Wideawake unless he was actually there at the time....and it would appear the police didnt support any of his account, so it would seem they likely did not believe any of it.

Yes, but they may well have been wrong in thinking so, Mike, if that's what they thought. The notion that Hutchinson wasn't the wideawake man isn't very credible, since it wouldn't explain the extraordinary coincidence of him coming forward and claiming to have loitered opposite the crime scene the momemt it became public knowledge that an inquest witness had seen someone loitering opposite the crime scene.

Strictly speaking, nobody ever claimed that Hutchinson himself was discredited, only that his statement was.

Best regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

Yes, but they may well have been wrong in thinking so, Mike, if that's what they thought. The notion that Hutchinson wasn't the wideawake man isn't very credible, since it wouldn't explain the extraordinary coincidence of him coming forward and claiming to have loitered opposite the crime scene the momemt it became public knowledge that an inquest witness had seen someone loitering opposite the crime scene.

Strictly speaking, nobody ever claimed that Hutchinson himself was discredited, only that his statement was.

Best regards,
Ben

Point taken Ben, but what evidence can we produce that might suggest that they were in fact wrong about him? As we know Sarah's story was given to police on Friday, allowing him 3 full days... including the Inquest... to learn of her sighting...even by word of mouth. The fact that his story includes a man where Sarah saw one is therefore only coincidental if George did not know of her story....something that cannot be proven.

And on his personal veracity, I do believe there are several quotes that state the witness was discredited....not just his suspect story.

All the best Ben

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

Point taken Ben, but what evidence can we produce that might suggest that they were in fact wrong about him?

Chiefly the congruity between Sarah Lewis' inquest description of a loitering man in a wideawake apparently "waiting for someone to come out", and Hutchinson's post-inquest claim to have done precisely that in the same location. We seem to agree that he came forward after learning of Sarah Lewis' evidence, but our paths diverge when you have him falsely assuming the identity of Lewis' man.

If it occured as you suggest, i.e. that Hutchinson was false witnesses who assumed the identity of a real witness who, in turn, was seen by another witness (!), we'd have to assume some decidedly strange behaviour on Hutchinson's part; the type that has no historical predecent, unlike the penchant some serial killers have for injecting themselves into police investigations under false guises. I don't consider it likely either that he'd put himself in such a vulnerable position without providing a genuine alibi for the generally accepted time of the murder.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

I do believe there are several quotes that state the witness was discredited

I've personally never seen any, Mike.

Best regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

If it occured as you suggest, i.e. that Hutchinson was false witnesses who assumed the identity of a real witness who, in turn, was seen by another witness (!), we'd have to assume some decidedly strange behaviour on Hutchinson's part; the type that has no historical predecent, ......

Best regards,
Ben

Hi again Ben,

For one example, doesnt the name Mathew Packer ring a bell? Its not the exact scenario....but it is a witness who came forward and gave what is believed to be a false statement regarding a suspect seen with a victim for reasons we can only assume must have been financial, if not merely a clear case of public mischief. He used details he had read and heard about to prop up his story.

i believe you categorized GH's situation well..."some decidedly strange behaviour on Hutchinson's part".

To me, thats enough said about the man and his potential value to any of these cases.

He waits 3 days, waits out the Inquest.....yet he says Mary and he were friends and she tried to bum 6d from him that night.....he says he saw Mary with a fancy pants....when we have no evidence that she ever left her room after 11:45pm on the 8th....and he says he loitered watching the court for 40 minutes because he had concerns for Mary.....but yet again, he waits until her investigation status has already been put before a jury to give what amounts to be a critical detail if truthful.

He doesnt add up to anything but curious Ben.

As for the comment that he himself was discredited, Ill find you a quote.

Back later.....cheers Mate.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

Packer is rather different.

Firstly, he didn't "come forward". He was approached by the police, initially, and asked if he saw anything suspicious. Secondly, he didn't lie about his presence near the crime scene, as you propose with Hutchinson. He was precisely where he said he was that night - he just lied about his activity there, just as I propose with regard to Hutchinson, although I'd hazard a guess that they fibbed for rather different reasons.

I agree entirely with your second paragraph, though.

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

Luck of the Devil

Hi All,

The Clothes - Mary Kelly's clothes were neatly folded on a chair and her boots put away. Mary Kelly had gone to bed. I think it likely that she had gone to bed on her own - folding clothes before sleep is a ritual that is very common, and either conducted alone or in the company of a familiar - intimate even - person. It marks the end of the day.

Primary source please Jane? I believe Sam tried, but was unable to find any reference before the 1950s to ‘folded’ clothes, neatly or otherwise.

I still can't get over the fact that generic Kelly threads are inevitably Hutchward-bound.

Really, Ben? I just thank the Lord that generic threads on the other victims are not.

Could it be because Hutch the rotten liar only claimed to know Kelly, and to have seen her enter her room with a client on the night she died? Which would have been mighty convenient for Blotchy - the only man already in the frame by being in that room, who was consequently more in need of a later man in than anyone else on earth, including Hutch himself.

I have to wonder how the police reacted when Hutch put two fingers up at them by going straight to the papers with a different complexion and moustache for his suspect. Could they not have dug a little deeper and found he had been in Romford on the night in question, for instance?

Generally speaking now, I don’t see why Mary had to know her killer, any more than Martha, Polly, Annie, Liz or Kate had to know theirs. Equally I don’t see why their killer could not just have taken the opportunity offered to do whatever the hell he felt like doing at the time. We know that he effectively made himself lord of the manor for the brief duration of his crimes. Who are we to dictate 120 years on what his limits would have been, or how he would or would not have behaved?

Did Robert Napper know Rachel Nickell or Samantha Bissett, before killing one outdoors, in an attack very similar to the one on Tabram, and the other indoors, in an attack very similar to the one on Kelly? Did he give a damn about making one murder look anything like the other?

Did Mark Dixie know either of the victims he attacked on his double event night in South Croydon in 2005, when high on drink and drugs? Did he even try to attack both in the same way? The first victim couldn’t get a signal on her mobile phone so she got out of her car to make a call and Dixie pounced. He made her hand over her bag, then she saw the knife in his hand and the poor cow wet herself. But he didn’t use the knife on her - instead he hit her round the head with a blunt instrument, but was disturbed by a passing taxi and ran off. She didn’t lose consciousness and that taxi undoubtedly saved her life.

But it cost Sally Anne Bowman hers, because Dixie’s blood was up and he found her just forty minutes later, 400 yards away, having an argument with her ex in his car, parked in her street - a street that Dixie had once lived in himself, having since moved away from the area.

When she got out of the car and her ex drove away, Dixie brutally stabbed her to death, then retreated into the shadows waiting to see if any lights went on. When he was sure the coast was clear he returned to the body and performed all manner of indignities on it, before making off with her underwear, bag and mobile phone. Sally Anne’s ex was only cleared because the killer’s DNA had been left on her body. Dixie’s DNA wasn’t on the data base at the time, but he was eventually caught after giving a sample as a result of a pub brawl. Police then found a videotape suggesting that he had been aroused by newspaper coverage of Sally Anne’s murder.

I’m sorry if this appears to be veering off topic, but I think there’s a fistful of potential parallels in this little lot, just screaming out for attention. Ignore some or all of them if you must, and I know some of you will do just that. But I really can’t imagine why anyone would want to. It's real - and as such it should be real food for thought.

Love,

Caz
X