Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

“But that would add up to an verdict of: "Aha, you were lying about what you did loitering outside Millerīs Court! Oh well, I guess you were just after the publicity then".”

Oh no, not at all. Had Hutchinson been dismissed as a publicity-seeker, the verdict was more likely to have been “Aha, you were lying about loitering outside Miller’s Court!” in which case, it wouldn’t be at all unfathomable that he was dismissed as a publicity-seeker. Just to avoid confusion, I agree entirely that if – and it must remain a big “if” - the police felt that Hutchinson was the man seen by Lewis AND lied about his reasons being there, they couldn’t possibly have accused him of mere time-wasting, and would almost certainly have treated him with suspicion. If they didn’t connect Hutchinson with Lewis’ loiterer – and strictly speaking, there’s no evidence that they did* – the publicity-seeker was the logical solution for the police to have arrived at simply because they were the group with which they had become most familiar (i.e. as opposed to serial killers using diversionary tactics, for example).

“In such a case, I bet he would have been discarded in just a few words in the press, and never again mentioned by the police, not in any reports and not in any memoirs. Incidentally, this is EXACTLY what happened ...”

But that wasn’t what happened. The “few words in the press” were concerned with the problems the “authorities” had with the content of Hutchinson’s statement, and the fact that a “reduced importance” had been attached to him (and it) accordingly. No mention whatsoever of any proof that he lied arriving in the form of a cast-iron alibi from far-flung Banbury (or wherever), and if something of this nature had been discovered, it was obviously the salient point to mention. They merely suspected he was lying.

On a tangential note, I still consider it very unlikely that Hutchinson would falsely assume the identity of the Lewis' loiterer for reasons mentioned on page 3 of this thread.

All the best,
Ben

*Potentially revealing, in this regard, in Walter Dew's suggestion that Hutchinson got the wrong day!

[Fisherman]

Letīs just say that we see things VERY differently, Ben - I think, for example that a "reduced importance" is a wording that tallies extremely well with the press standing with their pants down, as I have stated before: Donīt let on that we have been made fools of, just drop it.

And that, bu the way, is what I am doing now.

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

If he came to the realization that he had been seen by Sarah Lewis and feared that, like Lawende before her, Sarah's inquest testimony had been underplayed as part of a deliberate police strategy, it is possible that he came forward in order to provide an innocent explanation for his having been sighted close to a crime scene at a time critical to a Ripper murder. Accordingly, his story concerning Kelly's affluent pick-up would have been an attempt to misdirect the police investigation, thereby leaving himself in the clear and the police searching for a nonexistent suspect.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

Bingo.

And this behaviour would be consistant with an earlier attempt to throw off the police, after having been seen by jewish looking witnesses, with the writing of the GSG.

[claire]

So, let me get this straight (God help me). Ben, you are suggesting that Hutchinson was dropped as a reliable witness by a police force embarrassed by their own credulity, simply on the grounds of a suspicion that he was lying? And this suspicion, you argue, occurs because of a naivete about serial killers, because policing was relatively new?

I don't understand that at all. I don't believe for a moment that anyone would say, 'You know, we have this guy who saw the victim with a potential suspect shortly before we believe the victim was murdered. Still. Sounds a bit dodgy, really. Too good to be true, in many ways. Hmm. You know what? Best drop him as a witness. Tell the papers he led us astray.' 'Alright then, guv, I'll give em a yell. I mean, it's only one of the biggest bloody murder cases in the history of London, after all.' It's not plausible.

In any case, formal policing and investigative work may have been in its infancy, but simple human suspicion certainly wasn't. If someone thought Hutchinson was dodgy as a witness, it strikes me that a person of average mind might then consider the reasons for that to be his potential as a suspect. Grief, anyone with a gin-addled brain cell would wonder whether a chap who said he had seen the victim immediately before her death mightn't possibly have something to do with it.

You note, too, his status as a lone (or solitary--sorry, can't scroll across the pages for the precise word) doss house lodger. But we just don't know that. There is only his statement that that was where he was staying--but there is every chance that he was not. I think Fish's scenario is plausible--sure, we don't have evidence, but we don't have evidence about very much at all. I think it's quite possible that Mrs Hutchinson, whether mother or wife, rolled her eyes, clipped silly Hutch round the ear and hightailed it over to the nearest police station to make sure that her idiot son/husband didn't end up in the frame for something she knew he hadn't done, because XYZ people had seen him elsewhere. Sure, no evidence for it. Sure, follow-up questions would have been asked. But given the ra-ra-ra police had given to Hutchinson when he first showed up, burying the whole matter quietly would be very much their tactic, no?

Quite seriously, in the absence of the complete implausibility of Mr. Astrakhan (which is untenable), or another man coming forward as the loiterer (possible, I guess, but unlikely, as you note), what other possible reason could the police have to drop Hutchinson as a witness if not for evidence he was somewhere else, or a retraction on his part?

[Abby Normal]

So, let me get this straight (God help me). Ben, you are suggesting that Hutchinson was dropped as a reliable witness by a police force embarrassed by their own credulity, simply on the grounds of a suspicion that he was lying? And this suspicion, you argue, occurs because of a naivete about serial killers, because policing was relatively new?

I don't understand that at all. I don't believe for a moment that anyone would say, 'You know, we have this guy who saw the victim with a potential suspect shortly before we believe the victim was murdered. Still. Sounds a bit dodgy, really. Too good to be true, in many ways. Hmm. You know what? Best drop him as a witness. Tell the papers he led us astray.' 'Alright then, guv, I'll give em a yell. I mean, it's only one of the biggest bloody murder cases in the history of London, after all.' It's not plausible.

In any case, formal policing and investigative work may have been in its infancy, but simple human suspicion certainly wasn't. If someone thought Hutchinson was dodgy as a witness, it strikes me that a person of average mind might then consider the reasons for that to be his potential as a suspect. Grief, anyone with a gin-addled brain cell would wonder whether a chap who said he had seen the victim immediately before her death mightn't possibly have something to do with it.

You note, too, his status as a lone (or solitary--sorry, can't scroll across the pages for the precise word) doss house lodger. But we just don't know that. There is only his statement that that was where he was staying--but there is every chance that he was not. I think Fish's scenario is plausible--sure, we don't have evidence, but we don't have evidence about very much at all. I think it's quite possible that Mrs Hutchinson, whether mother or wife, rolled her eyes, clipped silly Hutch round the ear and hightailed it over to the nearest police station to make sure that her idiot son/husband didn't end up in the frame for something she knew he hadn't done, because XYZ people had seen him elsewhere. Sure, no evidence for it. Sure, follow-up questions would have been asked. But given the ra-ra-ra police had given to Hutchinson when he first showed up, burying the whole matter quietly would be very much their tactic, no?

Quite seriously, in the absence of the complete implausibility of Mr. Astrakhan (which is untenable), or another man coming forward as the loiterer (possible, I guess, but unlikely, as you note), what other possible reason could the police have to drop Hutchinson as a witness if not for evidence he was somewhere else, or a retraction on his part?

Hi Claire
what other possible reason could the police have to drop Hutchinson as a witness if not for evidence he was somewhere else, or a retraction on his part?[/QUOTE]

Maybe they did not "drop" him as a witness, maybe he just sort of petered out.

[Ben]

“Ben, you are suggesting that Hutchinson was dropped as a reliable witness by a police force embarrassed by their own credulity, simply on the grounds of a suspicion that he was lying?”

No.

I never suggested that the police were “embarrassed by their own credulity” or that they had any reason to be. There’s no dishonour is reassessing a previously held opinion, especially if the initial thumbs-up was passed on a few hours (if that) after Hutchinson first made an appearance. But yes, I am suggesting that he was dropped as a reliable witness “on the grounds of a suspicion that he was lying”, and if you think for one moment that there’s anything even vaguely unusual about that, then I'd strongly encourage you to read up on the cases of Matthew Packer and Emmanuel Violenia, both of whom were “dropped as reliable witnesses” despite the fact that nobody was able to prove that they both lied. The fact is that the police didn’t need proof in order to ditch them – they just arrived at an educated consensus.

“I don't believe for a moment that anyone would say, 'You know, we have this guy who saw the victim with a potential suspect shortly before we believe the victim was murdered. Still. Sounds a bit dodgy, really. Too good to be true, in many ways. Hmm.”

I do wish people wouldn’t do those long invented dialogue things. No, I’ve just finished explaining why I agree, wholeheartedly, that the above does not make for a credible suggestion. If they considered him dodgy but still cast him in the role of Lewis’ loiterer, of course it’s inevitable that he’d end up being suspected. My point was that IF they dismissed him as a publicity-seeker, as appears likely, they cannot have made the connection between Hutchinson and Mr. Wideawake, and quite honestly, anyone still claiming that the police must have been short on brain cells (or some similar exaggerated terminology) to overlook something so obvious need only consider that the connection didn’t seem to have been made until 100 years after the event.

So that’s dealing with the premise that the police dismissed him as a timewaster a la Packer.

But if we’re dealing with a police force that continued to believe that Hutchinson was where he said he was but lied about being there, then it naturally follows that they’d have grounds for suspicion, and in that event, it’s highly doubtful that they were in a position to convert those suspicions into a concrete conclusion: guilty or innocent. It didn’t happen with a vast number of suspects involved with the ripper case, and I don’t know why we’re expecting miracles with Hutchinson. The Green River Killer, Gary Ridgway, was under suspicion for a long time, and for good reason, but it wasn’t until the advent of DNA that it became possible to convert those suspicions into proof.

I don’t understand why we can’t just accept the boring reality that the police had little to go on, and were to a large extent forced to rely on their suspicions only. An acceptance of this obvious proven reality is surely preferable to positing imaginary alibis (events, places and people!) and similar fill-in-the-blanks exercises. There’s really no need, since the simplest explanation, albeit the least interesting, is that whatever the police thought at the time, they were not necessarily in a position to know.

It was the police, incidentally, not Hutchinson who recorded his residence at the Victoria Home, which suggests that this detail, at least, had been verified.

what other possible reason could the police have to drop Hutchinson as a witness if not for evidence he was somewhere else, or a retraction on his part?

We know the reason. Hutchinson was dropped because, as reported in the Daily Echo of 13th November, the "authorities" no longer trusted his account. That's the reason we have in evidence, thus eradicating the need to invent an alternative "reason", and it's exactly what happened with other bogus witnesses.

Hope I helped, even if God couldn't.

All the best,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

Fish -I will leave the pure facts to Ben and Garry (not that I don't know the Facts, but they have been stated and I don't need to restate them -and Ben and Garry are the experts).

Still since you brought up alibis, -ponder this : Hutch was supposed to be in Romford the night of Kelly's murder.

If he hadn't seen Mrs Lewis, and worried about how much info she might have given the Police about him, everybody would simply have assumed that he hadn't even been in London at the time of the killing.

The Police were looking for one killer for the murders -so maybe he had a similar alibi for one/some of the other killings ? Being 'out of town' woulld be a good one.

If you can speculate on the hypothetical existance of alibis and Police checks ( no CTT cameras), then I can speculate too that.. he might have had alibis..but they might not have mean't much (except when weighted into the equation that the police were
looking more for a wild eyed jewish butcher).

[Ben]

Hi all,

Just a quick but importmant ammendment to my post above:

"But if we’re dealing with a police force that continued to believe that Hutchinson was where he said he was but lied about his reasons for being there, then it naturally follows that they’d have grounds for suspicion"

Correction in bold.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"yes, I am suggesting that he was dropped as a reliable witness “on the grounds of a suspicion that he was lying”, and if you think for one moment that there’s anything even vaguely unusual about that, then I'd strongly encourage you to read up on the cases of Matthew Packer and Emmanuel Violenia, both of whom were “dropped as reliable witnesses” despite the fact that nobody was able to prove that they both lied."

But that, Ben, just brings us back to the fact that neither Packer nor Violenia would have made the suspects list. Hutch is and remains another story altogether, and makes for a very bad comparison with the afore mentioned gentlemen. No matter if they were lying through their teeth, the coppers would not feel that they were potential Ripper material.

"IF they dismissed him as a publicity-seeker, as appears likely, they cannot have made the connection between Hutchinson and Mr. Wideawake"

Wait a sec here, Ben - are you saying that they did NOT connect him with Lewisī loiterer ...? Or is my English letting me down?

"We know the reason. Hutchinson was dropped because, as reported in the Daily Echo of 13th November, the "authorities" no longer trusted his account. "

But Ben, then we need to ask ourselves WHY they did not trust it - and the answer to that question may very well be that someone gave the story away, exactly like Claire suggests. If they were informed by an external source that his story was bogus, then they would be left with a worthless story - which is how the Star heads itīs article on it:

” the Nov 15 Star:

WHITECHAPEL.
Worthless Stories Lead the Police on False Scents" , grouping Packers ravings with Hutchīs ditto.

The best,
Fisherman

[claire]

Thanks for the amendment. I just spent five minutes reading and re-reading the original sentence...

But seriously, I am surprised that you would use the Packer example as in any way similar to the Hutchinson one. Packer's testimonies diverged from each other so wildly that there was very little consistency amongst them. Different, I think, to Hutchinson, whose statements to the press appeared only to embellish his original statement to the police in small ways. When faced with a witness who ducks in and out of stories, returning to make further statements weeks later, it is far more likely, isn't it, for the police to begin to suspect the veracity of those statements? Hutchinson was a different kettle of crypt-orchids: his story was accepted and then dismissed very rapidly; more rapidly, I would suggest, than is generally the case when police investigating a case like this (not least because of the understandable desire for his account to be true).

I am perfectly happy to accept that the police had very little to go on, as you say. But I would say that, given this, this would make them far more likely to maintain some level of belief in a witness statement for at least 24 hours, unless they had a jolly good reason to disbelieve it.

As for this: 'I do wish people wouldn’t do those long invented dialogue things.' That made me chuckle.

Cheers, Ben. Glad you're back.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Still since you brought up alibis, -ponder this : Hutch was supposed to be in Romford the night of Kelly's murder."

Letīs settle for "evening" instead, Ruby, and Iīm with you.

"If he hadn't seen Mrs Lewis..."

Since you speak of speculation, Ruby, you may need to ponder that he actually never spoke of seeing Lewis himself. That remains YOUR speculation. If he was never there in the first place, he could not have seen her at all, of course, and I think that a following slip-up by forgetting to mention her as he lied about having been the loiterer - if that was what he did, Iīm theorizing here - would be a very logical thing.

"If you can speculate on the hypothetical existance of alibis and Police checks ( no CTT cameras), then I can speculate too..."

Absolutely, Ruby - feel free! Although I think that Claire makes a very fair point as she echoes my reasoning:

"what other possible reason could the police have to drop Hutchinson as a witness if not for evidence he was somewhere else, or a retraction on his part?"

The answer is simple, I believe - none. But then again, other posters define simplicity in other manners, which is why we are still discussing this.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hello all.
Once again the whole crux of the matter is the true identification of the witness known as G Hutchinson.
Was he a unknown time waster?
Was he a unknown Killer?
Was he Topping?... who existed, and has been nominated by his own flesh and blood.
If the latter, the alleged morals , and dignity of that man, seems unlikely to have been someone who indulged in blood lusts.
Please lets not get to the stage where we dismiss the obvious, ie, Hutch was Topping, and spoke the truth , which leads us to the same old dead end anyway.
After all he was not the only witness, who said they saw the deseased, with a well dressed man .. Bowyer on the wednesday , and associates on the evening of the 8th, mentioned that also.
It is my opinion we are overcooking Hutchinson, and doing that late gentleman no favours.
There was no conspiracy, no Heath [ 40s killer] scenerio, in which he involved himself with the police, which resulted in drawing massive attention to himself, amd consquently being hung...
My beliefs as you know.
Regards Richard.

[Natalie Severn]

These days I am coming round to the view that this Hutchinson chap was hoping to be Mary Kelly"s new love,replacing the kind gentlemanly Joe Barnett as her live in lover .Hutch or Toppy as I know you like to call him,Richard, seems to have known her only too well.And he was there until 3am, stalking her,standing outside her room soaked to the skin on a cold wet night,"waiting for one of her clients to come out",clearly consumed with jealousy and lust.
He deliberately avoided the inquest.He later inserted himself into the inquiry.
He was guilty Richard admit it,and he was desperately trying to avoid being hanged that"s all----and by hood winking Abberline,he did avoid the noose.
Best
Norma

[claire]

I definitely don't think that should be discounted as a possibility, Norma, whether one considers MJ as a canonical victim or not. Either way, it's possible to construct plausible psychologies for such a killer. I'm quite sympathetic to the possibilities of either, too. The only real snagging point, for me, is the extent to which Hutchinson (regardless of his actual identity) could have controlled or predicted the police response...it's one thing to take that risk if you just fancied a bit of excitement, and pretended to be at the scene, and quite another to be responsible for the murder and to willingly insert yourself into the investigation. Takes a certain amount of chutzpah and recklessness, I think...although he could hope that his crazy story would seem so crackpot that he was dismissed as a crank, there was always the risk that he would be thoroughly investigated...

Anyhow! Just too many possibilities--and it's bed time for me!

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

“No matter if they were lying through their teeth, the coppers would not feel that they were potential Ripper material.”

Agreed, Fish, but if the coppers were of the persuasion that Hutchinson lied about his very presence there, he wouldn’t have been considered potential ripper material any more than Packer and Violenia. I have been exploring two possibilities: a) that no connection was ever made between Lewis and Hutchinson, and that the latter was dismissed as a time-waster, and b) that they did make the connection, and suspected Hutchinson as a consequence. I then looked at the ramifications of both options.

“Wait a sec here, Ben - are you saying that they did NOT connect him with Lewisī loiterer ...?”

No. I’m saying we have no evidence that such a connection was made.

“But Ben, then we need to ask ourselves WHY they did not trust it”

Again, Fish, there is no mystery surrounding WHY they did not trust it. We know why. They became suspicious of the nature of Hutchinson’s claims and came to attach a “reduced importance” to them accordingly. It really is a simple as that, and as for the source behind the “discrediting” is concerned, they clearly reference “the authorities” – in other words, the police.