Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Caz all, Ben

I don't really see what all the fuss is about and all the tit and tat about the minutia of hutch and the news paper account of his story being diminished/discredited, given less import etc. or HOWEVER one wants to describe it.

We have a witness, who on the face of it, has a dubious story and many questions surrounding his credibility based on the circumstances of his coming forward. And then in short time his suspect, and him as a witness, apparently is dropped in any more of the investigation.

In conjunction with the press account of his story being diminished in importance.

Isnt this all we really need to know to come to the conclusion that George Hutchinson was just not that credible of a witness?

Its obvious to me any way.

[Wickerman]

True, his story might have been diminished to some degree once Scotland Yard received the report from Dr. Bond. His estimated time of death certainly turned the focus towards Mrs Cox's statement, rather than centered on Hutchinson.

Scotland Yard though cannot dismiss a witness based on that alone. They still have to pursue both lines of inquiry, as confirmed in the press.
And as far out as December 6th, Abberline takes a handful of strong-arm officers to arrest a Jewish suspect who was said to "certainly resemble the man in the Astrachan coat".

How many other suspects fit the description of this short, 30 year old Polish Jew?
Not the Schwartz suspect, not Lawende's suspect, then who?
Who did he think he was arresting in the first week of December, if not the man described by Hutchinson?

Obviously, his story had not been discredited by Nov. 15th, as suggested by the Star, Abberline was still acting on it a full three weeks after it was given to police.

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

“And that is your evidence for the police drip-feeding the Echo other information, such as this witness sighting suddenly losing credibility because it had just dawned on them that Hutch ought to have come forward sooner?”

It's proof that the police did provide accurate information to the Echo, which is what you asked me to provide.

I never suggested that it “had only just dawned on them” that he ought to have come forward sooner. I’m suggesting that whatever form these “later investigations” took, they undoubtedly undermined the credibility of whatever excuse Hutchinson initially provided for his late appearance. In addition, and as I mentioned one of the other Hutchinson threads (lot of them about!), Abberline would have risked exposing the police to heavy censure from press and public if he had failed to circulate Hutchinson’s description purely on the basis of an inadequate response to the question of his late arrival. It is likely, therefore, that the description was circulated in spite of the fact that it might have been considered problematic in some respects. If it did not very quickly result in the capture of the Astrakhan man, THEN the police could conduct proper investigations into the statement’s grey areas.

The police could ill-afford to run a mile at the slightest whiff of nonsense.

“'Such men', Ben? How odd, if Astrakhan types were as rare in the East End as bacon sarnies in a synagogue. Evidently the public had no problem seeing and reporting 'such men'…”

Not in the East End – other parts of London. There was no rule asserting that if Astrakhan man was real, he couldn’t venture into more affluent parts of London, and as such my point still stands: if the real Astrakhan man was spotted wondering around – I dunno – St. Pauls (?) in late November, and the “spotter” had been deterred from reporting the matter because of what he had read in the Echo, it would have been as a direct of the police supplying that paper with false information, according to your recent suggestion.

The above offers a good illustration of the potentially dangerous consequences of lying to a newspaper about which pieces of eyewitness evidence were no longer being taken seriously, especially if that newspaper was able to prove that they had obtained their information “on enquiry at Commercial Street police station”.

…Which is why I’m strongly compelled to accept the truth of the Echo’s statement that among the information obtained directly from the police station was the not-all-that-startling revelation that Hutchinson’s account had been “considerably discounted because the statement had not been made at the inquest and in the proper manner”. Bogus witnesses surface all the time – it was really no biggie to either party, irrespective of whatever implications it may have for modern day Hutchinson theories.

“So nothing 'official' then, or placed on file, to the effect that Hutch was discredited - in case he shouldn't have been?”

The evidence is that Hutchinson's evidence was discredited, which is not the same as being proven false. The distinction is rather a crucial one. Even if overwhelming evidence and common sense indicated that here was another time-wasting publicity-seeker, they couldn’t completely rule out the possibility that he was honest (any more than they could with Packer and Violenia), which is why you’ll encounter no official declaration that his account was “officially” false.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

True, his story might have been diminished to some degree once Scotland Yard received the report from Dr. Bond. His estimated time of death certainly turned the focus towards Mrs Cox's statement, rather than centered on Hutchinson.

No, Jon.

Still no.

It still just didn't happen that way, as I've explained a great many times. Hutchinson's discrediting had absolutely nothing to do with Bond's time of death, for which not a shred of evidence exists to support the contention that "Scotland Yard" championed it to the exclusion of other evidence, such as the mutually supportive statements of Lewis and Cox regarding to the "Murder!" cry. It also runs contrary to the explanation the police definitely provided to the Echo for "considerably reducing" Hutchinson, which concerned Hutchinson's credibility.

And as far out as December 6th, Abberline takes a handful of strong-arm officers to arrest a Jewish suspect who was said to "certainly resemble the man in the Astrachan coat".

"Said" by who?

That's right - just the press.

There is not the slightest fart of an indication that Isaacs was of interest to the police because of any resemblance to an eyewitness description, least of all Hutchinson's. Isaacs became a suspect because he reportedly lived a stone's throw away from Miller's Court, and departed the area shortly after the Kelly murder. In addition to this, it was reported that he threatened violence to anyone over the age of 17. If that isn't sufficient material to warrant immediate priority as a suspect, I don't know what is.

No eyewitness evidence is remotely needed to justify the police's initial interest in Isaacs.

Who did he think he was arresting in the first week of December, if not the man described by Hutchinson?

A potential Jack the Ripper.

NOT A potential Astrakhan man, who had already been discredited.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

In addition to this, it was reported that he threatened violence to anyone over the age of 17

All women over the age of 17, I should clarify.

[Roy Corduroy]

Good afternoon Abby,

I don't really see what all the fuss is about ...

... Isnt this all we really need to know to come to the conclusion that George Hutchinson was just not that credible of a witness?

All the fuss is about - are you sitting down - this is a George Hutchinson SUSPECT thread. Which raises the fuss level accordingly.

Roy

[Wickerman]

It still just didn't happen that way, as I've explained a great many times. Hutchinson's discrediting had absolutely nothing to do with Bond's time of death, for which not a shred of evidence exists to support the contention that "Scotland Yard" championed it to the exclusion of other evidence, such as the mutually supportive statements of Lewis and Cox regarding to the "Murder!" cry. It also runs contrary to the explanation the police definitely provided to the Echo for "considerably reducing" Hutchinson, which concerned Hutchinson's credibility.

Hi Ben.
I know you have asserted this belief of yours, but the basis of your belief is an uncorroborated press opinion, nothing official.
And according to several press articles over the next couple of weeks, the police are still following up on Hutchinson's suspect.
That 'fact' alone speaks against your opinion, decisively.

Whereas my opinion is based on an official report in the hands of police.
No contradiction to speak against my view. And, this report would also provoke the same speculation in the press that appears to suggest the reduced importance of Hutchinson's story.

[Garry Wroe]

I know you have asserted this belief of yours, but the basis of your belief is an uncorroborated press opinion, nothing official.
And according to several press articles over the next couple of weeks, the police are still following up on Hutchinson's suspect.
That 'fact' alone speaks against your opinion, decisively.

Unfortunately, it doesn't. What you do not appear to appreciate is that there were two types of 'suspect' - those who were uncovered by the investigative process and those who were named or given into custody by members of the public. In this latter context a number of men were named by civilians because their handwriting bore a certain similarity to that found on the published Jack the Ripper letters. The simple reality of the situation is that the police had a professional obligation to investigate all of these men even in the knowledge that such lines of inquiry were going to lead precisely nowhere. Dr Holt was another of these men. He was given into custody merely because a Mrs Humphries thought he had looked at her 'in a funny way'. Following the press coverage accorded to Fanny Mortimer's sighting of Leon Goldstein, moreover, a number of men were given into custody solely because they carried black bags.

This distinction between official and civilian 'suspects' is critical if we are to make sense of what happened in the weeks following Hutchinson's rejection as a credible eyewitness. The interest in these so-called astrakhan men was not a reflection of official police thinking at the time, it was the result of a public reacting to what had been published in the newspapers. Given that it wasn't until fairly recently that press reports relating to Hutchinson's 'diminution' were uncovered, it should come as no surprise that the Victorian public was unaware of Hutchinson's fall from grace and continued to report Astrakhan types well into December.

Now, if someone could provide the details of an Astrakhan arrest that did not come about courtesy of information derived from a member of the public ...

[caz]

There was no rule asserting that if Astrakhan man was real, he couldn’t venture into more affluent parts of London, and as such my point still stands: if the real Astrakhan man was spotted wondering around – I dunno – St. Pauls (?) in late November, and the “spotter” had been deterred from reporting the matter because of what he had read in the Echo, it would have been as a direct of the police supplying that paper with false information, according to your recent suggestion.

Hi Ben,

So you asserted that people were still reporting Astrakhan types, in spite of what the Echo had said about the police rapidly losing interest, but you 'dunno' where any of these sightings actually were, except that not one was in the East End? How does that work?

I don't actually believe the police needed to supply the Echo with any inside information about their Astrakhan enquiries, true or false, despite your insistence that if they merely confirmed two stories had the same source they would also have been free and easy with the results of their latest investigations.

The above offers a good illustration of the potentially dangerous consequences of lying to a newspaper about which pieces of eyewitness evidence were no longer being taken seriously, especially if that newspaper was able to prove that they had obtained their information “on enquiry at Commercial Street police station”.

'If'? Surely you are not suggesting the police would have lied to the Echo and provided written proof of where this false information came from. You observed in a previous post that the police did not officially declare the alleged discrediting of Hutch's account in case they were wrong. That implies they gave the Echo nothing resembling a formal statement to that effect, but presumably resorted to a hint or a nudge in that general direction. But why would they even have done that, if it could leave them vulnerable to later criticism? I'm still not sure I follow your reasoning here, so proof that they did say something about it would be a step forward.

But what about the potentially dangerous consequences of giving the public (via the Echo) chapter and verse on who merited further investigation and who didn't? I just don't accept the police went in for this open exchange of information with any newspaper, and why the hell would they?

The evidence is that Hutchinson's evidence was discredited, which is not the same as being proven false. The distinction is rather a crucial one. Even if overwhelming evidence and common sense indicated that here was another time-wasting publicity-seeker, they couldn’t completely rule out the possibility that he was honest (any more than they could with Packer and Violenia), which is why you’ll encounter no official declaration that his account was “officially” false.

Yeah, I get all that. But it only undermines your case for the police telling the Echo about it (albeit unofficially and in as little detail as possible), since they had no way to eliminate Astrakhan Man without proof that Hutch had made him up.

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

This distinction between official and civilian 'suspects' is critical if we are to make sense of what happened in the weeks following Hutchinson's rejection as a credible eyewitness. The interest in these so-called astrakhan men was not a reflection of official police thinking at the time, it was the result of a public reacting to what had been published in the newspapers.

No question about it, the police went to great lengths to investigate the smallest of clues, leaving no stone unturned.
However, I think your suggestion is more suited to my scenario, than to your own.

Had the police decided, on or before the 15th, that Hutchinson's story was of no value, then you & I both know that with the work load they already have, the police are not about to investigate every man wearing an Astrachan coat, when the story implicating this man has been found defective.

Alternately, if, as can be demonstrated, the police were still interested in the Hutchinson suspect, then any & all men wearing an Astrachan coat may be investigated. This is what we apparently read in the press through November.


I find it interesting that you are prepared to accept the police were showing an interest in men wearing Astrachan coats, yet Ben is quite adamant the police were not interested, and why would they be if Hutch had been discredited?

Given that it wasn't until fairly recently that press reports relating to Hutchinson's 'diminution' were uncovered, it should come as no surprise that the Victorian public was unaware of Hutchinson's fall from grace and continued to report Astrakhan types well into December.

I don't see how recently finding old press reports means the public of the day were unaware of what the Star & Echo reported.
You, were not aware until recently, that you have admitted, but how does your situation reflect in any way on the public of the day?

Now, if someone could provide the details of an Astrakhan arrest that did not come about courtesy of information derived from a member of the public ...

How many arrests did not originate from a tip-off, or a query, from a member of the public?

[Garry Wroe]

Had the police decided, on or before the 15th, that Hutchinson's story was of no value, then you & I both know that with the work load they already have, the police are not about to investigate every man wearing an Astrachan coat, when the story implicating this man has been found defective.

They were obliged to investigate all leads provided by members of the public. Remember Packer and the furore that arose out of his allegation that police hadn't bothered to interview him and follow up on what he claimed was important case-related information?

Alternately, if, as can be demonstrated, the police were still interested in the Hutchinson suspect, then any & all men wearing an Astrachan coat may be investigated. This is what we apparently read in the press through November.

Once again, you fail to appreciate the distinction between those men who fell under genuine police suspicion and those who the police were obliged to investigate as a result of civilian information.

I find it interesting that you are prepared to accept the police were showing an interest in men wearing Astrachan coats, yet Ben is quite adamant the police were not interested, and why would they be if Hutch had been discredited?

Investigators were not searching for Astrakhan types. Members of the public wrongly believed they were and reported such men accordingly. The Galloway incident illustrates this point perfectly.

I don't see how recently finding old press reports means the public of the day were unaware of what the Star & Echo reported.
You, were not aware until recently, that you have admitted, but how does your situation reflect in any way on the public of the day?

Perhaps because I am better informed about these murders than was an overwhelming majority of the Victorian public. Locating the Echo and Star references to Hutchinson's 'diminution' was akin to finding a needle in a haystack. Very few people around at the time appear to have been aware of this development, so it should come as no great surprise that most continued to believe that Astrakhan remained in the frame.

How many arrests did not originate from a tip-off, or a query, from a member of the public?

Your guess is as good as mine. However, many policemen who wrote of the case made mention of individuals who attracted suspicion. The truth of the matter will never be known.

[Garry Wroe]

Alternately, if, as can be demonstrated, the police were still interested in the Hutchinson suspect, then any & all men wearing an Astrachan coat may be investigated. This is what we apparently read in the press through November.

So where does this leave your contention that Anderson dismissed Hutchinson's story on account of Dr Bond's projected 1:00am time of death? This is of especial relevance when you then go on to say:-

Had the police decided, on or before the 15th, that Hutchinson's story was of no value, then you & I both know that with the work load they already have, the police are not about to investigate every man wearing an Astrachan coat, when the story implicating this man has been found defective.

So were they or were they not hunting Astrakhan? If they were, your Anderson/Bond theory is blown out of the water.

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

“So you asserted that people were still reporting Astrakhan types, in spite of what the Echo had said about the police rapidly losing interest, but you 'dunno' where any of these sightings actually were, except that not one was in the East End? How does that work?”

I could not recall off-hand where these sightings of men supposedly resembling Astrakhan man took place, except insofar as they did not occur in the East End. If I’m misremembering, and there were indeed reports of East End "Astrakhan types", I would be interested to see the evidence. St Paul's rang a vague bell, which is why I used it as an example. In each case, it was an ordinary member of the public who reported the man in question (not Echo readers, apparently!), which necessitated police interest even if they were no longer looking for men resembling Hutchinson’s description.

I’m not suggesting that the police “needed” to supply accurate information to the press, but it was heavily in their interest to ameliorate the hostility and heavy censure that the police were receiving from the press (and consequently the public), and if it was no skin off their noses to divulge the mundane detail that a witness was no longer being taken seriously, they may as well have taken a reputable newspaper with no obvious political agenda into their confidence on the issue. They didn’t exactly keep the offerings of Packer and Violenia buoyant purely out of a desire to prevent the real offender from “changing his appearance” (or whatever), so why would Hutchinson be any different?

“That implies they gave the Echo nothing resembling a formal statement to that effect, but presumably resorted to a hint or a nudge in that general direction.”

I can’t imagine the police provided them with detailed specifics, no, but they did relate the basics, which were that Hutchinson’s account had received a “very reduced importance” for reasons concerning his credibility (i.e. as opposed to an “honest mistake”, or Mary Cox’s evidence being preferred, or Bond’s speculated time of death being championed etc).

“But what about the potentially dangerous consequences of giving the public (via the Echo) chapter and verse on who merited further investigation and who didn't?”

We know full well that the police did not allow the press to believe that all “witnesses evidence” purporting to be same was legitimate, and in this particular case, the idea of using subterfuge to in order to prevent Astrakhan from “changing his appearance” just doesn’t make any sense. As if there was any chance of him being lulled into a false sense of security, and continuing to think it was a good idea to swan around the East End murdering prostitutes dressed in conspicuous and ostentatious garb, supposedly oblivious to the reality of a witness staring straight into his face and then following him from behind.

“But it only undermines your case for the police telling the Echo about it (albeit unofficially and in as little detail as possible), since they had no way to eliminate Astrakhan Man without proof that Hutch had made him up.”

That’s precisely why the police said nothing to the Echo about Astrakhan Man being "eliminated". The words they so cautiously used – in the absence of proof that Hutchinson lied – were “very reduced importance”.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

They were obliged to investigate all leads provided by members of the public. Remember Packer and the furore that arose out of his allegation that police hadn't bothered to interview him and follow up on what he claimed was important case-related information?

Indeed I do, though once the Met. had determined that he changed his story, he lost credibility in their eyes, and the Met. lost interest in him.
Exactly what would have occurred with Hutchinson if the police had discredited him. Thankfully we have press accounts that show his story was still under investigation well into November, ergo, he had never been discredited.

As for Packer, even though he appeared in the press through October & November with more 'stories', we do not read that the Met. were investigating them.
In fact what we do read is that it was the City Police who reacted.
"Sir William Fraser immediately acted on the information and sent Detective sergeants White and Mitchell to investigate it."

Predictably, we read:
"The police authorities, though bound to investigate the story of the fruiterer Matthew Packer, attach no importance whatever to his statement."

Scotland Yard, who had previously determined that Packer was untrustworthy made no investigation of his subsequent claims to the press. It was the City who took up the challenge, with predictable results.

Once again, you fail to appreciate the distinction between those men who fell under genuine police suspicion and those who the police were obliged to investigate as a result of civilian information.

What do you mean by 'genuine police suspicion'?
As most, if not all, investigations came about in response to tips or allegations from the public, then the distinction if it exists must be small.

What I see here is you are confusing the random, one-off, tips by various citizens, which the police were obliged to investigate, with your belief that the police should also continue to investigate the story of a witness whom they have already discredited - your example being Packer, actually proves my case adequately.
They did not.

Investigators were not searching for Astrakhan types. Members of the public wrongly believed they were and reported such men accordingly.

Thats only your opinion, again. As is often the case here, we have press indications of one line of inquiry, yet you contest it with your 'opinion'.

Clear examples exist of the press finding out about the Met pursuing Hutchinson's story well into November, then finally arresting the man in December.
Yet we get the proverbial ostrich response, of sticking the head in the sand and claiming "no it didn't happen that way" - "I see no ships!", "the press are wrong", etc. etc.

The Galloway incident illustrates this point perfectly.

Mr Galloway thought he saw a Blotchy-type character, when it was explained to him the Met. were looking for the 'respectably dressed' suspect - what could be clearer.

[Wickerman]

So where does this leave your contention that Anderson dismissed Hutchinson's story on account of Dr Bond's projected 1:00am time of death? This is of especial relevance when you then go on to say:-

Why do you rely so much on unreliable memoirs?
I don't use them, no-one who needs to promote a credible story uses memoirs as evidence. Look for yourself, how many uncertainties are explored with his Kozminski theory - nothing to date has been confirmed, its all conjecture.
So, I think you waste your time using a highly dubious source to defend your Hutchinson theory.
Even at the time of the murders, Anderson gets the Schwartz thing all screwed up, in writing that Schwartz attended the inquest.
We must serious ask if Anderson actually 'knew' anything?

So were they or were they not hunting Astrakhan? If they were, your Anderson/Bond theory is blown out of the water.

I've explained how that works to Ben.
Medical opinion, though much preferred by police at the time is also known to contain an element of caution. Dr. Bond's estimate was only that, an estimate, it depended on factors not proven. In short, it could have been out by a couple of hours - we only need to see the caution of Dr. Phillips when he estimated Chapman's time of death.

Scotland Yard are not going to abandon a line of inquiry on such a slender thread as a medical 'estimate'. They have no confirmed time of death for Mary Kelly, so all lines of inquiry are open to investigation.