Hutchinsons statement....

[Varqm]

If he was in fact prompted by Lewis’s testimony and had been there for shady reasons (not necessarily being a murderer), he would not want the police to think he only came forward because of Lewis’s testimony. If he would have mentioned Lewis, the chance would have been bigger that they would think that than if he didn’t. Besides the fact that Lewis wasn’t important to his overall story, initially not mentioning Lewis wouldn’t mean that he couldn’t later admit to seeing this woman entering the court.

I can’t explain it any better Fish If you still don’t understand it, then that’s your prerogative.

If he was there, a true witness, there was no point in beating around the bush.

[Varqm]

The police were still interested in the Astrakan character in December, so this fact alone shows the police had not dismissed Hutchinson's story.

Tell me a memoir of a police official where Hutchinson's testimony was central or important or related to their opinion of who the ripper was or could have been or what he looked liked.
As examples Kosminski,Druitt, Tumblety,Klosowski? Where was Hutch's testimony in suspecting this people from a memoir of a police official.

[Wickerman]

Some of the key ingredients of Hutchinson's story can be found, at least in embryo, in various newspapers published two whole days before Hutchinson gave his statement.

Back to this earlier post.
I just thought it might be relevant to point out that the police did keep track on what the press reported about the crimes. In fact we have cases where the police obtained witnesses directly from what was reported in the press.
There were more journalists on the streets seeking out witnesses than detectives.

If we can select pieces of detail offered by witnesses to the press, then so could the police at the time. This approach basically suggests the police were dumb.

[Wickerman]

Tell me a memoir of a police official where Hutchinson's testimony was central or important or related to their opinion of who the ripper was or could have been or what he looked liked.
As examples Kosminski,Druitt, Tumblety,Klosowski? Where was Hutch's testimony in suspecting this people from a memoir of a police official.

Memoirs say more about personal preferences (private opinion), than facts about who the killer was. If memoirs were reliable they would all indicate the same suspect.

Abberline believed Isaacs was Astrachan when he was arrested on Dec. 6th.
For the next week the movements of Isaacs were investigated. After which it was determined Isaacs had been in custody at the time of the Kelly murder. So Abberline's suspicions about Isaacs being Astrachan came to an end, and nothing further is recorded about the Hutchinson suspect.

Don't waste your time with memoirs.

[Sam Flynn]

If we can select pieces of detail offered by witnesses to the press, then so could the police at the time.

Perhaps they did, Jon. Might explain why we don't hear much about star witness George Hutchinson after his brief appearance in the spotlight.

This approach basically suggests the police were dumb.

I'm a policeman's son, and I'd be the last to suggest that they were stupid. However, I'd also be the last to suggest that they were infallible.

[Sam Flynn]

Memoirs say more about personal preferences (private opinion), than facts about who the killer was. If memoirs were reliable they would all indicate the same suspect.

Good observation, and spot on.

[Wickerman]

I think Hutchinson can teach us some important lessons: For one thing, even the best detectives working on the Ripper case could be taken in by false testimony; for another, Kelly's murderer was unlikely to have resembled the ostentatiously-dressed person whom Hutchinson described.

Assuming he made it up, of course. I may be wrong in that, but I think there are a number of indicators to the contrary.

if your assumption about what we can learn from Hutchinson is itself predicated on an assumption, then we learn nothing.

There is one reason why a liar would provide a very detailed description. He intends there to be no doubt about who he is identifying.
A reasonable question might be, did Hutchinson actually know the man he described?

[Wickerman]

Agree Sam. I think abberline might have initially believed hutch, because right after Sarah Lewis gave her testimony at the inquest about watching man, in walks hutch and tells abberline the same.

Hi Abby.
But that make-shift court room was small, very few members of the public were able to get in, and Abberline with other police officials were present.
Abberline, or another official, could easily have seen Hutchinson in the court room listening to the evidence.
It doesn't make for a practical scenario in my opinion. Abberline was renown for his work with confidence tricksters and the criminal element out to get whatever they can, so he would have been looking to trip Hutchinson up somehow. Apparently he couldn't.
It's only natural for an investigator to treat a statement with reservation when it is given after the evidence of the case is made public.

Abberline is more likely to believe a later statement if it includes details not yet made public. Hutchinson's interrogation record has not survived, so we do not know what he told Abberline in detail.

[Sam Flynn]

if your assumption about what we can learn from Hutchinson is itself predicated on an assumption, then we learn nothing.

My hypothesis (not an assumption) is drawn from the newspaper reports that appeared before Hutchinson came forward. My only assumption is that he read, or was at least aware of, these reports.

[Sam Flynn]

Abberline was renown for his work with confidence tricksters and the criminal element out to get whatever they can, so he would have been looking to trip Hutchinson up somehow.

Would he, necessarily? Abberline might have been interested in getting more information about what appeared to be a promising lead, but that's not to say that he subjected Hutchinson to a gruelling cross-examination. The guy was a witness, after all, and had submitted his testimony voluntarily.

[John G]

Hi Abby.
But that make-shift court room was small, very few members of the public were able to get in, and Abberline with other police officials were present.
Abberline, or another official, could easily have seen Hutchinson in the court room listening to the evidence.
It doesn't make for a practical scenario in my opinion. Abberline was renown for his work with confidence tricksters and the criminal element out to get whatever they can, so he would have been looking to trip Hutchinson up somehow. Apparently he couldn't.
It's only natural for an investigator to treat a statement with reservation when it is given after the evidence of the case is made public.

Abberline is more likely to believe a later statement if it includes details not yet made public. Hutchinson's interrogation record has not survived, so we do not know what he told Abberline in detail.

Hi Jon,

Some very good points. However, how likely is it that, following the inquest, Hutchinson simply picked up on local gossip based upon information provided by those that were present?

[Varqm]

Memoirs say more about personal preferences (private opinion), than facts about who the killer was. If memoirs were reliable they would all indicate the same suspect.

Abberline believed Isaacs was Astrachan when he was arrested on Dec. 6th.
For the next week the movements of Isaacs were investigated. After which it was determined Isaacs had been in custody at the time of the Kelly murder. So Abberline's suspicions about Isaacs being Astrachan came to an end, and nothing further is recorded about the Hutchinson suspect.

Don't waste your time with memoirs.

Of course it's important.All the facts come in later on,months,years.Investigations does not necessarily end in months.Long, Lawende,Schwartz (although to me more likely not a ripper victim) witnessed the victim and likely the killer in passing.Hutchinson followed the couple, "stooped down and looked him in the face",watch them for 3 minutes,surely he would have been a major witness.But Hutchinson's testimony was not central or important or related to their opinion of who the ripper was or could have been or what he looked liked later on,on any memoirs or article write-up,memoranda,,even the Seaside identification.

But I'll leave you to your stupor.

[Wickerman]

Would he, necessarily? Abberline might have been interested in getting more information about what appeared to be a promising lead, but that's not to say that he subjected Hutchinson to a gruelling cross-examination. The guy was a witness, after all, and had submitted his testimony voluntarily.

I was trying to suggest there are two ways to approach a witness statement.
When a witness offers a statement before official evidence is given publicly, then there is less cause for suspicion.
This was not the case with Hutchinson, so the interrogating officer needs to be sure this Johnny-come-lately witness is not just trying to manipulate publicly released evidence for his own ends.
There's an extra level of caution required.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Some very good points. However, how likely is it that, following the inquest, Hutchinson simply picked up on local gossip based upon information provided by those that were present?

Hi John.
I would say, too many assumptions there.
Where was this gossip, when, between whom, and what was the gossip about?
Was there even any time for him to listen to the right witness, relating the right event?
How would he know who to listen to?

It's one thing to raise a legitimate objection, but quite another to create a series of assumptions in order to raise an objection.

In the main, the criticisms against Hutchinson are very labor intensive.
Some 20+? years ago someone cast Hutchinson with suspicion, as is often the case, just to offer someone different.
Since then, many others have jumped on the same bandwagon with various accusations, not one of the accusations have ever been established in fact.

Hutchinson never was a suspect, that is purely a modern invention.

[John Wheat]

Hi John.
I would say, too many assumptions there.
Where was this gossip, when, between whom, and what was the gossip about?
Was there even any time for him to listen to the right witness, relating the right event?
How would he know who to listen to?

It's one thing to raise a legitimate objection, but quite another to create a series of assumptions in order to raise an objection.

In the main, the criticisms against Hutchinson are very labor intensive.
Some 20+? years ago someone cast Hutchinson with suspicion, as is often the case, just to offer someone different.
Since then, many others have jumped on the same bandwagon with various accusations, not one of the accusations have ever been established in fact.

Hutchinson never was a suspect, that is purely a modern invention.

The same could be said for Lechmere. Both are witnesses and not suspects.