A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Hutchinson accounted for his extended loitering presence opposite the court on the very grounds ..."

That is a bit premature, I think, Ben. We do not know if Hutchinson ever placed himself "opposite the court". We only have him admitting to standing directly outside it, at "the corner of the court".
And the difference is potentially very important, as you know.

Observer:

"... if Hutchinson admitted being opposite Millers Court on the morning in question at 2:30 a.m. and was later considered by Abbeline as having told a pack of lies regarding Astrakhan, the he would have become a suspect."

Absolutely, Observer. But if he claimed that he never did stand outside Crossinghams for a split second, but instead spent the whole time directly outside the court, then Abberline would know that he was not the same man that Lewis saw.
And that would mean that Lewis could not have missed him, passing a foot from him - IF he stood on the coner of the court.

Faced with such testimony, Abberline would sooner or later have ebntertained the suspicion that one of the witnesses was not telling him the truth. And since the Keylers could confirm Lewis´arrival, that would have left him with just the one person with that sort of culpability - Hutchinson.

And we have Walter Dew implicating that he was probably mistaken on the days, but an honestly mistaken witness of a good character, just as we have the Echo saying that a diminished importance suddenly attached to the testimony, and we have a paper report that tells us that there were police officials who kept up the hunt for Astrakhan man after that trail had suffered a blow that diminished it´s importance greatly - but without dispelling it totally.

So how hard can it be?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Hi Observer

I'm at a total loss here. Who exactly is Abberline's suspect mentioned above? Astrakhan?

Well yes - since we know that Abberline considered Hutchinson's statement and found it to be credible at the time. Ergo, the man with the Astrakhan coat was the Person of Interest - not the witness.

Listen if Hutchinson admitted being opposite Millers Court on the morning in question at 2:30 a.m. and was later considered by Abbeline as having told a pack of lies regarding Astrakhan, the he would have become a suspect.

No ifs and buts, it's pure unadulterated common sense.

Well, perhaps - but personally I think more likely suspected of being a time waster than a killer if that's what happened. He wouldn't have been the only one. It would've been a huge risk to insert himself into the investigation had he killed Kelly - it isn't the most immediately obvious solution, even though we know now that it does happen.

I've heard the comment that the Victorian detectives were unaware that killer's sometimes inserted themselves into murder inquiries, subsequently deflecting the inquiry from themselves. They thus are taken at face value and are not suspected by the police. Fair enough, but Hutchinson falls into a different catergory, he was later found to be telling lies, and discredited. Suspicion would then have fallen on him.

And yet there is apparently no sign that he was ever considered a suspect. I mean, it's not as if the police didn't know where he lived, is it? Yet no reports of his having been taken into custody as a suspect. So again, if he was discredited, it seems more likely that he was considered to be a time waster, perhaps hoping to make some money out of it - a chancer.

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

Listen if Hutchinson admitted being opposite Millers Court on the morning in question at 2:30 a.m. and was later considered by Abbeline as having told a pack of lies regarding Astrakhan, the he would have become a suspect. No ifs and buts, it's pure unadulterated common sense.

That only follows if the police continued to believe that Hutchinson really was there that night. The overwhelmingly strong likelihood, however, is that after his credibility was doubted and his account discredited, he was adjudged to have been a mere two-a-penny publicity/money-seeker who wasn't there when he said he was. Were they wrong in making that determination? Perhaps so, but it there is no indication that Hutchinson was ever connected to Lewis' wideawake man (as he ought to have been), and the precedent for fame-seeking witnesses had been very much set.

I'd ask you to consider the case of Emmanuel Violenia. He claimed to have been at the scene of the Chapman murder around the time it was committed, and yet when his account was discredited, he did not become a suspect. They didn't suspect him of lying about his reasons for being at the crime scene. They suspected him of lying about being at the scene of the crime altogether, and the same undoubtedly occurred with Hutchinson.

Incidentally, it wasn't the case that either Violenia or Hutchinson were "found" to have been telling lies. They were merely suspected of same.

Hi Fisherman,

I think, if you don't mind, we've already done that one to death. You know precisely how I feel about Hutchinson's location. I feel that it would be taking pedantry to the absolute extreme if we attempt to make any meaningful distinction between the area immediately in front of Crossingham's and the area immediately in front of the Miller's Court entrance. A matter of eight feet separated these two locations, and most sane people who remain STANDING in one spot for any length of time tend to move around a bit, especially if it's cold. In short, there is not the remotest contradiction between Hutchinson and Lewis with regard to the loitering man's location.

But I'm sure you know very well that this is how I feel on the subject, just as you know how I feel on the subject of the proposed "date confusion". The Echo report makes clear that the reason for Hutchinson's discrediting was inextricably linked to the question of his honesty.

All the best,
Ben

[Observer]

Very hard Fisherman! The thing is all the police reports are lost. I would take everything the Echo reported with a very very large pinch of salt though. Wasn't it the Echo which reported that the piece of envelope bearing the Sussex Regiment address was found next to Polly Nichols body. And the interview with John Kelly melodramatic or what?

John Kelly: " Towards the afternoon I told Kate to take my boots and pawn them. She wouldn't for a long time, and offered to pawn something of hers, if I'd let her. I wouldn't hear of that, so Kate took my boots and got 2s. 6d. for them. Well, we sat here by this very table, and my old woman had the very same seat as you're in now, Sir. We had our tea, and then she said she thought she'd go and see a daughter of hers-a married daughter, I think she is. She used sometimes to go there, for her daughter only lived across in Bermondsey, and is very well off. I didn't want her to go that night, somehow. I was a bit afraid because of the Hanbury-street affair. However, she said she'd go, because she could get some help there, and the last words I said to her as she went out of the door were, "Don't be late, Kate, because of the knife!'"

"What did that mean?"-"Well, that's how we talk about the man who's done all these murders, Sir. She turned round just before she went out and said, 'Don't you trouble, Jack; I won't be late, and I shall be all right.' Then she left the house, and I saw her next in the mortuary."

Intrepid Echo reporter sat in the same seat as poor Catherine Eddowes no less! Yeah right.

And Kelly believed whoever had killed Kate Eddowes had killed the others eh? Where does that leave Sinn Fein? But he would say that seeing as he was part of the plot (he he) But thats for another thread.

Regards

Observer

[Fisherman]

Hi Observer,

Hi Fisherman,

I think, if you don't mind, we've already done that one to death. You know precisely how I feel about Hutchinson's location. I feel that it would be taking pedantry to the absolute extreme by making any meaningful distinction between the area immediately in front of Crossingham's and the area immediately in front of the Miller's Court entrance. A matter of eight feet separated these two location, and most sane people who remain STANDING in one spot for any length of time tend to move around a bit, especially if it's cold. In short, there is not the remotest contradiction between Hutchinson and Lewis with regard to the loitering man's location.

But I'm sure you know very well that this is how I feel on the subject, just as you know how I feel on the subject of the proposed "date confusion". The Echo report makes clear that the reason for Hutchinson's discrediting was inextricably linked to the question of his honesty.

All the best,
Ben

The devil, as you know Ben, is in the details. And you will no doubt appreciate that much as you think it a near certainty that Hutchinson must have traversed the street, there is not a iot mentioned about it anywhere. To my mind, if Hutchinson felt he needed to warm himself, he could just as well have walked back and forth directly outside the passageway leading into the court.

He may of course also have scaled the wall of Crossinghams ten times to keep warm. We don´t know, as no complete list of movements on his behalf is supplies. But it stands as a fact that no report and no newspaper article ever speaks of him standing outside Crossinghams, whereas there is recorded evidence of him standing at the corner of the court, and also of him stating that he stood wher he stood for fortyfive minutes.

Therefore, no matter how you feel about it, and no matter how well I know your sentiments, it is not grounded in the evidence to state that Hutchinson stood opposite the court - at Crossinghams, as it were - for any remove of time at all.

That´s why I reacted.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Observer:

"Very hard Fisherman! The thing is all the police reports are lost. I would take everything the Echo reported with a very very large pinch of salt though. Wasn't it the Echo which reported that the piece of envelope bearing the Sussex Regiment address was found next to Polly Nichols body. And the interview with John Kelly melodramatic or what?"

Mmm - papers can be very unreliable. But in this case, Dew asserts us that Hutchinson was a stand-up witness with honest intents, and no report or no article has anything detrimental to say about him (only about his story) so I see corroboration here.

The best,
Fisherman

[Observer]

And yet there is apparently no sign that he was ever considered a suspect. I mean, it's not as if the police didn't know where he lived, is it? Yet no reports of his having been taken into custody as a suspect. So again, if he was discredited, it seems more likely that he was considered to be a time waster, perhaps hoping to make some money out of it - a chancer.

Hi Sally

There are no surviving documents that he was ever considered a suspect, I'd agree. It's my opinion that they once existed though. As for being a chancer, I think you've hit the nail on the head. I don't think he was anywhere near Millers Court on the morning in question.

Observer

[Observer]

Hi Observer,
That only follows if the police continued to believe that Hutchinson really was there that night. The overwhelmingly strong likelihood, however, is that after his credibility was doubted and his account discredited, he was adjudged to have been a mere two-a-penny publicity/money-seeker who wasn't there when he said he was. Were they wrong in making that determination? Perhaps so, but it there is no indication that Hutchinson was ever connected to Lewis' wideawake man (as he ought to have been), and the precedent for fame-seeking witnesses had been very much set.


All the best,
Ben

Absolutely. And I truly believe that he wasn't anywhere near the place. I believe that after police enquiry he was found to be tucked up in bed, in the Victoria Home, during the whole Mary Kelly drama.

Regards

Observer

[Ben]

And you will no doubt appreciate that much as you think it a near certainty that Hutchinson must have traversed the street, there is not a iot mentioned about it anywhere.

He didn't need to have "traversed" the street, Fisherman. His evidence is perfectly compatible with the location of the wideawake man seen by Sarah Lewis - immediately outside Crossingham's lodging house and opposite the court. His behaviour is even more consistent with the wideawake man's. And by the way, he only left the corner of Miller's Court because the last thing he did before allegedly departing the scene was to venture into Miller's Court itself and hover outside Kelly's window. No reference to this activity at all in his police statement, naturally.

But it stands as a fact that no report and no newspaper article ever speaks of him standing outside Crossinghams

Yes there is, actually.

If someone is reported to have been standing outside the Miller's Court entrance, they would also have been standing outside Crossingham's. It was impossible to avoid, given that we're talking about an area circumscribed by less than ten feet. Two of my supine body lengths would be greater than the distance you're talking about. It counts for absolutely nothing, and the distinction is utterly meaningless.

That´s why I reacted.

Okay, you've reacted now, and I've responded, and we're making no more progress than we did when we discussed this ad nauseum on the other thread, which I'd hate to have to copy and paste from.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

I believe that after police enquiry he was found to be tucked up in bed, in the Victoria Home, during the whole Mary Kelly drama.

Can't argue with a personal hunch, Observer, although I would caution very strongly against positing the existence of "lost reports" to support a proposition. There is no evidence that Hutchinson was ever considered a suspect. The fact that a "reduced importance" was attached to his account suggests very strongly that the police had suspicions about his account, rather than being in possession of actual proof that his account was false.

Cheers,
Ben

[Observer]

Observer:

"Very hard Fisherman! The thing is all the police reports are lost. I would take everything the Echo reported with a very very large pinch of salt though. Wasn't it the Echo which reported that the piece of envelope bearing the Sussex Regiment address was found next to Polly Nichols body. And the interview with John Kelly melodramatic or what?"

Mmm - papers can be very unreliable. But in this case, Dew asserts us that Hutchinson was a stand-up witness with honest intents, and no report or no article has anything detrimental to say about him (only about his story) so I see corroboration here.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman

I believe Hutchinson became a bit of an embarressment to Abberline when he learnt that he had pulled the wool over his eyes.

Lets not forget that two detectives accompanied Hutchinson as they scoured the area looking for Mr A. Notice would have been taken of this by the press, and they were only too ready to lambast the police should they end up with egg on their faces.

Let sleeping dogs lie comes to mind when Hutchinson was found to be telling porkiies. Hence the newspaper report of a "reduced importance," rather than total discreditment when it came to Hutchinsons story. That way the police lead the press to believe that Hutchinson was a witness of sorts, and not tottaly discredited. In short, total discreditment would have meant that the police would have had to reveal to the press that they had been completely hoodwinked by Hutchinson. Considering the pressure they were under to catch the killer, I don't think they would have been best pleased with Mr Hutchinson.

Dew simply stuck to the policy of the time. Hurchinson was an embaressment to the police, so tell all and sundry he was a reliable witness, of sorts

Just my take on things of course.

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

Can't argue with a personal hunch, Observer, although I would caution very strongly against positing the existence of "lost reports" to support a proposition. There is no evidence that Hutchinson was ever considered a suspect. The fact that a "reduced importance" was attached to his account suggests very strongly that the police had suspicions about his account, rather than being in possession of actual proof that his account was false.

Cheers,
Ben

No problem Ben. Each to his own as they say.

Regards

Observer

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"He didn't need to have "traversed" the street, Fisherman. His evidence is perfectly compatible with the location of the wideawake man seen by Sarah Lewis - immediately outside Crossingham's lodging house and opposite the court. His behaviour is even more consistent with the wideawake man's. And by the way, he only left the corner of Miller's Court because the last thing he did before allegedly departing the scene was to venture into Miller's Court itself and hover outside Kelly's window. No reference to this activity at all in his police statement, naturally."

Lewis´man was apparently standing in the doorway of Crossinghams. That´s why I am saying that if that man was Hutchinson, then Hutchinson must have given up his stance at the corner of the court and crossed the street. And there is no evidence saying that he did.


"If someone is reported to have been standing outside the Miller's Court entrance, they would also have been standing outside Crossingham's."

In a sense, yes. That somebody would be outside ALL the buildings in the street. But what I am saying is that no matter how narrow you say that street was, Hutchinson´s story could still have been geographically incompatible with Lewis´ditto. And that is what counts here, since it opens up the possibility that Abberline was able to conclude that the two could not have been one and the same. We cannot possibly diminish the two areas - the space by the door at Crossinghams and the space at the corner of the court - so much that they melt into one space only. Ten feet can be very crucial in this context.

"Okay, you've reacted now, and I've responded, and we're making no more progress than we did when we discussed this ad nauseum on the other thread, which I'd hate to have to copy and paste from."

To be perfectly honest, I did not expect you to change your mind. But I wanted to point out that you placed Hutchinson in a position in which he never confessed to have been standing at. Plus I wanted to point to how this discrepancy may lie behind the dismissal of the Hutchinson story.

Not for you, Ben. Fot those who uncritically accepted your placing of Hutchinson. SO if you are to copy and paste anything at all, then copy and paste proof that Hutchinson ever stood directly outside the door of Crossinghams. Then , and only then, will it make a difference.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman

I believe Hutchinson became a bit of an embarressment to Abberline when he learnt that he had pulled the wool over his eyes.

Lets not forget that two detectives accompanied Hutchinson as they scoured the area looking for Mr A. Notice would have been taken of this by the press, and they were only too ready to lambast the police should they end up with egg on their faces.

Let sleeping dogs lie comes to mind when Hutchinson was found to be telling porkiies. Hence the newspaper report of a "reduced importance," rather than total discreditment when it came to Hutchinsons story. That way the police lead the press to believe that Hutchinson was a witness of sorts, and not tottaly discredited. In short, total discreditment would have meant that the police would have had to reveal to the press that they had been completely hoodwinked by Hutchinson. Considering the pressure they were under to catch the killer, I don't think they would have been best pleased with Mr Hutchinson.

Dew simply stuck to the policy of the time. Hurchinson was an embaressment to the police, so tell all and sundry he was a reliable witness, of sorts

Just my take on things of course.

Regards

Observer

Yes, just your take, Observer. And that´s fine. But I think that we have no proof at all that Hutchinson told porkies, so I´d prefer a verdict of "not proven" when it comes to his culpability.

And Dew - why would he follow procedure fifty years after the events, when he had not been tied to the force for decades...? Is it not simpler, better and more logical not to twist what he said, and just accept it?

I know I do.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

...There is no evidence that Hutchinson was ever considered a suspect. The fact that a "reduced importance" was attached to his account suggests very strongly that the police had suspicions about his account, rather than being in possession of actual proof that his account was false.

As previously stated, it suggests very strongly that Dr. Bond's estimate carried considerably more clout with Warren & Anderson than some are prepared to accept.
Without labeling Hutchinson a liar, the police were "induced" to realign their inquiries, Hutchinson's claim must be shelved in favor of an earlier suspect. Right or wrong, that was the moment of a significant turn in the direction of the investigation.

Regards, Jon S.