Hutchinsons statement....

[Sam Flynn]

Pick any six articles in the press today, learn them off by heart and then restate everything to two different people, on two separate days. See how many you can recall correctly, and see how many faults you make between the two re-tellings of your story.

But Hutchinson didn't recall, or relate, them correctly, and different details appear in his police statement than in his subsequent accounts in the press.

Then ask yourself, to what end, why would I do that?

Money? Fifteen minutes of fame in an otherwise dreary life? Both?

What was Matthew Packer's motivation, I wonder? Strange how the majority of us can see Packer's testimony as unreliable, but are happy to take Hutchinson's account(s) as genuine. If anything, Hutchinson's tale is rather more sensational than Packer's, so why are we inclined to give it more credit? Is it because it bore Abberline's seal of approval - initially, at least? There is, after all, some evidence that Hutchinson's testimony was "discredited" (i.e. "disbelieved") within a short space of time.

[Sam Flynn]

Could Hutch have noticed the man trailing him and had a looksey then, too?

I'm sure he'd have mentioned this if he had.

[Varqm]

And in what capacity would he seem not helpful and not independent for mentioning Lewis? Can you explain that to me?
I have always thought that a very weak explanation. If he wanted to put things beyond doubt, then he needed to mention Lewis, and he didn´t. So it´s a dead duck to me.

Exactly.A straight and simple testimony helps the most.

[Varqm]

But Hutchinson didn't recall, or relate, them correctly, and different details appear in his police statement than in his subsequent accounts in the press.
Money? Fifteen minutes of fame in an otherwise dreary life? Both?

What was Matthew Packer's motivation, I wonder? Strange how the majority of us can see Packer's testimony as unreliable, but are happy to take Hutchinson's account(s) as genuine. If anything, Hutchinson's tale is rather more sensational than Packer's, so why are we inclined to give it more credit? Is it because it bore Abberline's seal of approval - initially, at least? There is, after all, some evidence that Hutchinson's testimony was "discredited" (i.e. "disbelieved") within a short space of time.

Abberline could not have disproved Hutchinson's statement in an (initial) interrogation .It would have to come with a subsequent investigation to check him/his statement out.Something must have been found out.Or they came to their senses,that Hutch's statement was odd.

[Wickerman]

But Hutchinson didn't recall, or relate, them correctly, and different details appear in his police statement than in his subsequent accounts in the press.
Money? Fifteen minutes of fame in an otherwise dreary life? Both?

Sugden went over this comparison years ago Gareth, in fact I posted a line-by-line comparison on Casebook just to demonstrate the fact for those who had not read Sugden.

What was Matthew Packer's motivation, I wonder? Strange how the majority of us can see Packer's testimony as unreliable, but are happy to take Hutchinson's account(s) as genuine.

Packer is deemed "unreliable" because he changed his story, he gave two stories. Not because anyone questioned his story.
Hutchinson never changed his story.

There is, after all, some evidence that Hutchinson's testimony was "discredited" (i.e. "disbelieved") within a short space of time.

Ah, the notorious "discredited" resurfaces.
Sorry Gareth, but the case needs a more reliable source than the Star to take such a claim seriously. The police never made any such claim, and that is what matters, not what the press thinks.

It is clear from existing evidence that Dr. Bond offered a theory which contested Hutchinson's timeline, and as the police are more inclined to give credence to professional opinion, we have the most likely reason why they did not accept Hutchinson's 'suspect' as the single police suspect.
Hence the false press claim that Hutchinson must have been discredited, which the Star themselves knew to be wrong only days after they printed it.

[Wickerman]

Abberline could not have disproved Hutchinson's statement in an (initial) interrogation .It would have to come with a subsequent investigation to check him/his statement out.Something must have been found out.Or they came to their senses,that Hutch's statement was odd.

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

[Abby Normal]

Alternatively, the basic recipe for his story appeared in the papers two (and a half) days before he gave his statement.

Give it up Sam
Wicky is hopelessly deluded when it comes to all things hutch.

[Abby Normal]

I really don't have a personal opinion on whether Hutchinson was telling the truth or not. I will say this, though. He saw the man for several minutes even before they reached Miller's Court. Hutch was heading north on Commercial Street when he passed MJK heading south toward Thrawl Street. After she asked him for money she continued toward Thrawl Street. Hutch then went up and "stood against the lamp of the Queens Head public house and watched him". The man must have been approaching from behind Hutch when he encountered MJK because Hutch states "...a man coming in the opposite direction to Kelly . This was after Hutch left her and continued north on Commercial Street. So if she was heading south and the man was coming from the opposite direction, wouldn't that mean the man was coming from where Hutch just came from, toward Whitechapel Road? Could Hutch have noticed the man trailing him and had a looksey then, too?

Mary Kelly must have done an about face with the man and headed back to her lodging at Miller's Court. As they approached Dorset Street Hutch was glaring from the Queens Head when he stooped to see the man's face and THEN he followed them down Dorset Street. He actually had a lot of time to look at this man, in my opinion.

Had a lot of time to make him up too.

[Sam Flynn]

Evaporated milk

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

As I said a few years ago:

What is remarkable is that the papers didn't make more of Hutchinson's story; they were, after all, jumping on all kinds of stories in their efforts to sell more copy. Yet, despite its evident "milking-potential", coverage of Hutchinson's story seems to have evaporated almost as soon as it appeared. Why should this have been the case?

[Wickerman]

As I said a few years ago:

What is remarkable is that the papers didn't make more of Hutchinson's story; they were, after all, jumping on all kinds of stories in their efforts to sell more copy. Yet, despite its evident "milking-potential", coverage of Hutchinson's story seems to have evaporated almost as soon as it appeared. Why should this have been the case?

Based on what though Gareth?
How much "hay" did the press make on the claims of Lawende, Schwartz or Cadoche?
I think your are inventing a reason that is not justified by other examples.

By Nov. 19th the police were still interested in both Blotchy and Astrakan, as suspects in the case. As the Echo reported:
"The police have not relaxed their endeavours to hunt down the murderer in the slightest degree; but so far they remain without any direct clue."

If there are no further clues the police have nothing to go on, and the press will drop the story and move on to more timely events.

So there is nothing suspicious about the fact the press made no more references to Hutchinson. Nothing more was reported until the arrest of the Astrakan adorned Jew, Joseph Isaacs on Dec. 6th, where the press wrote that Abberline thought, "we have got the right man at last".

Had Hutchinson already been "discredited" in November, then Abberline would have had no interest in the suspect.

[Sam Flynn]

Based on what though Gareth?

The sheer detail of his description, which was unquestionably without parallel in the entire case.

Had Hutchinson already been "discredited" in November, then Abberline would have had no interest in the suspect.

Two words: George. Oldfield.

[c.d.]

I'm not quite sure of the purpose of this thread. Even if we assume that Hutchinson lied what conclusion can we reach beyond that?

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

I'm not quite sure of the purpose of this thread. Even if we assume that Hutchinson lied what conclusion can we reach beyond that?

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.

[FrankO]

And in what capacity would he seem not helpful and not independent for mentioning Lewis? Can you explain that to me?
I have always thought that a very weak explanation. If he wanted to put things beyond doubt, then he needed to mention Lewis, and he didn´t. So it´s a dead duck to me.

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.

[Abby Normal]

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.

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.