Hutchinsons statement....

[Sam Flynn]

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.

Whether Abberline took this approach, or didn't, requires assumptions to be made on both sides of the argument. Personally, I don't assume that Abberline definitely did. Even if he had, it's still quite possible that Hutchinson put one over on him. It wouldn't have been the first or the last time that a tall tale, convincingly told, deceived an experienced detective.

[Wickerman]

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

I have said the same. With all due respect to Christer, I do not accept the Lechmere argument, so I never get involved.
Christer is no fool, he's very smart, but we must agree to disagree on Lechmere.

[Wickerman]

Whether Abberline took this approach, or didn't, requires assumptions to be made on both sides of the argument.

The extent of assumption is, to my mind, that we can assume he did his job professionally, or assume he didn't.
I am satisfied with the former assumption, given Abberline's reputation, it is the path of least resistance.

Personally, I don't assume that Abberline definitely did. Even if he had, it's still quite possible that Hutchinson put one over on him. It wouldn't have been the first or the last time that a tall tale, convincingly told, deceived an experienced detective.

Certainly, Hutchinson "could" have lied, for many of the reason's suggested by several members here. The point is, nothing we know about Hutchinson indicates this. It is an idea born purely from guesswork, not from the evidence.
Academically speaking, theories ARE supposed to be born from the evidence.

For all the accusations of lying, nothing, not one instance has ever been verified that he lied about anything.
All the negative accusations against Hutch are the result of wishful thinking, nothing is based on fact.

It is quite obvious, many members here prefer to put faith in this fanciful scenario that Hutch is a liar, without one single shred of evidence.
Yes, Hutch "could" have lied about something, but even if he did, the East end was full of people lying about something. Lying was often a matter of survival. Lying doesn't make them all killers.

Can anyone say what he lied about? - No!, and they've all had decades to come up with something.
Hutch as a liar, or suspect, is a failed hypothesis that lingers in the air like a bad smell.

[Sam Flynn]

The extent of assumption is, to my mind, that we can assume he did his job professionally, or assume he didn't.

I've no doubt that Abberline was a fine detective, but (a) I don't assume that he "must have" grilled Hutchinson; and (b) I don't assume that he was immune to being taken in by a well told fable. These assumptions have nothing to do with Abberline's professionalism, but to his humanity. Nobody is infallible.

The point is, nothing we know about Hutchinson indicates [that he was lying]. It is an idea born purely from guesswork.

No it isn't. It has everything to do with his remarkably detailed description of an ostentatiously-attired suspect, his lateness in coming forward, and the fact that key elements of his story - in terms of the sequence of events, dramatis personæ, and words - have interesting parallels in existing accounts that had already been published in the most popular newspapers of the day. In isolation, these factors might not amount to much; in combination, however, they should strike even the most sceptical as worthy of a little suspicion; if not, then perhaps it is their wishful thinking that prevents them from seeing this.

So, this idea is not borne out of "pure guesswork", not in the slightest; it is borne of reasonable scepticism in response to a story that appears, for a number of reasons, to be too good to be true.

[c.d.]

Hello Wick and Sam,

Even if it could be shown that Hutch did indeed lie that does not necessarily mean that he was Mary's killer.

Hutch might have never been a suspect but unless Abberline et al were complete and total idiots he would have to have been a person of interest. As such, he would have been questioned. It makes no difference if those questions were politely asked while offering a cup of tea or whether each question was preceded by a brutal whack to the kidneys with a nightstick. The point is his answers had to be reasonable and believable. It is also reasonable to assume that his answers were checked out as best they could.

We speak about Abberline but it was really Abberline et al. Even if Abberline had been duped what about his superiors who read his reports? Or any of the people under him who might have been involved. Did none of them speak up and say wow this guy is a total liar and obviously a suspect?

The best that we can do is to conclude that the police at the time reasonably determined that he was not involved in Mary's murder. Could they have been duped? Absolutely. But unless we can come up with evidence beyond doubting Hutch's story we are pretty much forced to accept the conclusion of the police at the time.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

Even if it could be shown that Hutch did indeed lie that does not necessarily mean that he was Mary's killer.

Indeed, CD, and I really don't believe that Hutchinson was the killer. I just think that there's a reasonable chance that he was a fantasist, who threw a serious spanner into the works by inventing Mr Astrakhan.

[The Good Michael]

Indeed, CD, and I really don't believe that Hutchinson was the killer. I just think that there's a reasonable chance that he was a fantasist, who threw a serious spanner into the works by inventing Mr Astrakhan.

and possibly even knowledge of Kelly.

Mike

[Sam Flynn]

and possibly even knowledge of Kelly.

There is that, too, Mike. Hutchinson's suggestion that he was somewhat well acquainted with Kelly may be seen as suspicious in itself, given what we know about her movements.

[John Wheat]

I have said the same. With all due respect to Christer, I do not accept the Lechmere argument, so I never get involved.
Christer is no fool, he's very smart, but we must agree to disagree on Lechmere.

He's not that clever if he was he wouldn't be constantly fabricating a case against a clearly innocent man.

[Wickerman]

No it isn't. It has everything to do with his remarkably detailed description of an ostentatiously-attired suspect, his lateness in coming forward, and the fact that key elements of his story - in terms of the sequence of events, dramatis personæ, and words - have interesting parallels in existing accounts that had already been published in the most popular newspapers of the day. In isolation, these factors might not amount to much; in combination, however, they should strike even the most sceptical as worthy of a little suspicion; if not, then perhaps it is their wishful thinking that prevents them from seeing this.

So, this idea is not borne out of "pure guesswork", not in the slightest; it is borne of reasonable scepticism in response to a story that appears, for a number of reasons, to be too good to be true.

Gareth.

Skepticism is not reasonable when the skeptic knows nothing about the process.

If you have no first-hand experience at something, how can any doubts you express be reasonable?

Practicably every accusing voice on Casebook comes from someone who has no experience with interviewing witnesses.
Stewart Evans (The Ultimate JtR Sourcebook) on the other hand, who has many years of experience interviewing witnesses, expressed here on Casebook that the depth of detail provided by Hutchinson is not unbelievable at all.
He has received very detailed statements from witnesses himself.

On the other hand, it is true that some in policework have agreed that it is not usual, but it is certainly not beyond reason either.

So long as we have experienced officers who can accept the depth of detail, what does it matter how many inexperienced civilians cannot agree?

Why is it relevant?

[Abby Normal]

I've no doubt that Abberline was a fine detective, but (a) I don't assume that he "must have" grilled Hutchinson; and (b) I don't assume that he was immune to being taken in by a well told fable. These assumptions have nothing to do with Abberline's professionalism, but to his humanity. Nobody is infallible.

No it isn't. It has everything to do with his remarkably detailed description of an ostentatiously-attired suspect, his lateness in coming forward, and the fact that key elements of his story - in terms of the sequence of events, dramatis personæ, and words - have interesting parallels in existing accounts that had already been published in the most popular newspapers of the day. In isolation, these factors might not amount to much; in combination, however, they should strike even the most sceptical as worthy of a little suspicion; if not, then perhaps it is their wishful thinking that prevents them from seeing this.

So, this idea is not borne out of "pure guesswork", not in the slightest; it is borne of reasonable scepticism in response to a story that appears, for a number of reasons, to be too good to be true.

Well said sam

[Wickerman]

...... But unless we can come up with evidence beyond doubting Hutch's story we are pretty much forced to accept the conclusion of the police at the time.

c.d.

Precisely, c.d.

Naysayers here jump directly from speculation to theory, completely avoiding the 'evidence' bit in the middle.

[Wickerman]

Just a general observation.

In any murder case the crime scene often provides evidence immediately visible to the eye.
Everything else that occurs from that initial determination is often the result of speculation by police.

- "How did the burglar enter the house?" - we go looking for an entry point - speculation.

- "Who murdered this victim on the street?" - we go looking for close-circuit tv on street corners or in nearby stores - speculation.

- When police are on their hands and knees scouring a field for potential evidence, this is speculation.

When answers are not available AT the crime scene, in order to enlarge the investigation the police apply speculation.

Investigation generally begins with speculation to look for evidence.
The resulting theory comes from the evidence, NOT from the speculation.

Many Casebook armchair detectives begin with speculation, and jump directly to theory, ignoring the 'evidence' bit.
Because Hutchinson MIGHT have lied, then he MUST have lied, ergo Hutchinson is a liar.

Such conclusions being the result of ignorance not evidence.

[Wickerman]

There is that, too, Mike. Hutchinson's suggestion that he was somewhat well acquainted with Kelly may be seen as suspicious in itself, given what we know about her movements.

That he had given her money before, and that he had known her for three years.
Three years before, Kelly was living at Breezers Hill. One landlord there had horses at Romford, Hutchinson was a Groom, with some connection to Romford.
It would be interesting if we could make the connection somehow, but as it stands we know nothing to discredit his claim.

[The Good Michael]

That he had given her money before, and that he had known her for three years.
Three years before, Kelly was living at Breezers Hill. One landlord there had horses at Romford, Hutchinson was a Groom, with some connection to Romford.
It would be interesting if we could make the connection somehow, but as it stands we know nothing to discredit his claim.

I don't know that Hutch lied. It could be either way. If he did, I'd say it's far more likely that all things were made up with some idea that he might get a reward for his work than he lied because he was her murderer. That doesn't make much sense to me and never has.

Mike