Possible reason for Hutch coming forward

[c.d.]

No matter how competent the police were, it doesn't preclude the idea that Hutchinson succeeded in hoodwinking them. He won't have been the first bogus witness to have done so, nor the last.

Agreed, Sam. But that holds true for every single person they questioned in this case not just Hutchinson.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

Agreed, Sam. But that holds true for every single person they questioned in this case not just Hutchinson.

Not quite, CD, in the sense that not every person in this case came up with such an extraordinarily detailed description of a suspect, nor indeed of their own (in this case, Hutchinson's) movements at the time in question. In fact - correct me if I'm wrong - Hutchinson's story, both what he saw and what he did, was by far and away the most detailed in the entire case.

Most of the other witness descriptions were usually so "ordinary" that they don't give the impression that the witnesses were trying to hoodwink anyone.

[c.d.]

Hello Sam,

I have no problem with the idea that the police could have been fooled by Hutchinson and that he was in fact the Ripper. No matter how competent a police force is they are still human and therefore can make mistakes. What I do object to is the idea apparently held by some that the police were fooled by Hutch because they were incompetent and failed to see the obvious signs. And what is there proof of this? Simple. Hutchinson was never a suspect and never arrested for the murder. That seems to be circular reasoning.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

What I do object to is the idea apparently held by some that the police were fooled by Hutch because they were incompetent and failed to see the obvious signs.

The good news is that I don't subscribe to that view, CD. One doesn't need to be incompetent to be taken in by a plausible liar - I'm sure that an experienced detective like George Oldfield wasn't incompetent at all, but he and some of his colleagues were well taken in by the "Wearside Jack" hoax letters and tape recording.

[Abby Normal]

The good news is that I don't subscribe to that view, CD. One doesn't need to be incompetent to be taken in by a plausible liar - I'm sure that an experienced detective like George Oldfield wasn't incompetent at all, but he and some of his colleagues were well taken in by the "Wearside Jack" hoax letters and tape recording.

Exactly sam. And what are they going to do anyway even if they did think he was embelling or lying? How are they going to prove it? And it seems and probable the police weren’t all of one mind concerning hutch’s story. Some probably believed or not believed the veracity of his report in varying degrees, and indeed, the only one who mentions him some time later, dew, thinks he was mistaken.

No one, not the police then or people now, despite wicker mans and cds assertion that it has been “cut through” to the “bottom line” concerning hutch.
The only thing certain about hutch is that it’s totally uncertain.

[c.d.]

Hello Abby,

Well if you or Sam can offer concrete evidence that Hutchinson was the Ripper beyond simply saying that you think his actions were suspicious and you feel the police at the time dropped the ball I would certainly be open to taking a look at it. But it could be a tough road to hoe.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Abby,

Well if you or Sam can offer concrete evidence that Hutchinson was the Ripper

I don't think he was the Ripper; I think he was a fantasist and quite possibly an attention seeker. I believe that he grossly exaggerated his story at the very least, and at worst made it up completely.

[c.d.]

I don't think he was the Ripper; I think he was a fantasist and quite possibly an attention seeker. I believe that he grossly exaggerated his story at the very least, and at worst made it up completely.

That is probably true and probably what the police at the time concluded which leads to the question then why in the hell do we have about ten million Hutchinson threads?

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

Well if you or Sam can offer concrete evidence that Hutchinson was the Ripper beyond simply saying that you think his actions were suspicious and you feel the police at the time dropped the ball I would certainly be open to taking a look at it. But it could be a tough road to hoe.

c.d.

Hi cd
As I’ve said many times, I think the most likely scenario is that he was just an attention seeker.

[Abby Normal]

That is probably true and probably what the police at the time concluded which leads to the question then why in the hell do we have about ten million Hutchinson threads?

c.d.

Probably because there are so many questions about him.

[c.d.]

Hi cd
As I’ve said many times, I think the most likely scenario is that he was just an attention seeker.

Well my impression was that you thought he was the Ripper so my apologies.

c.d.

[Bridewell]

Reminiscent of hutch shanking his story later when he says he’s now outside her apartment. Scared someone had seen him and changes his story.
Classic lying behavior.

A 'change of story' by Hutchinson - or by a journalist embellishing the account to sell a few more newspapers?

[Sam Flynn]

That is probably true and probably what the police at the time concluded which leads to the question then why in the hell do we have about ten million Hutchinson threads?

I guess its because either (a) the suspect he described pushes some people's buttons; or (b) Hutchinson himself pushes some people's buttons as a suspect. Whatever the reason, as the purveyor of the most verb-, noun- and adjective-packed story outside (or inside?) of Ripper fiction, Hutchinson certainly offers some rich pickings.

[Wickerman]

Jon, I don't suppose you have a link to Bowyer's report of seeing the man, do you? Seems a bit fishy that he not only discovered the body but placed himself at the scene around the time of death, too. Why isn't he suspect no.1?

Hi Joshua.

I don't have a link, I have the copy downloaded from JTRForums, but here is a quote with the relevant paragraphs:

...Bowyer, the young man in Mr. McCarthy's employ was out at different times up Miller's-court on the Thursday night for the purpose of getting water from a tap there-the only available supply. Indeed, Bowyer visited that spot as late-or, rather, as early-as three o'clock on the morning of the murder. This early visit to the water-tap is by no means an unfrequent thing, as Mr. McCarthy's shop, which supplies the wants of a very poor and wretched locality, whose denizens are out at all hours, late and early, does not at times close until three o'clock in the morning,while occasionally it is open all night. Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer. Bowyer has, he says, described this man to Inspector Abberline and Inspector Reid. Bowyer, who is known as "Indian Harry" has traveled a great deal, and formerly lived in India. He said to an Echo reporter this morning. "The murderer couldn't have come to a worse place (for escaping) than this court. There is only this narrow entrance, and If I had known he was there when I went to the water tap at three o'clock, I reckon he wouldn't have got off."
The Echo Wed. Nov. 14 1888

I don't see how it can be fishy when he worked there at the shop. It was his job to fetch & carry, doing the small jobs in the shop and around the court.
He only discovered the body because he was told to go to No. 13, but he was in and out of the court several times over the night.
Everyone present in the court over that night would be equally suspected, including the McCarthy family. Being present is merely one of several factors necessary to make one a viable suspect. What about all the other factors, not the least would be motive?

[Bridewell]

Hi,
Always has to be some kind of conspiracy.
Topping always maintained to his sons, and to everyone else, that he knew one of the victims, gave a statement to the police, and assisted them in looking for the man he saw , but to no avail.
Its really that simple.
He maintained he received Five pounds for his efforts.. a princely sum, however, we don't know how long he kept up the search, and may have been paid for a lengthy period.even if it was circulated that he was not involved .
I have never doubted his account, its not a question whether or not he saw Mr A, but was he the killer?
Regards Richard.

Thanks, Richard. I was beginning to think I was the only one left who places some faith in Hutchinson's account.