Hutchinson's sunday

[DVV]

Much has been said about Hutchinson's statement and the Jewish-looking man he supposedly saw with Kelly on 9 November - no need to open a new thread about this.

I'd like here to focus on what Hutch supposedly saw on Sunday 11 November:

"I believe that he [LA DI DA] lives in the neighbouhood", Hutch says, "and I fancied if I saw him in Petticoat Lane on Sunday morning, but I was not certain."

Just some comments about this statement (waiting for yours):

1: there was a market in Petticoat Lane on Sunday mornings - which means there were constables available as well.

2: Hutchinson apparently not only did not call for any policeman, but let the man go: strange, for somebody who had waited 45 minutes in front of Miller's Court, before he knew about any murder commited there...

3: note the expression "I fancied" and "I was not certain", while there is nobody recognizable like LA DI DA...Seems like Hutch did not believe in the statement he was to make to Abberline more than 24 hours afterwards!

4: what a coincidental meeting !

5: why didn't he tell Abberline about this "Sunday" extraordinary meeting, and only told the press on Tuesday 13 ? (see The Times and The Star, 14 Nov)

And that would be my main point: those who would like Hutch to be a mere witness - more or less reliable, as witnesses are, it doesn't matter here - systematically use as an argument the fact that Abberline believed his statement as "important" and "true" (in Abberline's own words from his 12 Nov report).

But would Abberline have believed Hutch if he had told him about Petticoat Lane's Sunday market?

It seems to me that Hutch purposely started to throw doubts on his reliability (slightly, skilfully) when he told some journalists about his incredible Sunday morning...

Amitiés à tous,
David

[Ben]

Hi David,

Good observations. I'm strongly inclined to agree with your ultimate conclusion. Since Petticoat Lane (Middlesex Street) had very strong Jewish connotations, it's likely that Hutchinson threw in the "I fancied I saw him..." detail to reinforce Mr. Astrakhan's "Jewishness". It didn't stop our Maybrick diary hoaxer from taking clumsy advantage of it, though: "I have taken a small room in Middlesex Street" was almost certainly plucked from Hutchinson's press statement, which, alongside "A handkerchief red led to the bed" detracts from the already tenuous credibility of that silly document.

Best regards,
Ben

[DVV]

Hi Ben,
all these details make sense to me. It seems that Hutch purposely changed the complexion of his suspect, the shape of the moustache, when talking to the press.
Furthermore, why did he talk to the press, since he was supposed to hunt LA DI DA with the police? Absolute discretion was a must in such a situation!

Amitiés,
David

[caz]

Hi All,

The various reasons given for Hutch the Ripper going to the police go back and forth from self-preservation and suspicion deflecting to sheer stupidity, bravado or insanity, and the handy fall-back position: "killers do it all the time".

But can we not narrow these reasons down a wee bit in Hutch's case, if he went hot foot to the press with knowingly altered and enhanced versions of what he told the police? If the whole aim was to pull the wool over the cops' eyes and make them believe he was an honest and innocent witness and not a lying scumbag and vicious murderer, he'd surely have been barking mad to piss all over his own bogus witness shoes by announcing to the same cops, via dirty great headlines in the newspapers, that he could change his story or add new bits and therefore lie for England when it suited him.

Anyone else see the fly in the ointment here?

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

Surely you're not seriously arguing that the clear discrepencies between the press versions of his account and the original police statement somehow increase the likelihood of him having told the truth, or of him being an innocent witness (etc)? If Hutchinson was responsible for those discrepencies, that's only evidence that he couldn't keep his story together. If anything, it's more of an indication that he lied, not less. Barking mad? More of a lousy liar, if you ask me.

I recall a similar argument was made in one of the books proposing Maybrick as the killer. The argument went something like this: "Why would a hoaxer not even bother to emulate the real Maybrick's handwriting? Ah! Because he wasn't a hoaxer at all, but Maybrick himself, so the fact that the handwriting doesn't remotely match Maybrick's penmanship really means that Maybrick wrote it." No. The handwriting didn't remotely match because the hoaxer was particularly bad.

Best regards,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Ben,

The discrepancies do point in the direction of someone not very concerned with his own skin. This leads to the possibility of his telling his story in order to earn some money. I realize there is no evidence that that is why he came forward, yet there's no evidence for his being guilty of killing Kelly to be sure. If he felt some fear of implication, wouldn't it have been more sensible to spend those few days that you have spoken about often, for creating a believable alibi and story? His tale smacks of something that grows in the telling and not for any reason of fear of implication.

Just my opinion, of course.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

If he felt some fear of implication, wouldn't it have been more sensible to spend those few days that you have spoken about often, for creating a believable alibi and story?

I believe that's precisely what he did, though. In fact, if he had any involvement in the murder, he couldn't have picked a more perfect "alibi" than the one he ultimately decided upon; "walking about all night". Any claim to have been "walking about" alone at the accepted time frame for the murder had the ideal alibi-eradictor because short of lots of nocturnal loiterers being conveniently stationed about Spitalfields to moniter him, that activity could be neither verified nor contradicted. It was particularly useful for someone who had, by his own admission, just been opposite the crime scene.

Additionally, if you explore the specific embellishments or "additions" that crept into the press recountings, they tended to be those that "tidied up" aspects of his initial account that could have given rise to suspicion if left unexplained. For example, by the 12th November, he hadn't offered any reason for his failure to come forward, hence the press claim to have encountered a told a policeman about it who did nothing (which is obviously nonsense). I'm very much with Garry Wroe when he opines that:

"...within hours of interrogation, (Hutchinson) recognized that his version of events, courtesy of its hasty conception, contained flaws in several key areas. Since any...revelation would have compromised both his story and his credibility, thereby inviting suspicion, he introduced a number of variants when subsequently speaking to the press"

Quite different, I'd suggest, to Matthew Packer who was continually adding stuff and radically altering times and descriptions.

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Surely you're not seriously arguing that the clear discrepencies between the press versions of his account and the original police statement somehow increase the likelihood of him having told the truth, or of him being an innocent witness (etc)? If Hutchinson was responsible for those discrepencies, that's only evidence that he couldn't keep his story together. If anything, it's more of an indication that he lied, not less. Barking mad? More of a lousy liar, if you ask me.

I recall a similar argument was made in one of the books proposing Maybrick as the killer. The argument went something like this: "Why would a hoaxer not even bother to emulate the real Maybrick's handwriting? Ah! Because he wasn't a hoaxer at all, but Maybrick himself, so the fact that the handwriting doesn't remotely match Maybrick's penmanship really means that Maybrick wrote it." No. The handwriting didn't remotely match because the hoaxer was particularly bad.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Ben,

You’re right - of course I’m not arguing that the discrepancies make it more likely that Hutch was telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Why not read what I wrote instead of asking idiotic questions that are already answered within my post? What is there not to understand about my words: '...if he went hot foot to the press with knowingly altered and enhanced versions of what he told the police'? That clearly implies that he’d have been lying, either to the police or the press or both!

I really thought my point was only too obvious, but it seems I have to rephrase it to get it across. If you have just recovered from slaughtering your latest victim and decide to go to the cops with one cocknbull story, because you are wetting your pants about being hauled in as a suspect if you don’t, or because you just feel like having a game with the boys in blue, that is one thing; if you then volunteer a different cocknbull story to the papers, when you don’t have to tell them a damned thing, and prove yourself in the process to be incapable of telling a straight story even though your life may depend on it, that is quite another.

If you can’t see why the ripper would have been barking mad to reduce to ashes the advantage you believe he got from persuading the cops to swallow his original witness account whole (which Abberline apparently did, initially), then I can’t help you. Inventing new detail for the papers to paper over cracks in the story he told the police doesn't make your ripper sound bright enough to have pulled off the Buck's Row job, never mind anything else. More and more I'm coming round to thinking this was a money issue for Hutch. He was broke and not above trying to make a few bob out of anyone willing to pay for his pretty stories. Thanks for helping me see the light by repeating once too often the same old arguments that never quite hit the spot. A miss is as good as a mile.

[Incidentally, I don’t recall such a silly handwriting argument being made by Shirley or Feldy in their Maybrick books, but I see it regularly being forced into the mouths of mythical diary ‘supporters’, as though there were not enough real arguments made by these two Maybrick theorists that could be faithfully quoted and then demolished. If our hoaxer had access to any of the known examples of the real Jim’s handwriting, it would have been apparent that they all looked different from one another, and the next question would have been: “Do I give up now, try copying just one of them, or make the writing different again?” Presumably the advantages of going ahead regardless outweighed the disadvantages in the hoaxer’s mind, giving him something in common with your Hutch the Ripper and Very Public Liar - both mad as hatters. ]

Love,

Caz
X

[DVV]

Does anybody here believe Hutch's "Sunday story"?
That's the very simple question of this thread.

Amitiés,
David

[caz]

Hi David,

If Hutch knowingly changed elements of his account between allowing the police to interrogate him and talking to the press, without going back to the police with a credible explanation, then I would consider his whole testimony unreliable.

I just don't believe Jack would have risked throwing it all away like that, if he had succeeded in gaining the trust of Abberline.

But we all know what penniless born liars are capable of if the price is right.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

"If you have just recovered from slaughtering your latest victim and decide to go to the cops with one cocknbull story, because you are wetting your pants about being hauled in as a suspect if you don’t, or because you just feel like having a game with the boys in blue, that is one thing; if you then volunteer a different cocknbull story to the papers, when you don’t have to tell them a damned thing"

Thankyou for clarifying, but I hoped that my latest reponse to Mike addressed that question. If Sarah Lewis' evidence provided the catalyst for his coming forward, he'd have a few hours at most to cook up a self-legitimizing "I was there because..." story. The chances are strong that while the story was initially convincing enough for Abberline at that early stage, there were still a few unanswered questions that may create problems in the future. In other words, the press interviews provided an opportunity to fill in a few crucial blanks that would have invited eventual suspicion if left blank.

For instance, he didn't explain his three-day inertia after Kelly's murder, so he covered his tracks later with an "I contacted a policeman who didn't seem to care" excuse. He didn't explain what he was doing at the actual time of the murder, so he sorts that one out too - he was "walking about all night". What if he was seen entering Miller's Court? He deals with that too etc etc.

If you think that sort of "track-covering" is barking mad, we'll have to agree to differ. On the contrary, it would have been barking mad to keep those grey areas "grey" and risk the possibility of nobody asking questions. It's also barking bad to assume that Hutchinson was capable of delivering the exact same account for several days with utter exactitude. Here I'm tempted to churn out your rather lame "People think in different ways, Ben", or whatever it was you came out with when I expressed some incredulity at some behaviour you wanted to attribute to Mrs. Cox, or I could just claim (as you do, regularly) that if you can't embrace the possibility of a certain person behaving in a certain way, you have a "black and white view of human nature"...but I've always regarded both as a bit of a cop out.

"Bright" enough to pull off the Buck's Row job? Right, because whoever did that must have been endowed of brilliantly evil genuis. Ayup.

More and more I'm coming round to thinking this was a money issue for Hutch. He was broke and not above trying to make a few bob out of anyone willing to pay for his pretty stories.

And so invents a "witness" account to make a few bob by lying about loitering outside - and being preoccupied with - the crime scene at 2:30am on the morning of Kelly's death, little knowing that a real person was really loitering outside - and apparently preoccupied with - the crime scene at 2:30am on the morning of Kelly's death?

He really picked his moment, didn't he?

If our hoaxer had access to any of the known examples of the real Jim’s handwriting, it would have been apparent that they all looked different from one another, and the next question would have been: “Do I give up now, try copying just one of them, or make the writing different again?”

They don't look that different, and a prudent hoaxer would have sought to immitate one of them rather adopting a style that looks radically and eccentrically different to any of the known samples of Maybrick's handwriting.

Best regards,
Ben

[DVV]

Hi Caz,
let's be more simple:
what about the fact that he "forgot" to tell Abberline that he saw the suspect on Sunday morning?
what about his supposed sight of the suspect on Sunday morning? what about Hutch's complete passivity then?

These questions are not to be forcibly connected to the complexion, or the shape of the moustache.

Amitiés,
David

[caz]

"Bright" enough to pull off the Buck's Row job? Right, because whoever did that must have been endowed of brilliantly evil genuis. Ayup.

Hi Ben,

You missed my point and we seemed to be talking at cross purposes anyway. I thought that what Hutch was meant to have fed the press not only added to the tales he had previously told the police, but was actually at odds with some of them. If that is true, he wilfully blew the trust Abberline initially put in his reliability as a very observant witness.

Putting to one side what the police would have thought of his ability to recall, under interrogation, all those details about the man with Mary, while completely forgetting about other incidents, such as his earlier attempt to interest a copper in what he had to say, only to recall them later for the press, one wonders what would have possessed him to do that rather than to go back to the police and fill them in first.

My point was that anyone telling the police a pack of lies in a bid to save their neck would surely not have had the brains to get away with their first murder had they changed any of the cards in that pack when talking to the press. What would a murderer with the sense he was born with be doing talking to the press at all if he wasn't sure he had a good memory for the lies he had already told the police? I wasn't suggesting the ripper had to have much of a brain to kill Polly and get away with it. That was my point - he would not even have had that much brain if he thought changing details subsequently, for the newspapers, was a good way of maintaining vital credibility with the boys in blue.

Obviously a real man must have been preoccupied with the crime scene at some point that night, otherwise it would not have become one. So it's a fairly safe bet that Hutch went forward in the full knowledge that the killer - whoever he was - was there for anyone nearby to have seen, either alone or with Mary, before entering her room. He really did pick his moment, but it was his choice and it was not rocket science that he was placing himself very close, in time and place, to the footsteps of Mary's killer, while supposedly desperate not to put himself right in his shoes.

[You are absolutely right about a modern hoaxer not being prudent to go ahead regardless and to adopt 'a style that looks radically and eccentrically different' from (not 'to' - you are in England! ) any of Maybrick's handwriting. I suppose as long as it doesn't also look eccentrically just like the hoaxer's own handwriting, all they have to do is keep Mike Barrett quiet somehow - or keep their identity secret from him. ]

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

one wonders what would have possessed him to do that rather than to go back to the police and fill them in first.

Because the account he submitted to the police would have been very hastily contrived, and lacked credibility in several key areas on account of it being conjured up in the few hours (if that) between learning of Sarah Lewis' evidence and going to the police station with a tall tale designed to "explain away" his loitering antics. Rather than revisiting the police station days after his intial appearance with an "Oh, some more stuff I forgot to tell you, just in case you were wondering about it", he used the press as a vehicle to "fill in the blanks" should the police have grown suspicious of the initial account, hence the disappearing policeman, the venturing into the court etc.

By commuticating with the press, he was fine-tuning his account and thus cementing his status as an "honest, helpful witness". With press and public still clamouring for the capture of a Jewish madman with possible medical knowledge (well dressed, surly, blah blah blah), a widely circulated press account was well poised to keep that myth in motion. He wasn't creating a scapegoat. He was taking advantage of the existing one.

My point was that anyone telling the police a pack of lies in a bid to save their neck would surely not have had the brains to get away with their first murder had they changed any of the cards in that pack when talking to the press

It depends how much "brains" you're giving the ripper, and I'm sorry, but I really don't understand the comparison here. What's so brainy about the Tabram or Nichols murders? Surely he could have been intruded upon at any moment by a stranger? It wasn't brainy - it was risky; a risk comparable to that taken by our hypothetical killer delivering false and contradictory accounts to police and press. You're arguing that whoever killed Tabram and/or Nichols must have been the type of individual who also liked to avoid giving contradictory reports to police and press, and I find that a bizarre inference.

All I'm suggesting is that he "tidied up" his initial account when speaking to the press, possibly through fear that he'd left a few grey areas outstanding in the wake of his first appearance at Commercial Street police station.

not 'to' - you are in England!

No, "different to" is perfectly "English" and not in the slightest bit wrong, thank you so much.

Best regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

Hi all,

Hutch did know something important on Saturday that may have impacted his thinking as well. The pardon was issued Saturday afternoon, the 10th, and by its issuance, presented a possible killer and accomplice into the mix, and that makes Sarah Lewis's man now possibly either one.

So his explanation really should address both concerns, as his presence there could be pre or post kill....we dont know exactly when Mary died, or if its her that yells "oh-murder" around 3:45am.

Just there in Marys best interests, as a friend, kinda does that. Who can contradict him? The Inquest was closed, and not one of Marys close friends could be questioned on her knowledge of Hutch. Monday night worked well for no cross examination.

Best regards all.