Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Did The Police Discount Hutchinson's Statement So Quickly?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why Did The Police Discount Hutchinson's Statement So Quickly?

    What triggered them? Apart from the suspiciously over-detailed 'eye-witness description' I don't see anything in his statement that could cause them to completely discount him. And they did seem to drop Mr A as a suspect extremely quickly.

    Nothing that Hutchinson says is unlikely. Kelly apparently did work as a prostitute. She could well have been around Thrawl St late at night. She was definitely drunk earlier, and so could still be 'spree-ish' at 2.00 am. Sarah Lewis did see someone standing at the entrance to the court at the time Hutchinson claims to be there.

    I don't believe him. But that's more because I think it's unlikely that Kelly went out again after spending an good hour and twenty minutes serenading the neighbours in the small hours. I also think it is very likely that she undressed and went to bed after she stopped her concert. However that's just supposition on my part. Hutchinson could well have seen her with the Ripper. So what is it that causes the cops to walk away?

  • #2
    Hi Chava,

    It's difficult to say, but my guess is that the various press contradictions were at least a contributory factor. Besides significant embellishments on an already ludircously detailed description, press versions of his account included claims that could easily be checked into by police and revealed to be false.

    Most notable among these was Hutchinson's attempt to explain away his faliure to alert the police earlier, i.e. on the grounds that he had "told a policeman" about the night's events on Sunday, but did not go to the police station. This is absurd. No policeman would have ignored Hutchinson, as the account insinuated, and if he did, he'd be tracked down immediately according to his meticulously delineated beat and booted off the force for mind-boggling negligence.

    There are many other possibilities, however; the recipients of Abberline's report (i.e. his superiors) may not have believed him, or perhaps Hutchinson slipped up to a telling extent when accompanying police round the district.

    Best regards,
    Ben

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Chava View Post
      Nothing that Hutchinson says is unlikely. Kelly apparently did work as a prostitute. She could well have been around Thrawl St late at night. She was definitely drunk earlier, and so could still be 'spree-ish' at 2.00 am. Sarah Lewis did see someone standing at the entrance to the court at the time Hutchinson claims to be there.
      Exactly, Chava

      And Mr Astrakhan could well have been JTR and could well have been arrested shortly after Mary's murder because of Hutchinson's revelations. And the authorities could well have decided on a cover-up for political reasons starting with the discrediting of Hutchinson's story that had found its way into the newspapers.
      allisvanityandvexationofspirit

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Chava View Post
        What triggered them? Apart from the suspiciously over-detailed 'eye-witness description' I don't see anything in his statement that could cause them to completely discount him. And they did seem to drop Mr A as a suspect extremely quickly.

        Nothing that Hutchinson says is unlikely. Kelly apparently did work as a prostitute. She could well have been around Thrawl St late at night. She was definitely drunk earlier, and so could still be 'spree-ish' at 2.00 am. Sarah Lewis did see someone standing at the entrance to the court at the time Hutchinson claims to be there.

        I don't believe him. But that's more because I think it's unlikely that Kelly went out again after spending an good hour and twenty minutes serenading the neighbours in the small hours. I also think it is very likely that she undressed and went to bed after she stopped her concert. However that's just supposition on my part. Hutchinson could well have seen her with the Ripper. So what is it that causes the cops to walk away?
        Maybe he was interviewed on multiple occasions and his stories did not sync up. That is still a grounds for witness diqualification, and it is such a minute detail as to escape recording.
        We are all born cute as a button and dumb as rocks. We grow out of cute fast!

        Comment


        • #5
          And the authorities could well have decided on a cover-up for political reasons starting with the discrediting of Hutchinson's story that had found its way into the newspapers.
          Bit too reminiscent of the Royal Conspiracy theory for me, Stephen.

          For the cover-up theory to be at all viable, we'd need to accept that the police not only circulated false evidence to press and public, but that they were penning false reports amongst themselves. While the former is a realistic option, the latter isn't remotely so. Police reports were internal and intended for police circulation only, and as such, they were fully at liberty - and professionally obliged - to inform their superiors of any developments. As Stewart Evans astutely observed in a previous thread, "the official files were totally confidential (until the 1970s) and they clearly show that the senior police officers and the Home Office had no idea who Jack the Ripper was then, nor at any time since".

          Best regards,
          Ben
          Last edited by Ben; 01-29-2009, 08:48 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Hi Chava,

            I think its possible that the police during the week following Marys murder were learning of a man that was arrested and held on suspicion of being the Whitechapel Murderer in early October in Belfast, an Irishman who was suspected based on the earlier Canonical deaths. They had his description, some history on him, and after his release based on lack of evidence, they lost him and he disappeared. He was known to travel about the UK frequently....he was the son of a brewing baron that lived off family stipends.

            On Monday morning I believe, or possibly Tuesday, some rather toffish delegates from Parliment, some officers from The Royal Irish Constabulary, and a Senior Post office official visited that room. I now believe that may be related to a known pending/foiled assassination attempt on Lord Balfour, the Irish Secretary, by Fenians, that was planned for that Fall, and perhaps the Post Office Robbery the weekend of the Double Event, or postal matters concerning some correspondence perhaps found, (maybe by Abberline and Reid on Saturday morning sieving ashes again)... and the soon to begin Parnell public hearings concerning Fenian matters in the winter of 89. And the fact they they already had an Irish Whitechapel Murderer suspect on file in the form of the Belfast man.

            I think it possible Astrakans ethnicity was Hutchinsons downfall, and that the police were investigating possible Irish connections to this killer before a woman who is supposedly Irish and has an Irish boyfriend is found dead.

            Best regards Chava
            Last edited by perrymason; 01-29-2009, 08:53 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              One additional Irish related point is that Inspector Abberline had his meteoric rise in rank as a result of Fenian related arrests, and his intimate knowledge of the local networks and gangs. Since we know for a fact that Fenians were known to be planning this assassination by the London authorities during these murders, they worked with the Swiss I believe to make an arrest, should we assume that Abberline wasnt involved... due to his handling the Ripper cases? Or did he have multiple mandates, that at times, seemed related.

              Its just for jolly....but fits some questions....one being, why was Hutchinson's story great Monday night and lousy Thursday morning?

              Cheers all.
              Last edited by perrymason; 01-29-2009, 09:09 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Maybe I didnt relate how my comments directly address Chavas question very well....Im wondering aloud whether the profile of the man that they were seeking by November 8th had suspected ties to Irish causes, ...based in part on the arrest of an Irishman in Belfast in early October who was arrested as the suspected Whitechapel murderer,....were they still likely seeking a local Polish Jew like they were in September, a profile that Pizer fits...or were they were perhaps looking for some Irish involvement now, based on the news they learned of a Fenian assassination plot being carried out during that same period, and place, in time....the perceived viable suspect who is Irish arrested in Belfast, or some Weekend Robbery that coincides with a Double-Event night.

                Im suggesting that Hutch was perhaps disbelieved because they felt based on the investigations and some revelations that week that the man they sought was not a Jewish man.

                I feel there are some strong Irish vibes with this murder, the victim, the boyfriend, Abberlines involvement, and the visitors that week. Is it at all possible that Abberline jumped at this story of Hutchinsons because Abberline sensed that they should be looking for a local jew... rather than an Irish anarchist. And his later dropping of support reflective of some data that he became privy to that week that suggested an Irishman and perhaps even some motives?

                Its a bit woven, I know....but if you get the gist of what Im suggesting...for the sake of discussion only...this isnt a pet theory or anything, ....Id be interested to hear yays or nays.

                Best regards

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Ben View Post
                  For the cover-up theory to be at all viable, we'd need to accept that the police not only circulated false evidence to press and public, but that they were penning false reports amongst themselves. While the former is a realistic option, the latter isn't remotely so. Police reports were internal and intended for police circulation only, and as such, they were fully at liberty - and professionally obliged - to inform their superiors of any developments. As Stewart Evans astutely observed in a previous thread, "the official files were totally confidential (until the 1970s) and they clearly show that the senior police officers and the Home Office had no idea who Jack the Ripper was then, nor at any time since".
                  Hi Ben

                  Yes, I know all that and I also know that Macnaghton said JTR had five victims and five victims only. Maybe he knew something you and I don't.

                  Best wishes
                  allisvanityandvexationofspirit

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Hi Stephen,

                    Macnaghten's report was not intended for public circulation, though, which is very siginficant as far as witness evidence goes since he went on record in that same report as stating that nobody saw the Whitechapel murderer unless it was the City PC from Mitre Square. Not "nobody except that brilliant star witness who helped bring the murderer to justice".

                    Best regards,
                    Ben

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Ben View Post
                      For the cover-up theory to be at all viable, we'd need to accept that the police not only circulated false evidence to press and public, but that they were penning false reports amongst themselves.
                      Hi Ben

                      Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

                      A lie is a lie is a lie.

                      But for the public good, maybe it's necessary sometimes.
                      allisvanityandvexationofspirit

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Hey Stephen,

                        But for the public good, maybe it's necessary sometimes.
                        Perhaps, but I doubt very much that ol' Hutch had the "public good" in mind when he churned out his tall tale.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Ben View Post
                          I doubt very much that ol' Hutch had the "public good" in mind when he churned out his tall tale.
                          Hi Ben

                          I was talking there of a government cover-up for the public good. You are obviously an educated, intelligent man, and from what I've heard on the podcasts a very well spoken one too. I believe that I understand your theory quite well but I happen not to agree with it at all, and I would imagine that many other people here don't either. You're coming across as one of those Final Solution/Case Closed merchants and I reckon you're better than that. Surely a little part of you believes that "ol' Hutch" may just have been telling it like it was?

                          Best wishes
                          allisvanityandvexationofspirit

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I was talking there of a government cover-up for the public good.
                            I understand, Stephen, but that there couldn't possibily have been a "cover up" of the order you've described for the crucial reasons I've outlined. I don't know how many other people agree with my theory, but every suspect theory will be in the minority of the opinion, and mine is certainly no different. I don't believe that the case is closed and I've never presented my views as the final solution. However, if you're referring to my "theory" that Hutchinsin was lying, I'd dispute very strongly that "many other people here" would disagree.

                            Surely a little part of you believes that "ol' Hutch" may just have been telling it like it was?
                            There is no part of me that could ever believe that he told the total unmblemished truth. Is there a part of you that believes he may have been lying?

                            Best regards,
                            Ben
                            Last edited by Ben; 02-01-2009, 02:09 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Ben View Post
                              There is no part of me that could ever believe that he told the total unmblemished truth. Is there a part of you that believes he may have been lying?
                              Hi Ben

                              Apart from a few embellishments in the description perhaps, no. This discussion has been done to death elsewhere but I just can't imagine that if Hutch were the murderer he would do anything other than just lie low and hope for the best. Even if he was fingered as as the guy standing outside Crossingham's he could just have said 'Yeah that was me, so what?'

                              That's what I think anyway.

                              Best wishes

                              Stephen
                              allisvanityandvexationofspirit

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X