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

[richardnunweek]

Hi David,
The word 'discredited' crops up a lot on Casebook, we are all looking at newspaper reports, and witnesses statements, and doing precisely that, and a lot of that, is down to to the natural Ripperologist suspicions in us all.
The true fact is, when it comes down to the days, following on from the 12th November 88, we have absolutely no idea what happened to the witness Hutchinson.
Was he sent packing for wasting police time?
Just because they never caught the Astracan man within a couple of days, would they say 'well thats that then'?
Mayby the police decided to make it known that they no longer took Gh seriously, as it might flush out the culprit...
Mayby he did come under some police protection scheme, after all was there not a letter sent after the double event stating' I know that you saw me'.
Once the sighting had publicly been release, the killer would have known , that a man called GH, could identify him.
That being the case , it would hardly be surprising if the police had some protection plan in operation.
We simply should not just say comments like, 'The report from the Wheeling should be descredited, as its that kind of paper'.
We should not say the police obviously 'Did not take him seriously' simply because one national newspaper'The Star' made a comment.
Regards Richard.

[DVV]

Oddly enough, the interest for the Whitechapel murders seems to have quickly lessened after the Miller's Court affair. We can observe this surprising phenomenon about one week/ten days after MK's murder. Even Mary's funeral was tersely reported in the papers (with the exception of one or two), especially if we have to compare with some other victims' funeral, and considering it was the most horrible murder in the series.
And this lessening of interest applies to Hutch as well.
Indeed, only the Star bothers to state that he has been discredited.
It certainly doesn't help us to understand why - though Ben, imo, has given the most likely reasons (erratic statements in the press).

Amitiés,
David

[Simon Wood]

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,

I hope by next week to have proof positive that this was indeed the case.

Watch this space, as they say.

Regards,

Simon

[Roy Corduroy]

...we've also the plentiful and compelling indications that Hutchinson's accont was discredited.

Refresh my memory please. What were the indications?

Roy

[Ben]

Thanks for your kind wishes, Stephen!

I've experienced a slight technical hiccup which may prevent or delay my participation tonight, but I'll just off to (hopefully) rectify the problem!

All the best,
Ben

[Stephen Thomas]

Just out of curiosity, why did you ask me if there was a little part of me that believed he was telling the whole truth if there's no part of you that believes he may have been lying?

I was just being a bit mischievous there, Ben. Thanks for the pleasant discussion and good luck on the podcast tonight.

Best wishes
Stephen

[Ben]

Hi Stephen,

Apart from a few embellishments in the description perhaps, no.

Even disregarding the actual contents of the account, which I believe to be largely bogus, we've also the plentiful and compelling indications that Hutchinson's accont was discredited. That alone should be uppermost in our minds when contemplating the veracity of his statement.

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.

But we know that serial killers have come forward under false guises out of self-preservation, curiosity bravado etc, despite the fact that they could have decided to lie low if they preferred. If we examine those, our "imagination" will be be all the richer for it, and certainly less restrictive when deciding what a serial killer would or wouldn't do. Not that you even need to be a serial killer to embrace the mentality that some pre-emptive action may be beneficial before any awkward questions are asked.

Even if he was fingered as as the guy standing outside Crossingham's he could just have said 'Yeah that was me, so what?'

But that could very well have led to further identity attempts from earlier witnesses. If a sufficent number of those were able to provide a link with Lewis' loiterer, the validity of "Yeah, that was me on each and every occasion, so what?" would be somewhat weakened.

Just out of curiosity, why did you ask me if there was a little part of me that believed he was telling the whole truth if there's no part of you that believes he may have been lying?

Best regards,
Ben

[Stephen Thomas]

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

[Ben]

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

[Stephen Thomas]

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

[Ben]

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.

[Stephen Thomas]

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.

[Ben]

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

[Stephen Thomas]

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

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