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

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Garry,

It was at this point that I began writing to such Ripper luminaries as Robin Odell, Colin Wilson and Joe Gaute in the expectation of discerning evidence to corroborate either Hutchinson’s integrity or the concatenation he described to Abberline. To my amazement, I discovered that no such evidence existed.

None existed, or none survived? Given the depleted state of the Ripper Files, I think we can only assume the latter, unless good reason (or evidence!) suggests otherwise.

BTW, I have little doubt that Hutchinson's story is a load of baloney.

[celee]

Hi Brad,

I'm with Ben, for Astrakhan man has little to do with Tumblety.
Did Hutch drink that night ?
Imo he did - but never said so, unless I missed something.

Amitiés moun colègo,
David

Thanks for your responce. I been told to share my thoughts so, I am thinking, since Tumblety claimed that he was questioned concerning the Kelly murder because of the style of hat he wore. maybe a witness describtion was used. Two Witnesses Sarah Lewis and George Hutchinson come to mind.

If Hutchinson was drinking it is possible he got some details wrong.

Your friend, Brad

[Ben]

Hi Brad,

Tumblety was known for his fancy dress in the past, but when interviewed by the press in connection with the Whitechapel murders in 1888, he wasn't conspicuously attired in the slightest, and his other physical particulars (age, height, ethnicity etc) don't correspond to Mr. Astrakhan in the slightest. Tumblety complained that he was arrested on the flimsy basis that he wore a "slouch hat", despite the fact that no eyewitness, barring Packer (I think), mentioned any such headgear.

Hi David,

The St. James Gazzette attributed the following quote to Hutchinson on 14th November:

"I was quite sober, not having had anything to drink all day."

He could have invented it, of course.

All the best,
Ben

[Roy Corduroy]

I am thinking, since Tumblety claimed that he was questioned concerning the Kelly murder because of the style of hat he wore. maybe a witness describtion was used. Two Witnesses Sarah Lewis and George Hutchinson come to mind.

Hi Brad,

Your post got me thinking, too, and I have made a poll just for this purpose. It's under Witnesses, called Hutch's Man.

Because you are barking up the wrong tree here. This is a Suspect Thread. About Hutch the mass murderer, not he the witness.

Roy

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Richard.

Please don’t misunderstand me. In expressing scepticism regarding the prospective Hutchinson/Toppy link, I am in no way attempting to infer that Toppy was in the habit of accosting strangers in the street, regaling them with tales of how he brought about the downfall of Jack the Ripper. His recollections, or so it would seem, were reserved purely for family consumption – a way of entertaining the youngsters on cold, dark, winter evenings, perhaps. And, as I stated in an earlier post, such stories are legion in the East End and invariably lead nowhere from the standpoint of serious research.

As for the supposedly corroborative Wheeling piece, I will merely say that Joe Barnett, as a potentially important witness, would never have been permitted to testify at the Kelly inquest whilst under the influence. Indeed, given such circumstances, he would, in all probability, have been held in contempt and promptly arrested. Equally, despite having examined thousands of newspapers during my researches into the Whitechapel Murders, I cannot recall a single negative reference to Barnett in context of his inquest evidence. On the contrary. As I stated in my book, Barnett emerged from the proceedings having earned the respect of all concerned. This, I would suggest, severely militates against the Wheeling article, rendering it all but worthless from an evidential perspective.

Hi Sam.

Point taken. What I was trying to convey in such a clumsy, maladroit fashion was simply that, by his own admission, Hutchinson was present at a crime scene at a time critical to a Ripper murder and yet had simply been taken at his word by not only the police, but generation after generation of Ripperologists. Prior to contacting those in the know, my assumption was that some exonerating factor had surfaced during the police investigation – a piece of information so compelling that it left no question as to Hutchinson’s veracity. It emerged, however, that no such information was known to exist. Of course, recent findings demonstrate that the police did not accept Hutchinson’s version of events uncritically. But since no policeman has publicly expressed misgivings about Hutchinson, it seems highly unlikely that he ever fell under suspicion at a senior police level. As such, the primary issue is to determine why official doubt was cast on Hutchinson’s story, and whether, given his apparent fall from grace, he was ever properly investigated.

Regards,

Garry Wroe.

[celee]

Hi Brad,

Tumblety was known for his fancy dress in the past, but when interviewed by the press in connection with the Whitechapel murders in 1888, he wasn't conspicuously attired in the slightest, and his other physical particulars (age, height, ethnicity etc) don't correspond to Mr. Astrakhan in the slightest. Tumblety complained that he was arrested on the flimsy basis that he wore a "slouch hat", despite the fact that no eyewitness, barring Packer (I think), mentioned any such headgear.

Hi David,

The St. James Gazzette attributed the following quote to Hutchinson on 14th November:

"I was quite sober, not having had anything to drink all day."

He could have invented it, of course.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your reply. People for the longest time have down played Tumblety because they claim he was to flamboyant and would stand out in a crowd. Now you are suggesting he would not have been dressed fancy.

I am just thinking to much again. You know if you get a chance check out some of my new threads I have started. I respect your opinion and would be interested to know what you think. I think the casebook is still a good learning source and we can all learn things from eachother.

Your friend, Brad

[Archaic]

Weighing Witness Credibility

I have a question regarding the manner and processes by which the police judged the relative worth of witness statements and the credibility of the witnesses.

If Hutchinson had lied or "fibbed" about some other, perhaps 'noncritical' aspect of his story, and the police had subsequently uncovered the discrepancy, would they then throw ALL of his testimony out the window?

Completely Hypothetical Example: Hutch testified that he had just gone down to Romford and come back, and that's why he was tired, broke & had no lodgings.
>What if the police discovered this part wasn't true?
What if the police went down to Romford & Hutch's sister and everyone said he had not been down lately?

>And what if the police had a tip that Hutch had actually spent the day elsewhere, doing something he couldn't be proud of: gambling, visiting a brothel, or having an affair with another man's wife... in other words, doing something entirely unrelated to the murder but which he was too embarrassed to admit- would the police then dismiss his entire story?

If so, the critical part of Hutch's story could still be perfectly true, but the damage to his credibility as a witness for any police purposes would have been significant.

Best regards, Archaic

[richardnunweek]

Hi Garry,
I accept the word 'Gossip' in relation to the Wheeling Register, however although it seems likely that the inquest report concerning Barnett was 'overdone', there is still the fact that he appeared to have great difficulty in getting through his statement at the inquest, it was noted that he always repeated the last word of a sentence, in starting another, and was clearly nevous, and clearly stressed.
Therefore it is no wonder the coroner praised him for what must have been a very disturbing experience , it was stated in one report that he was even confused what he had to do when holding the bible , i believe he kissed it , and handed it back initially.
All of this could well have given the impression that he had sunk a few.
But the gossip that mentioned a payment to a 'clever individual' has been confirmed, has it not by a relation to a man named Hutchinson?, who has exactly the same surname as the witness that the Wheeling Register was talking about.
So this was not invented, it appears to have been truth, how they got hold of that information , i have not a clue, from Hutch himself , or one of his associates perhaps.
But we have Toppings eldest son , stating[ not just in Faircloughs book , but approx 18 years earlier] that his father used to mention that payment in the 1920s/30s, and as that sum one hundred shillings, roughly is equivilent to the Wheelings description of 'five times a weeks wage', surely that is as near as damm proof that he was the witness.
Ben keeps saying 'Yes but no police force would pay a witness for their help' and follow on with especially as he was 'unemployed'.
I can only say that by Hutchinsons own statement , he suggests that he had at least some money when going TO Romford, also as a regular at The Victoria home, he had to have been vetted as a man of regular income, as he would not have been allowed to be a resident, infact correct me if i am wrong , but i believe the police had connection in vetting dwellers there?
Summing up I find the argument that George Hutchinson, was not a regular worker , somewhat strange, as it all points to the contary.
A character referance for Topping , albeit by his own flesh and blood, has him as a hard working man , hardly if ever out ofwork.
A perfect resident for the Victoria Home, i would suggest.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

All of this could well have given the impression that he had sunk a few.

Absolutely no way, Richard.

If Barnett had given the impression of being "furiously drunk" at the inquest, there is no way the coroner would have congratulated him on giving his evidence well. The overwhelmingly logical deduction is that Barnett was not furiously drunk at the inquest and the journalists at the Wheeling Register were simply talking nonsense.

And speaking of nonsense, there is nothing remotely noteworthy or interesting about two disreputable sources independently coming up with a similar bogus story in association with a piece of witness evidence. As I've already explained, trashy crime novels are awash with stories of informants being paid off vast sums to keep quiet about something of major significance. It's the oldest trick in the book, and it becomes even more attractive when allied to an aleady bogus theory being bandied about; the Royal Conspiracy. Reg needed no inspiration whatsoever beyond this to conjur up a payment issue.

We know the Wheeling Register's claims are wrong, since the police clearly did not pay Hutchinson five times a salary they didn't believe he was earning. It doesn't "appear to have truth". We know otherwise, but again, it seems likely that the motivation for the invention was the same. There is absolutely no interesting "coincidence" here.

sum one hundred shillings, roughly is equivilent to the Wheelings description of 'five times a weeks wage'

NO IT ISN'T!!!

Hutchinson wasn't taking home a weekly wage, which means he would not have been entitled to five times that non-existent wage. That's not remotely compatible with a 100 shillings figure. I've explained this an absurd amount of times now. Yes, I share your doubts that Hutchinson was unemployed at the time, but the only thing we need to be aware of his that the police really believed he was unemployed, albeit initially, and it would have been the police who dished out any cash on offer.

Summing up I find the argument that George Hutchinson, was not a regular worker,somewhat strange

It's not an "argument". It's what Hutchinson himself told Abberline. Of course, if you think Hutchinson lied about that...

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Archaic,

I'd say it's perfectly possible that the police dismissed Hutchinson as a publicity seeker who wasn't even there at all after discovering that he lied about certain aspects of his actions and movements, and yes, they may have done so in error, since many of the core components - such as his superficially "corroborated" presence opposite Miller's Court as seen by Lewis - may well have been true.

All the best,
Ben

[perrymason]

Hi Archaic,

I'd say it's perfectly possible that the police dismissed Hutchinson as a publicity seeker who wasn't even there at all after discovering that he lied about certain aspects of his actions and movements, and yes, they may have done so in error, since many of the core components - such as his superficially "corroborated" presence opposite Miller's Court as seen by Lewis - may well have been true.

All the best,
Ben

My favorite post of your view on this Ben, you have captured neutrality and hit key points.

As you know, Im inclined to throw it all in the bin...but good post.

All the best mate.

[Sam Flynn]

I'd say it's perfectly possible that the police dismissed Hutchinson as a publicity seeker who wasn't even there at all after discovering that he lied about certain aspects of his actions and movements, and yes, they may have done so in error, since many of the core components... may well have been true.

Unfortunately, Ben, many of his core components bear an uncanny resemblance to stories concerning Kelly's movements, and descriptions of sinister men, which were splashed all over the popular press in the days leading up to Hutch's going to the police.

[Ben]

That's true, Gareth.

Although, as you may have guessed, I was thinking of one "core component" in particular when I made the above observation; his presence outside a crime scene (and apparant interest in same) as seemingly corroborated by Sarah Lewis. I just can't dismiss that as random, unrelated coincidence, however hard I try.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

That's true, Gareth.

Although, as you may have guessed, I was thinking of one "core component" in particular when I made the above observation; his presence outside a crime scene (and apparant interest in same) as seemingly corroborated by Sarah Lewis. I just can't dismiss that as random, unrelated coincidence, however hard I try.

All the best,
Ben

Indeed, Ben - but then Hutchinson doesn't mention seeing Lewis's arrival, either, so we're quits Consider the following:

1. Lewis seems to see bogey-men everywhere, and - if she's one and the same as "Mrs Kennedy", which I'm sure she was - this seems to have been something of an obsession with her;

2. In her original police statement, Lewis initially says that Mr Wideawake was talking to a woman, but that last bit is struck out, which doesn't augur well for her reliability;

3. Intriguingly, the East London Advertiser, reporting Lewis's inquest testimony, has her stating that she saw two men around Miller's Court that night: "When she went into the court she saw a man standing outside the lodging-house door. He was not very tall, but was stout looking. He wore a black suit and had a black hat. The man was looking very eagerly up the court as if he was waiting for somebody to come out. She also saw another rather young looking man". Hadn't spotted that before - and it seems an unlikely invention on the part of the journalist if you ask me;

4. Even more intriguingly, Mrs Cox describes blotchy as "short, stout... wearing a billycock hat", and Lewis describes her man as "stout, but not very tall, wearing a wideawake". Did Lewis latch onto part of Cox's story?;

5. Dorset Street was renowned for its doss-houses, so the odds of someone standing at Crossingham's door (which faced the entrance to Miller's Court by default) at the time Lewis passed wouldn't have been particularly low. The narrowness of the street could easily give the impression that someone standing outside Crossingham's doorway was looking up the Court, even if they weren't.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

Indeed, Ben - but then Hutchinson doesn't mention seeing Lewis's arrival, either, so we're quits

Most probably through fear of making it appear too obvious that his hand was forced as a result of her evidence, not that I'm remotely convinced that he really did neglect to mention Lewis.

Lewis seems to see bogey-men everywhere, and - if she's one and the same as "Mrs Kennedy", which I'm sure she was - this seems to have been something of an obsession with her

Personally, I think Mrs. Kennedy was a separate entity - someone who learned of Lewis' evidence and attempted to pass it off as her own. A reporter from The Star observed that one of the "oh murder" accounts was being parroted, and since there are no press accounts that even vaguely resemble Prater's, it could only have been Lewis' account that was being Chinese Whispered in the manner described by The Star. There's only Mrs. Kennedy who could fit the bill in that regard.

In her original police statement, Lewis initially says that Mr Wideawake was talking to a woman, but that last bit is struck out, which doesn't augur well for her reliability

Bear in mind that she had just described a man talking to a female outside Ringers'. It's quite possible that the statement-taker confounded the two sightings (Ringers and Crossingham's) when committing Lewis' recollections to paper.

She also saw another rather young looking man

But that's consistent everywhere.

In every Sarah Lewis account, she speaks of a "young man" who "passed along" with a woman. That's not a journalistic invention.

Mrs Cox describes blotchy as "short, stout... wearing a billycock hat", and Lewis describes her man as "stout, but not very tall, wearing a wideawake". Did Lewis latch onto part of Cox's story?

I'd say it's more likely that the descriptions are similar on account of their having seen the same man.

Dorset Street was renowned for its doss-houses, so the odds of someone standing at Crossingham's door (which faced the entrance to Miller's Court by default) at the time Lewis passed wouldn't have been particularly low.

It's not just the man's presence that establishes a disturbing congruity between Lewis' man and Hutchinson's account of his own movements; it's their ostensibly "shared" preoccupation with Miller's Court. The chances of two separate individuals having that same preoccupation at the same time and more or less the same location must be regarded as very slim indeed. I'm not sure why a proliferation of doss houses would increase the likelihood of anyone standing outside them, especially as there was nothing preventing free entry into the lodging house kitchen.

Best regards,
Ben