The Statement of George Hutchinson

[DVV]

How can you say that?

That doesn't follow at all.

People who usually claim that they saw Lord Randolph Churchill the Ripper as part of a murder series involving the Royal family "are more often that not telling the truth"?

You can't have meant to suggest this.

If you want to determine whether or not someone told the truth, you have to examine their claim. If that claim is found to be lacking in veracity, the likelihood of the originator telling the truth is markedly reduced. It doesn't matter in the slightest if other people heard what the originator claimed and related it to others. That doesn't improve the quality of the original claim. It just means that the suspect tale has been circulated.

According to your above logic, I'm supposed to ignore the actual content of the claim, but simply assume it must be correct because statistically most people tell the truth when they say they saw something (?!?). Is that how police forces interview witnesses and suspects? "Well Sir, your tale is totally implausible and outlandish, but I'm forced to believe you, because most people tell the truth when they say they've seen something....apparently".

Come on...

If you want to determine the veracity of a claim, you have to get right to the heart of the matter by examining its content.



That's not corroboration.

That's people listening to a story and passing it on.

The kids who believed their dad's tale that Santa exists and told their friends about it do not "corroborate" the existence of Santa.



Not really. I just don't see the need to mention hundreds and thousands when there clearly weren't hundreds and thousands. Fundamentally, however, it's essential to understand the difference between corroboration and hearsay. They are not the same thing. If I lie to five people, and those five people relate to a group of others "Here's what Ben told me", they are not "corroborating" me. They're just passing on what I told them.

Y'see?

All the best,
Ben

You're right, Ben,

and here in Provence, the sun is shining, my village is full of cute girls... everything is all right.
However, those who accuse us to have an agenda are right.
But it's pastis 51, mojitos and pretty girls.

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

my village is full of cute girls

You lucky thing, Dave!

Mine isn't, so send some over!

All the best,
Ben

[DVV]

You better take some vacation and come here, my friend.
Have no time to go to the post office till September!

Amitiés,
David

[perrymason]

The one thing we do know here.....is that a Senior Investigator withdrew his support of whomever said he was GH of the Victoria Home, and that the investigation logged his statement, set it aside by the 16th, and once again investigated the last official sighting, that of a Blotchy Faced Man at 11:45pm on November 8th.

It seems some modern researchers would think then that his admission of being at a certain location that is corroberated by a credible witness, but not for the reasons he suggested Monday night, make him a viable suspect. Though not one quotation from anyone connected with that incident suggests that the contemporary police thought he should be treated as suspicious for making a false claim and being seen loitering near a murder site.

In fact the mere dismissal of him and his claims outright, which seems to be the case here, suggests they did not believe excerpts of his story either, and therefore he was not considered to be the Wideawake Man by police. If he was considered as such, we would have some indication of that suspicion on record. We dont.

For reasons known to only those policemen, he was considered a liar.

So Romford walks, sixpence loan requests, Astrakan Man, and his loitering may well all be fictional. There has never been any proof or real interest in the possibility that he was Wideawake by the police, obviously....so why do some modern researchers still want to make something of him as suspect?

Its clear they (investigators) didnt think he was Sarah's loitering man, and that means they thought he likely was nowhere near there at 3am.

Wideawake is suspicious...... but Hutchinson has become nothing more than tedious...and they are not likely the same.

Best regards all.

[DVV]

Hi Mike,

on the contrary, I think Abberline did believe Hutch because he could be the man seen by Lewis.

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

It seems some modern researchers would think then that his admission of being at a certain location that is corroberated by a credible witness, but not for the reasons he suggested Monday night, make him a viable suspect.

That's because it does, Mike.

It became public knowledge on the afternoon of 12th November that Sarah Lewis had noticed a man standing opposite the court, apparently watching or waiting for someone at 2:30am on the morning of Kelly's death. Later that afternoon, Hutchinson came forward with a claim to have done precisely that. As far as I'm concerned, there is little escaping the conclusion that he realised he'd been seen and came forward to legitimize his presence.

The fact that we have "not one quotation from anyone connected with that incident suggests that the contemporary police thought he should be treated as suspicious" permits us to conclude one of the following:

1) They never enterained the possibility of Hutchinson being Kelly's killer or the ripper.

In which case, if Hutchinson was the killer, his ploy worked perfectly. It would mean his intended tactic of duping the police into believing that his presence at the crime scene was prompted by innocent circumstances worked brilliantly, as did his blame-shifting in the direction of his fictional creation: "Mr. Astrakhan", a bogeyman Jewish black bag-wielding stereotype designed to deflect suspicion away from himself.

Or...

2) They rejected his story and suspected him as a consequence.

In which case, there's no reason at all for assuming that they were ever in a position to determine his guilt or innocence. It's one thing to suspect somebody of nefarious deeds, but quite another to prove or deny it either way; a problem faced by countless police forces over many decades. Just look as Gary Ridgway. They suspected him. They couldn't prove anything. They let him go.

Its clear they didnt think he was Sarah's loitering man, and that he likely was nowhere near there at 3am.

No, that isn't "clear" at all. We have no evidence either way. They may not have entertained the possibility that he was the wideawake man (as above - see point #1), they may have thought he was, but couldn't prove it (as above - see point #2), but to decide with no evidence whatsoever that he was not the wideawake man is a bit fallacious, especially in light of Lewis' evidence.

[perrymason]

Ben you are a smart man and a good friend, but the essence of what Im suggesting is in the records,..if only in their absence. I dont see any restrictive elements in the memos and reports that were submitted regarding the Canonical investigations, in that if someone was suspected of something that they wouldnt come right out and say so. Dont we have 3 named suspects without any real evidence against any one of them?

If Hutchinson had been thought of as anything but a pain in the ass diversion from the actual facts of the case, they would have said so. To my knowledge there is not one contemporary source or even credible press report that suggests or intimates that GH should be or was suspicious by his false statement. Not one suggestion that he is Wideawake Man. Which to me suggests he was exactly as he appears to be, a man they thought made up a story. Not just parts of one.

My best regards Ben

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

I dont see any restrictive elements in the memos and reports that were submitted regarding the Canonical investigations, in that if someone was suspected of something that they wouldnt come right out and say so.

If they suspected Hutchinson (a huge "if") they probably did "come right out and say so", albeit not in public. However, the chances of every police suspicion surviving the test of time are extremely remote. No doubt many hundreds of men were suspected at some point during the investigation, but the likelihood is that only a fraction of those recorded suspicions have survived.

It's entirely on the cards as to whether Hutchinson was suspected or not. If he was, there's no reason to assume those suspicions survived the test of time. If he wasn't, it wouldn't reflect badly on the police in the slighest, since policing in general was in its relative infancy in 1888, and they had no knowledge of serial killers, let alone serial killers who pre-empt suspicion by contacting police (which we know a lot more about today).

It's very unlikely that his admission to loitering where he did - which so neatly coincided with Sarah Lewis' description of a loitering man in the same spot and same time - was a random coincidence. More likely to my mind, he realised he'd been seen and came forward with a crap excuse for being seen there and an even crapper fictional suspect to explain and superfically "legitimize" his presence.

It's the ultimate "I was there because" excuse. Consider the paralell: Why was I seen licking my lips outside the candy store on the night it was robbed? Oh, only because I was watching the fat man who broke in..."

Best regards,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

There is a third alternative, Ben. The inherent contradictions in Hutchinson's press and police statements were recognized and he was disregarded as a reliable witness without those contradictions ever having been properly investigated.

Regards,

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

Indeed, Garry.

And a timely reminder of that third possibility.

All the best,
Ben

[perrymason]

Hi again,

Ben, I think you have the right element to focus on, but I believe it may be Sarah's story that led to his disgrace, because they perhaps discovered that he knew of it prior to coming into the station Monday night.

With that single kernel and imagination like the kind capable of constructing Astrakhan Man, he could be off to the races.

We know we dont need to answer why he would .........why would someone fake an organ and letter....why would someone fake any letter, why would someone make false claims.....in Packers case the reasons may be financial, but in GH's case it may be "just for the jolly", like many other warped senses of humor writing little notes that Fall.

Best regards Ben

[DVV]

There is a third alternative, Ben. The inherent contradictions in Hutchinson's press and police statements were recognized and he was disregarded as a reliable witness without those contradictions ever having been properly investigated.
Garry Wroe.

Hi Garry,

imo, that's how things ran.
There are contradictions / differences, but more importantly, the police certainly thought: "Why did this guy talk to the press ?"

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

The point about Sarah Lewis' evidence is that it effectively seperates Hutchinson from the Packers and the Violenias who were probably money and/or publicity seekers. Lewis described someone loitering opposite the court shortly before the murder. As soon as that became public knowledge, Hutchinson came forward and claimed he was loitering opposite the court shortly before the murder. The chances of that being a random, unrelated coincidence are obviously very slim, and the chances of Hutchinson deliberately assuming the identity of the man Lewis saw when he wasn't even there are even slimmer, especially if he didn't even provide an albi for where he really was.

False confessions are one thing, but false witnesses claiming to be real witnesses seen by other real witnesses have no historical precedent whatsover, and for pretty good reason.

All the best,
Ben

[DVV]

You're right Ben,

Abberline said he believed Hutch.
He never said: "I believe him, thought he can't be the man seen by Lewis."

Amitiés,
David

[Jon Guy]

Hiya Ben and David

But, despite the detailed witness statement at no point does Hutchinson put himself opposite Millers Court, or outside the Lodging House, or mentions seeing Sarah Lewis.

It should also be noted that if Hutch was basing his info on what he`s picked up from the inquest proceedings that day, then he would be aware that Caroline Maxwell swore she saw Kelly alive later that morning.