The Red Handkerchief...

[Garry Wroe]

... either they found the flashily dressed man and he had absolutely nothing to do Miller's Court, which was ascertained to the police's satisfaction ...

Which would appear to be more than a little doubtful, Pat, given that Hutchinson claimed on the Tuesday evening to have spent the entire day searching for Astrakhan in the company of detectives. On the same day the Echo provided the first hint that investigators mistrusted Hutchinson's Astrakhan story. In other words questions regarding Hutchinson's credibility arose whilst police manpower was still being devoted to locating and identifying Astrakhan, which would appear to suggest that he still hadn't been found.

Let's not forget, either, that Astrakhan would have been a valuable witness had he been located and cleared of any involvement in Kelly's death. He could have provided critical information as to when she was last seen alive, for example, or even the description of someone he'd observed loitering about the court or Dorset Street itself. This being the case, I think it unlikely that he was traced and yet slipped under the press radar. And why would Walter Dew have neglected to mention such an incident when recounting the Hutchinson episode in his autobiography?

So, no, Astrakhan was never found. Of that we may be certain.

[Wickerman]

With respect to the opinion of the Echo in debating the story given by Hutchinson, such terms as, "suffered diminution", and "a very reduced importance", do not equate with an outright dismissal of the story altogether. As later stories published through November by the Echo & other newspapers appear to verify.

Hutchinson's story on the evening of the 12th & morning of the 13th, is of prime importance, only to become less so in the following hours - the question is, why?

The fact the press were able to witness ongoing investigations of his story through November render his story still valid in the eyes of police.
A suffering of reduced importance does not equate to discrediting.
To discredit the story means a total abandonment, what we have here, if the interpretation by the Echo is accurate, is evidence of another suspect.

In this case, what reduced importance does signify is a competing theory.

As has been pointed out before, Dr. Bond's recently written estimate of Kelly's time of death, between 1:00-2:00 am, places renewed focus on Blotchy as a suspect.
Which will have the effect of an apparent sharing of police resources pursuing suspects in two directions.

Hence, Hutchinson's story now appears to be less significant than originally thought, but, as described by the Echo, "sufficiently significant to induce them to make it the subject of careful inquiry.".

And, this division of manpower is evident on the street, as observed by the Echo on the 19th November.

The police have not relaxed their endeavours to hunt down the murderer in the slightest degree; but so far they remain without any direct clue. Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson as to his having seen the latest victim with a gentlemanly man of dark complexion, with a dark moustache. Others are disposed to think that the shabby man with a blotchy face and a carrotty moustache described by the witness Mary Ann Cox, is more likely to be the murderer.

The pieces of the puzzle are all still available for anyone who is genuinely interested in learning how the sequence of events transpired.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Why are you repeating all this stuff again, as though it hasn't been challenged multiple times?

Hutchinson's story on the evening of the 12th & morning of the 13th, is of prime importance, only to become less so in the following hours - the question is, why?

And the answer is: "later investigations" had cast doubt on Hutchinson's credibility, and the authorities considered it a major point against him that he failed to come forward until after the inquest, where his evidence would have been taken "on oath" and compared to other descriptions of the supposed murderer. In other words, he was discredited owing to doubts about his honesty, and it certainly had nothing to do with any nonsense involving a non-existent police preference towards Bond's time of death

Have you forgotten all about your recent interesting assertion that the constable who spoke to Galloway had abandoned the search for the Blotchy suspect as early as 14th November? How could that be if the police were placing the bulk of their investigative eggs in Bond's basket with the direct result being "renewed focus on Blotchy as a suspect"?

Which is it? Or which do you think it is, I should say, considering that it's obviously neither.

To discredit the story means a total abandonment

No, it doesn't. You're wrong. It means simply that it was adjudged to be bogus, in all probability. There is no suggestion anywhere that Hutchinson's statement was proven false; it was simply discarded on the suspicion that it was - with "later investigations" confirming this suspicion.

You've quoted the Echo article from the 19th again, as though it were never addressed, earning you a copy and paste for your troubles.

All it tells us is that "some" of the authorities continued to place “most reliance” on the Astrakhan description supplied by Hutchinson, evidently in spite of the fact that the statement had been “considerably discounted” (Echo, 14th November). What isn’t specified is just who amongst the authorities towed this line, and more importantly, how much influence their beliefs had on the direction of the investigation. My strong suspicion would be not much, considering that none of the senior police officials, such as Abberline, Anderson and Swanson, ultimately placed "most reliance” upon Hutchinson's description. Quite the reverse, in fact.

What you absolutely won’t find is a single instance of the police actively looking for Astrakhan types on the basis of Hutchinson’s description, at least not after mid-November. If any of the authorities continued to believe in Astrakhan man after mid-November, it could only have been an uninfluential minority, and it evidently had no effect on the actual direction of the investigation. Unless, of course, you have evidence to the contrary?

And I'll be posting these two paragraphs whenever I see that article produced.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hello Ben.

And the answer is: "later investigations" had cast doubt on Hutchinson's credibility,..

Not true.
The Echo gave the reason, and their reason is different than yours.

The reason they gave is, that the witness should have given his statement at the inquest - but that reason is incorrect.
They make the suggestion that the story is weak if it is not sworn-to, they do not say the story is to be doubted.

Contrary to what the Echo write, a witness does not need to swear to his statement for it to be used by police.
This is the Echo making a false premiss to offer a story.
Police files were full of statements not sworn-to.

It is strange that if the Echo had an inside source, like you prefer to believe, then we might expect the Echo to supply the reason you suggest, but only if you are correct also.

They supply one reason, and you supply a different one.
Sadly Ben, two wrongs do not make a right.

Have you forgotten all about your recent interesting assertion that the constable who spoke to Galloway had abandoned the search for the Blotchy suspect as early as 14th November?

The Constable was on Point Duty, at Thrawl-street. If you recall, this is where Astrachan passed on the morning of the 9th, less than a week ago.
This, I believe, is all he was referring to. He was not speaking for the whole Division, just himself. He, must have been told to keep an eye out for this stranger.

No, it doesn't. You're wrong. It means simply that it was adjudged to be bogus, in all probability. There is no suggestion anywhere that Hutchinson's statement was proven false; it was simply discarded on the suspicion that it was - with "later investigations" confirming this suspicion.

This isn't making any sense.
You have said that Hutchinson's story was discredited, which is why we read no more about him (yet the truth is quite different).
Now you say his story was not completely discredited, but just doubted, which is why we read no more about him?

Which is it?

I think you are backing away from your firm stance about him being discredited. He cannot be partially discredited. The police did not partially believe Packer, he was out, and that was it.

If there was anything about Hutchinson's story that was believable, they would have continued to investigate it, which they did - so he was not discredited.
For him to have been discredited, his whole story had to be false.
A person like Hutchinson, who could well have been the murderer, is not going to be let go if the police are not able to verify his claims. That circumstance makes him an automatic suspect in the eyes of police.

No matter which way you look at it Ben, he was never doubted by the police.


Not only was the Echo still reporting of police interest in him as far out as the 19th, the Illustrated Police News also gave him some space on the 24th.
"In some quarters Hutchinson's statement has been thought to throw discredit upon the evidence given at the inquest by the woman Cox, but it is now believed that the murderer was the second man whom the victim took home upon the eve of her murder. It is probably that the man with the “carroty” moustache seen in Kelly's company shortly before midnight will soon be found, and it is possible that he may come forward voluntarily now that he has been to a great extent relieved of the suspicion which rested upon him."

As I said before, your "discredited" argument does not stand up to scrutiny, it doesn't work.
Obviously, he was never discredited, the "reduced importance" was due to something more tangible, something we can read in official police files for a change.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“The reason they gave is (sic), that the witness should have given his statement at the inquest - but that reason is incorrect.”

It wasn’t the reason “they” gave.

It was the reason they extracted from “the authorities”.

(Past tense at all times, please.)

It was the police who queried the late appearance of Hutchinson's evidence and non-attendance at the inquest. The Echo were merely the messengers. Unfortunately for your controversial new theories, the Echo were in direct communication with the police, and reported on the latter’s “later investigations”, not their own. It was these same investigations that evidently exposed the weakness of whatever excuse Hutchinson might initially have come up with for the lateness of his evidence. Contrary to your recent assertion, the act of sitting on one’s evidence for three whole days following the brutal murder and mutilation of a supposed three-year acquaintance is generally considered a major blow against that witness’s credibility, as is a complete no-show at a public inquest.

It’s one thing to supply crucial eyewitness evidence that isn’t “sworn to”, but quite another to sit on this evidence (for three days) and wait until to the opportunity to “swear to” that evidence had passed, and it is very clear from the Echo’s proven communication with the police that the latter considered it a damning point against Hutchinson's honesty.

“This, I believe, is all he was referring to. He was not speaking for the whole Division, just himself. He, must have been told to keep an eye out for this stranger.”

…Whilst being told to keep no eye out at all for other individuals suspected of being responsible for Kelly’s murder, as Blotchy unquestionably was at the time? I hardly think so, somehow. What abysmally and comically incompetent police force would instruct half of its constables to arrest all Astrakhan types, while ignoring Blotchy characters, and the other half to focus solely on Blotchy types to the exclusion of Astrakhanians?

“I think you are backing away from your firm stance about him being discredited. He cannot be partially discredited. The police did not partially believe Packer, he was out, and that was it.”

You seem to be having inexplicable trouble with the most basic of dictionary definitions. Please attempt to understand that if a statement is “discredited” it is not necessarily proven false – it is merely suspected of being bogus and not investigated further. I’m not suggesting that the police “partially believed” Hutchinson, any more than they “partially believed” Packer. I’m simply pointing out that despite the complete inability of the police to prove either man a definite liar, they still discredited both of their statements because they totally didn't believe them.

Discredited means neither “partially believed” nor “proven false”. It simply means suspected of being false. It really shouldn’t be that complicated.

And please don’t even contemplate repeating that “automatic suspect” nonsense. You continue to provide no evidence at all for your continued assertions that Hutchinson received automatic suspect status simply by introducing himself voluntarily as a witness. I’ve addressed this before, and frankly cannot be arsed to use different words, so here we go again:

Were Schwartz, Lawende, Harris and Levy treated as suspects at any point? Was Emanuel Violenia, who claimed to have been the last to see Annie Chapman alive, despite the fact that he was thought to have been telling porkies? The key word here is “claim” – Hutchinson “claimed” to have been the last person to see her alive, with the exception of the presumed murderer, and it was the job of the investigating officer to “interrogate” the witness for the purpose of determining whether that “claim” was truthful or the work of a publicity-seeker (and the police had been deluged with the latter). Those were the options the police were likely to entertain when faced with a voluntary witness in 1888, not “is this Jack the Ripper waltzing into the police station requesting an interview?”.

You are aware, I hope, that the Illustrated Police News had absolutely nothing to do with the actual police and their opinions? Good. Unlike the Echo, they provide no indication that they had obtained their information from a police source. It appears instead that they were reluctant to lose face on the Astrakhan issue after making such a big “illustrative” deal of the episode, faithfully depicting Astrakhan’s surly, sinister appearance. Indeed, they were still comparing their sketched image of Astrakhan with Frederick Deeming four years later!

Regards,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

It was the police who queried the late appearance of Hutchinson's evidence and non-attendance at the inquest. The Echo were merely the messengers.

For what it's worth, Ben, I feel that the 'late arrival' explanation given by the Echo to justify Hutchinson's 'diminution' is something of a red herring. Certainly the delay in Hutchinson's coming forward given his professed pre-existing relationship with Kelly is strange, but I doubt that this in itself would have been sufficient for investigators to have lost faith in someone who was undoubtedly considered to have been a stellar witness. There had to have been something more.

Some maintain that the police refused to reveal case-related information to the press. This isn't true. Information was forthcoming, but only of a rudimentart nature. Journalists were informed, for example, as to how many men had been arrested overnight and whether any of these remained in custody. Sometimes information was volunteered with regard to ongoing inquiries, but again this was seldom anything more than perfunctory.

With this in mind I'm inclined to believe that one of two things happened in context of Hutchinson's diminution. Either the Echo received inside information from a paid police informant, in which case the reasons for the diminution were deliberately underplayed in order to protect the informant's identity, or the information was obtained from Commercial Street and, true to form, investigators were disinclined to reveal anything in the way of detail. Thus the late arrival was given as a convenient reason for Hutchinson's fall from grace.

Common sense alone ought to tell us that investigators would never have discarded a potentially case-breaking witness merely because he'd failed to come forward for three days. The value of his information would have remained undiminished. So too would his importance in the event of an arrest and any subsequent need for identification. Remember that Lawende didn't come forward. He was found during house-to-house inquiries. Despite this, however, he continued to be regarded as a truthful and important witness.

So, like I said, there had to have been something more than a late arrival to account for Hutchinson's diminution. It must have been something tangible, and it must have come to light before the Echo went to press on the Tuesday.

Which brings us to Hutchinson's Monday night walkabout with two detectives. This, I remain convinced, is key to understanding the sequence of events under scrutiny. We know that Hutchinson embarked on this search with Abberline having endorsed his Astrakhan claims. We also know that within hours the Echo was running its diminution story. Clearly, therefore, something happened in the interim which radically altered police perceptions of Hutchinson and the details contained within his witness statement. It couldn't have been the late arrival for reasons already explained. For my money Hutchinson must have said or done something which aroused the suspicions of his detective companions. Whatever it was it was sufficient to cast doubt on his story. Ultimately it led to his rejection as a viable witness, a step that investigators would not have taken on a whim.

It is for these reasons that I take the late arrival explanation with a pinch of salt. To my mind either the Echo was protecting a source or the police were acknowledging their disinterest in Hutchinson whilst revealing nothing in the way of detail. Either way, any attempt to rationalize these events based upon the late arrival explanation is futile. We need only look to Lawende to see that this must be so.

[John G]

Hello Garry,

The difficulty I have is this:is there any evidence that the police spent much time investigating Blotchy or BS man as suspects? Isn't it the case that they became quickly "disinterested" in Scwartz, Cox and Lawende as witnesses after their initial investigations failed to bear fruit? Well, at least until years later when Kosminski/ Saddler were identified as suspects. Of course, even then neither Hutchinson or Cox were utilized as witnesses-possibly because none of the suspects had blotchy complexions or wore astrachan coats!

[Wickerman]

It was the police who queried the late appearance of Hutchinson's evidence and non-attendance at the inquest.

Who were they asking, the Echo?
The police had already spoken with Hutchinson, and Abberline was quite satisfied.
If anything was not satisfactory, or left unanswered, Abberline would mention this in his report, that is irrefutable, Ben.

The Echo were merely the messengers. Unfortunately for your controversial new theories, the Echo were in direct communication with the police, and reported on the latter’s “later investigations”, not their own.

You like to think so, that is evident. Though apart from your irrepressible desire to make it so, there is not one shred of evidence that the Echo obtained anything beyond a brush-off from the Met. police.

I prefer to believe what the Echo themselves wrote, as opposed to what you insist. I think they knew the real situation, not you.
The Met. told them nothing, and continued to tell them nothing. That at least is provable and sustainable, as opposed to your self-serving opinion.

It’s one thing to supply crucial eyewitness evidence that isn’t “sworn to”, but quite another to sit on this evidence (for three days) and wait until to the opportunity to “swear to” that evidence had passed, and it is very clear from the Echo’s proven communication with the police that the latter considered it a damning point against Hutchinson's honesty.

He gained nothing by waiting, that is a fallacy.
Swearing to your statement does not make it true. Maxwell swore to her statement, and it was still contested, but what benefit did she gain?
So, it made no difference in the eyes of police when he actually came forward. The suggestion that it would belies ignorance on the part of the Echo, and on anyone who believes it.

…Whilst being told to keep no eye out at all for other individuals suspected of being responsible for Kelly’s murder, as Blotchy unquestionably was at the time? I hardly think so, somehow.

No point in telling the constable that, not when half the men in the East End look shabby. How old was this Blotchy, 20, 30 40 50?
And how many men had dirty brown hair, drink-sodden complexion, and a moustache?
Hundreds?
Pointless!

You seem to be having inexplicable trouble with the most basic of dictionary definitions.

What I am having trouble with Ben, is you insisting the police made no further inquiries after Astrachan, because Hutchinson was discredited. But, at the same time watering down your "discredited" theory by now saying they didn't totally dismiss his story.
You can't have it both ways, though due to desperation I can see you have no choice.

I’m not suggesting that the police “partially believed” Hutchinson, any more than they “partially believed” Packer. I’m simply pointing out that despite the complete inability of the police to prove either man a definite liar, they still discredited both of their statements because they totally didn't believe them.

Packer changed his story, first he saw nobody, and nothing. Then he saw somebody, and something. Plus, his times were all over the place.

Hutchinson, as has been pointed out numerous times, is not in the same league as Packer.
He stuck to his story, same time, same man, same details.
No similarity at all.

And please don’t even contemplate repeating that “automatic suspect” nonsense..... I’ve addressed this before, and frankly cannot be arsed to use different words, so here we go again:

Were Schwartz, Lawende, Harris and Levy treated as suspects at any point? Was Emanuel Violenia, who claimed to have been the last to see Annie Chapman alive, despite the fact that he was thought to have been telling porkies?

I've addressed this diversion before, it failed then just as it fails now.
Schwartz was witnessed running away, before the murder.
Lawende, Harris & Levy are their own alibi's.
And, how can Violenia "claim" to have been the last to see Chapman alive when Mrs Long saw her right outside No. 29?
Where was Violenia, in the back yard?, ...good grief.

You waste your time repeating this nonsense.
If you choose to argue, make it worthwhile.

You are aware, I hope, that the Illustrated Police News had absolutely nothing to do with the actual police and their opinions? Good.

Why even mention it?

Unlike the Echo, they provide no indication that they had obtained their information from a police source.

They "claim" to have a source.
When the City Police give them information the Echo identify their source.
Why then vaguely use "the authorities"? - surely you can figure that one out by yourself.

[Wickerman]

...For my money Hutchinson must have said or done something which aroused the suspicions of his detective companions. Whatever it was it was sufficient to cast doubt on his story. Ultimately it led to his rejection as a viable witness, a step that investigators would not have taken on a whim.

Two problems.
1 - Abberline's report of his duties on the 12th, as with any daily report is written on the 13th.
He cannot write his report until the day is over.

2 - All the subsequent press coverage right up until the 24th Nov. indicate ongoing police interest in Hutchinson's story. And, that includes reports by the Echo, especially, observations like: "...they think it sufficiently significant to induce them to make it the subject of careful inquiry" (14th), and, "...Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson as to his having seen the latest victim with a gentlemanly man of dark complexion," (19th).

Very inconsistent, if your suggestion is serious.

[Garry Wroe]

Sorry, John. I posted this reply to the wrong thread.

The difficulty I have is this:is there any evidence that the police spent much time investigating Blotchy or BS man as suspects? Isn't it the case that they became quickly "disinterested" in Scwartz, Cox and Lawende as witnesses after their initial investigations failed to bear fruit? Well, at least until years later when Kosminski/ Saddler were identified as suspects.

In the long term, John, witnesses were of use only once a viable suspect was in custody. We know of Lawende’s participation in the Saddler case because the press reported on it. The police played their cards close to their chest throughout the Ripper investigation – even more so once Anderson returned to duty. The chances are that more witnesses were utilized but journalists were kept in the dark.

Remember that Swanson averred that the identification of Anderson’s witness would have been sufficient to hang Kosminski. That’s the way in which it worked in those days. The lack of forensics meant that witness testimony was critical in securing convictions. Often it was a case of the more witnesses the better. This being so, investigators would hardly have discarded the likes of Cox, Schwartz, Lawende and Long. They were simply kept on hold until needed.

[Abby Normal]

For what it's worth, Ben, I feel that the 'late arrival' explanation given by the Echo to justify Hutchinson's 'diminution' is something of a red herring. Certainly the delay in Hutchinson's coming forward given his professed pre-existing relationship with Kelly is strange, but I doubt that this in itself would have been sufficient for investigators to have lost faith in someone who was undoubtedly considered to have been a stellar witness. There had to have been something more.

Some maintain that the police refused to reveal case-related information to the press. This isn't true. Information was forthcoming, but only of a rudimentart nature. Journalists were informed, for example, as to how many men had been arrested overnight and whether any of these remained in custody. Sometimes information was volunteered with regard to ongoing inquiries, but again this was seldom anything more than perfunctory.

With this in mind I'm inclined to believe that one of two things happened in context of Hutchinson's diminution. Either the Echo received inside information from a paid police informant, in which case the reasons for the diminution were deliberately underplayed in order to protect the informant's identity, or the information was obtained from Commercial Street and, true to form, investigators were disinclined to reveal anything in the way of detail. Thus the late arrival was given as a convenient reason for Hutchinson's fall from grace.

Common sense alone ought to tell us that investigators would never have discarded a potentially case-breaking witness merely because he'd failed to come forward for three days. The value of his information would have remained undiminished. So too would his importance in the event of an arrest and any subsequent need for identification. Remember that Lawende didn't come forward. He was found during house-to-house inquiries. Despite this, however, he continued to be regarded as a truthful and important witness.

So, like I said, there had to have been something more than a late arrival to account for Hutchinson's diminution. It must have been something tangible, and it must have come to light before the Echo went to press on the Tuesday.

Which brings us to Hutchinson's Monday night walkabout with two detectives. This, I remain convinced, is key to understanding the sequence of events under scrutiny. We know that Hutchinson embarked on this search with Abberline having endorsed his Astrakhan claims. We also know that within hours the Echo was running its diminution story. Clearly, therefore, something happened in the interim which radically altered police perceptions of Hutchinson and the details contained within his witness statement. It couldn't have been the late arrival for reasons already explained. For my money Hutchinson must have said or done something which aroused the suspicions of his detective companions. Whatever it was it was sufficient to cast doubt on his story. Ultimately it led to his rejection as a viable witness, a step that investigators would not have taken on a whim.

It is for these reasons that I take the late arrival explanation with a pinch of salt. To my mind either the Echo was protecting a source or the police were acknowledging their disinterest in Hutchinson whilst revealing nothing in the way of detail. Either way, any attempt to rationalize these events based upon the late arrival explanation is futile. We need only look to Lawende to see that this must be so.

Hi Garry
I too believe that hutchs diminished importance as a credible witness by the police probably came as a result of his walkabouts with them.

It may have been that after two fruitless searches would in itself have been enough.

But most probably it was that plus something Hutch said. two walkabouts is ALOT of time and opportunity for talking and explanation by hutch-a lot of rope for him to hang himself so to speak.

My hunch is that hutch gave the detectives the impression that he was maybe TOO interested in if and how much he would be paid for his services.

I know you downplay his late appearance to come forward as a reason-but could it have possibly been his explanation to the detectives why he came forward late during their walkabout that was the main reason for his discrediting?

[Garry Wroe]

I too believe that hutchs diminished importance as a credible witness by the police probably came as a result of his walkabouts with them.

The timeline certainly appears suggestive of such, Abby.

It may have been that after two fruitless searches would in itself have been enough.

I would consider that doubtful.

But most probably it was that plus something Hutch said. two walkabouts is ALOT of time and opportunity for talking and explanation by hutch-a lot of rope for him to hang himself so to speak.

The accompanying detectives would certainly have attempted to elicit additional information, Abby. It would have been done in a subtle, friendly and non-confrontational manner. Perhaps Hutchinson said a little too much and gave himself away.

I know you downplay his late appearance to come forward as a reason-but could it have possibly been his explanation to the detectives why he came forward late during their walkabout that was the main reason for his discrediting?

Oh, no, Abby. The delay in his coming forward is at best strange, and at worst suspicious. Remember, though, that Abberline would have questioned him closely on the issue and appeared to have been satisfied with Hutchinson's explanation. The point I was trying to make is that investigators would never have jettisoned a crucially important witness on the basis of the witness's failure to come forward as soon as he might have done. Lawende is a perfect example of such. This being the case, the 'late arrival' explanation for Hutchinson's diminution was merely window dressing. There must have been far more compelling reasons behind the police decision to sideline him.

So, yes, I think it more than possible that the detectives on walkabout would have gently broached the subject of Hutchinson's late appearance. My feeling is that this was the point at which Hutchinson mentioned the Sunday policeman. He perhaps attempted to excuse the delay in his coming forward with the claim that he'd informed a policeman of the Astrakhan episode. This would have been new information that could have been checked against a duty roster, thereby identifying a specific officer who would have been questioned. If that questioning revealed that Hutchinson had lied, he and his story would have been subjected to a rapid and rigorous reassessment.

I mention the Sunday policeman for one very good reason. Hutchinson neglected to reference him in his witness statement, and Abberline failed to note him in his summary report. The first we hear of him is in the newspaper reports several days after Hutchinson first presented himself at Commercial Street Police Station. To my mind this bears the hallmark of an afterthought - something introduced by Hutchinson to justify his failure to come forward. If so, then it may well be catalyst that resulted his fall from grace.

[Abby Normal]

The timeline certainly appears suggestive of such, Abby.

I would consider that doubtful.

The accompanying detectives would certainly have attempted to elicit additional information, Abby. It would have been done in a subtle, friendly and non-confrontational manner. Perhaps Hutchinson said a little too much and gave himself away.

Oh, no, Abby. The delay in his coming forward is at best strange, and at worst suspicious. Remember, though, that Abberline would have questioned him closely on the issue and appeared to have been satisfied with Hutchinson's explanation. The point I was trying to make is that investigators would never have jettisoned a crucially important witness on the basis of the witness's failure to come forward as soon as he might have done. Lawende is a perfect example of such. This being the case, the 'late arrival' explanation for Hutchinson's diminution was merely window dressing. There must have been far more compelling reasons behind the police decision to sideline him.

So, yes, I think it more than possible that the detectives on walkabout would have gently broached the subject of Hutchinson's late appearance. My feeling is that this was the point at which Hutchinson mentioned the Sunday policeman. He perhaps attempted to excuse the delay in his coming forward with the claim that he'd informed a policeman of the Astrakhan episode. This would have been new information that could have been checked against a duty roster, thereby identifying a specific officer who would have been questioned. If that questioning revealed that Hutchinson had lied, he and his story would have been subjected to a rapid and rigorous reassessment.

I mention the Sunday policeman for one very good reason. Hutchinson neglected to reference him in his witness statement, and Abberline failed to note him in his summary report. The first we hear of him is in the newspaper reports several days after Hutchinson first presented himself at Commercial Street Police Station. To my mind this bears the hallmark of an afterthought - something introduced by Hutchinson to justify his failure to come forward. If so, then it may well be catalyst that resulted his fall from grace.

Thanks for the response Garry. Good post-I agree.

[Ben]

Hi Garry,

I ought to have clarified that I don't believe for a moment that Hutchinson's three-day "delay" in coming forward was the only reason for his account receiving a "very reduced importance", and not do I doubt that the "later investigations" alluded to in the Echo uncovered additional reasons for doubting his credibility. The only reason I've continued to stress the "late appearance" angle to Jon and chums is to illustrate the fact that whatever circumstances were ultimately responsible for Hutchinson's statement being "considerably discounted", they related directly to his credibility, as opposed to some of the more nonsensical "reasons" we've seen doing the rounds, such as "date confusion" or Bond's time of death being favoured to the exclusion of all other evidence.

I share your view that Hutchinson might have slipped up when accompanying detectives on a search for the Astrakhan man, and that his press disclosures - specifically his claim regarding the Sunday policeman - might have undermined his credibility in the minds of the police. But if nothing else, the Echo's allusion to Hutchinson's late appearance - as a damning point, in the minds of the "authorities" - demonstrates that it was doubts over Hutchinson's credibility that formed the basis for his discrediting, as opposed to any of the far-fetched "reasons" that occasionally get aired.

All the best,
Ben

[John G]

Hi Garry,

I ought to have clarified that I don't believe for a moment that Hutchinson's three-day "delay" in coming forward was the only reason for his account receiving a "very reduced importance", and not do I doubt that the "later investigations" alluded to in the Echo uncovered additional reasons for doubting his credibility. The only reason I've continued to stress the "late appearance" angle to Jon and chums is to illustrate the fact that whatever circumstances were ultimately responsible for Hutchinson's statement being "considerably discounted", they related directly to his credibility, as opposed to some of the more nonsensical "reasons" we've seen doing the rounds, such as "date confusion" or Bond's time of death being favoured to the exclusion of all other evidence.

I share your view that Hutchinson might have slipped up when accompanying detectives on a search for the Astrakhan man, and that his press disclosures - specifically his claim regarding the Sunday policeman - might have undermined his credibility in the minds of the police. But if nothing else, the Echo's allusion to Hutchinson's late appearance - as a damning point, in the minds of the "authorities" - demonstrates that it was doubts over Hutchinson's credibility that formed the basis for his discrediting, as opposed to any of the far-fetched "reasons" that occasionally get aired.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

Philip Sugden in his book, seemed to believe Hutcinson's story. This is an interesting quote, regarding Hutchinson's decision to go the press: "We cannot tell because the police records have almost all been lost. But the CID view at the time seems to have been that it blighted Abberline's efforts to trace the suspect alerting him to the hunt and perhaps encouraging him to change his appearance." (Sugden, 2002) Could it therefore be possible that the police lost confidence in him because, by going to the press, they believed that he had undermined their efforts to find the suspect, and assumed that the alerted suspect would either of fled the locality or radically changed his appearance? This annoyance towards Hutchinson may have been compounded if they had specifically asked him not to go to the press.