The Red Handkerchief...

[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!

[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.

[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

[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,

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]

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.

[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]

Just a word of warning for anyone reading this...

The latter option has contemporary evidence on its side in the form of a proven communication between the police and certain members of the press.

Ask to see this "proven communication".

A major objection to the first explanation is that if the police accepted that Hutchinson told the truth about the Astrakhan episode, and later found Astrakhan man himself, there was no means by which the latter could secure an "alibi".

There most certainly is a way for him to have an alibi.
Until he is identified, any potential alibi will have to wait.

There is no evidence that he left after 3.00am - when Hutchinson allegedly departed the scene to embark on mysterious small-hours walkabout - and the alleged cry of "murder" happened very shortly afterwards, making it very unlikely (if not impossible) for Astrakhan to pop out and secure a cast-iron alibi in time for someone else to arrive and kill her, especially given the uncertainty over the time of death.

There is equally no evidence that he stayed after 3:00am, either.

And if Astrachan lived right around the corner, then an alibi is within reach, depending on what time the police accept Kelly to have died.
And that critical time is a detail we do not know.
Therefore, it is incorrect to claim that no alibi could be found.

[Ben]

Hi PCDunn,

Why? Well, only two things could have caused this: 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 -- or they realized Hutchinson was not a good witness and was wasting their time.

The latter option has contemporary evidence on its side in the form of a proven communication between the police and certain members of the press. A major objection to the first explanation is that if the police accepted that Hutchinson told the truth about the Astrakhan episode, and later found Astrakhan man himself, there was no means by which the latter could secure an "alibi". There is no evidence that he left after 3.00am - when Hutchinson allegedly departed the scene to embark on mysterious small-hours walkabout - and the alleged cry of "murder" happened very shortly afterwards, making it very unlikely (if not impossible) for Astrakhan to pop out and secure a cast-iron alibi in time for someone else to arrive and kill her, especially given the uncertainty over the time of death.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

I think you're concerned he just might be referring to the most likely person, the one you hate talking about.

I'd be deeply, deeply concerned if Rumbelow ever nailed his colours to your "Isaacstrakhan had an alibi" theory, but fortunately, there is no indication of that happening. I don't "hate" talking about Isaacs, incidentally. I would very much welcome discussion of him as a worthy area of study in his own right. It's when he infests every Hutchinson thread going as some sort of imaginary saviour of Hutchinson's credibility that irritation levels (as distinct from "hate") tend to rise a bit.

All the best,
Ben

[Pcdunn]

Hello, Ben

Hi PCDunn,

I can assure you that not a shred of evidence exists to support the contention that Hutchinson's suspect was found and exonerated, not least because it couldn't possibly have happened. If the "real" Astrakhan ever found himself in police custody, he had no conceivable means of providng an "alibi" for the very uncertain time of death. Could Lewis and Prater prove that the cry of murder occurred at a specific time, and that it definitely signalled the time at which the murder was committed, and that anyone who might have departed the scene before that moment must be innocent? Of course not. It's impossible. Which means that in the scarily unlikely event that Astrakhan was positively identified, he would have earned himself perpetual suspect status in the absence of any proof of guilt and the certain absence of any alibi with which to prove him innocent.

Regards,
Ben

Hi, Ben,

Thank you for the regards.
I think the facts we know are these: Hutchinson claimed he saw a man with MJK on the last night of her life. He waited awhile before mentioning this man to the police, and offered an amazingly detailed description of him to both the police and the press. Despite initial interest in this supposed suspect, eventually the police discounted the lead and dropped the witness.

Why? Well, only two things could have caused this: 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 -- or they realized Hutchinson was not a good witness and was wasting their time. I don't know why Rumbelow is speculating on the former, rather than the latter, but perhaps he has his reasons.

Best,
Pat D.

[Wickerman]

Hi PCDunn,

I can assure you that not a shred of evidence exists to support the contention that Hutchinson's suspect was found and exonerated, not least because it couldn't possibly have happened.

Personally Ben, I don't think it is PCDunn who needs any "assuring". That would be Don Rumbelow. Why don't you contact him and assure him where he went wrong?
Better still, just ask him what he meant, you never know, he just may know something you don't.

I think you're concerned he just might be referring to the most likely person, the one you hate talking about.

[Sally]

Wait a minute - what's this?

There is another point that nobody appears to consider. Sgt Badham was an experienced officer, he would have known the Witness Description form off by heart. This form is very detailed, here is a portion of it.
An experienced officer can ask the witness about those details; eyes, nose, hair, moustache, etc. and the end result will be a very detailed description.
The content is provided by Hutchinson, certainly, but the attention to detail of the list is mostly due to the experience of the interviewing Sergeant, who knows his job.

A Witness Description form no less! So, Jon, are you suggesting that Sgt Badham would have led Hutchinson through the Witness Description form?

I'm curious.

[Ben]

So who is the one now suggesting that all constables were honest?

Not me.

I'm the one suggesting that it is fallacious to pretend that only those at the lowest end of the police hierarchy were capable of breaking the rules or succumbing to bribery.

You're correct, the answer is "no", because the audience never happened.

So the Echo even lied about visiting the police station?

Because it was so important to them to resort to subterfuge and fabrication over the mundane, boring detail that yet another false "witness" lead had been discredited?

That'll be it. Gotta be.

What bastards.

[Ben]

Hi PCDunn,

I can assure you that not a shred of evidence exists to support the contention that Hutchinson's suspect was found and exonerated, not least because it couldn't possibly have happened. If the "real" Astrakhan ever found himself in police custody, he had no conceivable means of providng an "alibi" for the very uncertain time of death. Could Lewis and Prater prove that the cry of murder occurred at a specific time, and that it definitely signalled the time at which the murder was committed, and that anyone who might have departed the scene before that moment must be innocent? Of course not. It's impossible. Which means that in the scarily unlikely event that Astrakhan was positively identified, he would have earned himself perpetual suspect status in the absence of any proof of guilt and the certain absence of any alibi with which to prove him innocent.

Regards,
Ben