The Red Handkerchief...

[Fisherman]

It points to a witness being considered important enough that the senior detective should be notified and allowed to interrogate and evaluate the witness -- just as was done with Israel Schwartz -- nothing more or less, unless further interrogation reveals something suspicious about the witness, which didn't seem to happen in either instance.

Very much like c.d. says, yes - a person of interest. Whether there was any suspicion of any kind against the man at any stage of the investigation we will never know. I can only reiterate that either Sugden or Evans (I canīt remember which one of them) actually says that it seems there was some initial suspicion.
What Dew has to say about him seems to point to the police never leaving the impression that he was an altogether honest man.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

Ah, so they were infallible instead?

I think we must allow for a span inbetween imbecile and infallible.

Here's something to consider. I have been researching a man recently whose criminal career spanned some 30 years. In all that time, the police never came near discovering who he really was. He lived - and died - under a pseudonym.

The police had him in custody numerous times, and I dare say some of them felt they knew him pretty well; yet his true identity, and the life that accompanied it, were never brought to light. He did such a good job of deceiving those around him that he's remained hidden until now.

He was able to do that because he was clever. He was an accomplished liar. You think that in the immensely difficult days following Kelly's death; amidst the dozens of men who came forward with information, the police couldn't have been taken in by a clever, accomplished liar?

I donīt think so - I think that we must always leave learoom for somebody being able to con the police. It happens.

What I donīt think, however, is that Hutchinson is such a man.

Letīs not get things muddled and mixed up here.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hutchinson was "interrogated" for the purpose of determining whether or not he was telling the truth, and Abberline makes that very clear in his report. The interrogation had nothing to do with any consideration that he might have been responsible for the crime, or else he'd have said "I have interrogated him this evening, and I am of the opinion that he was not Jack the Ripper".

Unless you realize it yourself, Abberlines words "I am of the meaning that he is telling the truth" very clearly absolve Hutchinson from having been the Ripper to Abberlinesīmind.
He did not HAVE to say "I donīt think he is the Ripper". In fact, it would have sounded a bit amateurish to my ears, but maybe thatīs just me.

The best,
Fisherman

[c.d.]

Hello Ben,

All right, let's make it claim rather than admission. We constantly go round and round with the whole suspect tag. However, to believe that the police didn't consider Hutchinson's story to be suspicious is, in my opinion, assigning the tag of naive to the police. I really don't see a lot of distinction between suspicious and suspect initially. The difference would come if the suspicions of the police were not allayed as a result of their questioning. That would mean that he now becomes a suspect. So, take your choice -- person of interest, suspicious, suspect etc. You are going to get questioned and your answers had better be good ones.

Since Hutchinson is never mentioned as a "suspect", I can only believe that he passed the test. If that means he fooled the police then so be it. But that is a far cry from saying well if he was not considered a suspect then the police never had any suspicions with respect to him.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

I have no problem with you having a conviction with regard to Toppy and the signatures, providing you don't present it as fact (and on the wrong thread).

Iīm afraid you are not in the position to ask me not to present suggestions and theories like facts, given how you yourself repeatedly do just that. Take a look at post 1124, and you will see what I mean.

I support my take on the Hutchinson/Toppy connection with Leanderīs results, clearly pointing to a match ("I would be surprised if future finds did not confirm this", remember?)

The matterīs settled as far as I am concerned. It is not a fact that the signatures are by the same man - there was not enough material to establish this. What there was, however, pointed in one direction only.

At any rate, I am not going to start any discussion with you over the matter. You will have to accept that I regard the signature business as a done deal, and that I regard it as 99,9 per cent safe to say that we have a match.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi CD,

However, to believe that the police didn't consider Hutchinson's story to be suspicious is, in my opinion, assigning the tag of naive to the police.

Ah, but they did consider "Hutchinson's story to be suspicious", not initially perhaps, but as a result of "later investigation" conducted after the Abberline interrogation (which allowed for little more than a face-value assessment pending further inquiries). Hutchinson was evidently assigned the same status as Packer and Violenia before him - that of a publicity or money-seeker. This would not have been possible had the police genuinely believed he was there, but for nefarious reasons.

Any thoughts on the Violenia comparison, and why he never became a “person of interest”?

"So, take your choice -- person of interest, suspicious, suspect etc."

No, more like: "take your choice - innocent witness or bogus publicity-seeking liar". Those were the only options the police were likely to consider when it came to witnesses coming forward voluntarily. There is precious little chance of the police even toying with the possibility that Jack the Ripper would approach the police voluntarily. If such a thing had never happened before in their experience, why would they entertain the superficially improbable and outlandish? The power of a preconception cannot be understated, and it has nothing to do with naivety.

Since Hutchinson is never mentioned as a "suspect", I can only believe that he passed the test. If that means he fooled the police then so be it.

Yes, I was going to say - even if we embrace the amazingly unlikely scenario that he was suspected (of actually killing, not just of lying), there is even less chance of the police ever being in a position to rule him out. Their only option, in the case of unresolved suspicion, was to keep him under discreet surveillance a la Kosminski. But, of course, unless that surveillance lasted for the next eight months (covering the McKenzie murder) there was next to no chance of catching him red-handed.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Unless you realize it yourself, Abberlines words "I am of the meaning that he is telling the truth" very clearly absolves Hutchinson from having been the Ripper to Abberlinesīmind.

No, Fisherman.

One cannot absolve from one's mind that which was never present there in the first place, such as the possibility of Hutchinson being Jack the Ripper.

What Dew has to say about him seems to point to the police never leaving the impression that he was an altogether honest man.

No.

Dew doesn't say a single thing about what “the police” thought of Hutchinson. He only offered his own personal speculations on the subject in his 1938 book which, according to you, is "riddled with mistakes".

“You will have to accept that I regard the signature business as a done deal, and that I regard it as 99,9 per cent safe to say that we have a match.”

And you will have to accept that I regard the signature business as a done deal, and that I regard it as 99.9 per cent safe that we have a mismatch. You will have to accept that I endorse the only professional comparison of the signatures – the one conducted by Sue Iremonger in 1993, when she presented her analysis at the World Association of Document Examiners conference. You will have to accept that I reject the so-called “Leander analysis” as a nonsense involving emailed copies of one signature and NO original documents. You will have to accept my impression that the man’s inconsistent responses were engendered by continued, pointless requests for clarification.

“At any rate, I am not going to start any discussion with you over the matter.”

Good call.

And please PLEASE don’t do your usual “Well Ben, I DID SAY I wasn’t going to respond, but now that you’ve said the following, I simply must!”

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

One cannot absolve from one's mind that which was never present there in the first place, such as the possibility of Hutchinson being Jack the Ripper.

That was not the question. The question was whether Abberline would need to specify that he did not feel that Hutchinson was the Ripper. So this odd claim of yours belongs to another discussion - if any.

And just as has been pointed out to you, what you think applies in the errand is not necessarily synonymous with the truth.

... please PLEASE don’t do your usual “Well Ben, I DID SAY I wasn’t going to respond, but now that you’ve said the following, I simply must!”

Donīt try to govern what I write or say, Ben. I said that I am going to avoid a discussion with you over the signature matter, and I will do just that.

That does not mean that you will have any impact at all over what I do choose to communicate on the boards.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Nope, never happened. There are many other reasons do dismiss Hutch as a suspect, but this aint one of them. As a someone who is a stickler for evidence and good with details and historical sources, im surprised you mention this.

Had Abberline not been satisfied with Hutchinson's story, and if the police were still suspicious of his actions, Abberline would not have reported that he was satisfied Huthchinson was being truthful.

When something remains to be investigated, when there is the smalest remnants of doubt, the lead investigating officer does not report to his superior "I am satisfied Hutchinson is telling the truth".

Its really as simple as that.

[Wickerman]

Is it Evans or Sugden who says that the fact that Abberline interrogated Hutchinson points to an early suspicion of possible guilt?

Exactly, the last man claiming to see the victim alive is an automatic suspect.
Which doesn't mean they lock him up, but it does mean he is required to establish his presence and provide sufficient details to enable Abberline to at least verify the basics of his story.

Which brings us back to Sarah Lewis and statements from other witnesses who we are not aware of, including any notes from beat constables.
We don't know what means Abberline had at his disposal, all we know is his conclusion which cannot be easily dismissed.

[Ben]

When something remains to be investigated, when there is the smalest remnants of doubt, the lead investigating officer does not report to his superior "I am satisfied Hutchinson is telling the truth".

But Abberline didn't say any such thing, Jon, so why wrap it in quotation marks? What he actually said was "I am of opinion that his statement is true" (my bold), and that's all he was capable of on the evening of the 12th November, considering that Hutchinson had only made himself known to the police at 6pm that evening. Opinion, nothing more. This is a crucial point so often overlooked: at the time Abberline penned that report, there was no means of verifying or investigating any aspect of his account, with the exception of his residency at the Victoria Home. This was 1888 - there was no question of a modern-day "background check", and no DNA on file.

There was also no question of "verifying the basis of his story" at any stage, less still on the evening of the 12th November. Verify with what? Hundreds of sworn statements from members of the public who were all looking out of their windows in the small hours of the morning and documenting Hutchinson's every move?

No, in the absence of any means of verifying Hutchinson's claims - and before any investigation into them could possibly occur - Abberline was forced to rely on face-value "opinion" only, and fortunate it is that he concedes as much.

"Exactly, the last man claiming to see the victim alive is an automatic suspect."

Absolutely not.

No evidence for this at all.

The last man who actually saw the victim alive is a potential suspect, but a man who comes forward voluntarily and claims to be the last to see the victim alive is a potential witness or a potential fame-seeking bullshitter.

Those were the only options that the police would realistically have considered in 1888.

No evidence that Sarah Lewis's evidence was ever compared to Hutchinson's in order for the "wideawake = Hutchinson" possibility to be noted, and certainly no realistic chance of "beat constables" verifying any aspect of Hutchinson's claims.

...or else his statement would not have been discredited.

Best regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

But Abberline didn't say any such thing, Jon, so why wrap it in quotation marks? What he actually said was "I am of opinion that his statement is true" (my bold), and that's all he was capable of on the evening of the 12th November, considering that Hutchinson had only made himself known to the police at 6pm that evening.

As I already pointed out, neither you nor I know what resources Abberline had at his disposal in order for him to draw the conclusion he did.
So lets not pretend otherwise just to satisfy a belief.

Absolutely not.

I'll take Mr Evan's opinion on this if you don't mind, you know.. the voice of experience (hint..hint)

Here comes the subliminal message...

...or else his statement would not have been discredited.

It never was Ben, and you know it.

[Ben]

As I already pointed out, neither you nor I know what resources Abberline had at his disposal in order for him to draw the conclusion he did.

He could have had a magic wand, I suppose, but failing that...

It wasn't a "conclusion", it was just an "opinion", which was all he was capable of at that stage, pending possible further investigation.

It never was Ben, and you know it.

Yes it was, Jon.

And please don't accuse me of lying. It's not very friendly.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sally]

Yes, I'm afraid so - 'Sigh'.....

As I already pointed out, neither you nor I know what resources Abberline had at his disposal in order for him to draw the conclusion he did.
So lets not pretend otherwise just to satisfy a belief.

Excellent advice, Jon! You should consider taking it yourself.

For all we know, confidence in Hutchinson's having known Kelly for a while coupled with a larger than life description of the semi-mythical 'Well-Dressed' stalker might have been just the ticket.

That could've been it - we don't know why, as you rightly point out. So no need to postulate any now lost golden information that 'would have' demonstrated Hutchinson's truthfulness beyond doubt.

Here comes the subliminal message...

What? 'Hutchinson's statement was'discredited' [para] is a subliminal message?

What?

It seems pretty straightforward to me - and Ben is quite right. It was.

Perhaps Abberline realised what some of us here have - that Hutchinson's story was utterly derivative and therefore cannot have been true.

He probably sighed [ 'Sigh...'] and thought to himself 'Another bloody time-waster'

[Observer]

Three more votes against Hutch being the Ripper I see. It stands 19 against 4 for at present. Pretty conclusive I'd say.