The Red Handkerchief...

[Abby Normal]

Why is the "most obvious, likely and realistic one" not the "Hutch was totally honest" scenario?

The idea that a well-dressed man of Jewish appearance might have been walking along a major London thoroughfare in the small hours of the morning and with half an eye out for a prostitute is not earth-shatteringly improbable. His description is too detailed to be true? He can't possibly have seen that much detail in the prevailing light? If that is such an obvious absurdity why did Abberline find him credible?

I'm not arguing that Hutchinson as a truthful witness is the only possibility, far from it, but it seems to have become a Casebook default setting that Hutchinson 'must have been' a liar because he gave such a detailed description of a man he claimed to have seen. We didn't (and cannot) visit the Spitalfields of the 19th century, but Abberline did and knew it as well as anyone. If the detail of his account was as wholly implausible as so many seem to accept, that fact would have been immediately obvious to a man of Abberline's local knowledge and experience. If Hutchinson was lying, Abberline was deceived. That is not impossible, but I think it unlikely.

1. Lying witnesses were a proven fact in this case ala packer and violenia.
2. The story hutch came up with has been shown to be derivative of an earlier press story and earlier press descriptions of the suspects appearance.
3. The amount of detail he remembered was ridiculed even at the time as being sherlockian.
4. No other witness statement even comes close in its detail and script like description.
5. No one corroborates his story of Aman.
6. The newspapers at the time questioned his credibility by stating he did not appear at the inquest.
7. Hutch states overtly and covertly in his story that he will be able to help the police catch Aman. tipping his hand that the motive is for money.
8. Hutch goes to the papers of his own accord. Tipping his hand that part of the motive is for 15 minutes of fame.
9. Hutch changes his story in significant detail from police to press. Saying in the press statement he now stands by her door. Uh oh.
10. Hutch does not come forward to police until the inquest was over.
11. Circumstances that night indicate that Mary Kelly was in no shape or mood to venture out again after blotchy. Singing, beer, fire, extremely drunk, bad weather.
12. Abberline was overworked, tired and probably ready to clutch onto any lead he could.
13. Police have been known to be deceived by lying witnesses.
14. Abberline may have been initially deceived by hutch because he had just heard Lewis corroborate part of hutches story of him waiting and watching outside millers court.
15. Press said at the time shortly after hutches story came out that it was greatly reduced importance.
16. Police had no reason to claim they didn't Beleive hutches story later as there is nothing to gain, it would make their initial belief look foolish, and there is no way they could prove he was lying.
17. If hutch was telling the truth then he is BY FAR the most important witness for possibly seeing the ripper, and yet quicklyfalls off the face of the earth as a witness.
18. Blinged out rich Jewish men would almost certainly be a rarity in the east end in the middle of the night.

And I'm sure there are more I forgot about that point to hutch lying.
There is not a lot that is certain in this case, but one thing for sure is that hutch was lying.

[Ben]

That's an impressive and persuasive list, Abby. Thanks for that useful summary of the key objections to Hutchinson's truthfulness.

(And if anyone can seriously be arsed to attempt a long-winded point-by-point rebuttal of the above, they can rest assured that I will painstakingly rebut those rebuttals, point-by-point ...and no, that isn't against the rules - either to say so or to do it).

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

I believe one or more of the senior officers (taking into consideration the remarkably detailed description of A man Hutchinson provided)began to doubt his story, much as we do today.

Let me just offer an alternate.

First, the detail.
Hutchinson's brief account, taking up a half page(?), pales into insignificance when compared to Sutcliffe's 34 page confession, all from memory, detailing his victims, in sequence.
The modern issue of 'detail' in Hutchinson's story is a ruse to make his story appear more fantastic, but in reality it is not special at all.
Some people are more observant than others.

Regardless of what Dr Bond wrote about the estimated time of death (between 1:00-2:00am), Scotland Yard had to wait for the official inquest to be concluded. No doubt they had every expectation that the estimated time of death would come out in the testimony of Dr Phillips - it didn't.
All they had were vague references to a (common) cry of murder sometime between 3:00-4:00am.
Scotland Yard had a huge problem, with no official time of death they had no focus for a suspect.

Then Hutchinson appears and his story places more emphasis on the 3-4:00am t.o.d., but Dr Bond, in a private report, had already suggested 1-2:00am, more consistent with the Cox suspect.
The press only heard about Hutchinson, they had no idea about Dr Bond's report, that was internal.

So you have Hutchinson, and his brief rise to fame (with his principal suspect story) over Monday night into Tuesday morning, but, before the end of the day rumors were abroad about the authorities being divided over two principal suspects.
This will be the "reduced importance" alluded to by the Echo.

As reported in the Echo (13th Nov.), the authorities (City/Met) were now divided between the Cox suspect, and the Hutchinson suspect.

So soon after the inquest, the sudden appearance of a prime suspect, was followed within hours by the authorities being divided, and now we have two suspects.

The Star appears to have concluded that Hutchinson had been discredited, but the Echo got it correct, Hutchinson's story was reduced in importance but not dismissed. The problem was, they had no idea why.

That's how the pieces fit together for me.

[GUT]

G'day Abby

8. Hutch goes to the papers of his own accord.

I've seen that claim before, but have never been able to find a source proving that the press didn't go to him, can you point me in the right direction?

11. Circumstances that night indicate that Mary Kelly was in no shape or mood to venture out again after blotchy. Singing, beer, fire, extremely drunk, bad weather.

Can we change that to May have been in no, shape because we don't know, I couldn't count how many people I've know who were in no shape to go out but did so, may have even done it myself a time or two.

13. Police have been known to be deceived by lying witnesses

That can be said about every witness we have.

14. Abberline may have been initially deceived by hutch because he had just heard Lewis corroborate part of hutches story of him waiting and watching outside millers court.

I would have thought that a corroborative witness was a big plus for Hutch as after all at point 8 you say you doubt him because no one corroborates A Man, you can't have it both ways

15. Press said at the time shortly after hutches story came out that it was greatly reduced importance.

Note your words, Greatly reduced inmportance, not discredited.

16. Police had no reason to claim they didn't Beleive hutches story later as there is nothing to gain, it would make their initial belief look foolish, and there is no way they could prove he was lying.

So are you saying the face the police didn't say they don't believe him, means that he was discredited?

17. If hutch was telling the truth then he is BY FAR the most important witness for possibly seeing the ripper, and yet quicklyfalls off the face of the earth as a witness.

We don't know that, we just assume it, we have so much material missing, he may have been told shut up and stop talking you are our best witness, mightn't he?

18. Blinged out rich Jewish men would almost certainly be a rarity in the east end in the middle of the night.

I'm not so sure about that it simply our 21st century take.

[Wickerman]

1. Lying witnesses were a proven fact in this case ala packer and violenia.
2. The story hutch came up with has been shown to be derivative of an earlier press story and earlier press descriptions of the suspects appearance.
3. The amount of detail he remembered was ridiculed even at the time as being sherlockian.
4. No other witness statement even comes close in its detail and script like description.
5. No one corroborates his story of Aman.
6. The newspapers at the time questioned his credibility by stating he did not appear at the inquest.
7. Hutch states overtly and covertly in his story that he will be able to help the police catch Aman. tipping his hand that the motive is for money.
8. Hutch goes to the papers of his own accord. Tipping his hand that part of the motive is for 15 minutes of fame.
9. Hutch changes his story in significant detail from police to press. Saying in the press statement he now stands by her door. Uh oh.
10. Hutch does not come forward to police until the inquest was over.
11. Circumstances that night indicate that Mary Kelly was in no shape or mood to venture out again after blotchy. Singing, beer, fire, extremely drunk, bad weather.
12. Abberline was overworked, tired and probably ready to clutch onto any lead he could.
13. Police have been known to be deceived by lying witnesses.
14. Abberline may have been initially deceived by hutch because he had just heard Lewis corroborate part of hutches story of him waiting and watching outside millers court.
15. Press said at the time shortly after hutches story came out that it was greatly reduced importance.
16. Police had no reason to claim they didn't Beleive hutches story later as there is nothing to gain, it would make their initial belief look foolish, and there is no way they could prove he was lying.
17. If hutch was telling the truth then he is BY FAR the most important witness for possibly seeing the ripper, and yet quicklyfalls off the face of the earth as a witness.
18. Blinged out rich Jewish men would almost certainly be a rarity in the east end in the middle of the night.

And I'm sure there are more I forgot about that point to hutch lying.
There is not a lot that is certain in this case, but one thing for sure is that hutch was lying.

And we wonder why serious researchers have departed Casebook...

[GUT]

G'day Jon

As reported in the Echo (13th Nov.), the authorities (City/Met) were now divided between the Cox suspect, and the Hutchinson suspect.

So soon after the inquest, the sudden appearance of a prime suspect, was followed within hours by the authorities being divided, and now we have two suspects.

The Star appears to have concluded that Hutchinson had been discredited, but the Echo got it correct, Hutchinson's story was reduced in importance but not dismissed. The problem was, they had no idea why.

That's how the pieces fit together for me.

I don't disagree.

But if Maxwell and Maurice Lewis are believed it all changes again does it not.

If it was just one of them I can disregard them without a second thought but two people reporting MJK alive in the morning troubles me.

[Sally]

Where would Ben be without his sidekick...

Yes, to kill a friend.

More personal attack from you Jon? Tsk tsk.

And I see that I'm not your only target...

And we wonder why serious researchers have departed Casebook...

You seem to be the only one posting on this thread who feels it necessary to resort to such base tactics - the rest of us are engaged in a civil exchange, whether we agree with one another or not.

Your constant sniping is disappointing - and it doesn't do you any favours.

[Sally]

I've seen that claim before, but have never been able to find a source proving that the press didn't go to him, can you point me in the right direction?

Hi Gut,

I'm not sure that we know? The press may well have gone to him, but if they did, he was under no obligation to talk to them.

Yet talk he did, giving an account at variance in detail with his account to the police and adding other information at the same time.

The additional information which appears in his account to the press would, one would think, be of interest to the police - yet it doesn't appear in his statement, or in Abberline's report.

If he really had told the Sunday policeman the same story surely he'd have given his statement sooner?

Unless we want to suggest that the Sunday policeman was grossly negligent [unlikely, given the circumstances] then unfortunately Hutchinson's story starts to look like yet another pork pie.

...which incidentally rhymes with 'Pigs might fly'! Look at that! Oink...

[Sally]

Hutchinson's brief account, taking up a half page(?), pales into insignificance when compared to Sutcliffe's 34 page confession, all from memory, detailing his victims, in sequence.
The modern issue of 'detail' in Hutchinson's story is a ruse to make his story appear more fantastic, but in reality it is not special at all.
Some people are more observant than others.

Hmm...

So you're comparing Hutchinson to a serial killer and mutilator of prostitutes?

Yes, yes, Jon, I see what you mean - nothing special about his memory at all...

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I have been on Casebook, longer then most of you, way before the millennium, so I am immune to opinions that may give out offence to some people..guess that means I am ''thick skinned''.
The true fact is none of us know the true account of the case, we were not around them , and even if we were, we were have been like all the others then completely in the dark..
We have no idea , if the Ripper was caught , or not...the case is considered ''unsolved'' because of that we assume, that he remained at liberty,..but he also could have been , incarcerated, or even put to death behind closed doors.
None of us know the truth.
To be honest , despite research from many great enthusiasts of the case, which must include a special mention to the late Chris Scott, we have not unearthed a single nugget...we still can not identify the real Joseph Barnett , or the enigma that is Mary Kelly, all we seem to do is going over the same old ground, and the same old arguments , especially the witness Hutchinson.which is tiresome reading, apart from the hard core on this topic...
None of us will budge, Ben is adamant he is right, so too Fisherman, I refuse to budge on my Topping views[ inc Radio] and although debate is healthy , and enjoyable. we could all do without the sarcasm, that accompanies it...
There I have had my pennyworth..
Feel much better now..
Regards Richard.

[Abby Normal]

Let me just offer an alternate.

First, the detail.
Hutchinson's brief account, taking up a half page(?), pales into insignificance when compared to Sutcliffe's 34 page confession, all from memory, detailing his victims, in sequence.
The modern issue of 'detail' in Hutchinson's story is a ruse to make his story appear more fantastic, but in reality it is not special at all.
Some people are more observant than others.

Regardless of what Dr Bond wrote about the estimated time of death (between 1:00-2:00am), Scotland Yard had to wait for the official inquest to be concluded. No doubt they had every expectation that the estimated time of death would come out in the testimony of Dr Phillips - it didn't.
All they had were vague references to a (common) cry of murder sometime between 3:00-4:00am.
Scotland Yard had a huge problem, with no official time of death they had no focus for a suspect.

Then Hutchinson appears and his story places more emphasis on the 3-4:00am t.o.d., but Dr Bond, in a private report, had already suggested 1-2:00am, more consistent with the Cox suspect.
The press only heard about Hutchinson, they had no idea about Dr Bond's report, that was internal.

So you have Hutchinson, and his brief rise to fame (with his principal suspect story) over Monday night into Tuesday morning, but, before the end of the day rumors were abroad about the authorities being divided over two principal suspects.
This will be the "reduced importance" alluded to by the Echo.

As reported in the Echo (13th Nov.), the authorities (City/Met) were now divided between the Cox suspect, and the Hutchinson suspect.

So soon after the inquest, the sudden appearance of a prime suspect, was followed within hours by the authorities being divided, and now we have two suspects.

The Star appears to have concluded that Hutchinson had been discredited, but the Echo got it correct, Hutchinson's story was reduced in importance but not dismissed. The problem was, they had no idea why.

That's how the pieces fit together for me.

Are you seriously trying to say that the police would diminish the importance of one suspect, for the only reason that there are two suspects?

The police are a little more intelligent than that.

[Abby Normal]

And we wonder why serious researchers have departed Casebook...

Yeah. Probably because of the proliferation of personal attacks like this and crank theories like conpiracy and and toff ripper theories.

[Ben]

It evidently needs saying again - the police did not endorse Bond's time of death to the exclusion of all other witness testimony, and these include the Miller's Court witnesses, two of whom independently supported a time of death sometime between 3.00am and some time after 4.00am, and another doctor who opted for a time of death between 5.00am and 6.00am. The alleged preferential treatment of Dr. Bond's evidence quite simply never happened, and as a Star article I provided ages ago aptly demonstrates, the likelihood is that the police were swayed by the time of death inferred from the evidence of Prater and Lewis.

The "very reduced importance" alluded to in the Echo had absolutely nothing to do with Bond or Mary Cox. Hutchinson's statement didn't get reduced in terms of importance and then subsequently discredited simply because another witness saw the victim earlier on the evening, which was old news anyway. If we're going to use the Echo as a source, at least acknowledge what they actually recorded as reasons for Hutchinson's evidence being "considerably discounted".

"such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?"

...(it was) considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner"

Reasons that related directly to the issue of credibility in other words. It is entirely consistent with the report in the Star on the 15th November, which stated that the account was "now discredited" along with Matthew Packer's - both witness having supplied "worthless stories (that) lead the police on false scents".

I'd love to see the evidence for Sutcliffe's confession being any more detailed than Hutchinson's description. It isn't just "memory" that's the problem; he was very unlikely to have noticed many of the things he claimed to have then memorized.

[Abby Normal]

Hi,
I have been on Casebook, longer then most of you, way before the millennium, so I am immune to opinions that may give out offence to some people..guess that means I am ''thick skinned''.
The true fact is none of us know the true account of the case, we were not around them , and even if we were, we were have been like all the others then completely in the dark..
We have no idea , if the Ripper was caught , or not...the case is considered ''unsolved'' because of that we assume, that he remained at liberty,..but he also could have been , incarcerated, or even put to death behind closed doors.
None of us know the truth.
To be honest , despite research from many great enthusiasts of the case, which must include a special mention to the late Chris Scott, we have not unearthed a single nugget...we still can not identify the real Joseph Barnett , or the enigma that is Mary Kelly, all we seem to do is going over the same old ground, and the same old arguments , especially the witness Hutchinson.which is tiresome reading, apart from the hard core on this topic...
None of us will budge, Ben is adamant he is right, so too Fisherman, I refuse to budge on my Topping views[ inc Radio] and although debate is healthy , and enjoyable. we could all do without the sarcasm, that accompanies it...
There I have had my pennyworth..
Feel much better now..
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard
Totally agree. and I am as guilty of it as anyone.

However, I somewhat disagree on your other point, as I think people do find new "nuggets" like the recent discussion on this thread of newspaper accounts that hutchs story seems to be derivitve of. and if not completely new nuggets at least new ways to analyze old facts, like dare I say fishs wrong night idea. (which I find highly unlikely, but valid in exploring).

But your right about tone. we need to calm down the hyperbole, sarcasm and personal stuff, myself included.

[Abby Normal]

It evidently needs saying again - the police did not endorse Bond's time of death to the exclusion of all other witness testimony, and these include the Miller's Court witnesses, two of whom independently supported a time of death sometime between 3.00am and some time after 4.00am, and another doctor who opted for a time of death between 5.00am and 6.00am. The alleged preferential treatment of Dr. Bond's evidence quite simply never happened, and as a Star article I provided ages ago aptly demonstrates, the likelihood is that the police were swayed by the time of death inferred from the evidence of Prater and Lewis.

The "very reduced importance" alluded to in the Echo had absolutely nothing to do with Bond or Mary Cox. Hutchinson's statement didn't get reduced in terms of importance and then subsequently discredited simply because another witness saw the victim earlier on the evening, which was old news anyway. If we're going to use the Echo as a source, at least acknowledge what they actually recorded as reasons for Hutchinson's evidence being "considerably discounted".

"such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?"

...(it was) considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner"

Reasons that related directly to the issue of credibility in other words. It is entirely consistent with the report in the Star on the 15th November, which stated that the account was "now discredited" along with Matthew Packer's - both witness having supplied "worthless stories (that) lead the police on false scents".

I'd love to see the evidence for Sutcliffe's confession being any more detailed than Hutchinson's description. It isn't just "memory" that's the problem; he was very unlikely to have noticed many of the things he claimed to have then memorized.

as usual a good post Ben.