The Red Handkerchief...

[Ben]

Well, I thought that was me up to date with all the Hutchinson stuff, but then - oh dear! - what should I find buried deep within a "Black Magic" thread, but this from Fisherman:

It is speculated that Hutchinson was alone with one of the victims.
we KNOW, however, that Lechmere WAS alone with one of the victims.

It is speculated that Hutchinson used a false name.
We KNOW, however, that Lechmere did this.

It is speculated that Hutchinson lied to the police.
We KNOW, however, that the inquest recordings clearly suggest that Lechmere did precisely this.

It is speculated that Hutchinson will have walked the streets where the victims were found.
We KNOW, however, that Lechmere had both professional and social reasons to do so.

Dealing with the first mentioned, the crucial and obvious difference is that finding a body is a completely inevitable event. It had to fall to someone to encounter the body at some stage, and at that hour of the morning, the people most likely to be up and about were policemen on beat or early workers such as carmen. There is nothing so unsuspicious as an inevitable event such as finding a body. Whereas loitering opposite a crime scene shortly before the crime occurred, as Hutchinson most probably did, can be described as suspicious behaviour with far more justification, given the known serial killers who have done precisely that.

Cross did not use a "false" name. He used his stepfather's name - an actual name, by which he had actually been called.

Your third "point" is the most ridiculous of the four. Hutchinson was discredited because he was suspected of lying, whereas Cross was treated as an honest witness throughout. Cross attended the inquest, whereas Hutchinson didn't. Hutchinson waited three days and only came forward after the inquest finished, whereas Cross didn't. Cross's evidence is straighforward and not overladen with implausible detail, whereas Hutchinson...

I think you get the picture.

As for the last one, I can scarcely believe what I'm reading. Cross "had reason" to walk past those streets from outside the killing fields. Terrific. How knicker-soilingly suspicious. Hutchinson lived right in the heart of where the murders were being committed. He had only to put one foot outside his front door and he was "walking the streets where the victims were found".

Dan Norder's post from six years ago still holds true:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=9672&postcount=16

Don't pick these sorts of fights in future, please.

Or at the very least, pick one on a weaker theory.

[Bridewell]

Originally Posted by Ben

I'm saying it has been satisfactorily established that, rightly or wrongly, Hutchinson was discredited at the time.

By whom?

I asked that question in post 213, Jon:

Quote:
Hutchinson's statement was dismissed

Was it? By whom?

I didn't get a reply.

Hutchinson was waiting around, in the small hours of a November morning, opposite the entrance to Millers Court. I don't think anybody disputes that. So was he waiting for penniless Kelly or for a prosperous-looking man who had been wearing what looked like a thick gold watch-chain? Presumably not Kelly if his intention was to enter her room and kill her.

We can speculate that Hutchinson was discredited, or we can speculate on the reasons why Abberline, having interrogated him, expressed his only recorded view on the subject, namely that Hutchinson was telling the truth. I suspect that Hutchinson was a thief who had Astrakhan Man down as a likely mark. That would explain why he noted what he did about the man's appearance; it would also explain why he was initially reluctant to come forward; it would also explain - if he was candid about what his intentions had been on the night - why Abberline considered him credible. If you argue that Hutchinson lacks credibility because the man he describes is an invention, it raises in my mind the question of what exactly Hutchinson was waiting for. If Astrakhan Man didn't exist, why did Hutchinson need to wait around in the street as we know he did? If Astrakhan Man did exist, the argument against Hutchinson's credibility is demolished.

We know that someone was waiting opposite Millers Court and people waiting around in the street were liable to be challenged by the police if seen, so there was a clear risk, for a guilty man, in doing so. He must, therefore, have been waiting for a reason. If that man was Hutchinson (on which point there seems to be consensus) what exactly was he waiting for if Astrakhan Man was his own invention? Why not just walk into No.13 and kill Kelly if that was his intention? If your intention is to kill Kelly in her room why wait for her to come back out onto the street?


__________________

[Ben]

Hi Bridewell,

I didn't get a reply.

The police. ...Is the answer.

The police discredited Hutchinson's statement, and evidently because they doubted his credibility, as they had doubted the credibility of many self-confessed "witnesses" before him. And I'm afraid that this is factually established, as discussed in extensive detail on many occasions, and is not just "speculation" on the part of the contemporary press or latter-day "ripperologists".

Hutchinson was waiting around, in the small hours of a November morning, opposite the entrance to Millers Court. I don't think anybody disputes that

A great deal of people dispute it. I'm personally not one of them, but there are quite a number who subscribe to the view that Hutchinson invented the entire thing, including his alleged vigil on Dorset Street.

I'm afraid I don't invest much stock in the idea that Hutchinson was a thief for three crucial reasons.

#1 If robbery was on Hutchinson's mind that night, would he really have alluded to the man's expensive accessories when speaking with police, incriminating himself so blatantly? And if Astrakhan was aware of Hutchinson following him, just how likely is that he'd corner himself in a small room with the full expectation that he might be hanging around to rob him? And with such a wealth of accessories there for the grabbing, why give up after purely on account of Astrakhan's failure to emerge after 45 minutes? And what obstacle was Kelly to any robbery attempt?

#2 If Hutchinson's behaviour is odd in the extreme for a would-be thief, then Astrakhan's is doubly so for a would be killer. It is irrefutably unlikely that anyone would be so comically unstreetwise as to risk dressing up in such ostentatious and expensive-looking accessories and clothing - especially if he was the real killer - and even less likely that he'd depart the area unaccosted if he did. This was a street frequently alluded to as one of the worst in London, at a time when - thanks to the ripper scare - anyone vaguely out-of-the-ordinary was likely to be made of a target of by a suspicious mob.

#3 If Hutchinson admitted to Abberline that he was a thief, it would have appeared in the latter's private, internal police report to his superiors. The fact that no such detail appears means that no such admission was made by Hutchinson.

If that man was Hutchinson (on which point there seems to be consensus) what exactly was he waiting for if Astrakhan Man was his own invention? Why not just walk into No.13 and kill Kelly if that was his intention?

Garry Wroe has made the sensible suggestion that he may have been waiting for the Blotchy man to emerge from the Court, but alternatively, he may simply have allowed a decent interval of time for the latest entrants to the Court - Lewis at 2:30am and Mary Cox at 3.00am - to settle down to bed and to sleep before entering the court. If he'd followed hot on the heels of Mary Ann Cox, for example, there was the obvious risk of her seeing or hearing him entering the court, or worse, room #13. If he was the killer, he may simply have waited until he'd satisfied himself that all was quiet in the Court.

All the best,
Ben

[Bridewell]

The police discredited Hutchinson's statement, and evidently because they doubted his credibility, as they had doubted the credibility of many self-confessed "witnesses" before him. And I'm afraid that this is factually established, as discussed in extensive detail on many occasions, and is not just "speculation" on the part of the contemporary press or latter-day "ripperologists".

I've seen it argued but by no means 'factually established'. It is, I'm afraid, speculation on the part of the contemporary press and latter-day "ripperologists". Nothing wrong with such speculation, of course, but it has to be acknowledged for what it is. There is no evidence that the police changed their minds about the credibility of Hutchinson.

I'm afraid I don't invest much stock in the idea that Hutchinson was a thief for three crucial reasons.

#1 If robbery was on Hutchinson's mind that night, would he really have alluded to the man's expensive accessories when speaking with police, incriminating himself so blatantly?

Yes if the likely alternative was being hanged as a vicious serial killer.

And if Astrakhan was aware of Hutchinson following him, just how likely is that he'd corner himself in a small room with the full expectation that he might be hanging around to rob him?

We don't know that Astrakhan Man was aware that Hutchinson was following him, still less hanging around outside. We do know that the man who killed at least some of the Whitechapel victims was a risk taker though.

And with such a wealth of accessories there for the grabbing, why give up after purely on account of Astrakhan's failure to emerge after 45 minutes?

We don't know that he did. We only know what is documented in his formal statement. Such statements are compiled after a lengthy Q & A session between officer and witness before being put onto paper in an acceptable form. We don't know what he told Badham and Abberline that didn't go into his statement - only that Abberline, for whatever reason, believed him to be telling the truth.

And what obstacle was Kelly to any robbery attempt?

None, but I didn't suggest otherwise.

#2 If Hutchinson's behaviour is odd in the extreme for a would-be thief,

It isn't.

then Astrakhan's is doubly so for a would be killer. It is irrefutably unlikely that anyone would be so comically unstreetwise as to risk dressing up in such ostentatious and expensive-looking accessories and clothing - especially if he was the real killer -

Irrefutably unlikely?The 'real killer' was a vicious and merciless individual armed with one or more knives and experienced in their use. He would probably feel quite confident in his ability to fight off a street robber. Such confidence might have proved to be misplaced, but that is another matter.

and even less likely that he'd depart the area unaccosted if he did.

We don't know that he wasn't accosted do we? It's not as though he is likely to have reported the fact if he was.

#3 If Hutchinson admitted to Abberline that he was a thief, it would have appeared in the latter's private, internal police report to his superiors.

If you hoped to use such a man as a vital identification witness would you commit that detail (his thieving intentions) to paper (and thereby create a paper trail which could come back to haunt you) or would you relay it by word of mouth?

The fact that no such detail appears means that no such admission was made by Hutchinson

And the fact that there is no record of Abberline having a change of heart about the veracity of Hutchinson means that no such change of heart took place? (Same argument).

Apologies for playing devil's advocate here. It's not personal. I just prefer to proceed on an 'all options' basis as far as possible. Thank-you for taking the time to give such a considered reply. I concede that you may very well be right. My sole aim is to point out that, while likely, it's not the only possibility.

[Ben]

Many thanks for your reply, Bridewell.

It is, I'm afraid, speculation on the part of the contemporary press and latter-day "ripperologists".

No, that isn't the case at all.

Not remotely so.

And contrary to what some of my detractors on this thread have claimed, I am not in the habit of mutating opinions into fact. The discrediting of Hutchinson on the grounds of a reduced faith in his credibility on the part of the police is the only detail on which I'm insistent, because the evidence bears this out. The media made it perfectly clear when they were "speculating". Were they to write, for example, that "the police seem to be suffering from a lack of clues", that would constitute an instance of "speculation". If, on the other hand, they stated that they made personal inquiries at Commercial Street Police Station, and there extracted information we know to be both accurate and only obtainable from police sources (which is certainly what happened), that's not speculating. That's conducting an investigation and reporting on the results of it. Note the Echo's terminology:

"From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, 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?

"From latest inquiries" and "in the light of later investigation" we learn that "the authorities" were querying the late presentation of his evidence.

They were clearly not "speculating".

They were either faithfully reporting on the latest investigation or lying about it for some (?) reason, and they certainly weren't doing the latter, or else they would not have obtained accurate information from the police on a semi-related issue the very next day - as we know they did.

Yes if the likely alternative was being hanged as a vicious serial killer.

You're saying that if Hutchinson was a thief with designs on Astrakhan man's bling, the "likely alternative" to not admitting this was being hanged as a vicious serial killer? I don't see how that follows at all.

We don't know that Astrakhan Man was aware that Hutchinson was following him, still less hanging around outside.

He'd be an oddly oblivious individual, given the circumstances, especially if he was the real killer. Is it likely that the most wanted man in London would dismiss as trivial the fact that a man had just "stooped down" to look him in the face? What if this strange "stooping" man was a plain clothes policeman or a vigilance committee member? The idea that "Jackstrakhan" would not have been deeply wary of further intrusion from Hutchinson is completely untenable, to my mind.

We don't know what he told Badham and Abberline that didn't go into his statement

But we do know that unless Abberline was grossly incompetent and had a screw or two loose, there was no earthly reason to withhold from his superiors any additional details that might have enhanced Hutchinson's credibility, thus bolstering his own "opinion that his statement is true". Abberline did cite various details in his report that were not to be found within the body of the statement itself, and unfortunately, they were not of a nature that impacted on his credibility.

The 'real killer' was a vicious and merciless individual armed with one or more knives and experienced in their use. He would probably feel quite confident in his ability to fight off a street robber.

That's not the point.

As "vicious" and "merciless" as he was, he would not have been oblivious to the dangers of receiving unwanted attention from the worst possible types, i.e. other criminals. Being able to fight them off would not have made a prudent move out of dressing himself in a manner that was guaranteed to attract interest from both muggers and wannabe vigilantee types, many of them labouring under the press-generated impression of the ripper as a sinister Jewish outsider. Interesting use of the singular, by the way ("a street robber"). I think you'll find there was more than one street robber to be found on an average night in that grotspot, and that they often operated in gangs.

We don't know that he wasn't accosted do we? It's not as though he is likely to have reported the fact if he was.

But it's even less likely that he'd have escaped from such an accosting before the police found out about it, especially if he resembled the "bogeyman" press conjurations of what the ripper might look like, and if he carried a bloody knife and human heart.

If you hoped to use such a man as a vital identification witness would you commit that detail (his thieving intentions) to paper (and thereby create a paper trail which could come back to haunt you) or would you relay it by word of mouth?

Paper trail?

No, not in this case.

This was a private, internal police report to his police superiors at Scotland Yard, not for the eyes of any underling who might blab. Moreover, time was of the essence in conveying crucial details such as these, and it certainly didn't allow for Abberline to saunter on over for tea at the Swansons where he would suddenly drop the "bombshell" that Hutchinson was a thief. If he was truly that paranoid, he would at least have made reference in his report to the fact that there were more super-special, super-secret details to be relayed later.

Thank-you for taking the time to give such a considered reply. I concede that you may very well be right. My sole aim is to point out that, while likely, it's not the only possibility

I acknowledge that, Bridewell, and I thank you again for yours!

All the best,
Ben

[Bridewell]

The Plurality of Hutchinson

Interesting use of the singular, by the way ("a street robber"). I think you'll find there was more than one street robber to be found on an average night in that grotspot, and that they often operated in gangs.

Yes, but the context of my remark was Hutchinson who, whatever else he may have been, was not a gang.

I understand your thinking with regard to the press reports - where they speculate and where they don't, but I'm rather more cynical than you about references to vague entities such as "the authorities". That could mean Anderson, Swanson or Abberline, or it might just be whichever P.c. happened to be on the front desk at Commercial Street when the journalist called in.

It's good to know that there are still people on this forum with whom it is possible to disagree without offence being taken btw.

[Wickerman]

Media reports that were both accurate and based on contemporary police opinion.

Once again Ben, who has established that those media reports were accurate, and where is this contemporary police opinion published?

[Ben]

Hi Bridewell,

I see your point. It seems likely, however, that the PC on the front desk would refer all pressman to the detectives on duty at that station, who in turn would either help them (in the Echo's case), or give them short shrift (in most cases).

It's good to know that there are still people on this forum with whom it is possible to disagree without offence being taken btw.

Indeed, which is why I'm grateful of the opportunity to discuss matters Hutchinson with people such as yourself, who rise above the puerile bickering and personality clashes that often infest these boards, and of which I'm guilty on occasion.

Once again Ben, who has established that those media reports were accurate, and where is this contemporary police opinion published?

Me, and anyone else who has taken the trouble to understand and get to grips with the material, Jon.

[GUT]

G'Day Ben

Sorry to be a bit late in on this, but registration was only approved this morning.

You quote the Echo:

"From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, 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?"

Now please pay attention to the first line:

a very reduced importance

Not it is disregarded, not "it is untrue" but "a very reduced importance". We are not told what parts are no longer considered true. We are not told what parts are now considered less important. We are not told what the later investigation entailed or uncovered, so we can not it is submitted throw out everything Hutchinson says.

GUT

[Ben]

Hi Gut,

The reason offered by the Echo for this "very reduced importance" was Hutchinson's failure to present his evidence in time for the inquest, where he would have been questioned "under oath", and this obviously impacts on his credibility as a whole, not just "parts" of his statement. In the absence of proof that Hutchinson was lying, there was an obvious need for both police and press to be cautious in their terminology. If they accuse him outright of lying, Hutchinson had only to say "prove it" and walk away. Such an accusation would also have deterred potential future witnesses from coming forward, for fear of receiving the same treatment.

All the best,
Ben

[GUT]

G'Day Ben

That's just the point no PROOF that he was lying.

Thanks mate

GUT

[Bridewell]

"The Authorities"

"Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?"

Surely one of the first questions asked of Hutchinson by Badham and/or Abberline will have been,

"Why did you not come forward sooner?"

so I can't imagine that the police were still asking this question when the Echo went to press. Hence, I suspect, the use of a non-specific term like "the authorities", chosen to suggest a police source without running the risk of actually saying so - and provoking a blanket denial.

[Michael W Richards]

G'Day Ben

That's just the point no PROOF that he was lying.

Thanks mate

GUT

It does go on to say...."in light of later investigation.." Gut, implication there is that they had been investigating his story and during that investigative process they became less convinced of its value.

Value of the statement is the key here.....IF they believed him then he was likely the last person to see Mary Kelly alive and the man she was with therefore becomes the primary suspect, and the person who gives the statement, the most important witness in terms of the suspect...Last person to see, and be seen with......just like Israel Schwartz and and BSM on Berner Street.

Cheers

[GUT]

G'Day Michael

Key word in your reply "Implication". But I do accept that anything on these posts and indeed anything we say about Jacky must be based on speculation.

Thanks Mate

GUT

[Ben]

Hi Bridewell,

No detective supplying case-related information to the press (as they certainly did on occasion) was likely to tolerate their name being published in connection with said information, for obvious reasons. Hence it may be assumed that the Echo published their report only after a strict understanding had been established with the detective(s) in question that no names would be provided for their less scrupulous journalistic colleagues to pester.

Regards,
Ben