The Red Handkerchief...

[Wickerman]

Hello Ben.

Hi Jon,
No, we don’t. We have a variety of press reports of alleged Astrakhan sightings from members of the public...

I'll cut you off right there at your first mistake.

Only the Evening News (16 Nov.) uses a citizen as its source. The Sheffield Ind. (16 Nov) makes no mention of a citizen, they suggest it is the police.
"...The police are now to a great extent concentrating their efforts upon an endeavour to find a man so vividly described by George Hutchinson.."

And, the Echo (19 Nov) states quite clearly it is the police themselves who still believe in the Hutchinson suspect.
"...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."

No more is necessary on the matter. As the Echo also are aware of the division in the police between those who accept the Cox suspect and those who accept Hutchinson suspect, a full ten days after the murder, then this apparent fact totally scuttles the presumptuous comment made by the Star four days earlier.
Hutchinson clearly was not discredited even by the 19th, so as it was not by the 19th, then it was not at all.

I know you completely support the notion that the latest article on a subject is the most accurate, you told me that yourself.
So let it rest.

But what is the source for a beat constable walking across the “top” (?) of Dorset Street?

Once Hutchinson mentions him, Abberline will send for the roster of who was on duty in Commercial St. between 2:30-3:00am, the constable's notebook will be consulted.
What is not believable about that?

But when he offered his opinion on Hutchinson’s statement, he “had access” to sod all beyond Hutchinson’s soon-to-be-discredited say-so.

You say yourself that Abberline's change of mind 'must' (hypothetically) have come later after the story was investigated. It is this later investigation that I am referring to, so many sources available to Abberline.
We have no source nor indication that he ever changed his mind. And this conclusion is soundly supported by the article previously quoted from the Echo.

I agree, but it’s when we explore the back-story that supposedly legitimatises his presence on the very streets where the ripper was known to be active (and at the same time) that we encounter problems.

Please remind me, what is this "back-story", and the source?

There is simply no way that a homeless thief could have worn such expensive-looking clothes accessories unless he nicked them, and he wasn’t likely to parade around in them if he had.

Isaacs was not homeless.

Not according to the experts it isn’t. If anything, it’s a potential distraction.

Well, you're just going to have to provide an 'expert' quote to that effect, because a face-to-face interrogation is by far preferable.

There is no way Abberline could have investigated all of Hutchinson’s claims in so short a space of time...

He didn't, Abberline's opinion was derived from the face-to-face interview. A number of details could have been checked out that very night, before Hutchinson came back the next morning.
Abberline had much more information at his disposal than we do.

You provide a good parallel example with the Yorkshire ripper case. If there is “no basis” for assuming the police got things wrong, then there is “no basis” for assuming that Anderson was wrong in his conclusion that it was a “definitely ascertained fact” that the killer was a Polish Jew. But hardly anyone agrees with that, so where is the justification for ruling out Hutchinson as a suspect because there is “no basis” for concluding the police were in error?

The basis for believing the police made mistakes in the Sutcliffe case is the police record itself. No such record exists for the Whitechapel murder case, ergo, no basis for believing Abberline & Co. made any mistake in evaluating Hutchinson.

[Wickerman]

....why, if Hutchinson should have been viewed with obvious suspicion by investigators doubting his story, had no-one expressed the slightest suspicion concerning Hutchinson or his Astrakhan narrative when I began researching him in the 1980s?

Which tends to confirm what we have been saying all along, that Hutchinson was never suspected by the police.
Had he been found out to have lied at any time, then yes, but as he was not suspected, then he cannot have been found out to have lied.

And if the link between Hutchinson and Sarah Lewis was so obvious, how is it that this connection was seemingly never made by those policemen and journalists engaged on the case at the time?

These files that are so complete as to show no connection was ever made, would you mind sharing them with us?

[Garry Wroe]

Which tends to confirm what we have been saying all along, that Hutchinson was never suspected by the police.

Suspected of what, Jon? Lying? Murder?

Had he been found out to have lied at any time, then yes, but as he was not suspected, then he cannot have been found out to have lied.

Violenia was known to have concocted a bogus story, Jon, but was never suspected of being the Whitechapel Murderer. Once his subterfuge was uncovered he was given a verbal slap across the back of the head and sent on his way.

You also conveniently ignore the reality that investigators raided a number of low lodgings and casual wards within days of Hutchinson making himself known to police. Of all the venues in London these were the very last places they would seek out the ostentatiously dressed and apparently affluent Astrakhan. Thus we may conclude one of two things. Either Hutchinson’s story had been discredited or the London police force truly was the most stupid in the entire world.

These files that are so complete as to show no connection was ever made, would you mind sharing them with us?

Would you care to share any newspaper reference to a link made between Hutchinson and Sarah Lewis’s Wideawake Man?

[Observer]

Hey Gary. Do you, considering the statements made to both the police and the press see a link between Wideawake Man, and Hutchinson? That is, it's likely that they were one and the same man?

[Garry Wroe]

Sarah Lewis's narrative didn't appear in the newspapers until after the inquest, Observer. Thus if we compare Hutchinson's claimed behaviour on Dorset Street with Sarah's sighting of a man preoccupied with the court, I have little doubt that Hutchinson and Wideawake were one and the same.

[Observer]

Yes Gary, exactly, you realise that it's likely they were the same man, as do other posters. Why did the police back then not make that connection?

[Wickerman]

Suspected of what, Jon? Lying? Murder?

I'd like to pin that issue down myself Garry. It appears that opinions are divided on what exactly to accuse Hutchinson of doing, ...lying, stalking, murder, accomplice, care to add anything else?

Violenia was known to have concocted a bogus story, Jon, but was never suspected of being the Whitechapel Murderer. Once his subterfuge was uncovered he was given a verbal slap across the back of the head and sent on his way.

Violenia did not impress the police in the interview, in fact that is where his false claim collapsed. Violenia is a good example of how thorough a police interrogation was and this supports the argument that Hutchinson provided a sound story to Abberline, otherwise he should have collapsed just like Violenia.

You also conveniently ignore the reality that investigators raided a number of low lodgings and casual wards within days of Hutchinson making himself known to police. Of all the venues in London these were the very last places they would seek out the ostentatiously dressed and apparently affluent Astrakhan.

Correct, but are you conveniently forgetting that the police had two parallel investigations going at the same time?

On the one hand they were looking for the Cox suspect, no doubt in the common lodging-houses, and on the other hand they were looking for the Hutchinson suspect on the streets.

Would you care to share any newspaper reference to a link made between Hutchinson and Sarah Lewis’s Wideawake Man?

I'll take that as a "no" then

Really Garry, lets not pretend that only official paperwork which no longer exists can be used to contest your argument.
We both struggle with the same difficulty.

[Bridewell]

You also conveniently ignore the reality that investigators raided a number of low lodgings and casual wards within days of Hutchinson making himself known to police. Of all the venues in London these were the very last places they would seek out the ostentatiously dressed and apparently affluent Astrakhan. Thus we may conclude one of two things. Either Hutchinson’s story had been discredited or the London police force truly was the most stupid in the entire world.

Or they realised that various witnesses had offered different suspect descriptions, and they prudently decided not to put all their eggs in one basket? (In which case they were rather more astute than their 20th century counterparts who gave too much credence to 'Wearside Jack').

[Bridewell]

Violenia is a good example of how thorough a police interrogation was and this supports the argument that Hutchinson provided a sound story to Abberline, otherwise he should have collapsed just like Violenia.

Good point, well made.

[Garry Wroe]

Yes Gary, exactly, you realise that it's likely they were the same man, as do other posters. Why did the police back then not make that connection?

Hutchinson’s stellar witness status was extremely short-lived, Observer. Certainly a press report questioning his veracity appeared the morning after he submitted his police statement. This suggests to my mind that investigators quickly dismissed Hutchinson either as an attention seeker or profiteer, disregarded his story without bothering to cross-check its finer detail, then moved on to what were considered to have been more profitable lines of enquiry.

The problem here, however, is that a number of journalists remained unaware of the developments regarding Hutchinson. And yet, despite the fact that they continued to view Hutchinson as an important witness, not a single one of them appears to have made the Hutchinson/Wideawake connection. For this I can offer no plausible explanation, so your guess is as good as mine.

[Garry Wroe]

Violenia did not impress the police in the interview, in fact that is where his false claim collapsed. Violenia is a good example of how thorough a police interrogation was and this supports the argument that Hutchinson provided a sound story to Abberline, otherwise he should have collapsed just like Violenia.

So not only was the exhausted Abberline infallible, no criminal has ever succeeded in misleading police under questioning. Sorry, Jon, but such logic is lost on me.

(A)re you conveniently forgetting that the police had two parallel investigations going at the same time?

On the one hand they were looking for the Cox suspect, no doubt in the common lodging-houses, and on the other hand they were looking for the Hutchinson suspect on the streets.

And are you forgetting, Jon, that Blotchy would not have been a suspect had Hutchinson’s story been true? Unfathomably, you are arguing that investigators believed Hutchinson but diverted valuable resources away from their search for Astrakhan in an attempt to locate Blotchy. Each to their own.

Really Garry, lets not pretend that only official paperwork which no longer exists can be used to contest your argument.
We both struggle with the same difficulty.

If you’d care to reread my post, Jon, I stated that not a single newspaper reference has been found in which a journalist made the link between Hutchinson and Wideawake. No mention of official documentation. I referred to newspapers to which you and everyone else has free access.

[Garry Wroe]

Good point, well made.

Except, Colin, that we know Hutchinson held up well under Abberline's questioning and yet his story still came to be dismissed by senior investigators.

[Lechmere]

Actually we don't really know that his story came to be dismissed or when it did.
We have one newspaper account soon after he made his statement - contradicted by a host of other newspapers that continued to attach importance to Hutchinson's story, in some cases for years afterwards, and we have Dew's memoirs that were written many years later.
Beyond that there is inference based on the elevation of other suspects types. But all this proves is that the police kept an open mind, not that Hutchinson's tale was dismissed
It is more likely that as time went on the police attached less importance to his account and as nothing came of it, it faded from the investigation as did many other reported sightings such as Long's.
The significance of mentioning Violenia (I think) is that he is often held up as a parallel case to Hutchinson, when clearly it isn't.

[Abby Normal]

Yes Gary, exactly, you realise that it's likely they were the same man, as do other posters. Why did the police back then not make that connection?

Hi observer, all
Why do we assume that nobody made the connection? All we know is that there is nothing in the written records that a connection was made.

Sometimes, I think that maybe one of the main reasons that abberline initially believed hutchs story is that he did make the connection between hutch waiting and watching and Sarah Lewis wide awake man. He would have heard both Sarah's version at the inquest and hutchs story within hours of each other, thus corroborating at least part of hutchs story.

[Lechmere]

I would have expected Abberline to mention this corroboration if it were the case - and I would expect at least one nosey newspaper to make the connection also. At this stage in the case details were poured over.
And for those who think that Hutchinson was dismissed promptly by the police as a reliable witness, why would they do this if they believed he was one and the same with Lewis's wide awake man? If the police believed he was the same man then his evidence would not have been dismissed, ergo they did not think he was Lewis's man - almost certainly because he was nothing like her vague description.