The Red Handkerchief...

[Garry Wroe]

Actually we don't really know that his story came to be dismissed or when it did.

The inferential evidence on both counts is overwhelming.

We have one newspaper account soon after he made his statement …

Two.

… and we have Dew's memoirs that were written many years later.

But which demolish any notion of Hutchinson as a credible witness.

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

As well as Anderson’s assertion that the only witness who ever got a clear view of the killer sighted a poor Jewish lunatic, we have Macnaghten’s contention that no-one ever got a clear view of the murderer. Since Hutchinson’s Astrakhan sighting was qualitatively and quantitatively head and shoulders above that of any other eyewitness, he was unlikely to have been overlooked by either man. Thus, once a modicum of common sense is applied to this issue, it may be safely concluded that Hutchinson’s story had been dismissed from the equation. And decisively so.

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.

So, Lechmere, you’re suggesting that investigators would have eschewed a microscopically detailed description of the man believed to have been Jack the Ripper merely because it didn’t lead to an early arrest? Tell me I’ve misunderstood you on this point. And while we’re at it, on what evidence do you contend that Mrs Long’s sighting came to be disregarded? Any police force that conducted its investigations in the manner you describe would be incapable of finding the town hall, let alone a cunning sadosexual serial killer.

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.

No? Each man claimed to have sighted a victim shortly before her death in close proximity to a crime scene whilst accompanied by a man likely to have been her killer. At the risk of appearing rude, how much of a parallel do you require before we dispense with such nonsense, Lechmere?

[Abby Normal]

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.

Hi Lech
Abberline may have mentioned it, but just never wrote it down. And Hutch could have been dismissed as a credible witness even if he was connected to lewis wide awake man for the simple reason that they beleived he was there but came to view the rest of his story as bullshit.

And lewis description might have been vague in terms of phyical appearance, but it is anything but in terms of behaviour, describing exactly what he was actually doing-waiting and watching for someone to come out of the court.

and in terms of phyical appearance-how can he be "nothing like her vague description" ?

You cant compare something to a vague description.

[Lechmere]

Garry
If you want to stick by Dew (and I admit to having a liking for Dew), then he also wrote (50 years after the events mind) that Hutchinson was a young man and the explanation Dew gave for Hutchinson being possibly wrong was that he got muddled up over the time… or the date. Either way he would have missed Lewis.
Dew also thinks that Blotchy was most likely the culprit and puts his faith in Cox as a witness. But clearly Macnaghten and Anderson didn’t share that view as they said that no one (except a Jewish witness) got a clear view of the killer.
Mix and matching Dew, Macnaghten and Anderson over the reliability of witnesses is a bit of a dead end.

I didn’t say that the police ‘eschewed’ Hutchinson’s account ‘because it didn’t lead to an early arrest’.
If you notice I said they seem to have ‘attached less importance to his account and as nothing came of it’.
The police had to juggle with many contradictory descriptions and it is human nature to attach more importance to fresh information.
By your definition the police must have ‘eschewed’ Long, Schwartz or Lawende, Cox and Hutchinson. Please tell me you don’t think that!
I didn’t think any of them were totally disregarded. It would have been foolish for the police to do so. I doubt Hutchinson was totally disregarded. Which is not to say that reliance would have been placed on his account either. Unless he realised he was out by a day of course, and told them.

Long’s description of the person she claims to have seen with Chapman - over 40, a foreigner (in this instance probably meaning Jewish) a little taller than Chapman (she was just 5 feet tall), shabby gentile (deer stalker hat and dark coat) - did not ‘stick’ as a given for the murderer. Just as Hutchinson’s description did not ‘stick’. Although both depictions (Astrakhan and deer stalker) did endure to degree.
Mrs Long wasn’t mentioned at all by Dew or Macnaghten of course, and I don’t think by Anderson.
In his report of 19th October Swanson stated that Long’s evidence ‘must be looked upon with some doubt’.
The only official police opinion we have about Hutchinson is Abberline’s, which said: ‘I am of the opinion his statement is true’.
That was in an official report which trumps the Star (the primary source for Hutchinson being disregarded) I should say. The Star is a weak source for the official opinions of the police.
This also tells us that the police seem to have been more doubtful about the usefulness of Long’s description than Hutchinson’s.

The similarities between Violenia and Hutchinson…
At risk of sounding rude you seem to have forgotten (I trust you forgot and it isn’t the case that you never knew) to mention that besides the fact that both came forward as witnesses and both said they saw a victim with someone near a crime scene, there are very major differences between Violenia and Hutchinson…
• Hutchinson is mentioned in the official police record. We are reliant on newspaper reports for Violenia
• Hutchinson was interrogated by Abberline and believed.
• Violenia was cross-examined by someone (possibly Abberline) and disbelieved.
• It is believed that Violenia was unable to identify Chapman’s body.
• There is no reason to believe that Hutchinson was unable to identify Kelly’s body.
• Violenia’s account was never given circulation as a truthful version of events, although sensibly the police did ‘check him out’ before dismissing him.
• Hutchinson’s account was clearly taken very seriously. The only matter for doubt is when and by what means it came to be regarded as of less importance.
Not much of a parallel really is there?
Oh both were males and alive in 1888. Yes indeed the cases are very similar.

[Lechmere]

Abbey
If the police believed that Hutchinson was there when Lewis was there, they can hardly have just dismissed him as a harmless bullshitter.
Lewis described the person she saw as not tall but stout. This description may well have not fitted Hutchinson, who was described as being of military appearance.

[Abby Normal]

Abbey
If the police believed that Hutchinson was there when Lewis was there, they can hardly have just dismissed him as a harmless bullshitter.
Lewis described the person she saw as not tall but stout. This description may well have not fitted Hutchinson, who was described as being of military appearance.

Hello Sea of Leeches
We will just have to disagree on the first point because I think the police could have come to the conclusion he was just an attention seeker who embellished his story for personal gain, ala packer and violence.

On your second point, since when is being not tall and stout a preclusion from having a military appearance, or even being in the active military? Don't make me do a fish and post hundreds of photos from the Internet of short men in a military uniform. ; )

[Lechmere]

Hello mediocre House of the Prior,
But but but, if Hutchinson was there he had a valid tale to tell even if he did embellish and was an attention or thrill seeker.
Whereas Violena made it all up 100%.
Packer is a more complex case.

There is a difference between being in the military and having a military appearance. The term military appearance had a certain descriptive connotation which would tend to preclude short fat people - even though I am sure there were short fat people in the Victorian army.

[Wickerman]

[/FONT][/COLOR]
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.

Exhausted from what, running to Commercial St. from Scotland Yard?

If the interviewee has mislead the interviewer, we need a solid indication of such, not 'grasping-at-straws' guesswork.

"Did it happen?" is a world away from "it did happen!", even though the words are the same.

And are you forgetting, Jon, that Blotchy would not have been a suspect had Hutchinson’s story been true?

No I am not forgetting, but I do know a little about police work. Sufficient enough to know that until any witness story is confirmed beyond doubt, parallel investigations will proceed towards that end.

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.

Not your recent comment, I was referring back to the first comment you made along that line - post 434.

"Unless, of course, anyone has evidence to the contrary."

Asking for evidence which does not exist, either official or unofficial.

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

And on this belabored yet unsubstantiated point, the whole argument collapses.
The forum still waits for proof of this claim.

[GUT]

G'Day Jon

"Did it happen?" is a world away from "it did happen!", even though the words are the same.

It's also a LONG way from "It didn't happen"

[Bridewell]

The inferential evidence on both counts is overwhelming.

A newspaper's claimed diminution of the importance of what looks like Hutchinson's description is something from which those who choose to can certainly draw an inference, but overwhelming evidence it is not.

[Wickerman]

The preference for the anti-Hutchinson clan to overstate the case is a common feature in these debates.

[Roy Corduroy]

The preference for the anti-Hutchinson clan to overstate the case is a common feature in these debates.

Huh?

The anti-Hutchinson Clan? You mean as to his suspect status? This is a suspect thread, you know. Hello. These Hutch threads go on for so long, people forget it's a suspect thread they are posting on. It's become a sub-genre. A special place where Hutch minutiae is pondered while the elephant in the room is zonked out next door.

Suspect thread sleepwalking as a discussion of Red Hanky.

Wake up. Snap out of it !

Roy

[Ben]

Good point amusingly made, Roy.

I share your exasperation. This particular thread spiraled out of control because I made a teeny-tiny post on another thread pointing out that the image of Jack the "toff" is still a very silly myth. This prompted a flurry of long-winded Hutchinson-related posts that utterly swamped that thread, which I then tried to salvage by moving the discussion here. Fatal error! The discussion quickly moved away from red rags and mutated into a generic, repetitive "Was Hutchinson a liar, killer, discredited witness?" thread and, well, here we are...again. Partly my fault, I suppose...

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Many thanks for your kind words, Garry.

You make an excellent point; if nobody viewed Hutchinson with any suspicion until 100 years after the event, why are some people still claiming – with absolutely no evidence whatsoever – that the police “must” have been suspicious, “must” have checked him out, and “must” have found him to be innocent? That’s three “musts” with no evidential basis whatsoever. If it requires three-fold speculation to try to rule out Hutchinson as suspect, he can’t be doing too badly as a legitimate person of interest. Normally, that sort of tenuous argumentation is used to rule suspects in, not out. Having said that, it tends to be the same very small number of people – always those with an alternative suspect or suspect-type of preference – who remain interested in doing the latter.

Hi Jon,

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

Yeah, good luck trying to “cut me off”. You’re repeating the same arguments we’ve had dozens of times. The Sheffield Independent were working with outdated information, albeit only slightly outdated, to be fair to them. The 16th November was still early days as far as news of Hutchinson’s discrediting was concerned, and it shouldn’t be surprising that a few newspapers were ever so slightly behind the times, especially those based in the north of England, who were relying on press agencies, as opposed to personal visits to the Commercial Street police station.

You often quote that extract from the Echo, 19th November, but 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”. 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, 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. So you can forget the idea that you’ve scuttled the correct observation (not merely an “assumption”) made by the Star that Hutchinson’s statement was “now discredited”. They said the same thing about Packer that very same day, and nobody makes a fuss about that or attempts to argue that they were lying about discrediting Packer just to make the police look bad (which makes no sense anyway).

“So let it rest”

Okay, I’ll let it rest, but if you argue back at me on the above points, I’ll assume you’re not remotely interested in letting it rest, and will respond accordingly. And that would just be repetitive, tedious and unnecessary.

“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.”

…where it was undoubtedly discovered that there was no policeman passing that end of Dorset Street at that particular time, undermining his credibility and possibly being a contributory factor is his discrediting. Either that or Hutchinson was aware of the police beats, knew a policeman would pass there at a particular time, but still lied about seeing him. Or Hutchinson was out of sight or not especially visible when/if the policeman passed. Either way, Abberline would have to have been quite the numpty to accept that Hutchinson was there when he claimed to have been on the basis of a policeman passing Dorset Street at some unspecified time between 2:15ish and 3.00am.

“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.”

We have several very compelling sources that Abberline changed his mind. We have the “considerably discounted” report faithfully provided by the Echo, which couldn’t possibly be inaccurate (see previous long arguments that you’re not starting again!), which obviously reflected the official sentiment of the “authorities” at the time. We also have the Pall Mall Gazette article which makes it very clear that he did not consider Astrakhan man even a potential Jack the Ripper (which is significant, bearing in mind it was impossible to exclude him as such IF the police believed him to be to a real being).

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

I’m talking about the circumstances Hutchinson claimed were responsible for putting him on the streets of Whitechapel and Spitalfields in the small hours, when the ripper was known to be active.

“Isaacs was not homeless”

A thief of no fixed abode.

“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”

David Canter stated that it is nonsense to claim to be able to distinguish a liar from an honest upright citizen on the basis of body language. You’ve continually stressed the fact that Abberline met him face-to-face, and you’d only highlight this fact as a perceived plus-point in favour of Hutchinson’s credibility if you thought that Abberline’s decision to endorse him as truthful was based on interpretations of body language. All I’m saying is that this sort of reasoning is rejected by the actual experts, such as Canter.

“A number of details could have been checked out that very night, before Hutchinson came back the next morning.”

Are you serious? This is a new one. I’ve never heard anyone claim this before. Which details do you believe could have been “checked out that very night”? And please be realistic, bearing in mind that Hutchinson only approached the police at 6pm, where he had to wait for Abberline to come and interview him after initially offering his story to a subordinate. All this would have taken some considerable time, and Abberline submitted that report later that same night. What do you suppose he was able to verify in so short a space of time? His residence at the Victoria Home. Fabulous. What else?

“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.”

That doesn’t “ergo” at all. Here’s a far better, far more logical “ergo”:

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 there is a sound basis for accepting that mistakes almost certainly occurred in the latter case, especially as it was so much longer ago, and occurred at a time when knowledge of serial crime was even more inferior to what it was in the early 1980s.

You’re completely wrong, incidentally, in your claim that a witness story will be investigated until it is confirmed beyond reasonable doubt, or otherwise. That’s hopelessly unrealistic. In the vast majority of cases, and short of a magic wand, there is little chance of confirming whether the witness is definitely lying or definitely telling the truth. In most cases, the police simply have to make do with an informed opinion based on the witness’ perceived credibility or lack thereof. Nobody proved Packer or Violenia a liar, for instance. They were simply cast aside on the assumption that the witnesses in question were bogus – just so with Hutchinson.

In your unsuccessful efforts to undermine Garry’s very important point that Abberline was “exhausted”, you presumably missed out on this from Cassell’s Saturday Journal, 8th May 1892:

“In fact, the desire of the East - Enders to assist the police was so keen that the number of statements made - all of them required to be recorded and searched into - was so great that the officer almost broke down under the pressure.”

The "take-home" point for you, Jon, is that you'd be better off naysaying a different person of interest. This one's alright, irrefutably so.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Bridewell,

The reports that appeared in the Echo on the 13th and 14th with regard to Hutchinson's "very reduced importance" and "considerably discounted" statement (respectively), are not just any old newspaper reports. They are corroborated by virtue of the fact that they contained information we now know to be accurate, and which was only obtainable from police sources. There is no possibility, therefore, of the Echo inventing the fact that they had obtained accurate information from the police. For their Hutchinson-related reports to be wrong or made-up, we would be required to accept that the police willingly divulged accurate information to them (regarding the common origin of the two Hutchinson-authored accounts that appeared in the press), despite knowing full well that the same newspaper had told outright lies about them the previous day.

That is an impossible scenario to accept, and I strongly suspect that if people properly got to grips with the material and understood it's unavoidable implications, they would not be pooh-poohing the Echo reports as just another piece of journalistic invention. It definitely isn't any such thing.

A police report expressing an opinion that a witness statement is true is only valuable if it was submitted after a thorough investigation into that witness's claims had taken place. That was simply not true of Abberline's report, which was submitted before any investigation could occur. What value is an "interrogation" if the responses provided by the witness cannot be checked into at that time? As I've mentioned on another thread, it is quite possible that Abberline was unduly swayed by a confident demeanour and forthright answers. He claimed to have collared one of the Tower of London bombers after registering his hesitancy and nervousness. A face-to-face encounter may well be unhelpful if the investigator is looking for outwards and visible signs of a liar, and accords a bogus witness a clean bill of health on the basis of not having spotted any.

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

A newspaper's claimed diminution of the importance of what looks like Hutchinson's description is something from which those who choose to can certainly draw an inference, but overwhelming evidence it is not.

Then reread my post, Colin. I never stated that the newspaper articles alone constitute overwhelming evidence. And I'd thank you not to misrepresent my views in future.