Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[D.B.Wagstaff]

De Coram

Actually, there is a rumor of a legend of a family oral tradition that De Coram was, in fact, the interior decorator that not only sketced Hutch but decorated Saucy Jack's bolt-hole on orders from a mysterious person (possibly a Mason-Doctor) supposed have connections to the Royal Family. Find De Coram and we stand a good (or at least as good as we ever have) of finding Jack . . .

Just kidding, folks, please don't come at me with knives (sharp, dull, or of any variety of sizes) or bayonets, or surgical tools. And If I am found dead I was most certainly NOT soliciting anything except a bit of gallows humor.

[claire]

Stop now, Lynn, thank you

[ChainzCooper]

Interesting theory that George Hutchinson is Jack the Ripper. But why would he come forward to the police and give this witness statement if he was the killer ? Wouldn't he just not come forward at all?
Jordan

[Garry Wroe]

If he came to the realization that he had been seen by Sarah Lewis and feared that, like Lawende before her, Sarah's inquest testimony had been underplayed as part of a deliberate police strategy, it is possible that he came forward in order to provide an innocent explanation for his having been sighted close to a crime scene at a time critical to a Ripper murder. Accordingly, his story concerning Kelly's affluent pick-up would have been an attempt to misdirect the police investigation, thereby leaving himself in the clear and the police searching for a nonexistent suspect.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[ChainzCooper]

If he came to the realization that he had been seen by Sarah Lewis and feared that, like Lawende before her, Sarah's inquest testimony had been underplayed as part of a deliberate police strategy, it is possible that he came forward in order to provide an innocent explanation for his having been sighted close to a crime scene at a time critical to a Ripper murder. Accordingly, his story concerning Kelly's affluent pick-up would have been an attempt to misdirect the police investigation, thereby leaving himself in the clear and the police searching for a nonexistent suspect.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

I understand that but I just think its taking a huge and unnecessary gamble handing yourself over to the police like that. He was interviewed at length by Inspector Abberline. If he slipped up or fumbled any at all don't you think the Detective would have put two and two together figuring out he was Kelly's murderer? Therefore I would tend to believe his story was consistent with Abberline and therefore truthful. I see Hutchinson as the most important witness in this case and not a suspect. But its a fun debate Garry nice talking with you
Jordan

[Garry Wroe]

But he did slip, Jordan. The day after his police interview a newspaper effectively stated that his story was no longer believed by the authorities. Despite this, however, he doesn't appear to have come under suspicion. Like Packer and others, he seems to have been dismissed as a time waster and forgotten about.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

[ChainzCooper]

But he did slip, Jordan. The day after his police interview a newspaper effectively stated that his story was no longer believed by the authorities. Despite this, however, he doesn't appear to have come under suspicion. Like Packer and others, he seems to have been dismissed as a time waster and forgotten about.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

But he was believed by Inspector Abberline right? Was the newspaper speaking for him when it referred to authorities? I guess thats what I'm trying to get at but I can see how some may think of him as a suspect. I just don't think he is Jack the Ripper
Jordan

[Ben]

Hi Jordan,

But he was believed by Inspector Abberline right?

Inspector Abberline expressed his opinion that the statement was true on the evening of 12th November, well before any detailed analysis or "checking up" on Hutchinson's claims could realistically have occurred. The latter had only made his appearance at 6.00pm that evening. As Garry rightly points out, however, the police had apparently dismissed his account by 13th (according to that day's edition of the "Echo"), and on the 15th, The Star ran a brief article dealing with "worthless" stories that have led the police "astray", and in addition to ditching Matthew Packer, they related that Hutchinson's account was "now discredited".

Other serial killers have supplied bogus information to the police - often under the guise of "witnesses" - in order to downplay or mitigate incriminating evidence linking them to the crime in some way, so it wouldn't be unusual for Hutchinson to have adopted a similar ploy if he was the killer.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"But he did slip, Jordan. The day after his police interview a newspaper effectively stated that his story was no longer believed by the authorities. Despite this, however, he doesn't appear to have come under suspicion. Like Packer and others, he seems to have been dismissed as a time waster and forgotten about."

Let´s dissect this a bit:

A/ "He did slip."

Well, either HE slipped, or somebody did the slipping for him. There are two options.

B/ "Despite this, however, he doesn't appear to have come under suspicion. Like Packer and others, he seems to have been dismissed as a time waster and forgotten about."

...meaning that we are either dealing with a very naîve police force - or with surfacing evidence that made it obvious to the police as well as to the press that Hutch did not belong to the investigation. Once again, two choices! And when we make the latter choice, we can take a look at Ben´s post too:

"Inspector Abberline expressed his opinion that the statement was true on the evening of 12th November, well before any detailed analysis or "checking up" on Hutchinson's claims could realistically have occurred. The latter had only made his appearance at 6.00pm that evening."

Now, one of the things I suggest needed no "checking up" was the possibility of an occurence of a man like Astrakhan man. My meaning is that if Abberline swallowed it, hook, line and sinker, then he did so because he was not having much of a problem accepting that such a man could have appeared on Dorset Street. And Abberline was streetwiser than most policemen and detectives! The better argument would be that he grew suspicious of the differences between police report and press articles, when it came to Hutch´s description - but that would not be enough to dismiss him either, at least not before having had a serious discussion with him about it. Very many witness descriptions from the same source differ, and that would have been something Abberline was aware of.
However, if he summoned Hutch once again to clear things up, then he would have done so in full realisation that people confessing to having been at a murder spot and who can later be pinned as liars, are also people the police need to take a very active interest in.

But did he? No, he did not. Just like the obviously lying Packer, Hutchinson was not believed and subsequently discarded. And THAT would have taken evidence on the hands of the police that he could be cleared from suspicion!!

Either Hutch came clear at such a second interrogation and confessed that he had been making things up, delivering a watertight alibi for the night and hour in question, or somebody did it for him. To my mind - and I know that other people for some unfathomable reason choose to use their own minds - this is a much more credible explanation to why Hutch was denied a heroes role in the Ripper affair.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

...meaning that we are either dealing with a very naîve police force - or with surfacing evidence that made it obvious to the police as well as to the press that Hutch did not belong to the investigation.

Firstly, Fish, it doesn't remotely stand to reason that it would have taken a "very naive police force" to have dismissed Hutchinson as a time-waster as opposed to considering him a potential suspect, even if that judgement was made in error. The fact of the matter is that policing in general was in its infancy in 1888, and they had no experience of serial crime. As such, we can hardly blame them if they failed to deduce that the killer approached the police of his own volition to seek an audience with the police. Publicity-seekers, by contrast, are the bane of any high profile police investigation, and with so many of them cropping up in the form of Packer, Violenia and others, it would have been more than understandable if the police had consigned Hutchinson to this category, even if was done so erroneously.

Of course, it is entirely possible that Hutchinson did find himself under suspicion, but we needn’t expect any record of this to have survived, and in any event, there is a yawning chasm that needs to be bridged between suspecting someone, and having concrete evidence to rule them out conclusively as suspects. The very worst thing we can do is start positing the existence of imaginary evidence, such as “concrete alibis”. Hutchinson was ostensibly a solitary doss house resident – the chances of him having a concrete alibi at 3:30am are absurdly remote. It’s infinitely more likely that IF he were ever under suspicion, the police would not have been in a position to rule him in or out.

“The better argument would be that he grew suspicious of the differences between police report and press articles, when it came to Hutch´s description - but that would not be enough to dismiss him either”

It would have been more than sufficient to attach a severely “reduced importance” (ref 13th November article) to his account, especially given the nature of his press accounts, which included claims that could have been instantly disproved, such as the one involving a policeman he encountered on the Sunday, but who mysteriously neglected to alert his superiors about the Kelly sighting.

Packer was dismissed not because anyone had procured concrete proof that he was lying, but because the police apparently arrived at the consensus opinion that he was, and I rather suspect that the same thing occurred in Hutchinson’s case (with the exception of the "policeman" incident referred to above, of course).

As for the Astrakhan issue, I doubt very much that Abberline’s initial endorsement of the account had anything to do with a prevalence of Astrakhan-types on the streets of Whitechapel. I think it may owe more to a lack of familiarity with the nature of the crimes and the attendant expectation that such a criminal must be a far cry from the norm - in every sense, including physical.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Firstly, Fish, it doesn't remotely stand to reason that it would have taken a "very naive police force" to have dismissed Hutchinson as a time-waster as opposed to considering him a potential suspect, even if that judgement was made in error. The fact of the matter is that policing in general was in its infancy in 1888, and they had no experience of serial crime. As such, we can hardly blame them if they failed to deduce that the killer approached the police of his own volition to seek an audience with the police. Publicity-seekers, by contrast, are the bane of any high profile police investigation, and with so many of them cropping up in the form of Packer, Violenia and others, it would have been more than understandable if the police had consigned Hutchinson to this category, even if was done so erroneously."

I beg to differ, Ben. If the police got wind of Hutch having lied, then they would have been a both bad and naîve police force not to follow up on him. That is an unescapable conclusion, I´m afraid. My contention, though, is that they were neither.
And when it comes to comparing with Packer and Violenia, let´s not loose out of sight the all-important fact that these two were never any suspects! If one of them had been spotted loitering around one of the murder spots at the crucial time, and given obviously false reasons for it, they would have received another interest altoghether by the Met! I think you will agree with that, Ben.

"Of course, it is entirely possible that Hutchinson did find himself under suspicion, but we needn’t expect any record of this to have survived, and in any event, there is a yawning chasm that needs to be bridged between suspecting someone, and having concrete evidence to rule them out conclusively as suspects. The very worst thing we can do is start positing the existence of imaginary evidence, such as “concrete alibis”. Hutchinson was ostensibly a solitary doss house resident – the chances of him having a concrete alibi at 3:30am are absurdly remote."

If, Ben, Hutch had fallen under suspicion, then he would have done so as the only existing suspect that could be proven to have hovered all over the murder place of a Ripper victim, for no accepted reason at all since he was discarded, and that at a stage when the Whitechapel killings was the high-profile case of the century. He would have been a young man who could not satisfy the police as to why he was around as Kelly was cut to pieces, simple as that.
If he was, do you believe it even remotely possible that the police would have opted for him being just a time-waster and thrown him in the bin? And if he was, is it reasonable to believe that this man would not have made any imprint AT ALL as a suspect in the police reports - let alone in the papers?

No, Hutchinson was in all probability a man that was dropped because the police KNEW that he would not have been Kelly´s killer. And it would seem that it did not take numerous interrogations, closely followed by the press, to find that out, for then we would have had it on line. The sequence as well as the outcome of it speaks very clearly for itself.

"It would have been more than sufficient to attach a severely “reduced importance” (ref 13th November article) to his account, especially given the nature of his press accounts, which included claims that could have been instantly disproved, such as the one involving a policeman he encountered on the Sunday, but who mysteriously neglected to alert his superiors about the Kelly sighting."

But that, Ben, would STILL have left us with a man who had a lot of explaining to do - and who was STILL let off the hook effortlessly, more or less, by the looks of it. Unless, of course, the police made him sweat it out thoroughly - but forgot to mention it in reports and memoirs, paralleling a likewise uninterested press. It does not make for a very credible picture. Not at all, in fact.

"Packer was dismissed not because anyone had procured concrete proof that he was lying, but because the police apparently arrived at the consensus opinion that he was, and I rather suspect that the same thing occurred in Hutchinson’s case"

If somebody says "I saw nobody" and follow it up with "I saw her and the killer", we may not necessarily be dealing with a conscious lie - but we are VERY sure that we are dealing with two uncomparable testimonies from the same source. And it does not alter the fact that Packer was not somebody tho whom a suspicion of being the Whitechapel killer would have attached - and THAT makes for an almighty difference!

"As for the Astrakhan issue, I doubt very much that Abberline’s initial endorsement of the account had anything to do with a prevalence of Astrakhan-types on the streets of Whitechapel."

I think it must have had. To deny it would be to accept that ANY type described by Hutchinson would have been accepted by Abberline; A circus acrobat, a Persian prince, a ghillie from river Dee, a leprechaun ... there must have been levels attached to Abberlines judgement of what and who could be expected phenomenons on that street and on that night. Then again, we do not know if Abberline was taken aback by Hutchs suggestion of Astrakhan. He may have asked about it without it having been recorded, of course. But the gist of the matter is that he did not feel it unreconcilable with the events of the night. And that, of course does not prove that he had ever seen a man like Mr A in Dorset Street, only that he allowed for it being possible. But this we can go on debating forever without reaching anywhere. It is a much more open question than the one about why the police would let a potential Ripper on the loose if they were not sure that he was in the clear.

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Fish -needless to say, I agree with Garry and Ben.

Still, I've said it before but it's worth repeating..you have to use your imagination to put those photos of Mary Kelly's body into 'reality'. Imagine the murder scene in Kelly's room (as witnessed by Abberline) in colour, with the smell of blood and offal beginning to go off...it might be 'speculation' but I don't think it's 'fantasy' to imagine the effect that scene must have had on Abberline, however "streetwise" he was.

I don't think that it's too wild a guess to think that he must have formed an opinion on Mary Kelly's murderer as not possibly being anyone 'normal'.
Yet as the title of this thread demonstrates, murderers like Van der Sleet
(and go and have look at the recorded TV interview of him) can come over as very cool and normal on the surface.

Abberline also took Hutch to see the body, although it seems incredible that a mere acquaintance would be able to identify anybody from what remained of Mary (not so with her ex-lover, Barnett). Maybe this was to check his reaction ? If Abberline did not consider Hutch a suspect, then we must assume that Hutch's reactions to the body appeared perfectly normal.

We don't know exactly WHY Abberline changed his mind about the veracity of Hutch's statement, nor do we know why he didn't consider him a suspect..
but I think that my explanation is as good as your 'concrete alibi'...and BOTH of us are speculating.

[Fisherman]

So, the smell and sight of Mary Kelly was what put Hutch in the clear? Abberline was so overcome with emotions that he forgot all he had learnt about police procedure? And all the villains he had put behind bars in the past all corresponded with this insight?

No, Ruby, I do not buy into this for a second. Like I said, the Met was anything but naîve. And though you agree with Garry and Ben, I am not equally sure that they agree with you on this. But let´s ask them!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

“If the police got wind of Hutch having lied, then they would have been a both bad and naîve police force not to follow up on him.”

“Follow up” – yes, I have no doubt that they did precisely that with all inconsistent and dodgy witnesses, Packer included, but that doesn’t mean Hutchinson was automatically assigned suspect-status as a result of that follow-up. More likely, he was dismissed as a two-a-penny publicity-seeker and given little thought afterwards. You say that neither Packer nor Violenia were ever considered suspects, but there’s no evidence that Hutchinson was either, at least not by the contemporary police. If they dismissed him as a publicity-seeker who wasn’t even there when he claimed to be, they can’t also have subscribed to the view that he was spotted by another witness. If, on the other hand, they did make the connection between Hutchinson and Lewis’ loiterer but still treated his account as suspect, then yes, in this scenario, it’s far more likely that suspicion was later attached to him. Unfortunately, if the latter were true, the police would have struggled to convert those suspicions into a tangible result.

Even then it would be rather unlikely for a “still suspicious” Hutchinson to have found a place in memos written years after the murders, especially given his failure to conform to the type of suspect preferred by the police at the time, i.e. foreigners, “insane” people”, or those with connections to the medical and butchering professions. Certainly, if they suspected Hutchinson in the immediate aftermath of the Kelly murder, they would have used discreet surveillance to monitor his movements, and would not, accordingly, have related their suspicions to the papers.

“No, Hutchinson was in all probability a man that was dropped because the police KNEW that he would not have been Kelly´s killer.”

Incredibly unlikely.

Sorry, I can't agree with this one at all.

That would require positing the existence of all sorts of imaginary evidence that needs to exist in order to that theory to work. You’re arguing that Hutchinson MUST have been suspected, and that he MUST have been cleared as a result of those suspicions; that it MUST have happened as a result of some alibi that he MUST have found at 3:30am in the form of some other insomniac at the Victoria Home or on the streets during his walkabout. It’s all deeply unlikely, and far too dependent on filling in the blanks. The reality of “suspicions” in high profile police investigations, including this one, is that very few of them culminate in the firm establishment of guilt or innocence, that’s why we have so many ripper suspect whose innocence cannot be proved despite their having been “suspected” by the police.

We even learn from the press that a "reduced importance" had been attached to Hutchinson's account not because the police had proof that he was elsewhere, but because certain aspects of his account clearly did not add up in the minds of the "authorities".

“there must have been levels attached to Abberlines judgement of what and who could be expected phenomenons on that street and on that night”

My point was that Abberline would have considered the Jack-the-Ripper phenomenon to be very much out-of-the-ordinary, and that consequently, he may have expected the perpetrator to be equally “out-of-the-ordinary” – an expectation that may well have encompassed his appearance. He wouldn’t have ruled out the appearance of such an individual on the streets as “impossible” under ordinary circumstances, but there’s certainly no evidence that he considered it a common occurrence. This very issue was thrashed out here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4758&page=3

But this we can go on debating forever without reaching anywhere

Yes, that's my fear too, Fish. I feel like I'm in 2006 again. Agree to disagree methinks!

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:
"I have no doubt that they did precisely that with all inconsistent and dodgy witnesses, Packer included, but that doesn’t mean Hutchinson was automatically assigned suspect-status as a result of that follow-up. More likely, he was dismissed as a two-a-penny publicity-seeker and given little thought afterwards."

But that would add up to an verdict of: "Aha, you were lying about what you did loitering outside Miller´s Court! Oh well, I guess you were just after the publicity then".
Let´s ponder the fact that Hutchinson was quite unique, Ben. By his own admission, the police could nail him to spot and time of the Kelly killing! And much as there were hundreds of loonies around professing to have taken part in the killings in one way or another, NONE of them made up the same sort of suspect that Hutch did.

"You’re arguing that Hutchinson MUST have been suspected, and that he MUST have been cleared as a result of those suspicions, and that it MUST be because of some alibi that he MUST have found at 3:30am in the form of some other insomniac at the Victoria Home or on the streets during his walkabout."

Hmm, let´s get this straight:

No, I am not saying that he must have been a suspect. That only applies if the police could ascertain that he was not telling he truth. In such a case, then yes, he would most certainly have fallen under suspicion, without a doubt. But if his story was cracked by an external source or by himself, providing an alibi, then he would never even have gotten around to becoming a suspect. In such a case, I bet he would have been discarded in just a few words in the press, and never again mentioned by the police, not in any reports and not in any memoirs. Incidentally, this is EXACTLY what happened ...
Further on, his dire need to find an insomniac at the Victoria home only arises if we are sure that he WAS the loiterer. If he was in Banbury or Cropredy - different story altogether! And such a thing, when corroborated by the accomodating people in Banbury or Cropredy, would of course have resulted in him not falling under suspicion, and thus we would get a picture where neither press or police ... well, you get the drift, Ben!

"My point was that Abberline would have considered the Jack-the-Ripper phenomenon to be quite out-of-the-ordinary, and that consequently, he may have expected the perpetrator to be equally “out-of-the-ordinary” – an expectation that may well have encompassed his appearance."

Like I hinted at in my post to Ruby - Abberline had seen a lot, Ben. He would have known that the days of Géricault belonged to the past.

"Agree to disagree methinks!"

Excellent suggestion, Ben. I have had the audacity to use the two words "Wescott" and "wrong" on an adjacent thread, so I will have my hands full at any rate.

The best,
Fisherman