Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[Ben]

Thanks for the welcome back, Claire, and I didn't mean to come across as grouchy over the dialogue!

But seriously, I am surprised that you would use the Packer example as in any way similar to the Hutchinson one.

I only made the comparison to illustrate that witnesses can be discredited even in the absence of proof that they were lying. As I've just been discussing with Fish, we know that this was precisely what happened in Hutchinson's case. Even the terminology is suggestive in this regard; Hutchinson's account was accorded "reduced importance" as a result of its dubious content. It wasn't a case of "It's officially false, folks, and here's how the authorities came to find out why" (gosh, I'm on the monologues now! ). Crucially, in this case, we know why Hutchinson was discredited, and we know that it wasn't as a result of his account having been officially disproved.

I accept your observation concerning the speed of Hutchinson's ditching, but I strongly suspect that it coincided with the release of his press claims, which vastly undermined his original account and included demonstrably false excuses for not coming forward earlier, such as "Oh, I did tell a policeman about it, but he did nothing".

(There I go again!)

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Once again the whole crux of the matter is the true identification of the witness known as G Hutchinson.

Thing is, it's just not, Rich.

That's very much a separate issue from the one we're discussing.

Hutchinson's account was reportedly "discredited", irrespective of the man's identity. He doesn't get any less discredited if he was a violin-playing plumber from Norwood.

Now, some people believe he was Toppy, and others don't. That's fine. I respect and accept that difference of opinion providing we avoid those bafflingly pointless "Oh why oh why can't we just believe?!?" type of posts that you, in your naughtiness, have been guilty of from time to time.

All the best,
Ben

[Hunter]

Hutchinson's account was reportedly "discredited" by two tabloids that lacked credibility themselves... especially the Star, who started the whole 'Leather Apron' fiasco and had Schwartz being chased by 'Pipeman' with a knife. The rumor mill was rampant in the days following the Kelly murder as the police - learning their lessons from previous murders - were attempting to effect better control over information to the press.

Unlike Packer and even Mrs. Long to some extent, there is no mention in existing police files of Hutchinson's testimony being discredited, and that's what we have to go on... whether they once existed and were subsequently lost or not. Anything beyond that is conjecture.

If the press is to be believed, then we can certainly give credence to the account in the papers of December, that Joseph Isaacs was being watched by police in connection to the Kelly murder as he fit the description given by Hutchinson. He had been arrested for stealing a watch when the story broke that he was also a suspect in the Whitechapel Murders.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I only made the comparison to illustrate that witnesses can be discredited even in the absence of proof that they were lying. As I've just been discussing with Fish, we know that this was precisely what happened in Hutchinson's case. Even the terminology is suggestive in this regard; Hutchinson's account was accorded "reduced importance" as a result of its dubious content. It wasn't a case of "It's officially false, folks, and here's how the authorities came to find out why" (gosh, I'm on the monologues now! ). Crucially, in this case, we know why Hutchinson was discredited, and we know that it wasn't as a result of his account having been officially disproved."

Then this is where we differ very much, Ben. In my wiew, we do not "know" that the precise same thing happened to Hutch as to Packer - that he was dismissed although there was a proven lack of evidence to do so.
There is no such proven lack about. True enough, we do not have it on record that there was conclusive proof putting Hutch in the clear, but the exact same thing applies to the opposite take on things; we have nothing telling us that the proof was not there.

Therefore we are on equal footing here, Ben. You donīt know, and I donīt know. After that, all we can do is to take a look at what we KNOW happened, and draw our conclusions from that.

Equally, we do not in any fashion "know" that it was the inherent qualities that were there from the start in the testimony/the press articles that made the police send Hutch on his way.

Letīs have a refreshed look at what was said in the "London Echo" article:

"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? As many as fifty-three persons have, in all, made statements as to "suspicious men," each of whom was thought to be Mary Janet Kelly's assassin. The most remarkable thing in regard to the latest statement is, that no one else can be found to say that a man of that description given was seen with the deceased, while, of course, there is the direct testimony of the witnesses at the inquest, that the person seen with the deceased at midnight was of quite a different appearance."

...and this is what Garry Wroe had to say about it on a thread from last year:

"if factual, one can only surmise that it came about as a consequence of a police tip-off, and that Hutchinson had given himself away whilst searching the Whitechapel district with his police escort on the Monday evening. Then, as had been the case with Violenia before him, he was quietly dropped – viewed by the police as persona non grata."

So, a police tip-off is what Garry senses behind it, combined with Hutch giving himself away. At any rate, it says very clearly that Hutchinsons statement had become doubted, not because of itīs inherent qualities, but "in the light of later investigation", that is to say that something surfaced that was not there from the beginning. And that, precisely that, is what I have been saying all along. Also, it seems that what the "authorities" questioned, was not the veracity of the testimony, but the fact that Hutch had waited three days before showing up.

The best,
Fisherman

[Natalie Severn]

I definitely don't think that should be discounted as a possibility, Norma, whether one considers MJ as a canonical victim or not. Either way, it's possible to construct plausible psychologies for such a killer. I'm quite sympathetic to the possibilities of either, too. The only real snagging point, for me, is the extent to which Hutchinson (regardless of his actual identity) could have controlled or predicted the police response...it's one thing to take that risk if you just fancied a bit of excitement, and pretended to be at the scene, and quite another to be responsible for the murder and to willingly insert yourself into the investigation. Takes a certain amount of chutzpah and recklessness, I think...although he could hope that his crazy story would seem so crackpot that he was dismissed as a crank, there was always the risk that he would be thoroughly investigated...

Anyhow! Just too many possibilities--and it's bed time for me!

Hi Claire,
I think that over the years I have become quite convinced that Hutchinson was madly in love with Mary Kelly.There is a section of Alexandre Dumas Fils book on Alphonsine Plessis [the real life prostitute or "sex worker" of his novel "La Dame aux Camelias"/later to become Verdi"s "La Traviata"].
He describes how he wanted to kill her after she came back to him, so none of her other men could have her.He too waited for hours, watching her apartment in The Rue D"Antin [actually the Boulevard de la Madeleine" ] until 4 am one morning for one of her "clients" to come out---and like Hutch left ---he says he was in a terrible state, consumed by jealousy and despair, even though she wanted him to still be her friend,he couldn"t stand her having all these men in her life etc.
So I think Hutch has to be a serious suspect -even though he seems not to have been suspected by police.His appearance and "military bearing" may have deceived Abberline .Why did he want to "insert himself"? Well he may have later been consumed with guilt but still wanted to be part of her .
Best Norma

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

“In my wiew, we do not "know" that the precise same thing happened to Hutch as to Packer - that he was dismissed although there was a proven lack of evidence to do so.”

As you’ve noted, this is where we have conflicting views, since I don’t really see how the wording of the article allows for any other interpretation other than the one I offered – that the authorities came to doubt the account and dismissed him accordingly. At the very least, we can say that there’s considerably more evidence that he was dismissed for this reason, as opposed to any other alternative. In all honesty, I don’t see the room for doubt on the issue. The article (thanks for providing it, by the way) starts off by informing the reader that a “reduced importance” had been attached to Hutchinson’s statement, and then goes on the outline just WHY this “importance” came to be “reduced”.

“At any rate, it says very clearly that Hutchinsons statement had become doubted, not because of itīs inherent qualities, but "in the light of later investigation", that is to say that something surfaced that was not there from the beginning.”

I really don’t think the article implies this, Fish. You’re quite right to observe that they speak of “later investigation”, but the reasons provided in that same article are clearly the result of those investigations. The “inherent qualities” came to be questioned as a result of investigation, i.e. further analysis.

I quite agree with Garry’s observation that the press were more than likely tipped off by the police, and I certainly accept your observation that Hutchinson’s “delay” seemed to have been a big factor in his dismissal.

All the best,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

I wouldn't want to advance myself on that, Nathalie..although I think there is something 'different' about the MJK killing, and I get the feeling that her killer /Hutch knew her-even if I open my mind to entertain doubts that they weren't one and the same; for one thing I think that he knew that she now lived alone, and he wouldn't be interrupted if he got into the room.

But 'great chutzpah', and daring, fit's with my idea of the Ripper's personality -allied with self preservation.

[Ben]

Interesting stuff there, Norma!

I will have to seek out the book in question.

Hi Hunter,

“Hutchinson's account was reportedly "discredited" by two tabloids that lacked credibility themselves”

I would suggest that there’s absolutely no reason to doubt the veracity of two independent press sources attesting to the same observation. Bear in mind that both papers had earlier provided Hutchinson’s full account, with the Star in particular expressing enthusiastic optimism that it might yield results for the investigation. As such, it would hardly have benefited them to then claim falsely that Hutchinson’s account was now discredited. The Star also “discredited” Packer, which we know to be true.

As for an official police memo confirming the discrediting of Hutchinson, we really needn’t expect one. It’s his very absence from the records that tells the story. The individual memos, interviews and reports from senior police officials have been discussed in detail elsewhere in relation to Hutchinson, but all effectively attest to the same observation, and he remains highly conspicuous in his absence. The fact that one of the Jewish witnesses was used in preference to Hutchinson, who alleged a far better, closer and more detailed sighting, is particularly telling.

With regard to Joseph Isaacs, the alleged threats of violence against women, the theft of a watch, and the fact that he lodged a stone's throw from Miller's Court provided more than sufficient impetuses for police interest. He would have attracted police attention irrespective of what he looked like, and crucially, we have no evidence that the police were after him for that reason. Incidentally, I think it highly unlikely that a lowly cigar maker of no fixed abode could have resembled the opulent-looking Mr. Astrakhan very much.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I really don’t think the article implies this, Fish. You’re quite right to observe that they speak of “later investigation”, but the reasons provided in that same article are clearly the result of those investigations. The “inherent qualities” came to be questioned as a result of investigation, i.e. further analysis."

What we need to take a look at here - once again - is the timetable provided, Ben. Abberline interrogated Hutchinson on the 12:th, and came to the conclusion that his tale was truthful.
The day after that, the London Echo carried itīs article.
The day after THAT, the papers revealed Hutchinsons claim to have spoken to a police about his exploits in Dorset Street.

To me, this makes for a far too small timeframe for Abberline to not only start doubting a story he believed in a few hours before, but in fact dismissing Hutchinson altogether. Hutchinsons slightly rambling newspaper accounts were not even on the market yet, remember, so I am having some trouble to see what you mean is hen and what is egg here. Did Abberline grow suspicious because of newspaper accounts that he had not yet seen? Reasonably not. Therefore, his doubts would have started growing the minute Hutch left his room, it would seem. And after that, the London Echo got wind of it, presenting the doubts only the day after.

That, Ben, is a VERY tight schedule. It is also a schedule that would be more or less unique, I think, in having a top ranking officer forming a positive opinion and sending a memo about it to the very top of the police organization, wording things that he believed it was true, only to not just question his own judgement, but actually condemn it on the exact same grounds that made him approve of it before ...?

So no, the verdict must be that this is not a scenario that offers much of credibility to a mind as simple as mine. I opt for making the observation that "in the light of later investigation" very clearly tells us that something happened that was tied not to reflection but investigation - and that means active police work (or sheer luck when a witness enters the localities and vouches for Hutch).
In fact, nothing at all stands in the way for such an interpretation, and after that, the choice inbetween an Abberline who reels drunkenly inbetween interpretations from day one to day two - literally! - and an Abberline that opts for believing in Hutchs story, only to have it disproven by external factors the day after, becomes very easy to make.

If "in the light of later investigation" could ONLY mean that Abberline got cold feet, you would have been right. But as long as the expression not only lends itself eminently to another interpretation, but in fact even seems to encourage it, you move from an unchallengable "would have" to a very frail "could have", as far as I can tell. That does not mean that I will claim that my interpretation is the only reasonable one, the way you claim your ditto is. There is not enough in it to make such a call, quite simply. Fair is fair.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

The timetable makes perfect sense once the timing involved is examined. By 13th November, the police had already come to doubt Hutchinson’s account. By this stage, the “D” word had not been mentioned, but it was observed that a reduced importance was being attached to it. As you correctly note, the police were not then aware of the later embellished press accounts that appeared from the 14th onwards. It’s also clear – again, as you’ve already observed – that the concerns of the police centred, at this stage, not so much around the content of the statement or the discrepancies, but the fact that he had delayed coming forward, and that no other witnesses reported seeing Astrakhan-type suspects.

So the seeds of doubt had already been sown.

Then along come the press versions of his account, which include embellishments, contradictions, and claims (as mentioned earlier) that could easily be checked up upon and proven false. What effect could these press reports have had on the already doubtful police other than confirmation that their earlier doubts had been well-founded? When viewed in this light, the schedule doesn’t appear to be nearly so tight. Instead we see an altogether more gradual “doubting” of Hutchinson’s account, beginning with an acceptance on the evening of 12th and culminating in a discrediting on either the 14th or 15th. The “delay” sowed the seeds of doubt and the dodgy press versions cemented them, hence the transition from “reduced importance” (13th) to “discredited” (15th). It’s surely no coincidence either that the “discredited” reference came so soon after the release of his press account.

In fact, I honestly can’t see how any of this is coincidence.

Again, in the presence of all these very telling indicators that the “discrediting” process was a gradual affair, there has never been any less need for a big, external "something else" for which we have no evidence. There are simply no blanks to fill, especially not with mysterious unrecorded “alibis”! There’s no doubt over the issue of what “later investigation” meant, and we know it wasn’t something mega that put Hutchinson magically in the clear, or else they wouldn’t have said that only a “reduced importance” has been attached to the account. It would have been “no importance whatsoever”. The later investigation clearly referred to the reconsiderations that the article goes on to mention.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"It’s also clear – again, as you’ve already observed – that the concerns of the police centred not so much around the content of the statement or the discrepancies, but the fact that he had delayed coming forward, and that no other witnesses reported seeing Astrakhan-type suspects.
So the seeds of doubt had already been sown."

Not only were they sown, Ben - they were fullgrown and harvested, more or less. In no time at all. I find that pretty amazing.
But it is nice to see that you agree that it would seem that neither the discrepancies involved in the later press reports or the story of the policeman Hutch claimed to have spoken to, would have had any influence at all in forming the doubtfulness you mean was clawing itīs way into Abberlineīs chest.
So, we are faced with an Abberline who on day one does not think it too strange to believe that Hutch was three days late, nor does he believe that Astrakhan man must have been a conjured-up fake.
But on day two, however - poof! - he suddenly realizes that he had not seen the significance of all this the day before, and sends a wire to the London Echo about it first thing in the morning.

"There’s no doubt over the issue of what “later investigation” meant"

But surely you must have read my posts, Ben? And Claires? We actually DO doubt your version of the events. Very much, actually.

Letīs put it this way, Ben: We KNOW that the Echo - for whatever itīs worth - wrote that the police were doubtful about the veracity of Hutch, and they clearly stated that they put those doubts down to "later investigation". Are you saying that this "later investigation" could not have been the police acting on a tip from somebody, saying that Hutch had been elsewhere on the night, and asking away? Just as one example of thousands that I could formulate, and that would all lend themselves very nicely to corresponding to an activity that could be described as "later investigation". Could it NEVER have been that Hutch himself had contradicted what he had said, as he was out on his nightly walk with the two PC:s, something that had made these PC:s make inquiries that forced Abberline to realize that he could have been wrong? Could that not be the case? Would that not tally exactly with what the Echo stated: that there was police work, investigations, going on, to establish to what degree Hutchinson could be trusted? And could not that police work have turned something up?
I know that you think that this is unnecessary surplus work and that there is no need to fill anything in at all, but since there are those of us who think that your interpretation is less credible in itīs picture of a ping-pongish Abberline, would it not be fair to say that there is nothing at all on record that hinders the suggestion that "investigations" actually meant investigations?
Or MUST we be wrong?

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

There is not enough in it to make such a call, quite simply. Fair is fair.

Fish -I think that there is enough to make a call that Hutch is the best suspect in the Case,and reading regularly other people's assessments of their
favourite suspects, I've never been convinced by an argument in favour of anyone else.

There are lots of details that tie Hutch to the case, and no convincing details that tie anyone else.

If it wasn't Hutch, then it was ' Mr unknown' -only, how to explain why the murders stopped after MJK, if it was 'Mr Unkown' ?

.. and there is a very logical explanation why the murders stopped, if it was Hutch (too close to the investigation).

I have no difficulty explaining why Hutch might have come forward , nor in
seeing why Abberline might believe him at first contact.

As to why Abberline changed his mind, whether it was Hutch's interviews to the papers which were patently false, or 'in light of further investigation' -
it might be one of those things, or both.. and what does 'in light of further investigation' mean ? You don't know, and I don't know.

(It is worth remembering that the Yorkshire Ripper was investigated by Police , and then dismissed, and only caught due to a traffic misdemeanour).

That it was quickly proved that Hutch was a liar, I'm sure would be easy. That he had an alibi..I've already showed that he could have lots of witnesses to give an 'alibi' that he wasn't in London (whilst still being in London). If he was friends with such people as BSM and Pipe, who were up to no good themselvs, he might have false alibis -we cannot know anything about this. In the absence of CTT, DNA testing, finger prints etc, the Police would have a hard job in any investigation where the killer wasn't caught red handed.

The fact remains that we have a witness statement tying a person that fits Hutch's description to a crime scene at the crucial time. We have a person admitting that he is that suspect, fitting the description, and with spurious story. We then have the spate of murders stopping.

[claire]

'In the light of later investigation' does, really, hint that some investigative process had influenced the police suspicions over Hutchinson's account; that would be the usual interpretation of it. And I'm not sure that I agree that a few hours' consideration of the inherent features of GH's account would really count for 'later investigation.' One slight compromise to this, however, is the press account that, 'from later inquiries, it appears...' Possible, I concede, that the press would enquire of the police as to any developments on the witness statement, and they responded that they were according it 'reduced importance.' The surmise about 'investigation,' therefore, would be that of the press.

Still, it seems unlikely, in my mind, that the police's suspicions about GH had arisen from no real additional information. Certainly, Abberline's initial opinions as to the veracity of the GH statement may not have been shared by other officers, who may have voiced their views to the press. But I still tend to the belief that something came to light that altered police opinion, given that the overwhelming urge must have been to grab at any possible clue (sorry, that sounds a bit archaic, but still) in the first few hours after a new witness statement.

Nevertheless, I agree with you, Norma. There's something somewhat compelling about GH and his need to provide such a detailed account of MJ, careful to note the length of their acquaintanceship, prepared to state that he hung around on a cold, wet night when he knew she was in her room with another man. It is unusual, particularly since, really, for all his careful description of the man he says he saw with MJ, it provides little in the way of an ability to identify a suspect, once that man was stripped of his costume (this, for me, has always been the snagging point of the possibility of Mr A. being a suspect--why would anyone, intent on murder, dress themselves up to the point where they would stand at contrepoint to most others in the district [certainly at that time of night, on that particular street, in that weather]?). My lingering doubt, however, is due to the question of whether GH was 'simply' obsessed with MJ and couldn't give up that obsession, even after her death, or whether that was all part of his own murderous activities.

And, if the latter, do we consider MJ a canonical, or not? (I now recognise I am about to enter the realms of fantasy and speculation, so will desist!)

I am now going to check out the Dumas book...something else to occupy me, rather than work

[claire]

There are lots of details that tie Hutch to the case, and no convincing details that tie anyone else.

If it wasn't Hutch, then it was ' Mr unknown' -only, how to explain why the murders stopped after MJK, if it was 'Mr Unkown' ?

No, there aren't 'lots of details that tie Hutch to the case.' I know that there has been surmise about this, but the only detail that ties GH to the case is his offering himself as a witness in the MJK murder. That is a detail, or link, shared by a sizeable number of others.

Second, it is only opinion, really, and an adherence to the post-hoc C5 theory, that the murders stopped after MJK. Further, even if we accept the C5, there were other unknown individuals who could have quite compelling reasons of their own to quit killing after MJ. What, for instance, do we know of Fleming, for just one example?

These are unanswered issues; it isn't enough to form a coherent scenario and ignore the other possibilities.

[Ben]

“Not only were they sown, Ben - they were fullgrown and harvested, more or less. In no time at all. I find that pretty amazing.”

But why, Fish?

Hutchinson approached the police at 6.00pm, and Abberline penned his approval that very evening, before any attempt at verifying key aspects of the statement, or even a detailed analysis of its content could realistically have occurred. Clearly, both of those things had occurred to a degree by the following day, with the result being that doubt was now attached to the statement, albeit not the sort of doubt that resulted in the statement being proven false, since the wording of the article makes abundantly clear that this simply did not happen.

We sometimes talk about Abberline as though his was the only relevant voice of approval, or otherwise, for Hutchinson, whereas in reality, the moment Abberline communicated his 12th November missive to his superiors, in was open to external input and analysis. Even so, it isn’t remotely amazing for someone to alter an opinion upon considered reflection and as a result of further investigation and analysis.

I’d rather not get into a semantic debate over what “investigation” meant in the context of 13th November article. I’ve no doubt that the police investigated and analyzed as much as they could between the 12th and 13th, but whatever the results of those investigations were, they most assuredly did not include a revelation that Hutchinson was proven to have been elsewhere at the time of his sighting, or else they would have said so, and they would most assuredly and emphatically not have said that only a “reduced importance” had been attached to his account, if that were the case.

“Could it NEVER have been that Hutch himself had contradicted what he had said, as he was out on his nightly walk with the two PC:s, something that had made these PC:s make inquiries that forced Abberline to realize that he could have been wrong?”

Of course it could, but realizing that he “could have” been makes sense of the article. If Abberline knew for certain that he was wrong, then the article makes no sense whatsoever. Crucially, the 13th November article is to the effect that they were doubtful ONLY. They clearly had not secured proof that Hutchinson was either lying or in the clear.

And “my” version of events, if it can be termed as such, is merely an acknowledgement of what the article actually says. As for you being “wrong”, I can’t prove that, no, but I personally suspect you are. But then wasn’t this why we agreed to disagree earlier? In fact, when did that stop being a good idea?

Best regards,
Ben