Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[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]

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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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]

Hi Fish,

“No matter if they were lying through their teeth, the coppers would not feel that they were potential Ripper material.”

Agreed, Fish, but if the coppers were of the persuasion that Hutchinson lied about his very presence there, he wouldn’t have been considered potential ripper material any more than Packer and Violenia. I have been exploring two possibilities: a) that no connection was ever made between Lewis and Hutchinson, and that the latter was dismissed as a time-waster, and b) that they did make the connection, and suspected Hutchinson as a consequence. I then looked at the ramifications of both options.

“Wait a sec here, Ben - are you saying that they did NOT connect him with Lewisī loiterer ...?”

No. I’m saying we have no evidence that such a connection was made.

“But Ben, then we need to ask ourselves WHY they did not trust it”

Again, Fish, there is no mystery surrounding WHY they did not trust it. We know why. They became suspicious of the nature of Hutchinson’s claims and came to attach a “reduced importance” to them accordingly. It really is a simple as that, and as for the source behind the “discrediting” is concerned, they clearly reference “the authorities” – in other words, the police.

[claire]

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!

[Natalie Severn]

These days I am coming round to the view that this Hutchinson chap was hoping to be Mary Kelly"s new love,replacing the kind gentlemanly Joe Barnett as her live in lover .Hutch or Toppy as I know you like to call him,Richard, seems to have known her only too well.And he was there until 3am, stalking her,standing outside her room soaked to the skin on a cold wet night,"waiting for one of her clients to come out",clearly consumed with jealousy and lust.
He deliberately avoided the inquest.He later inserted himself into the inquiry.
He was guilty Richard admit it,and he was desperately trying to avoid being hanged that"s all----and by hood winking Abberline,he did avoid the noose.
Best
Norma

[richardnunweek]

Hello all.
Once again the whole crux of the matter is the true identification of the witness known as G Hutchinson.
Was he a unknown time waster?
Was he a unknown Killer?
Was he Topping?... who existed, and has been nominated by his own flesh and blood.
If the latter, the alleged morals , and dignity of that man, seems unlikely to have been someone who indulged in blood lusts.
Please lets not get to the stage where we dismiss the obvious, ie, Hutch was Topping, and spoke the truth , which leads us to the same old dead end anyway.
After all he was not the only witness, who said they saw the deseased, with a well dressed man .. Bowyer on the wednesday , and associates on the evening of the 8th, mentioned that also.
It is my opinion we are overcooking Hutchinson, and doing that late gentleman no favours.
There was no conspiracy, no Heath [ 40s killer] scenerio, in which he involved himself with the police, which resulted in drawing massive attention to himself, amd consquently being hung...
My beliefs as you know.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Still since you brought up alibis, -ponder this : Hutch was supposed to be in Romford the night of Kelly's murder."

Letīs settle for "evening" instead, Ruby, and Iīm with you.

"If he hadn't seen Mrs Lewis..."

Since you speak of speculation, Ruby, you may need to ponder that he actually never spoke of seeing Lewis himself. That remains YOUR speculation. If he was never there in the first place, he could not have seen her at all, of course, and I think that a following slip-up by forgetting to mention her as he lied about having been the loiterer - if that was what he did, Iīm theorizing here - would be a very logical thing.

"If you can speculate on the hypothetical existance of alibis and Police checks ( no CTT cameras), then I can speculate too..."

Absolutely, Ruby - feel free! Although I think that Claire makes a very fair point as she echoes my reasoning:

"what other possible reason could the police have to drop Hutchinson as a witness if not for evidence he was somewhere else, or a retraction on his part?"

The answer is simple, I believe - none. But then again, other posters define simplicity in other manners, which is why we are still discussing this.

The best,
Fisherman

[claire]

Thanks for the amendment. I just spent five minutes reading and re-reading the original sentence...

But seriously, I am surprised that you would use the Packer example as in any way similar to the Hutchinson one. Packer's testimonies diverged from each other so wildly that there was very little consistency amongst them. Different, I think, to Hutchinson, whose statements to the press appeared only to embellish his original statement to the police in small ways. When faced with a witness who ducks in and out of stories, returning to make further statements weeks later, it is far more likely, isn't it, for the police to begin to suspect the veracity of those statements? Hutchinson was a different kettle of crypt-orchids: his story was accepted and then dismissed very rapidly; more rapidly, I would suggest, than is generally the case when police investigating a case like this (not least because of the understandable desire for his account to be true).

I am perfectly happy to accept that the police had very little to go on, as you say. But I would say that, given this, this would make them far more likely to maintain some level of belief in a witness statement for at least 24 hours, unless they had a jolly good reason to disbelieve it.

As for this: 'I do wish people wouldn’t do those long invented dialogue things.' That made me chuckle.

Cheers, Ben. Glad you're back.