Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
The beast[ or one of them] has awoken.
To go over much trodden ground, it all depends who the real GH was, if Topping, then I would say he was being honest, at least cooperated with the police to assist.
If a unknown GH [ mayby even a false name] then he could have been anything Casebook wants him to be.
Common sense points to Topping [ Flak helmet on] I still maintain I heard Reg[ or Regs version] on Radio 18 years before 'The Ripper and the Royals' was published, so I have a edge on all of you.....How can I not believe it was GWTH.?
If I am wrong, then I stand to be corrected, and if I am wrong, who was George Hutchinson the witness?
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

If you don’t see any mileage in the premise that Hutchinson was “madly, deeply, passionately in love with this feckless alcoholic prostitute” you’ll find absolutely no argument from me. This, to my mind, has always been a superfluous component to the argument in favour of Hutchinson’s potential culpability in the ripper crimes. If Hutchinson really did loiter outside Miller’s Court with the intention of dispatching Mary Kelly within an hour, we needn’t assume he did so out of a burning, jealous lust/love for her. Ted Bundy loitered outside the home of his Tallahassee victims and Dennis Rader monitored the home of the Otero family from a discreet vantage point, but neither of these offenders could be accused of harbouring a “passionate love” for their victims.

They simply watched and waited, as I contend the ripper did.

On the other hand, the “hoping for a freebie” explanation is just as problematic, if not more so. Even if we accept that he embarked upon a 13-mile trek from Romford in foul weather conditions in the certainty that his “usual” lodgings would have closed by the time he arrived back in Whitechapel, is it likely that this “hope” would have extended to a 45-minute futile vigil in the cold and rain, followed by more walking around for the remainder of the night once this “hope” was cruelly dashed, never popping back to see if the Astrakhan man had moved on? That’s a bit too much to take on board, especially when we’re also compelled to accept that Hutchinson never saw fit to ‘fess up to this innocent “hoping for a freebie” excuse when communicating with the police.

“or they had reason to doubt he was even there to witness anything at all, and concluded that he was just another publicity-seeking time waster. I am somewhat surprised, however, after all that has been said on this subject, to find you favouring the latter possibility”

If a witness account didn’t smell right, the most immediate and obvious conclusion (by far) to an 1888 police force deluged with money-grabbers and publicity-seekers was that the latest implausible offering clearly belonged to this group, Even if the bogus-seeming witness claimed to have been near the crime scene at the time of the murder, a la Matthew Packer, the knee-jerk reaction was highly unlikely to have been “Ayup, here’s another serial killer pretending to be a witness. That old chestnut!” There was simply no precedent for such behaviour, and the proverbial “chestnut” was brand new, in this case.

There is no evidence that the contemporary police ever made the connection between Hutchinson and Lewis’ loiterer, and indeed no evidence that such a connection was inferred until the 1980s at the earliest.

Walter Dew suggested that Hutchinson may have mistaken the date of the Astrakhan encounter, but how is that suggestion remotely compatible with generalized police awareness that the key particulars of Hutchinson’s alleged movements tied in so amazingly with those of the man Lewis observed? It seems strange for Dew to have omitted the detail that Hutchinson’s date-confusion just happened to tie in with a man who fitted his location, time, and activity on the night of the murder UNLESS the Lewis-Hutchinson connection was never registered. In which case, there’s nothing at all strange about Dew’s comments. Compare the press and police attention given to Astrakhan, Bethnal Weirdo and Blotchy as against the wideawake man, and it isn’t difficult to see why.

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

Prior to Hutchinson, Caz, Packer was regarded as a witness who interacted with a supposed Ripper victim close in time and space to the site of her murder. Such were the absurdities of Packer’s case-related disclosures that he became discredited. Tellingly, however, he never came under police suspicion.

Earlier still, Violenia claimed to have seen John Pizer threatening to stab Annie Chapman in Hanbury Street during the small hours of Saturday, 8 September. This, of course, placed Violenia himself with a soon to be Ripper victim at a time and venue critical to the subsequent murder. As with Packer, Violenia’s story was disproved. And yet, just like Packer, Violenia never came under police suspicion. Both men were simply considered time-wasters or publicity-seekers and thus undeserving of further time and effort. In short, they were excluded from the investigative equation.

Whilst such an approach might appear to the modern observer to be unprofessional to the point of recklessness, it most certainly prevailed amongst Abberline and his colleagues at the time of the Whitechapel Murders. This being the case, why is it so difficult to believe that Hutchinson was similarly dropped once his Kelly-related claims came to be viewed with ‘reduced importance’?

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

To go over much trodden ground, it all depends who the real GH was

See here again, Richard, no.

Surprisingly little "depends who the real GH was". You'll be amazed at what little relevance the real identity of Hutchinson has to the present discussion.

Common sense points to Topping [ Flak helmet on]

Flak! Flak! Flak! Here I come, raining down with my ferocious (but necessary) FLAK!

You asked for it, Richard.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Prior to Hutchinson, Caz, Packer was regarded as a witness who interacted with a supposed Ripper victim close in time and space to the site of her murder. Such were the absurdities of Packer’s case-related disclosures that he became discredited. Tellingly, however, he never came under police suspicion

I personally would never assume that someone that the police realized was fibbing to them would not then cross their minds as a possible suspect. He did spend some quality time at the Yard so we are not talking about snap decisions.

But Packer had an immediate and airtight alibi: his wife was in the shop with him when he "sold the grapes".

And obviously at 57 years of age, I think he'd be outside our suspicions as well.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Walter Dew suggested that Hutchinson may have mistaken the date of the Astrakhan encounter, but how is that suggestion remotely compatible with generalized police awareness that the key particulars of Hutchinson’s alleged movements tied in so amazingly with those of the man Lewis observed? It seems strange for Dew to have omitted the detail that Hutchinson’s date-confusion just happened to tie in with a man who fitted his location, time, and activity on the night of the murder UNLESS the Lewis-Hutchinson connection was never registered."

I think we need to take two things into consideration here, Ben. To begin with, we both know that Walter Dews book came out when he was 75 years old. In it, he turns Thomas Bowyer into a young fellow, he has Diemschitz entering the club crying: "The Ripper! The Ripper!", etcetera.
I think you will agree with me that if we are to sharpen the pictuce of what happened back in 1888, Walter Dew is not neccessarily the best tool for going about it ...
Moreover, back in 1888, Dew was still a bit of a freshman. He was 25 years old, and not in a commanding position. Therefore, we cannot conclude to which extent he knew about the discussions carried on at a higher level. That is to say that even if there was a discussion going on about whether Hutchinson was Lewis´loiterer or not (and frankly, it would be odd in the extreme if there was not), then that discussion need not have been one that Dew actively took part in.

But that is only one of my two points.

The other one would be to point to what Caz said in her post: If the police invested any faith in Lewis description, and if Hutchinson did NOT fit that description at all - if we, for example, have a shortish, compact guy in the wideawake, while Hutchinson was a lean, tall guy - then the police may immediately have opted for a quite logical verdict of identity disproven. And if THAT was the case, then we are dealing with a scenario where we have two different men in Dorset Street on the night in question, one put there by Lewis´testimony and the other by his own admission. And if so, then I see no problem at all with Dew´s suggestion. On the contrary, in fact, since it relieves us of the problem of having to accept two men standing opposite the court at the approximate same time. And if Lewis´man and Hutchinson were clearly not one and the same, and if we opt for believing in BOTH of them, we need an explanation to why Hutchinson did not say tell Abberline that he had shared the doorway with a short, stout fellow in a wideawake.
So, you see, Dew only becomes a problem if we accept that the police believed that Hutchinson must have been the man Lewis saw. And, of course, if we choose to believe overall in what old Walter said in his book - which is riddled with mistakes.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I find it somewhat perplexing .that so little attention is made to witnesses statements, we are forever doubting the authenticity of the written word , made at the time , and everyone becomes, either a liar, a timewaster, or completely mistaken.
In the case of Dew , we too dispute his accounts, calling it the recollections of a elderly man.
We assume that when refering to a youth , he obviously was confused, we dispute his account of his time spent at Millers court that morning , even suggesting he wasnt even there.
Dew made it clear that his accounts of 1888 may have been less accurate then he would have liked, but also states that his memory of the morning of the 9th November are 'crystal clear', and will remain with him for ever, as the worst experience of his police service.
Ben,
The identity of George Hutchinson will always be important, albeit mayby not relevant to this thread, I was just suggesting,that if Topping was not our man, and until we trace the real man, as we have no character record to base opinion on , it is free to speculate, all kinds of plots.
But if GWTH, was our man who are we to doubt his word, and integreity, or for that matter the late Reg.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Richard!

You write:

"I find it somewhat perplexing .that so little attention is made to witnesses statements, we are forever doubting the authenticity of the written word , made at the time , and everyone becomes, either a liar, a timewaster, or completely mistaken.
In the case of Dew , we too dispute his accounts, calling it the recollections of a elderly man.
We assume that when refering to a youth , he obviously was confused..."

Nobody would have been more delighted than me if we could always work from the assumption that the witness statements involved in the Ripper case were all correct. But we know for sure that Dew WAS mistaken in a number of instances. When it comes to Thomas Bowyer, we know that he was a pensionist with a history of having served with the army in India. He was allegedly born in Surrey around 1825. That makes him around 63 at the time. We have a contemporary, detailed drawing of him, showing that he looked anything but a young man.
But this is how Dew recalls him:
"I was chatting with Inspector Beck, who was in charge of the station, when a young fellow, his eyes bulging out of his head, came panting into the police station...The youth led us a few yards down Dorset Street from Commercial Street, until we came to a court..."

I think your approach to witness testimony - to believe it until proven wrong - is normally a very wise one, Richard, just as I think that too many theorists have chosen a diametrically opposing approach in many an issue. But when we have ample evidence to disprove the testimony given, then we must accept this. It is not to say that any 75-year old man is a bad witness - it is only to point out that we know for a fact that the 75-year old Walter Dew got a number of things terribly wrong.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“Moreover, back in 1888, Dew was still a bit of a freshman. He was 25 years old, and not in a commanding position”

He wouldn’t have been as senior as the really senior people, granted, but if there was widespread acceptance or suspicion that Hutchinson may have been the individual observed by Lewis, I consider it highly doubtful that Dew would have been left out of the loop, as we might assume he would have been if he was merely a bobby on beat, for example. Consequently – and accepting that there are several errors in Dew’s account – I consider this a strong indicator that there was no such general acceptance amongst the police. You’re mileage may vary, of course.

I’m not nailing any firm colours to the mast, however. As you know, we’re already discussed the possibility that the Hutchinson-wideawake connection was made, and that Hutchinson was suspected as a consequence. As viable a possibility as this remains, it’s still a bit too “fill-in-the-blanks” for me. A bit too dependent on lots of conclusions drawn and consequent action taken, neither of which we have any evidence for. It’s no more prudent to assume that the police were infallible, dotting every “i” and crossing every “t”, than it is to assume they must have made errors, particularly when we’re dealing with a police force in its infancy.

The argument over whether the police made X or Y connection is ultimately a rather unproductive one. In the absence of any compelling evidence either way, we can only draw our own tentative conclusions. As it stands, and strictly speaking, there is no evidence that the police made the Hutch-wideawake connection and no evidence that such a connection was ever inferred until 100 years after the event.

“On the contrary, in fact, since it relieves us of the problem of having to accept two men standing opposite the court at the approximate same time.”

Surely it compounds the problem?

Surely, in that scenario, we’re compelled to accept that two separate individuals were standing outside the entrance to Miller’s Court at 2:30am on the night in question, both “watching and waiting” for someone? And we’d be wondering why “lean, tall” Hutchinson, on his identical mission to that of Mr. Wideawake, wasn’t observed by Lewis. Unless I’ve misunderstood the suggested scenario, I find this very implausible, and it still stretches that odd coincidence of Hutchinson’s account of his movements just happening to coincide with the behaviour of the wideawake man as reported by Lewis, and that Hutchinson’s decision to come forward with this information just happened to coincide with the release of Lewis’ information.

But if GWTH, was our man who are we to doubt his word, and integreity

Discerning observers, I should hope, Richard.

The crucial point here is that Hutchinson's identity doesn't alter the elements from 1888 that some consider "doubtful". It doesn't change the content of his statement, for example. And Toppy's "character record" comes from his family, and is necessarily biased.

Best regards,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

I personally would never assume that someone [Packer*] that the police realized was fibbing to them would not then cross their minds as a possible suspect. He did spend some quality time at the Yard so we are not talking about snap decisions.

I’m assuming nothing, SRA. Police thinking regarding Packer was clearly defined in a report submitted to the Home Office by Swanson in which it was stated that Packer had ‘unfortunately made different statements so ... any statement he made would be rendered almost valueless as evidence.’ Manifestly, therefore, Packer was still being viewed at senior police level as a witness, albeit one whose claims could not be trusted by dint of their inconsistency. And if he was a witness, he most certainly wasn’t a suspect.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[*] My insertion.

[Rubyretro]

I think that Witness Statements -even if the Witness is the most honest person in the world-are always to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Luckily we have DNA testing finger printing and cameras today.

My two experiences with 'witnessing' (I've already recounted them) proved to me that they are false. Also my experiences of 'creative deep relaxation' prove that you can make crystal clear memories of things that never happened.

If you ask your brain to supply details from your memory, I think that it will supply you with 'an answer' -even if that answer is false- in the same way that that you would be compelled to give an hypnotist 'an answer' to any question posed.

You can experiment yourself with people around you by writing down 'memories' of, say, the last time you went to a pub with your partner
..what time you arrived, who was there, where they were standing, what they drank, what they were wearing, what they said, when they left. I amost guarantee that if you both write things down separately and then compare, that there will be differences...differences which might be crucial in a serious ivestigation.

Even memory card games and that 'object on a tray' game, show that when conciously trying to remember details, it's quite difficult ; so even more difficult when not realising the importance of an event when it's happening.

Is it possible that Dew mixed up Bowyer with Fiona Kendall's Grandfather, whom he might have seen subsequently ?

[Fisherman]

Hi Ben!

"As it stands, and strictly speaking, there is no evidence that the police made the Hutch-wideawake connection and no evidence that such a connection was ever inferred until 100 years after the event."

There is not, that is correct.
So we are left with the fact that Lewis stated that there had been a man standing opposite Miller´s Court, as if watching it, and this sighting would reasonably have been interpreted by the police as a very possible sighting of the Ripper (though we do not have this on record either, as you will notice).
We are also left with the fact that as the police were wondering about just who the wideawake man could have been, George Hutchinson enters the stage and tells the police that he spent a good deal of the night in question standing opposite Miller´s court, watching it.
Finally we are left with your suggestion that the police may not have noticed that these two separate phenomenons seemingly point in the exact same direction, and my suggestion that they would not have missed such a thing. And quite honestly, the fact that we do not have any documentation pointing the finger in either direction, does not mean that it would be somehow more trustworthy to believe that the connection was not made. To my eye, that would defy logic. But just like you point out, our mileages often differ, Ben.

"Surely it compounds the problem?
Surely, in that scenario, we’re compelled to accept that two separate individuals were standing outside the entrance to Miller’s Court at 2:30am on the night in question, both “watching and waiting” for someone? And we’d be wondering why “lean, tall” Hutchinson, on his identical mission to that of Mr. Wideawake, wasn’t observed by Lewis. Unless I’ve misunderstood the suggested scenario, I find this very implausible, and it still stretches that odd coincidence of Hutchinson’s account of his movements just happening to coincide with the behaviour of the wideawake man as reported by Lewis, and that Hutchinson’s decision to come forward with this information just happened to coincide with the release of Lewis’ information."

Please note, Ben, that this is not any suggestion on MY behalf - it may, however, have been a suggestion on Dews behalf, explaining why he opened up for the possibility of a mistaken date on Hutchinson´s behalf! It would of course be odd if there were two men in Dorset Street on two consecutive days, both seemingly watching Miller´s Court at the same hour - but it would be even more strange if they were there on the same day! And that is why I mean that Dew may have opted for a mistaken date. We must remember that we do not know that the loiterer stood around for 45 minutes. We only know that Hutch SAID that HE did! There is every chance that the wideawake man could have stopped quite briefly on his way through Dorset Street, and if he did it opposite Miller´s Court, it would not be a very odd thing to do to throw a glance in that direction. And if this happened as Lewis passed by, well, then the behaviour of wideawake man may not at all have equalled what Hutch spoke of. Maybe this is how Dew´s thoughts wandered - provided that he theoretically KNEW that the two men were very much unalike each other.
Of course it stretches things a bit, but if Dew felt that he wanted to believe in both Lewis and Hutch, then this may have been how he coped with the problem.

Then again, if Dew KNEW that Hutch was dropped as a time-waster, Ben, then why would he want to place him in Dorset Street at all, fifty years after it all went down...? That too represents a riddle, wouldn´t you say?

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

I think that the simplest explanation is that Hutch followed the case, knew that a witness had testified to 'wideawake hat' man in the court, and he then
presented himself to the Police...with the timings and inference being that he was 'wideawake man'.

It is beyond belief that the Police wouldn't compare Hutch's statement with that of Lewis.

I still contend that if the Abberline was willing to accept Hutch's statement straight off -then he matched the physical description of the man seen in the court...whether or not not he was that man

If the police did not put the 'man in the court' to the top of the suspect list subsequently then I think that, even if they dismissed Hutch, they still believed that Hutch was that man.

Why would they not be looking for Wideawake Man as the prime suspect, otherwise ?

[Abby Normal]

I think that the simplest explanation is that Hutch followed the case, knew that a witness had testified to 'wideawake hat' man in the court, and he then
presented himself to the Police...with the timings and inference being that he was 'wideawake man'.

It is beyond belief that the Police wouldn't compare Hutch's statement with that of Lewis.

I still contend that if the Abberline was willing to accept Hutch's statement straight off -then he matched the physical description of the man seen in the court...whether or not not he was that man

If the police did not put the 'man in the court' to the top of the suspect list subsequently then I think that, even if they dismissed Hutch, they still believed that Hutch was that man.

Why would they not be looking for Wideawake Man as the prime suspect, otherwise ?

Hi Ruby

I think that the simplest explanation is that Hutch followed the case, knew that a witness had testified to 'wideawake hat' man in the court, and he then
presented himself to the Police...with the timings and inference being that he was 'wideawake man'.

Even simpler-he was telling the truth about being the lurker, whether or not he had any idea about lewis testimoney of Wideawake man.

It is beyond belief that the Police wouldn't compare Hutch's statement with that of Lewis.

Pretty much agree-can't see how they could have missed it. but maybe they did.

I think that more than likely they did match Lewis man with Hutch as one in the same, and instead of a suspect Hutch is now a witness and then hutch was eventually downgraded as even a witness when A-man does not turn up and Hutch changes his story in the press.

[Fisherman]

Abby:

"I think that more than likely they did match Lewis man with Hutch as one in the same, and instead of a suspect Hutch is now a witness and then hutch was eventually downgraded as even a witness when A-man does not turn up and Hutch changes his story in the press."

If all witnesses who saw somebody at a crime site, somebody who proved hard to find afterwards, were to be discarded as credible witnesses, we would have a strange situation indeed. What if Astrakhan man emigrated to Russia the day after Miller´s Court? Would that make Hutchinson a bad witness per se..? I think not.
Likewise, we know that Hutchinson changed details when speaking to the press - but have a look at the almighty number of details that stayed unchanged! Maybe such a thing would call for a renewed set of questions from thepolice - but it would certainly not render him a dismissal! Even if the suspicion was there on behalf of the police - how would it look if that suspicion was proven wrong afterwards? No, Hutch´s dismissal would have taken a lot more than this, I´m sure.

The best,
Fisherman