Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[Rubyretro]

The police simply would not have let Hutchinson go if there was anything remotely close

.

Obviously, Mike.

Still, in the absence of cameras, finger prints, DNA etc -and without him being caught red handed- they couldn't have got very close by any concrete means.

And we have seen that even with modern techniques, the Police still make mistakes (infact, people are scared nowadays of coming forward as witnesses to a Murder..I saw by googing around..because the Police are immediately suspicious of the witnesses, and that's because they've gained experience).

The Police in 1888 relied on witnesses and 'gut instinct' to a (too) large extent.

You can speculate on hypothetical alibis all you want..you don't know. I can equally demolish those alibis..I don't know either.

However, I can remember newsclips with Maxine Carr when the search was on for the two little girls in Suffolk (?)..she knew that her boyfriend had murdered them, and had actively cleaned as much evidence away as possible in the house -and not even the hard bitten Press suspected anything. It was cameras that put the Police onto Ian Huntley, and in 1888 he would have been interviewed and let go.

We have seen that some killers need to involve themselves in their own cases,and I still think that Hutch was such a person, and the
Police in 1888 did not realise that fact..and they let him go due to his personality coupled with their lack of hard links..

..but there are links there still..

[The Good Michael]

Ruby,

What I give you is probability. Yet you and the others, because of an inkling, refuse to budge. Probability says that Hutchinson was Toppy because of many details. Probability says that Hutchinson would not have been let go if his alibi didn't check out, his description matched Lewis' sighting, or if he had some criminal past. You and the others refute every last thing based upon an inkling, a hunch, a shot in the dark. Why is that, do you suppose? What possible reason could anyone have for denying that probability lies in the direction of Hutchinson not being the East End murderer? Of course there's a possibility that Hutch did those things, a slight one. Just as there's a possibility that Abberline was the murderer. Probability aims away from both of them, however.

Mike

[Ben]

Don’t tell me we’re back on the triumphalist rhetoric again?

Anything but that.

Probability dictates X or Y because Mike says it does. Well with that irrefutable, impenetrable logic, who is anyone to disagree?

Seriously, though, the "probabilities" you describe are nothing of the sort, and I delight in the knowledge that none of these fantastically implausible “probabilities” will ever enter into widespread or mainstream thinking on the subject.

Because of “many details” I’m of the opinion that Toppy wasn’t the witness, but you won’t see me mutating that into established fact.

Because of “many details”, I’m of the opinion that Hutchinson stands a reasonable chance of having been the murder, but I’m not about to make a series of irritating ex cathedra pronouncements that my views on “probability” must be accepted as gospel.

Because of “many details”, I personally consider it astonishingly unlikely that Hutchinson was not the individual seen by Lewis.

“Probability says that Hutchinson would not have been let go if his alibi didn't check out, his description matched Lewis' sighting, or if he had some criminal past.”

Why didn’t you read Garry’s post? Lewis’ description was so lacking in detail and so generic that the possibility of anyone “matching” it counts for next to nothing. What mattered considerably more at the time was whether or not Lewis could recognise the man again. You can recognise someone without necessarily being able to provide a good description of them.

And what’s all this about not letting Hutchinson go if he matched this generic, encompassing description? Even if they thought Hutchinson was the most suspicious individual they had encountered in the investigation, they still had to “let him go” if they had nothing concrete with which to hold him. And yes, a clever detective believed him a few hours after the statement was made, after which it was quickly discredited, from which we might reasonably deduce that this belief was incredibly short-lived.

If it's so easy to dismiss the "probability" of Hutchinson being the Whitechapel murderer, nobody should be positing the existence of imaginary or hoped for events and scenarios in order to sustain that probability, and yet that's precisely what appears to be happending here.

No more empty, generalized rhetoric, please. It antagonizes.

Best regards,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

To clarify, I believe that any description that would have even a small resemblance to Hutchinson, would have created a stir as the cops put two and two together. The police simply would not have let Hutchinson go if there was anything remotely close.

Let me repeat, Michael: Sarah Lewis provided no description of Wideawake in her official police statement. The description that did eventually emerge came to us via her inquest testimony and several newspaper reports.

You also appear to be overlooking the absolute certainty that Sarah would have been re-interviewed had the police felt that she had provided them with an incomplete witness statement, particularly if the missing information incorporated a description of a potential suspect. Tellingly, neither the surviving police files nor any newspaper report I have ever seen even hint at such an eventuality. This fact alone, I would suggest, provides a powerful indication that the police failed to make the link between Wideawake and Hutchinson. Or do you have evidence to the contrary?

Garry Wroe.

[harry]

A person giving the name George Hutchinson came forward and admitted being in the immediate vicinity of a murder,(Kelly's)at a time span in which the murder could have been committed.Suspicion arises through the reasons he gave for being there.This sets him apart from any other individual.
The two reasons commonly given for his innocense are(1)an opinion given by a police officer as to his truthfulness,and(2)a killer does not willingly come forward .Both reasons are flawed.
In over 90 per cent of killings,the person responsible willingly confronts police.Very few flee.
In the ripper crimes it is obvious the killer fooled many people, why should Aberline be an exception?
So Toppy or not,the Hutchinson who gave information on the 12 November 1888,will in my opinion,unless evidence to the contrary surfaces,be a strong ripper suspect,and rightly so.

[The Good Michael]

Harry,

Why not come forward on the other murders. There were witness statements about possible rippers. Why not come forward earlier?

Mike

[richardnunweek]

Hello Harry,
As I have said before, only one name has come forth ,claiming to be the witness Hutchinson since 1888, and that , [albeit from the son ] was Topping, although It was known by Toppings younger brother also , according to a report from that persons daughter-in -law.
I read the version printed in 1992 'THE Ripper and the Royals with my own eyes, and I heard that version on radio some 18 years earlier on radio, with my own ears...so the story Reg related to Fairclough, was not conjured up solely for the publication.
What you are suggesting has indeed happened before, Neville Heath springs to mind, he tried to incorporate himself into the initial investigation, but i find it unlikely in this case, if Hutchinson was the Ripper, he had every chance to feel paranoid, in Hanbury street, Bernier street, or Mitre square, where he was also seen by various people, why should Mrs Lewis be any different.?
Being a staunch Hutch is 'Innocent', and believing Topping was the witness, having the character reference directly from his son, i find it inconceivable that he was, anything more then as he said' I knew one of the victims, and I gave the police a statement'.
No Big deal, no contract with magazines, no offers of fame and fortune, just a witness , amongst many, but this one we all tear shreds in....I guess everyone told lies in 1888.
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

Gary,

I agree with you regarding an incomplete witness statement. Therefore, the statement as made at the inquest, must not resemble Hutchinson in any way. For that reason and others that had to have occurred, Hutchinson was not a suspect, but a witness... just like Lewis.

Mike

[Ben]

The most obvious reason for Hutchinson's failure to come forward in response to earlier witness sightings was the fact that, by 9th November, it had became public knowledge that descriptions were being withheld at the behest of the authorities. Prior to the Eddowes inquest, the killer (whatever his identity) had every reason to believe that the vague descriptions offered by Lawende, Schwartz and others reflected the totality of their sighting.

Crawford's insistence that the key particular's of Lawende's description be withheld for a "special reason" would undoubtedly have given the killer the jitters if, like many serial offenders, he wanted to keep appraised of police progress.

Hutchinson also had a far greater chance of encountering the Miller's Court witnesses than he did Schwartz, for instance, who lived in St. George-in-the-East, or Lawende who saw the likely ripper in the City, and was himself based in relatively far flung Dalston.

Finally, if there's any truth to the suggestion that Hutchinson was acquainted with Kelly, this also could have played a role. Ridgway didn't come forward with a bogus witness ploy for the any of his victims bar one - a woman he was personally acquainted with, and whose body was posed very differently to the others. The implication, of course, is that the murder of an acquaintance increased the likelihood - in the mind of the offender - of his coming under eventual suspicion.

Richard - the radio interview is absolutely impermissible as evidence until you can provide evidence of its existence.

I agree with you regarding an incomplete witness statement. Therefore, the statement as made at the inquest, must not resemble Hutchinson in any way.

Huh?

No, I think you've misunderstood Garry's point, Mike. If Lewis provided a description at the inquest that wasn't offered in her police statement, and the police noticed this, they would have reinterviewed Lewis. But we have no evidence of this re-interview, which suggests that this incongruity was never noticed, and that the police were satisfied with the information contained in the Lewis police report in which she claimed that the "cannot describe" the wideawake man.

But it's clear that he wasn't "a witness...just like Lewis, because he was discredited as such.

All the best,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

Mike - I certainly agree with Garry as to the possible reasons for Hutch coming forward as a witness (and someone on Casebook once pointed out that, even if Lewis didn't recognize him as someone from the neighbourhood, if HE recognized HER as someone whom he passed regularly, then that would surely have worried him).

Still, those practical points needn't even be considered if you don't wish.
Because there are also other reasons (and as usual, I don't think one reason excludes another...there can be a mixture..).

Serial killers sometimes like to involve themselves in the investigation of a particular murder to continue to get excitement from that murder, and keep it current in their minds.

If you think that MJK's murder was the one where he finally got some free reign for his fantasisies, and it was the murder where he felt the most satisfaction -maybe involving himself in the investigation was a way for him to keep the high ?

Also, from the way the bodies were posed, and the risks taken, maybe he was feeling very pleased with himself and finally wanted a bit of fame (recognition ?)in the Press ? He could get that fame as a Witness.

Serial killers like to keep 'control' of the investigation too, and feel God like and play with the Police. They think that they are too smart to be caught.

Some Serial killers enjoy sending the investigation in the wrong direction.

Finally (my theory), I think that he probably wanted the anti-Jewish feeling whipped up by the murders, and he hadn't left any 'Jewish' link to MJK's
death. He rectified this by inventing A Man : he could have just said 'foreign appearence' in the first place , but he specified 'Jewish appearence' added a
Hamsa horseshoe, a gold watch (Jews being traditionally associated with gold)and mentioned Petticoat Lane for good measure. I think it was very important to him to establish a 'Jewish suspect'..and he didn't want the Police to keep the description secret, because he liked trouble.

Those are alot of reasons and even if you don't agree with all of them, the remaining reasons are still enough to explain why Hutch would risk coming forward after MJK, and not before.

[Fisherman]

Hi Ben!

Listen to this:

"If Lewis provided a description at the inquest that wasn't offered in her police statement, and the police noticed this, they would have reinterviewed Lewis. But we have no evidence of this re-interview, which suggests that this incongruity was never noticed".

Maybe I´m a sensitive sould, Ben. Maybe it´s just me, I really could not say. But my hunch on this thing is that if Lewis told the police that she really had no description to offer regarding the man she had seen (and it would seem she did precisely this), and who, reasonably, stood the best chance of being the Ripper when it comes to dovetailing with the educated guesses on behalf of the medicos, then that would have saddened said police force; it would have been valuable to have a description of the man in question. I think we all agree on that.
Therefore, I think that the chances that the police would have missed the fact that a crucial - arguably the most crucial - witness suddenly DID offer a description, are completely non-existant. Arnold, Abberline, Nairn and Beck were all at the inquest, remember, and to even think that they would have listened to Lewis without noticing what she actually said ...? What were they doing? Playing Sinking ships? Knitting?

You know, Ben, I think I will chance to do something that I know you dislike very much, and call it a fact that they would not have missed this detail. And if they had, the inquest was in the papers, for anyone to read.

I will say, however, that these same gentlemen will have been painfully aware of Lewis´shortcomings at her police interwiew, as to what she could remember about wideawake man. And that would have played a role for their interpretation of the suddenly appearing description - no matter what Lewis came up with, it would have been regarded with great doubt, since it was secondary to the police report.
That is not to say that they would have been disinterested in it. As for a re-interwiew, we have no such information. But that does not prove it was never done, formally or perhaps more informally, I could not say. Nor can I say whether Lewis and Hutchinson were ever brought together, Lewis being asked about whether Hutch was a contender for the wideawake man title - but I do know that it would be the reasonable thing to do. Finally, if that meeting took place, Lewis could have answered anything from "I could really not say" to "Well, I don´t remember much, but it certainly could not have been him".
We lack far too many bits and pieces, some of which we know were once there, some we suspect must have, and some that may or may not have been there. Whichever way, the suggestion that four police officers at the inquest would have missed the detail that a man they knew very well could have been the Ripper, suddenly was equipped with a description - albeit not a very detailed one - goes beyond belief. I actually think you will agree with that, Ben - but I´ve been very surprised before, admittedly.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Not something else that “must have” happened, but which we have not a scrap of evidence for?

They’re really mounting up now!

Garry made the more than reasonable observation that as far as the police were concerned, Sarah Lewis could not describe the man she saw outside Miller’s Court. This is all contained in the police report of her interview. If this had changed by the time of the inquest, and the account had come to incorporate a new description as a result of her memory suddenly “improving”, and the police had taken note of this, she would have been re-interviewed to account for this inexplicable omission first time around. As Garry points out, however: “neither the surviving police files nor any newspaper report I have ever seen even hint at such an eventuality”, and I really feel his question needs repeating:

Does anyone have any evidence to the contrary?

It doesn’t sound like you do, but astonishingly; you’re claiming it as FACT that it happened?

Come on, Fisherman; nothing short of insanity is required to come up with not just one but several zero-evidence scenarios that need to have existed once upon the time in order for some of these conclusions to be justified, especially the ones that are supposed to "clear" Hutchinson of any involvement in the crimes.

I’m not saying that none of the police officials were listening to Lewis’ account. I’m suggesting that they would not have had all their police reports in front of them when listening to the inquest evidence, and that it wasn’t possible for them all to have registered every disparity with every witness. It doesn’t bother me all that much if you want to call it a fact that would not have noticed it. It’s an irrefutable fact that it is not a fact at all. With sincere respect, you seem to be having genuine problems with the correct application of the naughty f-word in quite a few of your posts recently.

“the man she had seen (and it would seem she did precisely this), and who, reasonably, stood the best chance of being the Ripper”

Where is this coming from? There was never any suggestion that anyone at the time subscribed to this view. Considerably more attention was paid to blotchy, the Bethnal green botherer, Astrakhan man (ironically, and for a short time!), even Maxwell’s man was inquired about at the inquest, which wideawake wasn’t.

“I will say, however, that these same gentlemen will have been painfully aware of Lewis´shortcomings at her police interwiew, as to what she could remember about wideawake man. And that would have played a role for their interpretation of the suddenly appearing description”

I couldn’t agree more, if, that is, they made note of the suddenly appearing description. Bear in mind that Lewis’ account was to a large extent dominated by the appearance of the sinister individual she reported encountering twice, first on the Bethnal Green Road on the Wednesday prior to the murder, and again at the corner of Dorset Street immediately before she passed wideawake on the night of the murder. It shouldn’t be difficult to see how the former “suspect” could easily have consumed police attention with regard to Lewis’ account(s), with the loiterer receiving scant attention as a consequence.

“but that does not prove it was never done, formally or perhaps more informally, I could not say. Nor can I say whether Lewis and Hutchinson were ever brought together”

Exactly. Which is why it would be so obviously incautious to assume both things did happen, and arrive at conclusions accordingly.

Best regards,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

PS Richard -what do you make of the newspaper portrait of Hutch, posted by Garry ?

I know when I was a Toppy-ite, that this sketch really, really, bugged Me.
As another casebook-er put it " it simply does not look like Toppy".

I did try to explain it to myself by 'people change over so many years', and
'newspaper sketches aren't photographs, and it may not be very good', but I
knew in my heart, that those explanations didn't wash.

People rarely change so much that they are totally different to they were in their youth. If anything they grow thicker or flabbier..and only much slimmer if they've got an illness. The Hutch in the picture looks 'stout' and Toppy
finer boned. I don't think that he would change his basic build (unless he had become obese).

Further more the picture doesn't look like a man of 22 -even taking into account the fact that people looked older than we would expect them to today.

What's more, if we compare sketches to photos of the time, the sketches are usually very good.

What do you think ?

[Fisherman]

Hello Ben!

You are astutely, absolutely and completely correct, let´s not take that away from you: There is absolutely NO evidence at all telling us that the four police officers, Abberline included, that were present at the inquest into Mary Kelly´s death noticed that one of the key witnesses - and there were VERY few of them, saying very little at that inquest! - actually changed her testimony dramatically when it came to her description of the man she had seen standing outside Miller´s court on the night of Kelly´s death!
No such evidene is about at all. Therefore, philosophically, it applies that all four of them may have missed it. Correct, my friend - a hundred times correct!

Can I please ask your personal opinion of what it tells us about these senior officers, if they all missed such a thing, at the inquest of the fifth purported Ripper victim, when the demands that the killer was caught were at the very top of the scare? I have noticed over the years that you seem not to believe that the police force on the whole was a bunch of worthless clowns, but maybe the time has come to reasess that now? Let´s hear it, Ben - would it have been gross negligence, not only on behalf of messr:s Abberline, Beck, Nairn and Arnold, but in fact of the Met on the whole, or would it have been nothing out of the ordinary ...?

Actually, what we have by now is you claiming that even if there was no difference in description inbetween Hutch and Wideawake man, the police may well have missed the fact that they had TWO men described doing the same thing at the same place and the same time in a rather suspicious manner, outside Mary Kelly´s sleeping room at 2.30 in the morning - that is to say quite close in time to when she was killed, if we are to listen to the medical men involved. This you think is a very reasonable suggestion, Ben! The best, in fact.

To this, you add that you think that four top ranking officers of the Met sat through the very short inquest into Mary Kellys death, listening to Sarah Lewis´testimony without noticing for a minute that they were suddenly supplied with a description of a man who was quite probably Jack the Ripper.

And to top it off, YOU ridicule ME for suggesting that the police would reasonably have followed up on Hutch´s alleged trip to Romford, and that such an investigation could have turned up a witness that put Hutch in the clear (or for that matter, have turned up no witness at all, in spite of Hutch´s claim to have been down to Romford).
Such a suggestion - that the police would have followed up on his story in order to be able to confirm or dispell it (and I seem to remember that is what the police do when they want to find out about things) you think is something preposterous and laughable to suggest.
And why?
Because I have no proof that the police actually did work by standard procedures in this case - maybe they just swallowed Hutchinsons story and did nothing to check it out. In the murder case of the century.

I´ll say this, and I know it has been said before: the ones who are telling me that the police force was at a complete loss when it comes to see a glaringly obvious connection, and that the same force was unable to hear when a major witness in the Kelly case made a total change of testimony in the most crucial detail of it, are for some unfathomable reason a group of people who have invested very heavily in George Hutchinson being a sinister killer, working in disguise.
And that makes me think that we may have an explanation to the difficulties otherwise completely reasonable people of useful intelligence - and by that I mean all of the ones who are participating on this thread - are having to agree on, for example, that it would be rather a blatant error if the whole of the Metropolitan police missed out on the fact that a key witness made a major change to her story.
One would think that such a thing would be very easy to agree on, but no: instead we are asked to believe that such a thing could quite easily happen. More than so, in fact: it would actually be the exact thing to expect, more or less, and the most credible explanation at hand. And at any rate, nobody can prove that this did not happen, since the Met forgot to present us with a signed document, saying "We actually all missed the fact that Sarah Lewis changed her testimony - sorry ´bout that".
Then again, if they all missed it, how could they produce such a document? Devlishly tricky, is it not?

I´ll wager the explantion that getting too convinced that George Hutchinson was the killer does strange things to people´s judgments.

But I´ll be damned if I can prove it.

The best,
Fisherman
going to bed - for some reason I suddenly feel very tired...

[harry]

One reason Hutchinson came forward after Kelly's murder,might be because there was in her case,a stronger association between them than he divulged.He admits giving her money,which if true,could have been a talking point among Kelly and friends,and so a probable link back to him.He must have reasoned police would be seeking any such association,so coming forward might have appeared a lesser risk than being sought out.
Toppy being Hutchinson,cannot minimise or refute,the information given on 12 November 1888.Had Aberline stated in his report of that evening,or in any later report, that elements of Hutchinson's information had been checked and found to be true,it would lessen suspicion,but Aberline didn't .He offered an opinion ,and as far as can be ascertained,he was the only police official to do so,and it is wrong to say that Hutchinson's honesty was a police belief.It was the opinion of one man only.