Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Ben]

My grateful thanks again for your kind words, Hunter, and for setting the ball rolling with this thread.

I agree with many of your points, and your suggestion that the “a viable theory would be that the police were dismayed at Hutchinson's going to the press with his story” is very persuasive, especially since the timing of Hutchinson’s press disclosures coincided perfectly with the Star’s revelation the following day that the account was “now discredited”. My strong suspicion is that whatever doubts the authorities were having with the account when it first came to the fore, his communication with the press almost certainly compounded them.

I doubt very much that either the Star or the Echo were wrong in that they reported viz a viz the doubting and subsequent discrediting of Hutchinson, since they mesh up so closely with later reports and memoirs from police officials, all of which fail to mention Hutchinson, and include the claims that nobody saw the Whitechapel murderer unless if was a witness from Mitre Square, and that the only witness of any value was Jewish. Even Abberline himself appears to have "forgotten" him when addressing the subject of eyewitness evidence in 1903.

The Star was indeed the only newspaper to use the “D-word” specifically, but then they were also the only newspaper have ran Schwartz “to earth” and obtain an interview from him.

I even posted questions and doubts pleaded for responses not only from Fish, but from Garry and Ben. Ben didn't have much to say at that point

Apologies for that, Tom, although I did address some of your points on post #113 of this thread.

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

I agree with many of your points, and your suggestion that the “a viable theory would be that the police were dismayed at Hutchinson's going to the press with his story” is very persuasive, especially since the timing of Hutchinson’s press disclosures coincided perfectly with the Star’s revelation the following day that the account was “now discredited”.

The only problem being, though, Ben, that the Echo reported similar official misgivings on the Tuesday - in other words before the appearance of Hutchinson's press disclosures. It is for this reason that I believe the more plausible explanation for Hutchinson's fall from grace relates to something he said or did whilst searching for Astrakhan in the company of detectives on the Monday evening. If as a consequence he was suspected of being another Packer and dropped like the proverbial stone, we also have an explanation as to why police paid little attention to the inherent contradictions of his press disclosures. It may simply have been the case that investigators were disinclined to waste yet more time on a perceived time-waster. If so, this was a classic case of the baby being thrown out with the bathwater, and elements that were crying out for further investigation were either disregarded or overlooked - the claim that Hutchinson had ventured into Miller's Court at three o'clock, for example.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[The Good Michael]

perhaps the hundreth time on these boards,there is no evidence that any element of Hutchinson's statement was checked,certainly not the Romford trip.

Harry,

You're right there's no evidence. There's no evidence that I'm typing this message, only evidence that there is a message. There's no evidence that Abberline had regular bowel movements. There's certainly no documentation saying that detectives had to be be above the level of congenital idiot to be detectives. There's no evidence that they all just rested on their ever-expanding backsides, eating jelly donuts while dismissing all possible leads, because congenital idiocy and jelly donuts are not conducive to proper investigation, but that's what you want us to believe. You can believe it. Your mind follows a different path than mine. As for me, I'm having a jelly donut.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

The Interrogation

Officer: Inspector Abberline, there's a bloke here wot says 'e saw the killer.

Abberline: Killer?

Officer: Y'know sir, the murderer.

Abberline: There's been a murder?

Officer: Sir, the East End murders. Jack the Ripper. Leather Apron. The stuff in the papers, sir.

Abberline: Yes, of course. Well don't be an idiot. Send him in.

(The officer leaves returning with a young man of military bearing)

Abberline: Well, who are you?

Man: Name's Hutchinson sir. George Top...

Abberline (interupting): Hutchinson, you say. Do you have any papers that identify you.

Man: No sir, not to speak of.

Abberline: Never mind that. What do you have to tell us?

Officer: 'E says 'e was out an about during the 8th of November, just having got back from Romford, and...

Abberline: Romford, you say? What were you doing there?

Man: I was picking hops, sir.

Abberline: That reminds me of when I was a youth. I'd pick hops on weekends just to make a little cash while I was going to school. Those were the days (reclining in his chair and smiling whistfully).

Officer: Well sir, 'e had just come back from Romford and was 'anging about the...

Abberline: Oh heavens Brown! Don't bore me with this stuff. Get to the point.

Officer: 'e saw Kelly with the killer sir.

Abberline: Kelly?

Officer: The latest victim, sir.

Abberline: Dear God! You mean there's been another?

Officer: These 3 days past, sir.

Abberline: Well, take his statement and get investigating.

Officer: Should we check 'im out sir?

Abberline: Of course, you idiot! He murdered another woman!

Officer: I meant Hutchinson sir.

Abberline: Of course you did. What's the normal procedure?

Officer: well, we'd try to corroborate 'is story by asking at the Victorian Home and various places that e's been. We'd also try to get some character references. If the times and days match up, we'd compare 'is activities to other witness statements.

Abberline: Other witnesses?

Officer: yes sir, like that Sarah Lewis woman for example. She saw someone lingering about Miller's Court on the 9th at about 2:30 AM. It was as near as we know, about the same time that Kelly was murdered.

Abberline: Hutchinson, were you hanging about Miller's Court at 2:30 am on the 9th?

Man: No sir. I was there between 2 and 2:45, not at 2:30, sir.

Abberline: You see, Brown. Young Hutchinson here is an honest sort. Just look at that military bearing. Oozes truth and Britishness, he does. Dispense with this whole procedure nonsense and take him about to the murder scene and stimulate his recall.

Officer: yes sir. Er... 'e was asking about some sort of remuneration for 'is efforts sir.

Abberline: If he can't remunerate, then walking around the court will stimulate his recall.

Officer: No sir. You're thinking of 'memory', sir. What I meant was that Hutchinson was hoping for some recompense for 'is coming forth.

Abberline: Coming forth? I would suggest drinking some warm milk. That will slow the course of recompense.

Officer: Sir, 'e would like some money.

Abberline: Damn it, man! Why didn't you say so. I will draw something out of petty cash. You just take him around as I asked. Good day!

Officer: Yes sir. (leaving with Hutchinson)

Abberline: One more thing Brown.

Officer: Yes sir.

Abberline: On the way back, stop at the cleaners and pick up my astrakhan coat. It looks to be a cold night.

Officer: Will do.

[Garza]

^^^^^^^^^



Your right though, could not believe that the police did not check hutchinson out.

[Ben]

A very reasonable suggestion there, Garry.

The reason I considered the possibility of the press accounts of Hutchinson's statement hastening the "discrediting" process concerned the fact that the Echo was not as robust in its terminology when describing the current police views on Hutchinson as the Star was two days later. On the 13th November (as reported by the Echo) the account had suffered a "very reduced importance", but just two days later, it was downgraded even further to "now discredited", and I wondered if the divergent press accounts may have served as a catalyst for this.

On the other hand, your suggestion that the Echo's revelations may have been the result of "something he said or did whilst searching for Astrakhan in the company of detectives on the Monday evening" would make perfect sense of the claim made in the same article that this very reduced importance came about as a result of "later investigation".

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Gosh, are people still having trouble with this "checking out", business?

Why?

Yes, it is reasonable to assume that the police would have done their best to "check out" Hutchinson and his claims as far as they were able to, but that doesn't mean that this "checking out" ever produced any tangible results, and there's certainly no reason to conclude that they were ever in a position to prove whether or not he lied or murdered anyone. It's just naive to assume otherwise, especially in the total absence of any evidence that this happened. In real life, everyone accepts that investigations don't always result in proof being secured - take the attempt to identify and capture Jack the Ripper as an obvious example - but with Hutchinson, people tend to adopt a magic wand approach and make all sorts of rash and unwarranted conclusions to the effect that the truth about Hutchinson must have been uncovered.

[Tom_Wescott]

Mike, that was so classic. I hope you save these.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Hatchett]

Hello Tom,

I have read your post.

Some of the points I have made you appear to have agreed with. That is good. Sound thinking.

I will address the ones where you appear to have difficulties.

“Do I know you by another name?”

No, you do not know me by another name. That is not allowed on casebook. If there is a veiled accusation there I wish you would make it clear so that it can be investigated by Admin.

“It seems you just came out of nowhere.”

I have not come out of nowhere. I have been here for a while. Although I did have a break away for about a year.

I am not too sure what difference it would make if I had come out of nowhere. Unless you are suggesting that people who have been here longer get special treatment or are granted licence that others don’t get.

If you are suggesting that, It would seem that it is elitist thinking that I believe has no place in a debating forum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatchett
To say that an opposing view is negative is taking a stance. You cannot sit on the fence and make a comment like that. Because it betrays the stance.

I thought the above was elementary logic. I notice that you appear to have studiously skirted around that and instead listed a number of points in Fisherman’s theory. I am not too sure what the reason for that was.

Despite what you say you have still not defined what you mean by negative thinking.

“I was being dictatorial by pointing out the FACT that you and the bird were offended by Fish's work?”

You were dictatorial because it was not a fact. As I said in my post, Fisherman’s article has not offended me, nor has it struck a nerve. Please go back and read my post.

Incidentally, I presume that you are referring to Baby Bird as “the bird ...”
It strikes me as being very disrespectful in not calling someone by the name they have chosen, but by another that you have chosen for them.

If this was a sort of attempt at belittling I find it very immature and crude.

“what I was reacting to was the hateful nature in which they were shared - as though Fish was a leper for publishing his thoughts.”
“it appeared to me that you and Babybird were just being mean.”

These are emotive words and phrases that are completely unwarranted. The case was simply of counter arguments and frustration in trying to find the solid proof on which Fisherman’s theory relied.

If passions over spilled then perhaps you ought to read again Fisherman’s response to what where counter arguments or questions. I would suggest that he was a little less than cool, calm and collected.

I think this perhaps is a case that if a person builds a house of cards they should not complain about the breeze that blows it down. It was always going to happen. Some time or later.

Best wishes.

Hatchett.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Hatchett. Why the extra 't'? You're fun and I hope you stick around for a while.

“Do I know you by another name?”

No, you do not know me by another name. That is not allowed on casebook. If there is a veiled accusation there I wish you would make it clear so that it can be investigated by Admin.

I meant in the past, or perhaps I know you from published essays. Many users had different names in the past. I was Red Demon when I first joined. I wasn't even suggesting you had multiple user names now. Relax. But now that you mention it, Admin also goes by Ally and Supe also goes by Casebook Examiner. I think I'll have them investigated.

Despite what you say you have still not defined what you mean by negative thinking.

My name's Wescott, not Webster. Where did I use the term 'negative thinking'?

You were dictatorial because it was not a fact. As I said in my post, Fisherman’s article has not offended me, nor has it struck a nerve. Please go back and read my post.

Incidentally, I presume that you are referring to Baby Bird as “the bird ...”
It strikes me as being very disrespectful in not calling someone by the name they have chosen, but by another that you have chosen for them.

If this was a sort of attempt at belittling I find it very immature and crude.

Why does it matter to you if I'm 'dictatorial'? Just fall in line with my thinking. I didn't call her 'The Baby', did I? And why don't you call me out for referring to Fisherman as 'Fish'? If my practice of shortening names is rude and belittling, surely you're not picking and chosing who deserves to be spared such horrendous treatment? Should I feel belittled that you called me Tom and not Tom_Wescott?

I am not too sure what difference it would make if I had come out of nowhere. Unless you are suggesting that people who have been here longer get special treatment or are granted licence that others don’t get.

If you are suggesting that, It would seem that it is elitist thinking that I believe has no place in a debating forum.

Actually, where I was going was that you seemed to know your stuff and have a comfort level talking openly with tenured posters that one often doesn't see with newbies, yet you only had 37 posts to your name. Because of this I thought you might be a tenured poster who previously posted under a different name. Why are you so insecure and paranoid? Having said that, I'm not a communist and do feel that certain respects are earned and not given.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Garry Wroe]

The reason I considered the possibility of the press accounts of Hutchinson's statement hastening the "discrediting" process concerned the fact that the Echo was not as robust in its terminology when describing the current police views on Hutchinson as the Star was two days later.

As I’ve said before, Ben, to my mind the Echo disclosure bears the hallmark of an illicit police tip-off. If so, the somewhat understated nature of the piece may simply have been a journalist protecting his source. Irrespective of whether this is a valid interpretation, however, the journalist concerned certainly revealed an awareness of investigative suspicion regarding Hutchinson at a stage when other newspapers were depicting him as a stellar witness.

On the 13th November (as reported by the Echo) the account had suffered a "very reduced importance", but just two days later, it was downgraded even further to "now discredited", and I wondered if the divergent press accounts may have served as a catalyst for this.

But if the ‘divergent press accounts’ had been noted by investigators, Ben, surely Hutchinson’s assertion that he had stood directly outside Kelly’s room at 3-00am would also have been picked up on. The apparent reality that he wasn’t immediately hauled in for reinterview suggests several possibilities to my way of thinking. Either the revelation was entirely overlooked, it was spotted but its significance went unrecognized, or it was spotted but disregarded because Hutchinson was at this stage being regarded as a Packer-like fantasist. My money, I have to say, is on the latter possibility.

On an altogether different note, I’d like to congratulate you on your Examiner article. I know that it has been a long time in the making and am therefore disappointed that you have yet to receive the recognition you deserve. Hopefully, now that the rain-related furore has begun to recede, a little more attention will be forthcoming.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Observer]

Gosh, are people still having trouble with this "checking out", business?

Why?

Yes, it is reasonable to assume that the police would have done their best to "check out" Hutchinson and his claims as far as they were able to, but that doesn't mean that this "checking out" ever produced any tangible results, and there's certainly no reason to conclude that they were ever in a position to prove whether or not he lied or murdered anyone. It's just naive to assume otherwise, especially in the total absence of any evidence that this happened. In real life, everyone accepts that investigations don't always result in proof being secured - take the attempt to identify and capture Jack the Ripper as an obvious example - but with Hutchinson, people tend to adopt a magic wand approach and make all sorts of rash and unwarranted conclusions to the effect that the truth about Hutchinson must have been uncovered.

Hi Ben

Do you consider it likely that they checked out his Romford story? I mean, discredited for his Astrakhan chappie, wouldn't they then have tried to establish whether or not he had actually been in Romford?

Observer

[Hatchett]

Hello Tom Wescott,

There appeared to be some sort of praise in your post. If that is correct then I thank you.

You did not call Baby Bird Baby or Bird. You did not abbreviate the name at all. In fact without the capital B you didn’t show respect for a name at all. For instance, have ever you ever called Fisherman “the fish,” or has anyone ever referred to you as “the westcott?” I doubt it. I don’t know how literate you are. If it was a mistake then I will make allowances.

About the dictatorial, it matters because you claimed to use a fact as a chide when in fact it was not a fact and you had no right to use it as such.

You still seem to be edging around your use of the “negative stance.” In your previous post you claimed that you had addressed it, but you hadn’t. In this one you have shied away from it. I asked you a question. At the end of the day if you cannot define it then why should you use it? I suppose it all comes down to the literacy. If it is another mistake then I will make allowances.

Insecure and paranoid? Again emotive words. Now what is the reason for that? Could it be perhaps that you have already nailed your colours to the mast in stating that you believed that Fisherman’s article deserved the Beadle prize?

Are you trying now to regain some peer respect? Is that why you use the emotive language and pretend to be sitting on the fence but use crudely disguised phraseology to support the theory?

Just a thought.

Why the extra T? Because it is my name. Why it is my name could be a challenge for you.

Best wishes.
Hatchett.

[harry]

Mike,
Have you never asked a poster to support a post by citing evidence?Sarcasm is the last refuge of a person devoid of a meaningful reply.If you support Fisherman's contention that Hutchinson might have suffered some sort of memory lapse,give reasons for this lapse.It is nonsense to claim that rain was the cause.Far from supporting Fisherman,you are only adding distractions to a poster,who,though I think is wrong,at least has the intelligence to set his thoughts out in a clear,concise manner.
Now let me add something that might help.If it could be proven a case of 'A state of altered conciousness'on the part of Hutchinson,I could go along with Fisherman,but that would entail showing proof that Hutchinson suffered from that malady.
Now Mike,if you do not understand the meaning of the term,and what might cause it,why not spend the Xmas period studying it,and then try convincing the rest of us that is really what happened.

[tnb]

Hello all,

I have only just caught up with this thread, having been 'away' for a while, and so forgive me if I initially backtrack a little. I must say that it is a wonderful early Christmas present to see a 'Hutch' thread which has not (yet? Please no) descended into chaos. Ben and Christer both deserve praise for their articles which in part made that possible.

For what it is worth, I completely agree with Lynn that Maxwell's evidence should be taken seriously, which is of course not the same as saying it is correct. I would just like to add, for the benefit of anyone following this thread without a minute knowledge, that it is important to remember that Maxwell stands alone amongst the 'problematic' witnesses with which the Police had to contend (many more than we are aware of, I am sure) in being called to the relevant inquest AND repeatedly challenged over her evidence. That McDonald, who seemed either determined and/or under orders to get this particular inquest over quickly, took the time to do both these things, must put her on a different level to the wooden-arm and knife-up-the-sleeve merchants, and probably Packer too, even if her evidence does seem bizarre, or even spiritual.

With regard to Lynn's dual hypothesis, I have a few points to make. Some of these agree with Lynn, some don't, but all are meant respectfully, of course. I hope people are able to follow this, as I unfortunately have no ability to quote on my current 'mobile device' (I hate technology...).

If MJK was supposed to have discovered the body, perhaps explaining the 'murder' shout (an excellent thought) I do however agree completely that she is extremely unlikely to have hung around Miller's Court long enough to be seen by Maxwell. Further, WHERE exactly is she supposed to have been for upwards of 5 hours? In the room with the body???? I find it likely she would have left Miller's Court 'asap' and I can't see her venturing back just to have a casual conversation. She certainly wouldn't have done so if she was planning to disappear, and if she wasn't 1) where did she go then, and 2) wouldn't it have made sense to inform McCarthy, and wouldn't she mention this distressing fact to Maxwell?

I also struggle to see that she could have discovered the body closer to the time of Maxwell's sighting, as the other residents of the court would surely have noticed her arrive and, presumably, exit in something of a hurry, probably screaming? One was woken by a cry in the middle of the night, remember, and this wasn't a big or thick-walled place.

I also doubt that if she discovered the body AFTER speaking to Maxwell, the escape plan would have crossed her mind, as her cover would already have been pretty spectacularly blown.

I also find it extremely unlikely that if some shadowy organisation was behind the 'swap plot' that they would have risked it all by sending the supposedly dead woman herself to check whether the deed had been done. It would make a wonderful plot for a farce, but a crap escape plan. With all the comings and goings around the Court, and McCarthy's shop remember, it would have been easy enough to send another operative in to check. In an astrakhan coat perhaps, or a wideawake hat... ;-) Even listening for word on the street would probably be enough.

All in all, and to my mind - let me know if I have missed anything - belief in Maxwell's
sighting actually mitigates AGAINST Kelly having discovered the body, far from the latter being a plausable explanation for the former, and indeed probably against any scenario where MJK wasn't the woman on the bed. Therefore, we come back to the discrepancy with the forensic evidence, which unfortunately appears fairly insurmountable. Maxwell remains a mystery.

There is of course the enigmatic detail of MJK being 'afraid of something', and it is possible she came home, spoke to Maxwell, found the body and fled not to deceive anyone but simply out of terror, but again surely someone would have noticed her running down the passageway screaming?

One thought re Hutchison which I have not seen raised before but which has always struck me. Remember that one reason he gave for his late 'disclosure' was that a fellow Victoria Home resident, on hearing his story, had encouraged him to inform the Police. Is it not possible that he was 'spinning a yarn' - either plain invention, or embellished from the actual events of that or, yes, another night) and that when his companion suggested the Police he realised he had put himself in a corner? He had to get to the Police before the other man did, saying 'this bloke at the Home says he knew the victim and saw her just before the murder and was out all night hanging around the scene', didn't he? It would not have taken a less gullible Police force to ascertain the truth, however, with only minimal 'checking'. Any thoughts?

Merry Christmas one and all, lastly but not leastly.