Innocent, By George!

[Monty]

Any person who cames forward and places himself at the scene of a crime,needs to be carefully studied.The question of whether a belief in guilt or innocence is held,is through the interpretation of the reasons given for being there.In the case of Hutchinson,more so than in any other witness statement,there is more to interpret.We do not have to rely on hearsay. We have a signed original statement. Some believe Hutchinson is being truthfull,some think otherwise. While there is doubt,it is surely not unreasonable to presume guilt of some sort.

Im surprised at you Harry, with your experience.

An investigator presumes nothing, they rely on the evidence to guide. And whilst it is reasonable to doubt Hutchinsons testimony there may be a multitude of reasons as to why it could be false, with guilt possibly being one of them.

Monty

[Ben]

It is complete nonsense to suggest that Hutchinson had "at least around a quarter of an hour to pick things up". This is not the case at all, unless people seriously wish to waste their own time arguing that horseshoe tie pins, light buttons over button boots, linen colars and dark eyelashes could be observed in darkness and committed to memory alongside a whole host of other accesories and items of clothing. The only opportunity Hutchinson could have had to observe the man in anything like sufficient lighting was when he allehedly passed in close proximity to a lamp outside the Queen's Head. Unfortunately Hutchinson also claimed to have scrutinized the man's face during that fleeting moment, which meant he cannot possibly have both noticed and committed to memory the more minute details from other parts of the man's body at the same time.

This idea that he had seen him on a previous occasion needs re-thinking; "Were those eyelashes dark when I saw them before? Oh, yes, here is that same man again, and yes, they're definitely dark eyelashes!"

No plumber is every required to conduct such implausible feats or sheer observational recall, not that I consider for moment that the real Hutchinson was ever a plumber.

The fact that the Astrakhan description just happened to incorporate practically all the sinister press myths that had been reported about the ripper's likely appearance from Leather Apron onwards, and the sheer implausibilty of the idea that someone so ostenatiously attired should swagger into the district and depart unmugged with nobody but Hutchinson to notice him, ought also to be considered strong indications pointing towards a likely fabrication.

And of course his account was discredited.

It amazes me how the inescapbale conclusion that Hutchinson was responsible for at least partial fabrication can be so fiercely resisted by an admittedly dwindling number of adherents.

Anyone fancy arguing over this for perhaps ten more pages on this thread?

I just don't think we're talking about Hutchinson enough these days...

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"It is complete nonsense to suggest that Hutchinson had "at least around a quarter of an hour to pick things up". This is not the case at all, unless people seriously wish to waste their own time arguing that horseshoe tie pins, light buttons over button boots, linen colars and dark eyelashes could be observed in darkness and committed to memory alongside a whole host of other accesories and items of clothing."

What a curious thing to say. Of course Hutchinson had around 15 minutes to take things in. Obviously, he could not take ALL of these things in at all of that time - he would have seen the man from the back at times, for instance - but that does not change the fact that Hutchinson displayed great interest in the man and that he had 15 minutes of observation time, regardless of the quality of that observation.

"This idea that he had seen him on a previous occasion needs re-thinking; "Were those eyelashes dark when I saw them before? Oh, yes, here is that same man again, and yes, they're definitely dark eyelashes!"

How amusing! But what if he had observed the red seal stone at a previous occasion? The horseshoe tie pin? Maybe it is you who need to rethink.

"not that I consider for moment that the real Hutchinson was ever a plumber"

How scientific of you.

"The fact that the Astrakhan description just happened to incorporate practically all the sinister press myths that had been reported about the ripper's likely appearance from Leather Apron onwards, and the sheer implausibilty of the idea that someone so ostenatiously attired should swagger into the district and depart unmugged with nobody but Hutchinson to notice him, ought also to be considered strong indications pointing towards a likely fabrication."

Was Frank Millen a fabrication too? Or did he exist? And did Abberline have any problems with Hutch placing this man on Dorset Street?

"And of course his account was discredited."

Yes it was. For some reason. And to start guessing that reason by surmising that Abberline would go from a total belief in the testimony to a total dismissal from one day to another may not be the best way to go about it.

"It amazes me how the inescapbale conclusion that Hutchinson was responsible for at least partial fabrication can be so fiercely resisted by an admittedly dwindling number of adherents."

Ah - you counted us! What are the numbers? I fail to see any dwindling tendency myself.

"Anyone fancy arguing over this for perhaps ten more pages on this thread?"

What´s your problem? Why do you consistently try and intimidate people who do not share your convictions? Why not just realize that there are those who - for very good reasons - disagree with you. And maybe these people are not very happy about having them told that if they dare to gainsay you, you will refute and refute and refute until you quench any desire to make their voices heard. What kind of debating is that, Ben?

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Monty,
Most posters have at somtime expressed an opinion of Hutchinson based on his statement.Aberline did so.Many authors have done so.Neither you nor I nor any poster,can investigate the claims Hutchinson made,we are 122 years too late.We cannot go to Romford to question people he might have seen,or ask friends Of Kelly of her possible association with HUtchinson.You should know too Monty,an investigator does not always have the luxury of knowing the facts at the beginning,and it is only by following an opinion of where the truth might lie,that he sometimes arrives at the truth.I solved many of my cases simply by presuming a suspect was lying.

[Monty]

Monty,
Most posters have at somtime expressed an opinion of Hutchinson based on his statement.Aberline did so.Many authors have done so.Neither you nor I nor any poster,can investigate the claims Hutchinson made,we are 122 years too late.We cannot go to Romford to question people he might have seen,or ask friends Of Kelly of her possible association with HUtchinson.You should know too Monty,an investigator does not always have the luxury of knowing the facts at the beginning,and it is only by following an opinion of where the truth might lie,that he sometimes arrives at the truth.I solved many of my cases simply by presuming a suspect was lying.

Granted. Suspicion is a valued tactic and certainly productive.

However there is reasonable doubt with this particular scenario.

As you state, you cannot verify Hutchinsons statement nor interview the man himself and try to ascertain the type of person he is/was. As there is nothing in his statment which contradicts, I see no reason to suspect Hutchinson of flat out lying. I see reason to be wary however.

And, as a side note, you state we do not hold the luxury of clarifying Hutchinsons story however Abberline and Co would have. Hutchinson would have not been the exception.

Monty

[Lechmere]

Ah - but Monty as there is no documentary proof that the police clarified Hutchinson's story, the 'Hutchinsonites' would not accept that they did.

In my opinion the chances that the police did not look at his story and him as a person reasonably closely are remote.

[Monty]

And thats what the Huchinsonites grasp on to, lack of documentary proof.

However, we have Abberlines report stating -

An important statement has been made by a man named George Hutchinson which I forward herewith. I have interrogated him this evening and I am of opinion his statement is true. He informed me that he had occasionally given the deceased a few shillings, and that he had known her about 3 years. Also that he was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch them. He can identify the man and arrangement was at once made for two officers to accompany him round the district for a few hours tonight with a view of finding the man if possible

This indicates to me that some sort of verification took place and that Abberline was happy with that.

Monty

[Lechmere]

Yes and by extension one would presume that when Hutchinson was deemed to be of less significance to the investigation this must have been due to contradictory verification. This would probably have raised other questions, which it seems likely were satisfactorily answered in order for Hutchinson to disappear into the sunset.
That is my best guess anyway.

[Monty]

Yes and by extension one would presume that when Hutchinson was deemed to be of less significance to the investigation this must have been due to contradictory verification. This would probably have raised other questions, which it seems likely were satisfactorily answered in order for Hutchinson to disappear into the sunset.
That is my best guess anyway.

Exactly.

Monty

[The Good Michael]

Interrogation doesn't necessarily mean clear identification and verification of Hutchinson, his story, and his backround, i.e., job, career field, place of residence, nationality. It should mean such things, and only someone who is agenda-challenged would say he wasn't checked out, but the probability surely can't be much more than 99.97% can it?

Mike

[Ben]

Again with this "checking out", business.

Yes, this probably occured to some extent with all witnesses, but the police in 1888 would have been very limited in terms of what they could realistically have checked out. Hutchinson was clearly discredited very shortly after his statement first appeared, most probably because of the divergent accounts he gave to police and press, and there is no evidence that the transition was ever made from discredited witness into exonerated suspect. Certainly Packer and Violenia do not appear to have been, whether they disappeared into the sunset thereafter or not.

What's worse is that people are now attempting to argue that Hutchinson passed this "checking out" process by the time Abberline penned his report to his superiors on 12th November, before any realisic "checking" could realistically have occured.

[Fisherman]

...and that begs the question whether we know the time span between interrogation and the penning of the report. Do we??

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Again with this "checking out", business.

Yes, this probably occured to some extent with all witnesses, but the police in 1888 would have been very limited in terms of what they could realistically have checked out. Hutchinson was clearly discredited very shortly after his statement first appeared, most probably because of the divergent accounts he gave to police and press, and there is no evidence that the transition was ever made from discredited witness into exonerated suspect. Certainly Packer and Violenia do not appear to have been, whether they disappeared into the sunset thereafter or not.

What's worse is that people are now attempting to argue that Hutchinson passed this "checking out" process by the time Abberline penned his report to his superiors on 12th November, before any realisic "checking" could realistically have occured.

Theres no arguement Ben, Abberline clearly states he was happy with Hutchinsons statement and him.

And thats being really realistic.

Monty

[Abby Normal]

How did George Hutchinson ever become such a popular suspect?. Does anyone believe,as i do, that George is completly innocent of any part in Mary Kelly's murder,or any other named victim of ' Jack the Ripper '. Some suspects are howlers, but Hutchinson actually played a supporting role in that drama and this fact alone really seems to convince some people that he is a viable suspect which other people really buy. So far no real evidence exists against anyone, and the circumstantial evidence has been stretched to the point of transparency in the need to find an answer. But we can do better than George Hutchinson surely?.

In my mind it seems most probable that at best GH was a liar, obstructed a police investigation and tried to profit from the murder of a woman(who he said was a friend). At worst he was Jack the Ripper.

But we can do better than George Hutchinson surely

Perhaps but IMHO just barely with G. Chapmen, and perhaps James Kelly, Bury and Kosminsky

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Of course Hutchinson had around 15 minutes to take things in.”

“Things in” in terms of general observations maybe, but he clearly wasn’t scrutinizing the Astrakhan man for the whole of that 15 minutes, and even if he was, the only opportunity he had to take anything “in” beyond a dark figure in an overcoat and hat holding a bag (oooh, knife-shaped!) was when he passed fleetingly in close proximity to a lamp at the corner of Fashion Street.

Gosh, it’s almost like we’ve been here before quite a few times already, isn’t it?

“But what if he had observed the red seal stone at a previous occasion? The horseshoe tie pin?”

Then he must have been scrutinizing him very closely at close quarters with the man’s fineries on unbuttoned proud display on a previous no-evidence occasion. This clearly didn’t happen, or else Hutchinson would have said so. Been here before too.

“And to start guessing that reason by surmising that Abberline would go from a total belief in the testimony to a total dismissal from one day to another may not be the best way to go about it.”

I don’t need to guess the reason. I simply recognise that the discrediting came shortly after his press disclosures, which the police must have realised undermined his initial statement, thereby inviting suspicion that Hutchinson was yet another bogus witness. The belief temporarily invested in an Astrakhan type man waltzing into Dorset Street with his gold chain probably reflected an assumption that the ripper must have been something out-of-the-ordinary in terms of appearance.

“What´s your problem? Why do you consistently try and intimidate people who do not share your convictions?”

I’m not trying to silence anybody, Fisherman. I’m one of those “Hutchinsonians” remember, which means the absolute domination and proliferation of Hutchinson threads ought really to be an excellent thing. I wasn’t passing critical comment, but merely outlining the nature of this particular beast. I do seem to be able to get people antler-locked in a determined battle to outlast me in increasingly repetitive and interminable Hutchinson discussions for some reason, and that’s certainly not something I’m complaining about. There never seems to be any suggestion that it’s just Ben off on one again. If we ignore him, hopefully he’ll go away. That doesn’t happen, and I’m grateful for that.

It’s just my prediction. If people want to discuss Astrakhan descriptions again, we’ll probably keep discussing it for another 100 pages.

Hi Monty,

“Abberline clearly states he was happy with Hutchinsons statement and him”

Initally, yes, but apparently not in the long run.

All the best,
Ben