Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
How I do enjoy these Hutchinson threads, they are always expressed passionately .
What it all boils down to , is what camp each one of us is in.
The three questions to ask are.
Was George Hutchinson telling the truth , exactly as he recalled, and done so with no intentions to mislead , and with no interior motive,?
Was George Hutchinson inventing an scenario, for reasons of financial gain , or being in the limelight, or was it because of fear?..if so in what context.
Was George Hutchinson working as a pimp, or had intentions, to mug any punter that may have been a candidate for money...or indeed was he the killer of Mary Kelly, or even Jack?.
The above seem to be the most likely choices we should base our opinions around.
If one considers all options, one could base speculation among all three.
Personally, I would suggest that we give our George the benefit of the doubt, and go for the No intentions to mislead .
But in truth the only bit that I find unlikely is that he was a killer.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

The dilemma you have inherited is that one press source (Star) cries about him being discredited, when another other press source (Echo) merely claims for reduced importance - not the same thing.

Agreed, and the reason for this was that Hutchinson's press disclosures - published on 14th November - further undermined his already very tenuous credibility in the minds of the police. Hence, the "very reduced importance" attached to his account on 13th had further downgraded to "discredited" by 15th on account of his press embellishments. No consistency in my argument here, just an awareness of the chronology of events.

While various press sources throughout November publish articles concerning the continued interest by police.

Nope.

Nothing of the sort, I'm afraid.

No evidence at all of the police actively seeking Astrakhan man after 15th November.

And nothing from the police about rejecting Hutchinson for any reason.

Actually, there was the information fed straight from the police to the Echo about the very specific reason for Hutchinson being rejected.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben.

The dilemma you have inherited is that one press source (Star) cries about him being discredited, when another other press source (Echo) merely claims for reduced importance - not the same thing. While various press sources throughout November publish articles concerning the continued interest by police.
And nothing from the police about rejecting Hutchinson for any reason.

Your argument lacks consistency.

[Ben]

They would have had to check out Hutchs' Romford trip

Trouble is, Paddy, it wouldn't have achieved very much.

If they checked it out and found the Romford claim to be legit, it would do nothing to verify his activity once he arrived in Spitalfields. On the other hand, if Hutchinson lied about Romford, it was a very simple thing to get away with - just don't mention any particular address or person and thus avoid the risk of contradiction.

My great uncle Henry Cox did say that they got on the track after the last murder. (yes I know what you are going to say, which murder)
It could have been Hutchinsons statement that enabled that?

Probably not, since Hutchinson's statement was ultimately discredited.

Hi Jon,

I'm not sure why it's essential to have quite such a close "parallel". Hutchinson, Violenia, and Packer all claimed to have witnessed the victim a aroud the time and place of her death, and yet despite the fact that the three of them were soon discredited, none of them became a suspect. It is only necessary to draw distinctions between those who saw her last, second-to-last, third-to-last or whatever if it's being suggested that only witnesses who claimed to see her last warrant investigation as a suspect, and that the police don't even countenance the possibility of the others being responsible.

Unless that's the argument, there's no real need to strive for too unrealistically close a parallel.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

But nor was Hutchinson the last to see Kelly alive. That distinction would go to the suspect seen in her company, if the overall statement was believed.

Ah, Ben, you must have an independent witness, not one mentioned by the suspect/witness himself.

Stride was seen by PC Smith & Schwartz after Packer, neither of these were mentioned by Packer so it is confirmed independently that Packer was not a parallel for Hutchinson.

According to some of the arguments employed here, that ought to qualify both of them suspect status, and yet neither was considered a suspect, thus reinforcing the reality that Hutchinson wasn't either.

None of the arguments I am familiar with would include either Violenia or Packer.

[Paddy]

Witnesses

Both Schwartz and Hutchinson would have had to be checked out for the reasons you state ie : could be the killer or a liar etc
Messages were passed between home office City police and H Division.
I think they were just playing it safe with the inquests. Now the city police were involved and Matthews at the home office. They had to really play it by the book. They would have had to check out Hutchs' Romford trip. Also drop the Lipski bit as they were not sure what he said and a bit too political.
I think they were terrified of racial unrest at that time.

My great uncle Henry Cox did say that they got on the track after the last murder. (yes I know what you are going to say, which murder)
It could have been Hutchinsons statement that enabled that?

As for Packer, I am intrigued in a bit I read once. He said the man he saw with Liz lived over the next street? Which fits well with Kozminskis family home in Providence street (next street to Berner st) I suppose it was a newspaper that said it but I cant seem to find it.

Just my thoughts !
Pat........................

[Ben]

Packer's sighting was no later than 12:30, so not the last to see Stride alive.

But nor was Hutchinson the last to see Kelly alive. That distinction would go to the suspect seen in her company, if the overall statement was believed. Packer still claimed to be at the crime scene at a time relevant to Stride's death, just as Violenia claimed to have been at the crime scene at a time relevant to Chapman's death. According to some of the arguments employed here, that ought to qualify both of them suspect status, and yet neither was considered a suspect, thus reinforcing the reality that Hutchinson wasn't either.

[Wickerman]

Packer's sighting was no later than 12:30, so not the last to see Stride alive.

Violenia was easily deduced as a false witness, and if the description offered by Mrs Long had fit Violenia then the end result may have been different.
As it happens it must not have and besides, Violenia failed in his efforts as a false witness.

There is no parallel between Packer/Violenia and Hutchinson.

[Ben]

Hi CD,

According to Hutchinson's own testimony, he knew the victim and was the last one to see her alive. That makes him a suspect or as they say here in the States "a person of interest."

But that "according to Hutchinson's own testimony" makes all the difference. Unless they were in possession of proof to back up that testimony, there was every possibility that he was yet another bogus witness who wasn't there when he claimed to be. You'll note that Packer and Violenia both claimed to have been at the crime scene and were the last to see the victim alive, and yet neither became a suspect once their evidence was doubted. The were simply bogus witnesses, in the minds of the police. This is apparently what happened with Hutchinson - when the "cracks" in his story began to show, he went simply from legitimate witness to probably bogus witness.

Regards,
Ben

[c.d.]

Hello Ben,

I have to strongly disagree with you. According to Hutchinson's own testimony, he knew the victim and was the last one to see her alive. That makes him a suspect or as they say here in the States "a person of interest." You don't have to be a trained detective to come to that conclusion. It should be obvious or as you Brits say "bleedin' obvious."

And even if his coming forward so blinded them in the beginning, what would have happened if his story started to change or the facts didn't jive. How long would he continue to get a pass?

c.d.

[Ben]

Hi CD,

No, for reasons I've outlined in several of my recent posts here, it is unlikely (although not impossible) that they considered the possibility of Hutchinson's guilt.

A) The 1888 police were unlikely to have fathomed for one moment that the real killer would inject himself into the investigation.

B) Hutchinson didn't remotely conform to the type of person the police were interested in.

C) We simply have no evidence anywhere of any police suspicions being leveled at Hutchinson. Some people like to invoke the "lost report", and often assert they it definitely said what they want it to have said, once upon a time, before it got conveniently bombed in the blitz, but no evidence of any extant report is the reality.

All the best,
Ben

[c.d.]

Hello Ben,

But isn't the logical conclusion in all of this that Abberline and others at Scotland Yard concluded that Hutchinson was not involved in Mary's death and that he was not the Ripper? We don't know how they arrived at that conclusion or whether or not it was correct. But since Hutchinson fades from the scene, isn't that the conclusion that we are left with?

c.d.

[Ben]

Avoiding the possibility of a witness telling them lies, whether to avoid incrimination themselves or to intentionally incriminate another person, be that other person real or make believe.

No, Jon, not as complicated as that.

Abberline and his fellow detectives had been blighted by bogus witnesses - people seeking money or publicity, and the purpose of the interrogation was to check for superficial signs that Hutchinson was one of those. It was most assuredly not an opportunity to uncover an immediate and permanent solution to the question of whether or not he was guilty of being Jack the Ripper, because that simply wasn't possible. Since nothing could be verified in so short a space of time, the interrogation can't have been based on anything more than personal impressions.

"Intense questioning" counts for absolutely nothing in the absence of evidence to back up what came out of Hutchinson's mouth, and there was no means of obtaining that evidence so soon after his first appearance at Commercial Street police station. He could have had a lovely polite, forthright, confident, honest-to-bleedin-goodness manner and still spouted utter lies that weren't easy (or even possible) to contradict.

And tellingly, once this "interrogation" was over, Abberline reported on it - yet again, before any of Hutchinson's claims could have been checked into - and mentioned nothing about conducting any further checks to ascertain whether or not this seemingly legit witness was secretly Jack the Ripper.

So don't get too carried away with the word "interrogation".

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Because the police wanted to avoid publicity-seeking or money-grabbing false witnesses, Jon.

There you go Ben, you answered it yourself.
Avoiding the possibility of a witness telling them lies, whether to avoid incrimination themselves or to intentionally incriminate another person, be that other person real or make believe.

The point is the police do not wish to add incentive for any potential 'false witness', whatever his reason.
A witness is questioned quite intensely where the possibility exists that this witness could be implicated in the crime. Not 'Rocket science' Ben, just thorough policing.

You miss the point.

Hutchinson's claim to have "walked about" at the likely time of Kelly's death effectively disposes of the issue of an alibi, whether the claim was accurate or not.

Yes, I am indicating that you are potentially reading too much into an excuse which may appear false to us today, but was more common at the time.

Well, if that's where your problem lies you'd better scurry on off and find someone who makes "accusations" against a "seemingly innocent man". There are plenty of those about. I'm not one of them,...

'Cough' - well look what you did, you made me spill my coffee.
Ok, I'll accept you have turned over a new leaf. Reason must be coming through at last

[Ben]

Ben knows that the Echo was privy to special police info that was kept from the rest of the press - but shared with the Penny Illustrated apparently

You can even address me directly if you fancy it, Lech.

There is no evidence that the police shared anything with Penny Illustrated, whose sketch was clearly not intended to depict Astrakhan man. There is, moreover, no indication that it was based on any police-endorsed witness account.

but he doesn't know that Booth produced two maps and the one without the Red lines also had a table with percentages in poverty per district.

I'm talking about Booth's poverty map.

You were describing that part of the east end as "affluent", which was shaded yellow on the map, and yet if you look at the area where the murders were committed, there is not a single trace of yellow (or gold?!) in that part of the east end on Booth's map.

Again if the A-man was catastrophically out of place I would have expected Abberline to have sussed it out immediately.

Not if he was expecting the ripper to be just as bizarre in his appearance as he was in his habits. And remember, this was also the silly bugger who completely overlooked Cross's murderous guilt - or one of them, at least!

There have been four books on Hutchinson - there is a massive amount more than can be said about these crimes and Lechmere's relationship to them than can be said about Hutchinson.

No Lechmere.

Absolutely not.

Otherwise a lot more would have been said.

The fact that there are four books written about Hutchinson (more than that, actually) as well as more articles, and many thousands more message board contributions* tells us that there is generally acknowledged to me more mileage in Hutchinson than there is in Cross.

All the best,
Ben

*From a combination of which the screenwriters for "Whitechapel" ended up favouring Hutchinson as the most likely suspect, and used him as the fictional detective's suspect of preference too.