Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Ben]

Funny choice of words from someone who's (sic) entire hypothesis about Hutchinson relies on imaginary, non-existent, hoped-for evidence to implicate him.

I don't have an "entire hypothesis about Hutchinson". I simply have an urge to challenge and correct some of the more spurious and badly thought-through reasons for dismissing Hutchinson as a viable person of interest, especially when I recognise that the primary motivation in advancing these "reasons", in some cases, is to further the cause of "Gentleman Jack" or some other off-the-wall theory involving Isaacs and Astrakhan man.

Witnesses were among the first suspects long before 1888.

Really? Voluntary witnesses? People who come forward of their own volition and introduce themselves to police? You reckon they're the "first suspects" in the minds of police officials operating in the 19th century?

Show me the evidence immediately, or else retract the claim as baseless.

What do you think the premiss was behind the police being reluctant to entertain 'Rewards'? The witness may not be entirely honest.

Because the police wanted to avoid publicity-seeking or money-grabbing false witnesses, Jon. Those are the people the police wanted to deter, and that it why they were "reluctant to entertain 'Rewards'". Or are you seriously, seriously suggesting that the police only avoided a policy of reward-giving because they thought it might entice the real Jack the Ripper into coming forward and trying on a bit of Billy Bull$hit...and they didn't want that?

To admit to sleeping in a stairwell, doorway, or abandoned house will immediately incur a fine and in some cases a week or more hard labour.

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. If you're "walking about" or sleeping in a stairwell at 3.30am, you simply don't have the means of verifying that activity, unless there were some people implausibly awake at that time and monitoring their doorway or stairwell. The point being that it's beyond silly and unimaginative to claim the police were satisfied that Hutchinson was innocent on the basis of "alibis".

Agreed, just as capable as modern theorists are to invent bogus accusations against a seemingly innocent man.

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, however. I make no "accusations". I simply explore possibilities that make sense historically and criminologically, and I get very testy indeed when those with inferior knowledge on both subjects mindlessly pooh-pooh those possibilities.

[Wickerman]

The problem with the claim that Hutchinson must have been “discreetly investigated” is that it relies on imaginary, non-existent, hoped-for evidence in order to exonerate him as a suspect.

Funny choice of words from someone who's entire hypothesis about Hutchinson relies on imaginary, non-existent, hoped-for evidence to implicate him. Oh, and erroneous newspaper stories - I forgot that.

......it is unlikely in the extreme that Hutchinson was viewed as a suspect.

Clearly an ill-informed point of view.

Moreover, itfword got out to the press (from Hutchinson) that witnesses were instantly treated as suspects, it would serve as a massive deterrent to any further witnesses coming forward.

Witnesses were among the first suspects long before 1888.
Any circumstances that may exist between a witness and the victim will always be investigated by any rational thinking person. What do you think the premiss was behind the police being reluctant to entertain 'Rewards'? The witness may not be entirely honest.

He was only “interrogated” to determine whether he was a genuine witnesses or a publicity-seeker.

You have paperwork on this, or are we being treated to more of your guesswork?

Hutchinson claimed he was “walking around” around the time Kelly was killed, which could neither be verified nor contradicted. A pretty useful excuse,....

Actually Ben, if you ever decide to familiarize yourself with the laws of the time, you will see that this was a common response.
Example, John Kelly also made the same comment in the Eddowes case.

To admit to sleeping in a stairwell, doorway, or abandoned house will immediately incur a fine and in some cases a week or more hard labour.
It was a crime to sleep on private property without permission.
Therefore, rather than tell the truth they lie. And, the law knows they are lying, but the law gave them no choice.

I think you’ll find Hutchinson was perfectly capable of inventing a reason for a bogus trip to Romford that didn’t pin himself down to any particular “address”.

Agreed, just as capable as modern theorists are to invent bogus accusations against a seemingly innocent man.

[Ben]

Hi CD,

Discrete questioning? Asking for and checking a possible alibi? Hardcore interrogation?

But how are any of these effective methods for determining guilt or innocence, CD? Alibis I've already dealt with - he clearly didn't have one for the Kelly murder, and he could easily have bluffed his way out of the others by claiming he was asleep in the extremely busy Victoria Home on those nights (i.e. just like every other night). Even in the exceptionally unlikely event that the police did suspect Hutchinson, they had no means of shoring up those suspicions beyond staking him out and hoping to catch him in the act, and unless anyone wants to argue that the police were still interested in doing that a year later, when Alice McKenzie was killed...?

You can't use one zero-evidence piece of speculation (Hutchinson being suspected) to bolster an equally zero-evidence and untenable conclusion (that he was absolved of this zero-evidence suspicion). You also shouldn't apply purely modern perspectives when deciding how "foolish" or "incompetent" the 1888 police must have been to overlook certain possibilities. The options they entertained will have been conditioned by prior knowledge and experience, and if that didn't involve the most wanted criminal in London's history wandering into the police station and talking "innocently" to detectives, they can hardly be blamed for not considering it as an option.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

Clearly, the police either entertained the possibility that Hutch was there that night and up to no good, in which case they would have wanted to satisfy themselves that it was not connected with the murder...

If they ever suspected him of some sort of connection to the murder, then they "would have wanted" to satisfy themselves that there wasn't one, yes, but there's a world of difference in this case between wanting closure on the question of Hutchinson's guilt or otherwise, and actually getting it. As I've already mentioned, the investigative options to Abberline would not exactly have been plentiful, especially if he was guilty. In fact it's very hard to envisage any fruitful course of investigative action beyond discreetly monitoring his movements over the next few weeks.

or they were given no cause to suspect him of being anything more than an unreliable witness or attention seeker.

But in all likelihood, "no cause" in this case meant an inability to conceive of the idea that the real killer would waltz into the police station and request an audience with the police, and it 1888, a nascent police force could hardly be blamed for failing to entertain such an idea.

The 'interrogation' would have sorted this out in Abberline's mind without needing to alarm the witness unduly.

But the "interrogation" took place in the absence of any means of verifying Hutchinson's claims, which meant that any conclusion Abberline arrived at in so short a space of time with regard to the question of truthfulness or otherwise can only have been based on faith. Indeed, Abberline's own report - penned just a few hours after first hearing of Hutchinson - acknowledges that he was simply of the "opinion" that his statement was true. Apparently, that opinion was not to last, as it is clear that his statement was discredited, but owing to the lack of precedent for any serial offender coming forward under the false guise of a witness, the discredited nature of his account earned him the status as a probable time-waster and/or publicity/money-seeker, rather than that of a suspect.

It's all very well arguing that anyone involved would have been quite safe to come forward back then, because the police would never have imagined in a million years that a guilty party would do so. But this assumes the ripper would have known this, because why else would he have felt safe to come forward?

It doesn't matter what era - or stage of police enlightenment! - we're dealing with. Killers have been injecting themselves into police investigations for decades, and they continue to do so today in spite of widespread and publicized knowledge amongst law enforcement and criminal psychologists that such behaviour occurs. A likely uniting factor is the over-sized egos and arrogance of the criminals in believing they can pull the wool over the eyes of their pursuers in so brazen a fashion.

All the best,
Ben

[c.d.]

Hello Caz,

I think you hit the nail on the head when you say that the police would have wanted to "satisfy" themselves that Hutchinson was not involved in the murder. Now we don't know what form that attempt at satisfaction took. Discrete questioning? Asking for and checking a possible alibi? Hardcore interrogation?

Hutchinson claimed to have known the victim. He was with her according to him right before she died. Now if the police were so mesmerized that he came forward voluntarily that they simply glossed over those facts and gave him a complete pass as far as being a suspect then they were guilty of complete incompetence and even gross incompetence and were pretty much downright fools. I mean are we to believe that not even one damn detective in all of Scotland Yard viewed him as being suspicious?

I think as Caz put it, they satisfied themselves as to his innocence.

c.d.

[caz]

Gosh, aren’t we doing a wonderful job of trying to ascertain Hutchinson’s guilt or otherwise…

Well you are the one with all the work to do, Ben.

Clearly, the police either entertained the possibility that Hutch was there that night and up to no good, in which case they would have wanted to satisfy themselves that it was not connected with the murder (eg that he wasn't perhaps an accomplice or lookout who might be prepared to come clean if he could avoid the rope himself?), or they were given no cause to suspect him of being anything more than an unreliable witness or attention seeker. The 'interrogation' would have sorted this out in Abberline's mind without needing to alarm the witness unduly.

As such, he continues to be a witness who is presumed entirely innocent unless some evidence emerges to warrant him being given suspect status.

It's all very well arguing that anyone involved would have been quite safe to come forward back then, because the police would never have imagined in a million years that a guilty party would do so. But this assumes the ripper would have known this, because why else would he have felt safe to come forward? Where would he have got the information that he was the first to try it on, or that the police had never yet arrested anyone who had come forward as a witness?

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

The problem with the claim that Hutchinson must have been “discreetly investigated” is that it relies on imaginary, non-existent, hoped-for evidence in order to exonerate him as a suspect. This is a curious inversion of what usually happens with suspect theories, i.e. a suspect promoter posits the existence of “lost reports” in order to bolster the suspect’s candidacy. The fact that they’re being conjured up from the ether by people opposed to that suspect theory is a good indication that those who find Hutchinson a compelling person of interest – and who aren’t relying on “lost reports” to make their case – are on the right track.

What a lot of people don’t understand is that policing as an organized body was still it its infancy back then, and they had no precedent at all for serial killers (or perhaps any type of criminal) injecting themselves into their own investigation and requesting an interview. Since the very concept would have seemed like anathema back then - despite modern commentators talking about “common sense” from the fortunate perspective of hindsight – it is unlikely in the extreme that Hutchinson was viewed as a suspect. Had it been otherwise, Abberline would have said so in his private, internal report; something along the lines of, “I believe this statement to be true, but then again, he might be Jack the Ripper, so I’d better just check to make sure he’s not”. Unless people want to argue that he already had made sure, which is just impossible.

Whatever form the “interrogation” took, it must be remembered that Abberline wrote his report just a few hours after Hutchinson first introduced himself at the police station. Abberline could not have determined whether or not Hutchinson was guilty in so short a space of time, and in the absence of a magic wand, so it’s important we don’t misinterpret “interrogate” to imply that he was grilled as a suspect. Moreover, itfword got out to the press (from Hutchinson) that witnesses were instantly treated as suspects, it would serve as a massive deterrent to any further witnesses coming forward.

He was only “interrogated” to determine whether he was a genuine witnesses or a publicity-seeker.

If it’s a big stretch to assume he was ever investigated as a suspect, it’s an even bigger one to assume he was exonerated as one. “Alibis” we can forget straight away. Hutchinson claimed he was “walking around” around the time Kelly was killed, which could neither be verified nor contradicted. A pretty useful excuse, incidentally, if he was the killer. Even more far-fetched is the idea that he could account for his whereabouts on the nights of previous murders. The Victoria Home only recorded names of those new to the establishment, and Hutchinson was no newbie. All he had to do was claim he was asleep at the Victoria Home all those weeks ago, along with 500 other lodgers, and remain completely secure in the knowledge that he could not be contradicted on this point.

“If the police couldn't figure out that Hutchinson and Kidney were both prime suspects then we have serious problems in making even the most basic assumptions about this case.”

Kidney was a reportedly violent boyfriend of Stride’s, which automatically assigned him suspect status. Not so for witnesses who come forward voluntarily and request an audience with the police. No comparison there at all, I’m afraid, CD.

“At the very least Scotland Yard could have telegraphed the local station in Romford, to have a Det. constable/Inspector sent to the address to make enquiries.”

What “address” are you talking about, Jon? Even if there was one, and his Romford connection was corroborated, how would this verify the accuracy or otherwise of what he claimed to see and experience when he arrived back in Whitechapel? I think you’ll find Hutchinson was perfectly capable of inventing a reason for a bogus trip to Romford that didn’t pin himself down to any particular “address”.

“Enquiries would also have been made at the Victoria Home as to when Hutchinson finally made an appearance, at what time and in what condition was he in, and as to his demeanor.”

And the response?

Yep, he entered the home later in the morning, exactly as he said in his account. His condition? Tired, of course. He’d been up all night “walking the streets”, remember? Exactly as he said in his account. Sarah Lewis identifies him? (it definitely never happened, but let’s pretend) Yep, that’s the man I saw (she says), doing exactly as he said in his account. His demeanour? Left eye-lid twitching, knife in hand, and vowing to rid London of all whores, naturally.

Gosh, aren’t we doing a wonderful job of trying to ascertain Hutchinson’s guilt or otherwise…

[Wickerman]

Ok, thanks Dave.
This is what fuels the argument, yes.

To which you responded that, "it all comes from his statement" ?

It isn't that "it all comes from his statement", that is not correct.
What I think you should have wrote, was. It all comes from what 'we' suspect, when some of us try to fill in the blanks, to his statement.
Isn't that nearer the truth?

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

Hi Jon, you said The Star ("now discredited") was the source of all modern claims against Hutch, right ? Hence my reply above. That's all.

[Wickerman]

False, Jon. It all comes from GH statement itself. Are you suggesting it's this sentence from the Star that gave birth to all Hutch theories ? I'm sure you're not, honestly.

What is it specifically Dave, that you want to talk about?

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

Subsequently, all modern spurious claims against Hutchinson have snowballed on from there.

Regards, Jon S.

False, Jon. It all comes from GH statement itself. Are you suggesting it's this sentence from the Star that gave birth to all Hutch theories ? I'm sure you're not, honestly.

[Cogidubnus]

I suspect that politically Abberline HAD to say something positive initially about ANY witness statement (Say Mr Abberline what do you have to say about...etc)...once he'd had it checked out, the course of the investigation surely shows what he thought...with no previous experience in dealing with a mass media the police were in a "no-win" situation by then...

[Wickerman]

....Then, sometime on Tuesday morning there was a sudden change of plan, essentially to shut down any press speculations as to the existance of this suspect.
The scenario then caused the Echo to print:

"The Metropolitan police, however, have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement."

Effectively taking steps to take the heat off for fear their suspect will go to ground, which he apparently did.

It's something I am still looking into, a work in progress, and nothing is certain, and it might not pan out, there's a few more points to track down.

So, the question was, "why were the Metropolitan police induced to change their priorities and follow the description given by Cox"?

Nothing directly to do with Hutchinson I'm afraid, but actually of all people, Dr. Bond.

Anderson placed a great deal of faith in the opinions of Dr. Bond, and we know Bond was specifically requested by Anderson to provide him with a medical opinion on the murder of Mary Kelly.

As Macdonald's Inquiry had failed to provide a medically derived time of death, perhaps due to Dr. Phillips not being able to complete his testimony, the Inquest concluded with an approximation of 4:00 am, based entirely on the time the cry of "murder" was heard by two witnesses.

It would appear that once Hutchinson came forward with his story of seeing Kelly with a client shortly after 2:00 am the Metropolitan police assumed they had a solid witness-sighting of a suspect.
The police & press ran with this story for a little less than 24 hours before we read the first rumours of discontent, in words published by the Echo on the evening of Nov. 13th:

"The Metropolitan police, however, have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement."

I asked, who would “induce” the police to change direction, and why?

Robert Anderson.

Dr. Bond summarized his opinion of the Kelly murder in a letter to the Home Office dated Nov. 10th.
Whether there existed any private in-person discussions between Dr. Bond and Anderson on that day, or the following day we cannot determine, however in Bond's professional opinion Mary Kelly was already dead before Hutchinson appeared on the scene.

Quote:
“The body was comparatively cold at 2 o'clock........It is therefore pretty certain that the woman must have been dead about 12 hours and the partly digested food would indicate: that death took place about 3 or 4 hours after the food was taken, so one or two o'clock in the morning would be the probable time of her murder”

This is sufficient reason in the mind of Anderson, to direct Swanson to make the testimony of Cox priority. Thereby “inducing” the Metropolitan police to realign their enquiries. Blotchy was the last suspect seen with the victim before Bond's estimated time of death for Mary Kelly.

Bond need not have been correct in his estimation, that is beside the point. It is known, for example, that Dr. Bond was often at odd's and had a contrary opinion with that of his peers in other cases.
However, given Anderson's reliance on the opinions of Dr. Bond it is thee most likely and reasonable explanation for the sudden shift in priorities.

This suggested change of direction stated in the Echo does not appear to have been enthusiastically adopted, nor broadly agreed upon. The City Police did not agree, and the Echo thought it dubious. Dr. Phillips did hold a different opinion on the time of death but due to the condition of the body no accurate time could be determined. It is possible that Anderson later realized that Bond's estimate was not so reliable.

It would appear that this change of priorities reported in the Echo is what influenced the Star to write about Hutchinson being discredited, because they did not know the correct story. Subsequently, all modern spurious claims against Hutchinson have snowballed on from there.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Astrachan is part of the Ripper legacy, and since he was accepted as a factual character by the authorities we should dispense with these childish games and deal with his presence accordingly.

There is really no need for some people to keep pooing their pants and lashing out with silly accusations.

"Childish games"? I hardly think so. Hutchinson was discredited as a witness, and we might reasonably assume that the Astrakhan man was ditched in the process as a probable fabrication, rather than being invested in thereafter as a "factual character". I have yet to read Rob's book, but I'll wager hefty sums that he never made the case that Kosminstrakhan the Ripper aged ten years, suddenly acquired the sort of funds that could pay for opulent-looking attire and a thick gold watch chain (or even an imitation one), and waltzed into the murder district in this garb. I'm not doing to "deal" with his non-existent presence. I'm going to dismiss it, as it was dismissed in 1888.

I'm sure Abberline was familiar with the lighting conditions, just as the Graphic were (who both noted the poor lighting conditions and felt that the Astrakhan description "engendered a feeling of scepticism"). This scepticism was evidently shared by Abberline and his colleagues who discredited Hutchinson and his account. The problems arise when modern commentators are attracted, moth-like, to his "interesting" description and seek to uphold the Astrakhan man accordingly.

[Wickerman]

The dangers of walking down Dorset Street, the unfeasibility of the A-man’s mode of dress, the unlikelihood of a prosperous looking person being in that area – these features were not really mentioned at the time as being unlikely. It certainly didn’t light a bulb in Abberline’s head and I don’t think he would have needed hindsight to know whether a story sounded ridiculous or not – he knew those streets and the in habitants.

Absolutely Lechmere, and that goes for Hutchinson's perceptive abilities too. Insp. Abberline & Sergt Badham both interviewed him so if there had been any reservations about "what he could see" under those lighting conditions we should expect the people who spent their careers, on the streets, at night, to have a better grasp to accept what was feasible and what was not.
Of course, we all have to tolerate those living today who think they know better, but thats just our cross to bear.

Here's another consideration, just to add fuel to the fire.
"Some of the symptoms of schizophrenia are delusions of grandiosity or omniscience or the patient may be convinced he has special powers. Such a man will act and feel he is invincible and that he dominates all those around him" (Rob House).
It has been debated that Kosminski may have been such an individual and if this Astrachan did indeed suffer from schizophrenia (was he Kosminski?) then most of these arguments concerning the way he dressed and the way he acted are mute.

We cannot make final decisions on subjects where we lack sufficient information. Astrachan is part of the Ripper legacy, and since he was accepted as a factual character by the authorities we should dispense with these childish games and deal with his presence accordingly.

Regards, Jon S.