Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Ben]

Was it not mentioned by Mrs Harvey that She had breakfast in Marys room on Thursday morning[ correct me if I am wrong?]. This being the case I would suggest that if she had taken a ''Toff'' back to her room just a few hours before, Harvey would have known about it?

This is an excellent point, Richard, and one I’m surprised I never considered.

Hi Errata,

“A: I have no idea what I was doing three days ago. Not even a little.”

I’m extremely surprised by this, but it’s possible, of course. As I mentioned last night, I have no objection to date confusion as a general concept, but it becomes considerably less plausible when the “date” in question is particularly momentous, such as the murder of Mary Kelly, which, in Hutchinson’s case, also coincided with a mammoth trek all the way back from Romford and the Lord Mayor's Show. The chances of Hutchinson confusing this very significant date just a few days later must be considered extremely slim.

Time confusion is moderately more palatable alternative, but even this cannot qualify as an adequate reason for discounting Hutchinson’s statement, which the police most assuredly did. If the police suspected that Hutchinson was a few hours out in his estimation of the time, they would still have used him in later attempts to identity suspects rather than dropping him completely. Similarity, if “time confusion” lay at the root of Hutchinson’s discrediting, the police would not have informed the Echo that his statement was “considerably discounted” owing to doubts surrounding his failure to present his evidence in time for the inquest.

Time confusion also fails to take into account the obvious correlation between Hutchinson and the man seen by Sarah Lewis opposite Miller’s Court at 2:30am. Given the striking similarity between the two accounts on this point, there can be no other conclusion: Hutchinson was the man seen by Sarah Lewis, and the former cannot have been confused at to time or date.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“These accusations have been invented in our era, mostly in the past decade or so. Hutchinson was never a contemporary suspect, so don't try that one on!”

Don’t try what “on”? I’m simply observing that it’s best not to decry “false accusations” when you have no idea whether they’re false or not. A suspect doesn’t become more likely to be a serial killer just because they were “contemporary” either.

The Echo were most assuredly in direct communication with the police, as proven by the fact that they were able to shed light on the “mystery” of two near-identical accounts being published over two successive days and leading to an erroneous impression, amongst other press sources, that they were two mutually supportive accounts from separate sources:

“Unfortunately for the theories of our morning contemporaries, we learned on inquiry at the Commercial-street Police-station to-day that the elaborate description given above is virtually the same as that previously published. It is a little fuller, that is all. But it proceeds from the same source..."

We now know this to be true.

Evidently, the Echo were using a police informant, thus accounting for the absence of a direct quotation or name of any particular official, but that’s no reason to distrust the information, especially when we know it to be true. We also know from other sources that police informants were used at a very senior level. It's rather surprising that someone who has "been around" the message boards for so long might have picked up on this at some point, unless of course they were only ever here to argue rather than learn anything.

As for what you describe as “assumptions”, you fill your boots and dismiss them if you like, but they were simply the realities of Hutchinson’s claims. If you want to adjust them to make them appear more plausible, you’re simply stretching the evidence to fit a preferred Hutch-friendly mould. If you’re paying close attention to a person’s face in darkness as he moves past a Victorian gas lamp, you cannot also be paying attention to the minutest of details of the man’s lower body. The window of opportunity for this just wasn’t there, nor was sufficient lighting.

Speaking of assumptions, there is no evidence whatsoever that our “recent ancestors” had better “memory retention” skills than us.

“Seeing him again on Sunday morning, and paying more attention again to this man's attire will only reinforce his recognition ability.”

Really?

“Oh look, there’s that scary man again. Same Astrakhan-trimmed coat, same “light buttons over button boots” , same horseshoe tie-pin, same dark eyelashes, same linen collar”.

And yet he only “fancied” that they were the same man and “could not be certain”? Implying that it could have been a different person wearing exactly the same clothes and accessories, and having the same facial features?

And of course, no reference to this at all in the police statement.

Puh-lease.

“There you go again, you do not know the availability of light under these streetlamps.”

I think most people who have studied the subject in sufficient depth have a pretty good idea. Victorian street lamps emitted a dim glare, and until 1891 (when the “gas mantle” was invented) were only created using a naked flame. This would not be remotely sufficient for such “face details” as eyelash shade, especially not under a hat pulled down over the eyes. There is a very long gas lamp discussion that we can repeat here verbatim if you wish.

It is nonsense to assert that the “press conveyed the opinion across Whitechapel that Kelly had been murdered after 9:00 am Friday morning”. I didn’t “forget” about it. I just dismissed it as very obviously wrong.

The Times observed the following on 10th November:

“During the early hours of yesterday morning another murder of a most revolting and fiendish character took place in Spitalfields.”

Then there's the Daily Telegraph:

“She was last seen, as far as can be ascertained, in Commercial-street, about half-past eleven. She was then alone, and was probably making her way home. It is supposed that she met the murderer in Commercial-street. The pair would have reached Miller's-court about midnight, but they were not seen to enter the house.”

“Incidently, nice to see you back..”

Thank you, Jon. Good to be back.

All the best,
Ben

[Lechmere]

I suspect, as I have said before, that competing newspaper wanted to print different lines to make their take on the story distinctive. Hence some newspapers continued to place reliance on Hutchinson – including local newspapers that one might suppose could have local knowledge – while a couple said he was not to be relied upon. Then Hutchinson drifted out of sight (to be resurrected partially by Dew) which is taken to imply that he was dismissed and the couple of papers who stated this at an early stage were right all along.
I suspect (also as I have said before) that individual policeman may have given off the record briefings (maybe for cash). I suspect that different policemen involved in the case would have had their own views on the believability of different witnesses (many of whom contradicted each other throughout the case). I believe that different policeman, of all ranks, would have had their own favoured suspects or type of suspect.
Hence an off the record briefing from a policeman to a newspaper about Hutchinson cannot be relied upon.
I think too much is being read into the few facts that we have and it is unrealistic to endeavour to make hard and fast judgements about how, why and when, or even if, Hutchinson was dismissed. It is all conjecture.

[Ben]

Hi Garry,

“My feeling is that investigators would never have dismissed Hutchinson merely because of the delay in his coming forward”

I agree entirely, and here I'm reminded of your observation on another thread that owing to the clandestine and illegal nature of police informants, the police could not be effusive with any information they provided. It seems reasonable to me that Hutchinson’s delay in coming forward must have been one of the reasons for his eventually being discarded as a time waster and publicity seeker, but almost certainly not the only one. At the very least, it would have fueled any suspicions they might have had that all was not well with his account. The fact that this particular “reason” is cited informs us at least that whatever precipitated Hutchinson’s fall from grace, it must have had something to do with doubts surrounding his credibility – doubts that they did not elaborate on to the press. Had there been any police suspicion that Hutchinson was honestly mistaken, or date-confusing, or anything that did not impact negatively on Hutchinson’s character, they would hardly have sanctioned the Echo’s publication of what was clearly a negative slant on his credibility.

Significantly, there is no evidence that the search for the Astrakhan man continued for very long after the inquest, and ample evidence to the contrary. You’ve suggested in the past that this may have been due, in part, to a self-incriminating slip-up on Hutchinson’s part when on his walkabout with the police, and I think this makes considerable sense.

Hi Lechmere,

“Hence some newspapers continued to place reliance on Hutchinson – including local newspapers that one might suppose could have local knowledge – while a couple said he was not to be relied upon.”

The difference here is that at least one of the newspapers that reported on the “considerably discounted” status of Hutchinson’s account were in direct communication with the police, whereas the ones that continued to be ostensibly pro-Hutchinson were not. The fact that such police disclosures were “off the record” does not mean they cannot be relied upon, as we can see from that extract I provided to Jon. Clearly there was an element of confusion as to which accounts proceeded from the same source, and the Echo’s communication with their police contact resulted in this issue being clarified. The same was undoubtedly true of Hutchinson’s “discrediting”, and it was even observed by the Echo that the police do not attach as much importance to the statement as some of their contemporaries (i.e. other newspapers) do.

There is no doubt that disagreement existed amongst the senior police officials, but Hutchinson’s conspicuous absence wherever the subject of eyewitness evidence crops up is a consistent theme in all their memoirs and interviews.

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

Straightforward?

Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before? As many as fifty-three persons have, in all, made statements as to "suspicious men," each of whom was thought to be Mary Janet Kelly's assassin. The most remarkable thing in regard to the latest statement is, that no one else can be found to say that a man of that description given was seen with the deceased

Echo 13th November

[Lechmere]

Ah but one newspaper (I forget which now) claimed Hutchinson was discredited more or less immediately, before the results of his walkabout with the police could have become known.

[Ben]

You might be referring to the Echo article, Lechmere, which was kindly reproduced by Sally above. At this stage, the account had suffered a "very reduced importance", which isn't quite as damning as the statement that appeared later in the Star announcing that it was "now discredited". The implication appears to be that for some reason the "importance" came to be "reduced" even further between the 13th and 15th.

[Lechmere]

This is the timescale.

Monday 12th November 6 pm
Hutchinson appears at Commercial Street police station, makes a statement and is interrogated by Abberline. He then goes on an accompanied walkabout until late at night trying to find the A-man.
Meanwhile a notice based on his A-man description is circulated to other police stations.

Tuesday 13th November
Echo story appears stating with regard to the previous night’s statement “The importance which they then attached to it has since suffered diminution. That will be seen by the result of more recent inquiries.”
The Echo was a daily. It would have had to go to print the night before – the copy certainly would have to have been ready before Hutchinson returned from his night time walkabout.
In the morning Hutchinson was still taken to see Mary Kelly’s body in Shoreditch morgue and then went on another accompanied walkabout.

I would suggest that the most likely explanation for the Echo story is either that a sceptical policeman took it upon himself to sell the story, or that the Echo journalist took a gamble and ran a speculative story of his own.

By the way what can we make of:
“That will be seen by the result of more recent inquiries.”

And for those who think Jewish people feared to tread the cobbles of Dorset Street, that same edition of the Echo had this to say...

Dorset-street, Whitechapel, says an Echo reporter, writing late this afternoon, is like a fair. From "Mr. Ringer's public-house" (alluded to at the inquest yesterday), which is at one corner, in sight of Spitalfields Church, to the other end of this narrow and notorious thoroughfare, are dense crowds of men and women discussing the miscreant's hideous work, and commenting, in their mixed Whitechapel-Yiddish dialect, on the "full confession" which has partly been responsible for this afternoon's extraordinary activity in the region of Miller's-court... Then, in the midst of all this excited crowd, through which a strong man has to push his way with some force, an opening is suddenly made in the throng - not for a policeman or a man in authority, but for a centenarian Jewess, 107 years of age, known as the "Grandmother of many in Brick-lane," who, smitten with the one all-absorbing desire in the East-end, has been led by a relative to see the sight of the crime.

[Fisherman]

Ben (to Garry):

"I agree entirely, and here I'm reminded of your observation on another thread that owing to the clandestine and illegal nature of police informants, the police could not be effusive with any information they provided. It seems reasonable to me that Hutchinson’s delay in coming forward must have been one of the reasons for his eventually being discarded as a time waster and publicity seeker, but almost certainly not the only one."

Itīs good to hear that you agree entirely with Garry, especially since he wrote that "the information given to The Star was a simple piece of misinformation calculated to satisfy the press whilst safeguarding the real reason for Hutchinson’s fall from grace" and "I think it likely that The Star was fobbed off with the police explanation that Hutchinson had been dismissed courtesy of his failure to be interrogated under oath at the Kelly inquest."

This is exactly my take on things too, so that makes three of us!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"The Echo was a daily. It would have had to go to print the night before – the copy certainly would have to have been ready before Hutchinson returned from his night time walkabout.
In the morning Hutchinson was still taken to see Mary Kelly’s body in Shoreditch morgue and then went on another accompanied walkabout.
I would suggest that the most likely explanation for the Echo story is either that a sceptical policeman took it upon himself to sell the story, or that the Echo journalist took a gamble and ran a speculative story of his own."

... or - excuse me for nagging - if it had come to light that Hutchinson was probably wrong on the dates, then the police would still want to see if Hutchinson could identify Kelly, and they would still be interested in finding Astrakhan man, in order to obtain as much information as possible about the time leading up to the murder - in this case, the early hours of Thursday.

How is that for a very plausible explanation, with no enterprising policeman taking any risk and guessing away, and no journalist jumping to conclusions of his own? Funny, is it not, how such a narrow suggestion can fit in with all the things we have on hand?

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Perhaps...

[Fisherman]

Wow, Lechmere - you are far, far too generous ...!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“Ben (to Garry)”

Yes, Ben to Garry. You obviously picked up on that all-important clue to the intended recipient of my post. I’m pleased to see we’re in agreement on this point too, although Garry clearly meant the Echo rather than the Star. I thought I had made it clear on other threads that Hutchinson’s tardiness in coming forward was unlikely to have been the sole reason for his discrediting, and agreed on several occasions with Garry’s observation that the police were likely to have been scant on detail when communicating with the Echo.

I realise that every Hutchinson-related post you make these days is to the effect that “That means Hutchinson got the wrong night!” but I can assure that this was not remotely Garry's point.

Cheers,
Ben

[Ben]

“The Echo was a daily. It would have had to go to print the night before – the copy certainly would have to have been ready before Hutchinson returned from his night time walkabout.”

This is not possible, Lechmere.

The Echo was an evening newspaper that had been in circulation since 1868, with Arthur Arnold as its first editor.

From the 13th November article in question.

“Dorset-street, Whitechapel, says an Echo reporter, writing late this afternoon, is like a fair.”

It is clear, therefore, that the journalists had a whole morning and afternoon in which to learn of the latest developments concerning Hutchinson. The article was certainly written in the late afternoon of the 13th, after Hutchinson’s walkabouts with police officers and after he had visited the mortuary. This was plenty of time for the “later investigations” to occur, which evidently resulted in Hutchinson’s statement being “considerably discounted". No sceptical policeman or gambling journalist involved, but rather simple reporting of the latest developments.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I thought I had made it clear on other threads that Hutchinson’s tardiness in coming forward was unlikely to have been the sole reason for his discrediting, and agreed on several occasions with Garry’s observation that the police were likely to have been scant on detail when communicating with the Echo."

What I am after, Ben, is that you yourself have stated that the delay is all the explanation you need. "You are more than welcome to “look somewhere else” for a reason for Hutchinson’s dismissal, but speaking strictly for myself, I’m perfectly content with the one we have on record", was what you told me earlier. I supply a number of quotations that shows you what I am talking about.
The interesting detail here is that when I suggest that the Echo and the Star may have been fobbed off with a phony explanation and tell you that there was more behind it, you sneer at it and do all you can to paint me out as completely ridiculous. But when Garry says the exact same thing, you are in complete agreement with him.

Thatīs why I picked up on your post to Garry - I thought it very strange that a suggestion that had caused so much bad blood when I made it suddenly has become something with which you entirely agree.

Hereīs what you thought of it all when I suggested it:

”Since these informants would have been paid, it is unlikely in the extreme they would provide bogus information to the journalists in an effort to preserve the reputation of the police as a collective. For starters, there would be no logical motivation for them to do so, since the nature of a professional “leaker” of information is to dish the dirt from the inside. If their agenda was saving the face of the institution, they would hardly have become clandestine informers paid by newspapers!”

That would make Garryīs suggestion "unlikely in the extreme" too, would it not? Or am I missing something here? He ALSO suggests that the papers were fed bogus information and fobbed off.

”the police clearly believed that the "time in which it is delivered" clearly affected its potential "value" in a negative way. Indeed, one of the reasons Hutchinson's account was "considerably discounted" was because it was only presented after the inquest”

Hmm. But if it was just a case of the police fending off the press - as Garry and I suggest - itīs a different story, is it not?

”the sequence of events is to the effect that the “authorities” considerably discounted Hutchinson’s story for reasons that included his delay in presenting his evidence.”

How "considerable" is it if it was just fobbing the press off? Not at all, I would suggest.

”If Hutchinson had given an “acceptable” reason for his failure to come forward earlier, the Echo would not have alluded to his non-appearance at the inquest on two successive days of reporting, and we know that they made a personal visit to the police station to ascertain this information. This obvious reality is only a problem for people who, for some unfathomable reason, have it in their minds that Abberline was the only police official of any seniority capable of having an influential opinion on Hutchinson, or even worse, that Abberline was incapable of revising, or even reflecting upon, a previous judgement.”

Would that make Garry suffer from the same disease, the I-put-too-much-faith-in-Abberline disease, as I do? For he seems to have the exact same problem with your "reality" in this instance?

”Try and distinguish, if you can, between “we” and “you”. You are more than welcome to “look somewhere else” for a reason for Hutchinson’s dismissal, but speaking strictly for myself, I’m perfectly content with the one we have on record. The Echo was not merely “hinting”. They had obtained their information directly from the police, and the chances of them being “completely wrong” are therefore to be considered extremely slim.”

Ah, there it was again - thatīs the quotation I presented earlier. And as you will realize, the police potentially fobbing the press off by feeding them bogus information points to anything but an "extremely slim" chance of the papers being wrong.

”There is every reason to believe that it was true, and if you read and absorb the points Garry raised, you’ll understand why.”

Now, thereīs something I can agree with. Yes, letīs read and absorb the points Garry raised in his later post - the one where he writes that "the information given to The Star was a simple piece of misinformation calculated to satisfy the press whilst safeguarding the real reason for Hutchinson’s fall from grace" and "I think it likely that The Star was fobbed off with the police explanation that Hutchinson had been dismissed courtesy of his failure to be interrogated under oath at the Kelly inquest", and where he cautions you against putting any stock in the conception that the police must have been truthful in providing the press with information telling them that the late arrival was what got Hutchinson dismissed.

The late arrival as such may or may not have played a role, Ben. If a witness behaves strangely or gives strange testimony, such a thing can certainly contribute to an unfavourable picture of the witness and his/her testimony. But thatīs as far as we can take it! After that, it is abundantly obvious that if it played a role - and we cannot be sure that it did - then it was a SECONDARY ONE, inferior to the true reason for the dismissal of Hutchinsonīs story.
And as such, this is a very clear indication that the police chose to withhold the juicier parts of the truth and fed the press the fleshless bones.
That is what Garry very sensibly realizes, and that is why it becomes very strange to have you telling me that I draw the wrong conclusions whereas you "entirely agree" with Garry FOR DRAWING THE EXACT SAME CONCLUSIONS!

The best,
Fisherman