Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Ben]

“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.”

You and Garry are not arguing the same point, Fisherman.

It was Garry who suggested that there was more behind it (which is undoubtedly true), whereas you are insisting that there was something completely different behind it. There is no reason to believe that the reason cited – Hutchinson’s three-day late presentation of his evidence – was entirely fictional. I’m sure it was a contributory factor that fuelled police suspicions that Hutchinson was lying, but it cannot have been the whole story. If you had argued along these lines, I would have been the first to support you, but instead you’re suggesting that the police suppressed Hutchinson’s “honestly mistaken” date-confusion and supplied the Echo with an entire false reason that nonetheless painted Hutchinson in a very poor light.

I’m glad you quoted my earlier observation:

“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”

I feel sure that Garry and I are not at odds on this point.

Even if some “fobbing off" occurred to a greater or lesser extent, it is impossible to accept that the police would cite a reason (for discrediting Hutchinson) that impacted negatively on his character if the true reason was entirely innocent, such as date confusion. This would have been grotesquely unfair to “honestly mistaken” Hutchinson who didn’t deserve to have his character besmirched just because the police wanted to be cagey with the information they provided to the press.

The true reason must, therefore, have been connected in some way to doubts about his honesty.

“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 Hutchinson´s 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.”

I agree 100%, Fisherman.

Good point.

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

Now THAT´S a post I like very much! The only little bit I would contest is the part about Hutchinson´s "fall from grace" - for we have no information at all telling us that there was such a fall.

No concrete information, Fish, no. But it doesn’t take an Einstein to discern that Hutchinson became persona non grata as far as senior investigators were concerned. He certainly wasn’t Anderson’s Jewish witness, and nor was he called in to give Sadler the once over. Thus, given the sheer depth of detail in his description of Astrakhan, it may be safely concluded that this description as well as his story involving Kelly came to be rejected by the authorities.

I believe that it was his STORY that was dropped, but NOT together with it´s originator.

I don’t know about Sweden, Fish, but traditionally here in the UK both the police and law courts tend to view as unreliable any witness whose story is found to contain significant discrepancies or even outright untruths. You may take it as read, therefore, that those at the sharp end of the Ripper investigation would have regarded Hutchinson as either a fantasist or profiteer – especially if, as I strongly suspect to have been the case, the story regarding the Petticoat Lane policeman was investigated and found to be untrue.

Thus a reasonable conclusion would be that the police awarded Hutchinsons story interest and believed in it at that stage - but the scale of the operation as such tells us that astrakhan man was NOT any main lead.

I think it likely that questions regarding Hutchinson’s veracity began to surface almost before the ink had dried on Abberline’s Hutchinson-related Home Office report, Fish. Certainly The Echo appears to have been aware of official misgivings by the next morning at the latest. Within days, moreover, police began a concerted trawl of local low lodging houses – the very last establishments they would have searched had they been intent on locating an affluent-looking individual such as Astrakhan. Thus the inescapable conclusion (irrespective of subsequent press stories to the contrary) is that Hutchinson and his Astrakhan story aroused official suspicions either on the Monday evening or Tuesday morning, and that investigators simply went through the motions in allowing him to again search for Astrakhan and view Kelly’s remains – probably because their suspicions at that stage had not hardened into absolute certainty and they feared losing a potentially vital eyewitness.

So we agree, Garry. What IS the world coming to?

I dunno, Fish. Perhaps Ben, yourself and I should arrange a sleepover.

[Garry Wroe]

... Garry clearly meant the Echo rather than the Star.

Correct, Ben. Sorry about that. I dread to think what would have happened had I made an error over the days ...

[Garry Wroe]

“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”

I feel sure that Garry and I are not at odds on this point.

Correct again, Ben. And nor was The Echo alone in questioning the three-day delay in Hutchinson's coming forward. Several other newspapers commented on the issue adopting a tone of thinly veiled suspicion.

[Ben]

Indeed, Garry. The Daily Telegraph was one of the other "doubting" papers, as you note in your book.

Within days, moreover, police began a concerted trawl of local low lodging houses – the very last establishments they would have searched had they been intent on locating an affluent-looking individual such as Astrakhan.

This is an excellent point which I'm surprised I never picked up on before.

I dunno, Fish. Perhaps Ben, yourself and I should arrange a sleepover.

Or a fishing trip!

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"You and Garry are not arguing the same point, Fisherman."

I´m afraid we are - we BOTH say that it is unwise to attach much importance to the fact that the press claimed that Hutchinson´s lateness in coming forward was a factor behind the dismissal of his story. We BOTH think that this may have been a way to fob off the press, and we BOTH reason that there must have been one or more OTHER reasons lying behind the decision.

And that is the exact same thing.

"There is no reason to believe that the reason cited – Hutchinson’s three-day late presentation of his evidence – was entirely fictional."

No, and I never claimed that there necessarily was. But the fact remains that this would not have been the MAJOR reason for the dismissal. Plus it may well have had no influence at all on the decision. So when you say "I’m sure it was a contributory factor...", you are sure of something you cannot be sure of. Which is exactly what Garry cautioned you against. And I concur.

We can be sure that the police had a reason for dropping Hutchinson. And we can equally be sure that it was not his lateness in coming forward. After that, yes, it may have contributed to the stance of the police - but my own feeling is that it had nothing whatsoever to do with it. And this is a stance that you have vehemently contested, boldly stating that the delay was reason enough for you. Well, that´s just wrong, and I am glad that you seem to have taken that on board.

"If you had argued along these lines, I would have been the first to support you, but instead you’re suggesting that the police suppressed Hutchinson’s “honestly mistaken” date-confusion and supplied the Echo with an entire false reason that nonetheless painted Hutchinson in a very poor light."

I have always said that we do not have the true reason on record, Ben. I have also stated that I much favour a confusion of days. So what I am saying the police suppressed is not necessarily a date-confusion, but they certainly DID suppress the true reason, whichever it was. And if you care to take another look at my posts, you will see that the same thing applies to the next detail: I say that the lateness would never have been the sole reason, and that it MAY have been a reason that had nothing to do with the dismissal at all - I don´t make the call, although I DO favour the latter suggestion since it is the only suggestion that tallies with what I overall believe: that Hutchinson mixed up the dates unintentionally. If this happened, there would be no reason at all to regard the late forthcoming as suspicious in any manner.

"it is impossible to accept that the police would cite a reason (for discrediting Hutchinson) that impacted negatively on his character if the true reason was entirely innocent, such as date confusion. This would have been grotesquely unfair to “honestly mistaken” Hutchinson who didn’t deserve to have his character besmirched..."

Impossible? Impossible, Ben? Don´t you see that you make the same mistake again that caused the controversy we are having? You are dead sure about something you cannot be dead sure about!
Consider the implications, Ben! If Hutchinson did get the dates wrong, then he had approached the police with faulty information. As such, he was not without guilt in that respect. And if the police had bought his story in a manner that could be regarded as careless, just how eager do you think they would have been to have that fact providing the already critical press with a field day at their expense? I fear you may be a tad naïve here, Ben, to be honest. At any rate, don´t tell me it is impossible that the police would have prioritized their own work - strictly professionally speaking, being thrown to the dogs on behalf of the police would probably have shaken the entire organization. People like Abberline may well have been sacked if the mistake was considered grave enough, and that would potentially have impeded the hunt for the Ripper tremendeously.

So let´s steer free from misapprehensions here, Ben, and realize the implications!

"The true reason must, therefore, have been connected in some way to doubts about his honesty."

Once again no, Ben. The true reason must have been connected in some way to the value of his story, nothing else. It may have been a question of an honest mistake and it may have been a question of perceived dishonesty. But I strongly advice against going any further than that.

"I agree 100%, Fisherman.
Good point."

Yes, it is, is it not? I am glad we agree on that!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"it doesn’t take an Einstein to discern that Hutchinson became persona non grata as far as senior investigators were concerned."

Then what does it take? A psychic? Where are the reports, the memorandas, the biographies where the police say that George Hutchinson became a persona non grata? Nowhere to be seen, for some reason! Where is the evidence that he instead had made an honest mistake and was dropped because of that? In Dew´s book! Of course, we may speculate as long as we want as to why Dew was of this meaning, and we may hold the belief that it was just a privat musing on his behalf. But the clear - VERY clear! - implications are that he was not regarded as any persona non grata at all, but instead as an honest man.

"He certainly wasn’t Anderson’s Jewish witness, and nor was he called in to give Sadler the once over. Thus, given the sheer depth of detail in his description of Astrakhan, it may be safely concluded that this description as well as his story involving Kelly came to be rejected by the authorities."

If he was not there on the Friday but on Thursday, then how could he be the Jewish witness Anderson spoke of? If he was not there on the Friday but on Thursday, then why in the world would anybody ask him to take a look on Sadler? If this was what the police suspected, then his testimony would be worthless as regards the murder night.
Then again, it would mean that his description of astrakhan man would not be ruled out as such; only as the description of a man present on the murder night. And lo and behold - the Echo tells us that a minor squad was still following the Hutchinson lead many days after his dismissal in the press. Now why would they do that, if they knew that the description did not tally? As a pastime? I think not - they were in job up to over their ears at that stage. But the Echo takes great care to enlighten us about the reduced importance that attached to the testimony at that stage. Not inhibited importance - reduced!

"I think it likely that questions regarding Hutchinson’s veracity began to surface almost before the ink had dried on Abberline’s Hutchinson-related Home Office report, Fish."

That makes two of us, Garry!

"the inescapable conclusion (irrespective of subsequent press stories to the contrary) is that Hutchinson and his Astrakhan story aroused official suspicions either on the Monday evening or Tuesday morning, and that investigators simply went through the motions in allowing him to again search for Astrakhan and view Kelly’s remains – probably because their suspicions at that stage had not hardened into absolute certainty"

Look at the article again, Garry: "The police do not attach so much importance to this document as some of our contemporaries do, but they think it sufficiently significant to induce them to make it the subject of careful inquiry."

This was the day AFTER the same paper had written: "From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?"

So, Garry, they had the reason already that day - a VERY reduced importance was how they worded it. Let´s speculate that what they had was, say, a very strong suspicion that Hutchinson had been lying to them and that astrakhan man never existed.
Would they then spend the following day following up on Hutchinson´s tip, thinking that it was "sufficiently significant to induce them to make it the subject of careful inquiry"? Is that what the police do when they feel pretty certain (a VERY reduced importance!) that they have been lied to? And do such things result in the police simply letting the liar walk away, when we know that people shouting in the streets that they were the Ripper were jailed? And do senior policemen speak about such characters in their memoirs as people with the best of intentions?
Or does the wording we have tally much better with a suggestion of an honest mistake? A VERY reduced importance, but STILL AN IMPORTANCE! In THAT case, it would make all the sense in the world to provide resources to follow up on Hutchinson´s tip, since it could potentially pay off at the end of the day. What possible gain could be won by letting a small squad of men try to establish that a perceived lie was really a genuine lie? I don´t buy that, I´m afraid. And in spite of the investigations we know of, into the low lodging houses, the Echo tells us emphatically that the astrakhan tip was pursued AFTER the doubt about the value of Hutchinson´s story had surfaced. It is telling.

"I dunno, Fish. Perhaps Ben, yourself and I should arrange a sleepover."

Can I bring a friend...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Oooppps!

Having read "I think it likely that questions regarding Hutchinson’s veracity began to surface almost before the ink had dried on Abberline’s Hutchinson-related Home Office report, Fish."

I should of course not have written "That makes two of us, Garry!" What I think is that THE VALUE OF THE TESTIMONY was doubted before that ink pondered drying up, nothing else. Least of all Hutchinson´s veracity.

Maybe we must cancel the sleepover after all ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“we BOTH say that it is unwise to attach much importance to the fact that the press claimed that Hutchinson´s lateness in coming forward was a factor behind the dismissal of his story.”

No, this wasn’t the impression I formed from Garry’s post at all. Hutchinson’s “lateness in coming forward” was obviously one “factor behind the dismissal of his story” even if it was unlikely to have been the most significant one. It was evidently the explanation that the police fed to the press, and was not false information, but rather a watered-down version of the true and full reason behind Hutchinson’s discrediting.

“And this is a stance that you have vehemently contested, boldly stating that the delay was reason enough for you.”

It is “reason enough for me” insofar as it demonstrates that the police suspected Hutchinson of dishonesty rather than an honest mistake. Had the latter been the case, there is no way the police would have supplied the press with a false reason for Hutchinson’s discrediting that nonetheless cast negative aspersions in his direction. This is the obvious reality that I don’t think you’re taking on board. I’m sorry that it militates very heavily against the “different day” theory, but it makes no sense whatsoever to keep insisting on it despite the Echo’s specific reference to Hutchinson’s failure to be interrogated “under oath”. Even if the delay was only a minor contributory factor in his discrediting, this article informs us beyond any reasonable doubt that whatever the “true reason” was, it clearly had something to do with doubts over Hutchinson’s honesty.

“If Hutchinson did get the dates wrong, then he had approached the police with faulty information. As such, he was not without guilt in that respect.”

I’m not sure what you’re arguing here, exactly; that because Hutchinson “got the dates wrong” he only had himself to blame for the police’s decision to supply bogus information to the press that made him out as a liar? There is no “guilt” attached to “honest mistakes”, and it would have been reckless and unethical for the police to depict Hutchinson as a liar when they knew he wasn’t. It could also have spelt disaster for the police if honest-to-goodness Hutchinson had decided to make a very public noise about his scandalous treatment at the hands of the police.

“The true reason must have been connected in some way to the value of his story, nothing else.”

The police would not have impugned Hutchinson’s honesty in public if they didn’t actually doubt it, Fisherman.

“Very reduced importance” simply implies, as Garry suggests, that “their suspicions at that stage had not hardened into absolute certainty and they feared losing a potentially vital eyewitness.” This is why the statement remained the “subject of careful inquiry” – to ensure that the police suspicions of Hutchinson’s dishonesty weren’t too hastily decided upon. I think you just need to be circumspect and realise that “wrong dates” simply didn’t feature in the equation until 1938, when Walter Dew offered his own seldom-taken-seriously speculations on the subject of Hutchinson.

Best regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben.

....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.

Well of course it's wrong, because we have the benefit of knowing the results of the Inquest. What we should be interested in is the level of understanding over those 72 hours from when Kelly was found murdered to the start of the Inquest on Monday morning.

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.”

What does this mean? is "early" 2:00am, 4:00am, 6:00am, or 8:00am.
I ask because the Echo (10th) made the situation quite clear:

"Strictly speaking, the only answer to this is that nobody knows. The only things that seem tolerably certain that at half-past ten on Thursday night she was alive, and, that at eleven o'clock yesterday morning she was found most foully murdered."
The article continues by mentioning someone hearing Kelly singing "Sweet Violets" at 1:00am, and a resident hearing the cry of "murder" at 3:00am.

A number of papers also carry Maxwell's story.
The Evening News of Saturday set the scene with:

"From the circumstantial character of Mrs. Maxwell's statement there is little doubt of its accuracy, and the police are now working on it in all directions. As Mrs. Maxwell saw the deceased woman at nine o'clock yesterday morning the crime must have been perpetrated in the broad light of day."

The Evening News continues with describing the confused situation:

"Notwithstanding every effort, the police assert that they failed to establish the time at which, or about which, the crime was committed. Many persons who have been interviewed state that the unfortunate woman never left the house at 26 Dorset court after she entered it on Thursday midnight, while on the other hand numerous persons who declare that they were companions of the deceased, and knew her well, state that she came out of her house at eight o'clock on Friday morning for provisions, and, furthermore, that they were drinking with her in the Britannia, a local tavern, at ten o'clock on the same morning as her mutilated body was found at eleven. In view of these conflicting statements, the hour at which the murder was committed is of course the all important point in connection with the crime. "

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.”

That hypothesis is repeated in a few papers. It is the reporters attempt to speculate how Kelly may have met her murderer. A merging of 'reported story' of her being seen in Commercial Street, and the fact she is found murdered in her room.

Just set aside for the moment what 'we' know to be true, and look at this from the point of view of the residents of Whitechapel who's only source of news was the press.
Hutchinson only knew what the press were reporting.

Over the past 48 hrs I have been setting down in sequence what the press were publishing over those 72 hours so 'we' can better understand why Hutchinson had no reason to believe he had seen the murderer at 2:00am, when the papers were promoting a wide array of sightings of Kelly from 10:30 pm Thursday until about 9:00 am Friday morning.
The faulty sighting of Kelly at the Britannia around 10:30am Friday morning was easily dismissed even by the press in consequence of her body being found only 15 minutes later.

Hutchinson had every reason to say what he did, that he had no reason to think he had seen Kelly with her murderer. The whole "time of death" subject was wholly confused over that weekend.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"this wasn’t the impression I formed from Garry’s post at all. Hutchinson’s “lateness in coming forward” was obviously one “factor behind the dismissal of his story” even if it was unlikely to have been the most significant one."

Then you may need to reshape your impression, Ben. This is - exactly - what Garry said:

"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:

"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."

So, Ben, what Garry words here is that when the police spoke of the late arrival on account of Hutchinson, they consciously MISINFORMED the press in order to fob them off and lay to rest any further discussion about the true reason for the dismissal.

Now, you can twist, turn and "interpret" this all you like, but that won´t change things. Garry very clearly said that there is no reason at all to accept that the delay in coming forward had anything to do with why Hutch was dismissed. You don´t have to "form" any impression at all about it - it is there, in the clearest possible fashion. And, furthermore, it will be a completely correct assessment from Garry´s side!

"It was evidently the explanation that the police fed to the press, and was not false information"

... is therefore a statement that can only be condoned as to the first passage. Yes, the police fed this to the press, but no, we have no way of knowing whether it was false information or not. And at the end of the day, prolonging the discussion about it is useless. I think we ALL agree that IF the late arrival DID play a role, it was most certainly an inferior one, whereas the TRUE underlying reason for the dismissal was suppressed by the police. Although I would say that it was gleaned to the press what it really was all about. More on that later!

"It is “reason enough for me” insofar as it demonstrates that the police suspected Hutchinson of dishonesty rather than an honest mistake. Had the latter been the case, there is no way the police would have supplied the press with a false reason for Hutchinson’s discrediting that nonetheless cast negative aspersions in his direction."

I´m sorry, Ben, but I have already told you that this is a naïve reasoning. The police may well have prioritized to save their own behinds. And I don´t think that it must have meant that unfairly negative aspersions were cast in Hutchinsons direction! You see, this is where we differ very much, you and me - if I was to pick somebody who had cast unfairly negative aspersions in Hutchinson´s direction, then, without a doubt, I would name Benedict Holme. Nobody I know or have heard of has gone through more trouble than you to nail Hutchinson to the Ripper deeds! And of course, the reason you have for doing so, lies in your interpretation of the source material connected to Hutch and his testimony, coupled with the coinciding details mentioned about Fleming; the Victoria home, the money supplied to Kelly etcetera. Piecing things together, you have decided that the police "cast negative aspersions" in Hutchinson´s direction by telling the press that his story had been dropped, and you now suggest that if they truly supplied the press with a false reason for doing so, it would reflect poorly on Hutchinson.

But what was it the Echo wrote? Is it true that the real reason for Hutchinson´s dismissal had not been given to them by the police? Not necessarily! Or, to put it in other words, I think the police DID tell them what was amiss, but in a somewhat veiled fashion. Let´s have another look at it, shall we:

"a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder."

Aha. Now, let´s discuss Violenia, and try this kind of verbal hat on his head. The police cross-examined him, and the result of that cross-examination was that Violenia was completely dropped. This was what was written: ”Subsequently, cross-examination so discredited Violenia's evidence that it was wholly distrusted by the police” (The Times, September 12).

So! He the evidence was "wholly distrusted" by the police. That means that no scrap of faith was left on behalf of the police after the cross-examination. They threw the testimony out the window, and Violenia went with it.

Now, if the police was of the same sentiment as regards Hutchinson, if they wholly distrusted HIS testimony too, throwing him out in the same fashion as Violenia, then the press dismissal awarded Hutch should reasonably fit Violenia too. But does it? Is it fair to say about Violenia that ""a very reduced importance" was attached to his testimony after his cross-examination? No, it is not - for NO IMPORTANCE AT ALL was attached to Violenias testimony at that stage. He was history, gone, uninteresting.

But in Hutchinsons case, if we read what the Echo really says, and if we are not bent on reading it as negatively as possible for Hutchinson´s part, we can immediately see that the paper actually states that importance was attached to his story! Not the kind of importance that Hutchinson´s appearance on the stage first promised, but still importance, though on a lower scale! And as we know, the Echo confirms that this importance attached to the testimony by telling us that careful inquiries were carried out as a result of the testimony. We may even reflect on the fact that it was written ""a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased ON THE NIGTH OF THE MURDER." Thus the paper even points a finger at what exact part of the testimony it was that had gone wrong!

And there we are - the paper tells us straight out that Hutchinson´s story had been investigated (we know that Hutch was interrogated, and we know that papers claimed that nonwithstandig examination and reexamination, Hutchinson did not wawer for a moment - whereas Violenia crumpled and fell!) and found to be of importance, albeit a very reduced importance. And this is where we can see - if I am correct - that the police supplied the press with a wording that gleaned very clearly that they had come to realize that the Hutchinson testimony related not to Friday, but to Thursday - and so the impact and importance that testimony seemingly had from the outset, had, in light of later investigation, been very much reduced. Reduced, that is, into information NOT about who Kelly associated with on the murder night, but instead on the night BEFORE.

If the material that discredited Hutchinsons story had been of a different character, that is to say if the police had been of the meaning that Hutchinson was a timewaster, an attention-seeker, a liar, a man with a mordbid wish to see a Ripper victim, a mentally ill man, a religious brooder - or ANYTHING at all along these lines - then why would they not tell the Echo that his testimony was "wholly distrusted" à la Violenia´s ditto? Why in the world would they state that importance, although a lessened one, attached to Hutchinson´s story?

It was not a question of the police travelling towards a subsequent total distrust in the testimony, not being absolutely sure as they spoke to the Echo. When they did so, the whole thing was settled and over for the police. They had landed in the decision to which they would subsequentially stick throughout - Hutchinson´s story was deemed correct in all details but one - the date. On the 14:th on November, this was already a done deal, and no further investigation was carried out to confirm or disconfirm Hutchinson´s honesty. The decision was already there.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Garry and I share the view that Hutchinson was dismissed as a publicity and/or money seeker, and something a time-wasting publicity-seeker might reasonably do to avoid being exposed as such is avoid the inquest where he would have been questioned under oath in front of a considerable number of people. The reason cited by the Echo for Hutchinson’s discrediting - the late arrival of his evidence - was thus inextricably linked to the question of his integrity, which the police clearly took a dim view of. You can keep trying to drive an imaginary wedge between Garry’s views and my own if you like – it’s your time to waste - but I can assure that neither of us believe that the police were squirreling away suspicions that Hutchinson had got the “wrong night” and refused to share them with the Echo.

Just accept that you’re on your own, more or less, with that particular theory, and that “divide and conquer” just isn’t going to avail you as a strategy here.

Another interesting extract from Garry’s book read as follows:

Although the mystery behind Hutchinson’s inertia subsequent to Kelly’s death may have been disregarded by theorists down the years, it did not go entirely unnoticed by the Victorian press, as is demonstrated by the following extract from the Daily Telegraph of Tuesday, 13 November, 1888: “It has not been ascertained why the witness did not make this statement – much fuller and so different from the others that have been given – immediately after the murder was discovered.”

The explanation for Hutchinson’s discrediting provided by the Echo was most emphatically not false. It impugned Hutchinson’s credibility, and therefore reflected the general opinion amongst the police at the time. Were it otherwise, it would mean that the police depicted Hutchinson as dishonest to the press when they knew he wasn’t. This is clearly not something the police would have done under any circumstances. It’s not “naïve” to realise this, but simply logical. Forget for a moment the fact that this would have amounted to unethical and underhanded behaviour. Would the police have risked the opprobrium that would inevitably have resulted from Hutchinson’s reaction to this negative depiction of him – a depiction that explicitly queried his motivation for presenting his evidence so late, and alluded to the failure of his evidence to appear “on oath”?

Most emphatically not.

And why on earth would the depiction of Hutchinson as a liar (which, according to you, the police knew to be false) have “saved their behinds”? Are you seriously suggesting that the police would have been left with more egg on their faces if they divulged the detail that “in light of further investigation, it appears the witness is in error” (or something to that effect), whereas it would have been less embarrassing to concede sheepishly that the witness had taken a respected investigator for a ride?

I’m really not that bothered, incidentally, if you want to single me out as the most vocal critic of Hutchinson, although I certainly dispute that any aspersions I have cast have been “unfair”. I’m grateful that I can always rely on your eager and attentive company whenever these “aspersions” are cast, but the more you gainsay my observations, the more I recognise their obvious validity. Since I’m not trying to “nail” Hutchinson for any murders, I can assure you than I’m not experiencing any “trouble”. I have only commented on the question of Hutchinson’s culpability when others have raised the issue, and I don’t attempt to steer such threads as these in the direction of “Hutchinson as ripper” with anything like the determination that you demonstrate when you insert “wrong nights” into all discussions pertaining to Hutchinson.

You quote the Echo from 13th November:

"a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder."

But the article then continues:

“Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?”

These doubts are reiterated the next day, only this time it is spelt out explicitly that the description was:

“considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in more official manner”.

“Aha. Now, let´s discuss Violenia, and try this kind of verbal hat on his head”

Whatever that means…

If there’s a difference between Hutchinson and Violenia , the latter was probably the less superficially plausible of the two. This would explain why the police were reluctant to be excessively condemnatory when discussing their treatment of Hutchinson’s statement with the press. They were simply being guarded in their terminology and thus “hedging their bets”, rather than providing a false reason for his discrediting. Violenia’s presentation was undoubtedly very poor, which would have undermined his credibility even further in the minds of the police (along with his impoverished foreigner credentials), thus enabling the police to state with greater conviction that his statement was untrue. The police were simply more certain that fabrication had occurred in Violenia’s case, whereas with Hutchinson it was merely considered probable. They were still compelled to accord him some importance in the unlikely event that they turned out to be wrong in their estimations.

By the 15th November, however, it was clear that a “very reduced importance” had downgraded even further to “now discredited” (The Star), presumably because his press disclosures had undermined his credibility even further, to the point where the police gave up altogether.

“We may even reflect on the fact that it was written ""a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased ON THE NIGTH OF THE MURDER." Thus the paper even points a finger at what exact part of the testimony it was that had gone wrong!”

Oh, lordy.

No, Fisherman.

The Echo had already “pointed a finger” at precisely what was wrong with Hutchinson’s account, according to the police, and it was not “date confusion” but rather the reason they actually specified – Hutchinson’s late presentation of his evidence. Or are you seriously suggesting that the Echo did a sort of “Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward (**cough** wrong night!) before?”, subtly lacing their false reason with hints at the true one? But isn’t the gist of your argument that the press would not have known about “wrong nights” because they were supplied with a false reason?

I’m afraid you seem to be an awful muddle as to what exactly you’re arguing here, and this date-confusion business is proving more invasive than ever. The police did not suspect Hutchinson of date confusion. Had they done so, they would have said so explicitly, rather than lying to the press and allowing your honest-to-goodness date-bollocksing-up Hutchinson to be depicted in public as a man with dubious motivations for presenting his evidence three days late.

“Why in the world would they state that importance, although a lessened one, attached to Hutchinson´s story?”

Because they were not in a position to state with any degree of confidence, at that time, that Hutchinson was a liar, despite this being their strong suspicion.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“What does this mean? is "early" 2:00am, 4:00am, 6:00am, or 8:00am”

Well, we know that the “morning” lasts from 12:00am to 12:00pm, with 6.00am being the halfway point. The "early hours" obviously refers to the period in the morning before 6.00am, and most probably what everyone understands by the term “early hours”, i.e. realistically between 1.00am and 4.00am.

I agree that a certain amount of confusion existed as to the time of death, but the majority of press sources reported that the early hours of the morning was most likely, and the reading room at the Victoria Home apparently stocked many papers, providing Hutchinson with several “options”. The idea that Hutchinson withheld the details of his Friday encounter purely on the assumption that the murder might have occurred a few hours after his alleged sighting is completely untenable, to my mind.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Garry and I share the view that Hutchinson was dismissed as a publicity and/or money seeker ..."

Oh, I know THAT!

"You can keep trying to drive an imaginary wedge between Garry’s views and my own if you like"

Imaginary? Garry cautioned you agaisnt believing that the late arrival was important, since he thinks that this detail was something the police just used to fob the press off, a bogus reason, a lie. You say that it was an important factor, and that the police would never, never, ever LIE about such a thing.

That´s as useful a cutting edge as anyone will get, Ben. And if you consider that "imaginary", then maybe that edge cut off more than you realize.

"something a time-wasting publicity-seeker might reasonably do to avoid being exposed as such is avoid the inquest where he would have been questioned under oath in front of a considerable number of people."

Possibly. But I am in no way certain. If attention is what you look for, the maximum will be offered at the inquest. I don´t see Violenia unwilling to be present at an inquest, nor Packer. Lewis did not mind going either That´s what attention-seekers want: attention. The more, the merrier.

"Just accept that you’re on your own, more or less, with that particular theory, and that “divide and conquer” just isn’t going to avail you as a strategy here."

1. I am not on my own.
2. I would not care if I was - I´m fine with that, as long as I think I am correct.
3. I am not interested in "dividing and conquering". But I dislike when you tell me that I am an idiot, more or less, for thinking that the late arrival was unimportant, whereas you shout "Bravo!" when Garry arrives at the same conclusion. So I´m afraid that if you want to stay tight with Garry, you need to learn to say: "The late arrival may not have played any role at all, it was probably just bogus information meant to fob the press off." For that, namely, is what Garry says.

"Another interesting extract from Garry’s book read as follows:

Although the mystery behind Hutchinson’s inertia subsequent to Kelly’s death may have been disregarded by theorists down the years, it did not go entirely unnoticed by the Victorian press, as is demonstrated by the following extract from the Daily Telegraph of Tuesday, 13 November, 1888: “It has not been ascertained why the witness did not make this statement – much fuller and so different from the others that have been given – immediately after the murder was discovered.”

Mmmm. And you are sure that he has not changed his mind since? I mean, the post he wrote on the subject this side of the turn of the century seems to tell a different story ...?

"Are you seriously suggesting that the police would have been left with more egg on their faces if they divulged the detail that “in light of further investigation, it appears the witness is in error” (or something to that effect), whereas it would have been less embarrassing to concede sheepishly that the witness had taken a respected investigator for a ride?"

Absolutely! But not by using YOUR words, of course! I am suggesting that it should have been so obvious to the police that Hutchinson was wrong on the dates, that a revelation of it to the press would have been extremely embarrasing, and perhaps quite enough to have Abberline removed from his post if he was sufficiently ridiculed in the press.
As for the comparison with taking the police for a ride, it does not apply - it was either or, and BOTH things would have been something that the police would have preferred not to read about in the press.
But there is a difference! If Hutch had been lying and caught out, then reasonably the press would have published this, just like they published what happened to Violenia. Likewise, Dew would not have called Hutch a man with the best of intentions. Likewise, Hutch would reasonably not have felt compelled to shut up about it when the press approached him.
But if he had the day wrong, BUT DID NOT AGREE ON THAT, then Dew would be right in calling him an honest witness, and the press, if they sought him out, would probably only be told that he could not see why the police did not listen to him - and the police would not tell. In fact, they would probably instead provide the press with some deflecting manouvre, like, say, telling them that Hutchinson´s late arrival was what had him dropped.

"And why on earth would the depiction of Hutchinson as a liar (which, according to you, the police knew to be false) have “saved their behinds”? "

Why ask? Hutchinson was never depicted as a liar. That lies only in your imagination. His story was dropped, that was all.

"the more you gainsay my observations, the more I recognise their obvious validity"

We shall see, Ben! We shall see.

"But the article then continues:

“Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?”

These doubts are reiterated the next day, only this time it is spelt out explicitly that the description was:

“considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in more official manner”.

Yes, Ben - and that´s where I suspect the police takes YOU for a ride, just as they did with the press. That´s incidentally the little bit on which Garry and I see eye to eye ...

"The police were simply more certain that fabrication had occurred in Violenia’s case"

Good on them - and they were quite right in this assumption too! Much, much more fabrication. All of the fabrication that was created inbetween Violenia and Hutch, to be more specific.

"By the 15th November, however, it was clear that a “very reduced importance” had downgraded even further to “now discredited” (The Star)"

Nothing had happened, Ben. The two papers were writng from slightly different angles, that´s all. The Echo spoke of a very much reduced importance (but still an importance!), whereas the Star alluded to the murder night only - as such, Hutchinsons testimony about that particular night WAS totally discredited. Same story, different ****, sort of. But STILL, it is the STORY the Star speaks of, and NOT Hutchinson, right.

And that IS interesting!

Is it not funny that not one single line is written anywhere in the contemporary papers, police reports, memoirs attaching to the policemen involved, where it is said that George Hutchinson HIMSELF was discredited?
Is it not strange that I - with that silly theory of mine - am so incredibly lucky never to stumble over one single hinderance? I mean, any paper could EASILY have written that Hutch was discredited as a person - but it never happens!
Any person attached to the investigation could have named him as a liar and timewaster, and what happens? The only police who specifically names Hutchinson calls him a man on whom he would never reflect, a man with the best of INTENTIONS - but not factually correct.
One single paper could have written that Hutch stood outside Crossinghams - but not a single one did.
He could have mentioned Lewis - but he never did.
He could have mentioned the couple Lewis saw - but he never did.
He could have spoken of a wet and blustery night, but no - nothing he says tells us that the weather was bad. Instead he speaks of open coats and long chats out in the open.

Why is it, Ben, that I am so incredibly lucky as to have all the evidence involved agreing with my view, whereas you lack Lewis and need to speculate that the police WAS told but kept silent about it, you need to speculate that the pointers to a nice evening weatherwise was due to Hutch being a lousy liar, you have to claim that the doorway outside Crossinghams and the area outside the court were totally interchangable; whichever way you look, whatever detail we scrutinize, fate provides me with corroboration whereas it hands you more and more trouble!
You are one unlucky guy, I´ll say that for you!

"But isn’t the gist of your argument that the press would not have known about “wrong nights” because they were supplied with a false reason?"

Yes! And as you can see, they did NOT pick up on the lead hidden in the wording they were provided. If they had done so, that article would have looked totally different! The police did NOT tell what had happened, but as such, they did not necessarily lie either. They were considerably clever, actually. They only gave the one reason of the late arrival, knowing full well that the press would buy that. And then they worded the rest magnificently smart.

"Because they were not in a position to state with any degree of confidence, at that time, that Hutchinson was a liar ..."

... and fifty years later, the police STILL did not call him a liar - the one police left to comment said that he was a man with the best of intentions.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

The fact that we know Abberline supported Hutchinson is reason enough for us to acknowledge that Abberline accepted everything he said, including his reason for not coming forward before the inquest.

Hutchinson's observations on Friday morning, then again Sunday morning, his relationship with Kelly over 3 years, his reason for being in Romford, and his reason(s) for not coming forward before the inquest, were all discussed in the interview before Abberline wrote:

"I have interrogated him this evening and I am of opinion his statement is true"

Abberline also offered support for Hutchinson by assigning to him two detectives for two consecutive nights.

If anything occured between Hutchinson and the police to disuade them from believing in him, it was nothing concerning their discussion. The reason must lay elsewhere.

Sugden offers the most logical scenario. Sugden was of the opinion that Abberline saw an opportunity to pin this 'singular' looking man down by using Hutchinson as their bloodhound, and more importantly, they were in possession of a description that had not been published, so this 'singular' individual, if he was the killer had no idea he had been singled out by anyone.

Hutchinson's suggested 'fall from grace' was most likely nothing of the sort. To the dismay of the authorities, and possibly extreme aggravation, Hutchinson spoke to the press.
Whether he had been cautioned not to do so is unknown, but perhaps can be safely assumed. Once this information and description was in the hands of the press and broadcast across Whitechapel the police knew their 'card up their sleeve', was gone.

Now the suspect will be sure to change his attire, their surprise was lost. As a possible 'shoot from the hip' reaction the police may have suggested they were not so taken with this description afterall.
However, as there is no quote from any police official as to any official reason being supplied then we are all left to speculate to the fringes of credulity on what the reason may have been.

What we are left with is a suggestion in the press that the police may have lost confidence in Hutchinson's statement, but what the real story was behind this 'unnofficial' press statement is completely unknown, but discredited it certainly was not (no police evidence).

Regards, Jon S.