Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Garry Wroe]

"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 ...?

You may rest assured, Fish, that my thinking regarding Hutchinson's three-day delay in coming forward hasn't changed one iota in the sixteen-plus years since the above quoted passage was written. It was an oddity then and remains so today. Indeed, I'll go as far as to say that it is downright suspicious. By the same token, however, I would have considerable difficulty in accepting that investigators rejected Hutchinson as a credible witness purely on the basis of this three-day delay. Accordingly, I believe that there must have been other reasons - factors which were almost certainly withheld from The Echo as part of a crisis management exercise.

Do you see the distinction?

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“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.”

On the evening of 12th November 1888 you would be right, but it is clear from subsequent press communications with the police that this opinion came to be revised, which is hardly surprising considering that Abberline penned his missive before any investigation into the account could realistically have occurred. If Hutchinson had provided the police with an acceptable reason for his three-day inertia prior to coming forward, it is inconceivable that they should have informed the press a day later that there was still doubt attaching to his three-day delay in coming forward, and yet that is precisely what happened. The absence of a satisfactory reason for this delay was one of the reasons for his statement being "considerably discounted".

“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”

No. You’re wrong.

Hutchinson did not inform Abberline about the Sunday morning encounter. Had he done so, it would irrefutably have appeared in the body of the statement. There is no evidence that he discussed his reason for “not coming forward before the inquest”, nor is there any evidence that his “reason for being in Romford” was ever provided to anyone. So you have no basis whatsoever for asserting that this was “all discussed” with Abberline prior to his writing the 12th November report.

“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.”

But Hutchinson’s account had suffered a “very reduced importance” before he spoke to the press, as we learn from the Echo article from 13th November. Hutchinson had already started to “fall from grace” as early as 24 hours after he made his initial appearance at the Commercial Street police station. I quite agree that the police were dismayed at his later communication with the press, although this clearly underscored their already existing suspicions that all was not well with Hutchinson and his account. Moreover, the press versions contained significant embellishments and contradictions, including an alleged encounter with a Sunday policeman that could easily be proved false.

What you also seem to be forgetting is that it was the police who supplied the press with the initial description, which was published on the 13th November, well in advance of Hutchinson’s own communication “with a reporter” the next day. If there’s anyone to blame for what you consider to be the premature press release of the Astrakhan description, it was the police, not Hutchinson himself.

But discredited he certainly was.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

“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”

Oh look, Fisherman, will you please just read Garry’s recent post on this subject rather than wasting any more of your own time in this futile “I said, he said” fiasco. Garry’s opinion is that the police did not supply the press with the full reason for discrediting Hutchinson, and I agree with him 100%. What neither of us agree with is your contention that Hutchinson’s delay in coming forward had nothing at all to do with his eventual discrediting, and that the police were suppressing the true “date confusion” reason when speaking to the Echo.

“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.”

Without wishing to be rude, this really is getting crazier by the minute. Is your latest contention really – and think about this - that a date-confusing Hutchinson would have been so embarrassing to Abberline that the latter would have to be removed from his post, whereas a lying Hutchinson, who had taken Abberline on a very merry dance, would have been less embarrassing for the police? What?!? Please think before you respond with "Absolutely!" this time. Remember that I’m not suggesting that the police had "caught out" Hutchinson in a lie, at least not by 13th November, only that they had strong reasons for suspecting as much. I don’t know where Dew is supposed to feature in all of this, but you can be rest assured that if he was truly conversant with the developments in 1888 with regard to Hutchinson, he would have referred to them specifically, rather than offering his own personal speculations in the late 1930s and asking his reader what s/he thought about them.

“Why ask? Hutchinson was never depicted as a liar. That lies only in your imagination.”

I suggest you read the 13th and 14th November Echo articles again if this is what you really think.

“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.”

What are you talking about?

The Echo stated that the account had suffered a “very reduced importance” (13th) and was “considerably discounted” (14th), and the Star observed that the account was “now discredited” (15th). That’s three reports over three days attesting to the same observation, the only difference being that the last mentioned conveyed a greater impression of finality to the issue than the other two, and this was probably because the press versions of his account served as confirmation that the police’s earlier doubts about Hutchinson’s credibility were well-founded.

“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?”

Wait a moment, I think we’ve had this argument before. Bear with me for two ticks. Ah yes, here we are: You can’t just dislocate a statement from its source like that, and it’s clear that the authorities did nothing of the kind. The statement was “considerably discounted” in part because of Hutchinson’s failure to attend the inquest where he could have been quizzed “under oath”. How could they have cited this reason for discounting his statement unless they entertained doubts about his credibility?

“Is it not strange that I - with that silly theory of mine - am so incredibly lucky never to stumble over one single hinderance?”

Rather than patting yourself on the back, you ought to cultivate the humility to recognise that very few people share your opinion that there are no hinderances to the date-confusion theory, which has been rejected for decades, despite it being well known. The inference that Hutchinson lied is made clear by a police communication with the press on two successive days of reporting. Hutchinson deliberately avoided any mention of Lewis to prevent it appearing obvious that he had only come forward because she had spotted him on the night of Kelly’s murder. Hutchinson was the man Lewis observed standing outside Crossingham’s that night, short of ludicrous coincidence, and he didn’t mention a blustery night because a) he didn’t need to, and b) a fabricated suspect doesn’t need to shelter from the rain.

But let's have that debate all over again, for fun.

“Why is it, Ben, that I am so incredibly lucky as to have all the evidence involved agreing with my view”

You’re not.

It doesn’t.

All you’re doing is persisting in a painfully irritating delusion about the extent of your own rightness. I’m afraid the perception that Hutchinson lied will continue to receive more mainstream support than the Dew Spew ever will, despite your attempt to revive it.

“Yes! And as you can see, they did NOT pick up on the lead hidden in the wording they were provided.”

Oh, I see.

So the police hinted cryptically at the true reason in almost code form when speaking to the press, concealed of course behind the façade that was the “late evidence” excuse. The police, in other words, were playing a funny game with the press, testing them to see if they’d decipher the subtle clue to the real reason for Hutchinson’s discrediting.

Wow.

You’ve clearly figured this whole thing out.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

But discredited he certainly was.

"Discounted" does not mean "discredited", as a reading of the Echo article (Nov. 14) indicates.

This article begins by comparing the later Hutchinson/press version of the morning of the 14th, with the earlier Police version of the 13th, but that the police version had been "considerably discounted" due to it's not been presented at the inquest.

A few paragraphs later in the Echo we read:
"The police do not attach so much importance to this document (the Hutchinson/press version) as some of our contemporaries do; but they think it sufficiently significant to induce them to make it the subject of careful inquiry"

Now please explain how this is translated by you as "discredited"?

Thanks, Jon S.
P.S. - discounted, in this context only means, does not carry the same impact, but does carry the same impact as any witness statement given outside of an official inquiry. In other words, it certainly does have value, as the Echo article eventually makes clear.

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"You may rest assured, Fish, that my thinking regarding Hutchinson's three-day delay in coming forward hasn't changed one iota in the sixteen-plus years since the above quoted passage was written. It was an oddity then and remains so today. Indeed, I'll go as far as to say that it is downright suspicious. By the same token, however, I would have considerable difficulty in accepting that investigators rejected Hutchinson as a credible witness purely on the basis of this three-day delay. Accordingly, I believe that there must have been other reasons - factors which were almost certainly withheld from The Echo as part of a crisis management exercise.

Do you see the distinction?"

Why ask? You know I do. I concur with you totally on it, as a matter of fact. The late arrival may or may not have played a role in dismissing Hutchinson´s story - and there is a distinct possibility that the police, just like you suggested, used the delay as a bogus reason, fobbing the press off - but there must have been other, more important factors behind it.

The argument I am having with Ben lies in the fact that he seems unable to take the full implications on board. To him, the late arrival MUST have played a rather significant role in the discrediting, whereas you and me agree that this is not the case at all.

Do you see THAT distinction?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"What neither of us agree with is your contention that Hutchinson’s delay in coming forward had nothing at all to do with his eventual discrediting"

Jumping the gun again, are we? My stance is that the delay MAY not have been involved in the discrediting at all, not that it can not have been so.

"Without wishing to be rude..."

Ha!

"Is your latest contention really – and think about this - that a date-confusing Hutchinson would have been so embarrassing to Abberline that the latter would have to be removed from his post, whereas a lying Hutchinson, who had taken Abberline on a very merry dance, would have been less embarrassing for the police?"

Yawn ... Read my post again. BOTH of these things could not apply - it is EITHER OR. And BOTH of these things could have proven very awkward to deal with on Abberline´s behalf.

You really should not speak about things getting crazier by the minute if you have not read and/or understood what I am talking about!

"I suggest you read the 13th and 14th November Echo articles again if this is what you really think."

Okay, done. It said nothing about Hutchinson being a liar this time either.

"What are you talking about?"

I am talking about the obvious reality that what got Hutchinson´s story dropped was there in the full already when the first Echo article from the 13:th was written. I am saying that after that point of time, nothing was changed in the police´s perception of Hutchinson. No further investigations were carried out, and certainly not any investigations aimed at confirming any suspicions that he was a liar, after that stage. The article in the Star does not point to any such further corroboration of a sequence of discrediting. It simply speaks of the exact same phenomenon that the Echo writes about - that it had been found out that Hutch was out on the dates.
The only difference involved is that the Echo worded it a tad more respectfully towards Hutchinson, by hinting at the portion of importance that was still there, since astrakhan man was still a fellow they wanted to speak to - about the Thursday morning. The Star, being fed the same story - that Hutchinson´s story was not really something that anybody interested in the murder night had any real reason to ponder over - accepted this, and wrote that the story was totally discredited.

THAT is exactly what I am talking about and exactly what I think happened.

"How could they have cited this reason for discounting his statement unless they entertained doubts about his credibility? "

Answered that one already, Ben. Clue: It is in the post with the word "naïve" in it.

"Rather than patting yourself on the back, you ought to cultivate the humility to recognise that very few people share your opinion..."

Oh - the "ten-million-flies-can´t-be-wrong" thing again! I thought I had very carefully and thoroughly told you that A/ you don´t know how many people agree with me and B/ I don´t care about it anyway!

Why should your claim that this has all been rejected for decades and that nobody likes me in any way refrain me from "patting myself on the back" WHEN IT IS COMPLETELY TRUE THAT ALL THE BITS FIT?
Why would I care about your personal dismay, when I know that I am correct in stating this?
How could you ever come up with the idea of speaking about how all the world resists me - without being able to present one single detail where the wrong day scenario can be proven wrong?
Why would I accept that Hutch stood outside Crossinghams when he says that he went to the court?
Why would I accept that he lied and Lewis told the truth - when it was SHE who CHANGED her testimony by ADDING a description, wheras Hutchinson stayed with his very detailed ditto?
Why would I accept that Hutch forgot about the weather when he - according to you - concocted his story?
Why would I accept that he spoke of the two people mentioned in the news articles, but forgot - or left out - Lewis, when it is very much easier to accept the obvious thing that you cannot speak of people that you have not seen?

Why would I give a rat´s behind about ramblings like these, just because you claim that it does not buy me any friends?

If you can point to one - ONE - single thing and say: "This proves that the wrong day theory is wrong", then I will listen to you. But you can´t do that, can you? Nor can you explain why all of these parameters - the fact that it is only said that Hutch´s STORY was discredited, Dew´s assertion, the apparently good weather in Dorset Street, the walk on the streets "all night", the failure to spot Lewis, the failure to spot her couple, the fact that Hutch said "I went to the court" - why ALL of these things tally perfectly with a lost day scenario!
You are the one who consistently have to explain, interpret, rearrange, speak of lying - you are the one consistently faced with these troubles. And you are the one that fails to see that when such things happen, and nothing goes your way, you may be on the completely wrong track.

The fact is, Ben, if anybody should be patting himself on the back here, that that´s me, not you. You deserve recognition for travelling through that minefield of a theory you endorse - but you are not a pretty sight afterwards.

"So the police hinted cryptically at the true reason in almost code form when speaking to the press, concealed of course behind the façade that was the “late evidence” excuse. The police, in other words, were playing a funny game with the press, testing them to see if they’d decipher the subtle clue to the real reason for Hutchinson’s discrediting."

Haha! No, no, no - they were anything but cryptical. They simply said what they knew without expanding too much on it:

Police spokesman: "We´re afraid that mr Hutchinson´s story cannot be afforded the importance we originally believed, not by a long way. Investigations into the matter has shown this."

Echo journalist: "Aha. was it his late arrival that put you on the trail?"

Police spokesman: "A late arrival is of course never a good thing in errands like this, admittedly."

Echo journalist: "Okay, then. Thanks!"

Just how mumbo-jumbo and "cryptical" do you think this is, Ben? Just how "crazy"? And don´t spare my feelings if you think there is any need to be rude - just fire away!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

Please, gentlemen, take a couple of deep breaths, relax and contemplate the direction in which this is heading. Robust debate is one thing, but we wouldn't want a repeat of the unpleasantness of last year, would we?

[Garry Wroe]

Since the sleepover appears to have been abandoned, is anyone in the market for three kilos of popcorn?

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"Please, gentlemen, take a couple of deep breaths, relax and contemplate the direction in which this is heading. Robust debate is one thing, but we wouldn't want a repeat of the unpleasantness of last year, would we?"

That we wouldn´t, Garry. All I am asking for in this respect is that my arguments are not called crazy, nauseating or an obscenity to human thought or any other things along that line. I don´t do that myself, and I fully expect to be met with the same sort of respect. I think that is a minimum requirement for a sound debate. I also dislike to have my intentions misrepresented, but I am willing to accept that such things may be due to a misapprehension every now and then.

"Since the sleepover appears to have been abandoned, is anyone in the market for three kilos of popcorn?"

Not me, anyhow - Ben tells me that my views are un-pop-ular ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

Since Ben is an extremely articulate individual, Fish, I would agree that some of his terminology could and should have been chosen with more care. But Ben is by no means the only transgressor here. For my money, the Hutchinson discussions are the most interesting on Casebook, thanks in no small measure to the contributions of yourself and Ben. In order that both of you continue to post here on site, I would suggest that we all learn from the events of last year and resolve to disagree without being disagreeable.

Shame about the popcorn. Spanish cucumber anyone?

[Fisherman]

It is not as if I have not tried, Garry. But I constantly run into a barrage of condescending remarks, and I find it extremely hard to conduct a balanced discussion under such circumstances. When somebody says A and somebody else says B, it is fine enough for both participators to tell their opponents that they think they are completely wrong, and then to bolster this with useful arguments.
But this is not what happens. What happens is that when I say B, I am told that my argument is a complete disgrace to the human thought process and that my stance is nauseating. To this, it is added that I argue along lines that are "unpopular", and it is stated that nobody agrees with me, implicating that I had better give up and leave the boards.

You tell me, Garry - how do I best contribute to a non-disagreeable discussion faced with that?

Now, I of course know for a fact that the slander is not correct. The evidence as such tallies totally with a scenario of a mistaken day on Hutchinson´s behalf, and people like Tom Wescott (with whom I have disagreed magnificently over a number of other things, mainly as concerns the Stride murder) have been very enthusiastic about my suggestion, asking himself why he had not thought of the possibility I mention before.

So I am on very safe ground when I say that I argue an eminent case. The main objection that is raised every now and then lies in people having a hard time to believe that Hutchinson could have muddled the days - but no substantiation at all has been offered in this respect other that people arguing "I don´t think that this could happen". Others, though, say the exact opposite thing - they recognize this thing from experiences of their own.

All in all, the case I argue IS a very good one, and I think you realize this yourself. My own stance, grounded in as much objectivity as I can offer, is that it is by far the best suggestion, not least since we have Dew corroborating it.

So why is it that my suggestion should be so controversial? Why can it not be challenged with rational arguments? Why must it be smeared as a threat to rational thinking? Why is the suggestion that Sarah Lewis lied "heartless and nauseating"? She changed her testimony totally and utterly. The same thing goes for Prater - it is impossible to find two instances on which she did NOT tell a new story about the cry/cries she heard/did not hear. But pointing this out, I am called "unsensitive" and "an obscenity to the human thought process".

An obscenity? To suggest that people who change their testimony the way others change their underwear, are perhaps not the best of witnesses? How on earth does that work, Garry? You tell me! And if we take a look at Hutchinson, who gave a detailed description of his man at the police interview, and who changed only a few small parameters in that description when speaking to the papers - who, incidentally, may not have been all that reliable in their quotations - we find that he is totally fair game for being called a liar and a killer for this...?

Where is the consequence? Where did it go? Tell me, Garry!

It takes two to tango. I have not done my very best to keep Ben happy. Where he uses insults and slander, I use sarcasm and irony. I prefer subtlety over bullying people in a more open manner, when I have to resort to brawling. What baffles me - well, USED to baffle me - is that there is a brawl over this at all. Anybody with any sort of intellectual capacity will realize that painting the lost day theory out as the most dimwitted suggestion in the history of mankind does not work. It takes arguments to counter it, good arguments - and they are not around. To say that the collected wisdom of Ripperology has considered this theory and found it unworthy of any reliance, is simply not true - if it had been, there would have been material around to bolster this; dissertations, books, articles that all took the suggestion apart with rational arguments. But no such thing exists, as far as I know. No such work has been done. The possibility of muddled days has instead been inexplicably overlooked, as far as I can tell. And now that it is on the agenda, shooting it down takes another ammunition altogether than slander and baseless discrediting.

The moment I see a well founded criticism, presented in a respectful manner, I will engage in discussion with the one who provides it. Hopefully, we will get there one day. But that won´t happen the next month, at least - since I will be away on vacation then! No Casebooking for me then, thus. But I will pick up where I left of - though not necessarily with any hostility involved - in late July.

Until then, if we don´t hear from each other (I leave on Sunday), have a nice and productive summer. I hear what you say, Garry, and I don´t mind giving it a try - but it´s all about tango.

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

Thanks for your reply, Fish, which at least conveys some hope that we may see an end to the hostilities of the last few weeks. Having exchanged several e-mails with Stephen last year, I can tell you without fear of contradiction that a return to the good old bad old days simply will not be tolerated. This really is the last chance saloon.

That said, I hope that you have a thoroughly enjoyable vacation and will return in a month or so mindful of the foregoing paragraph.

Have a good one!

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben.

Hi Jon,

On the evening of 12th November 1888 you would be right, but it is clear from subsequent press communications with the police that this opinion came to be revised, ....

Yet it was this very evening that the police offered their description, obtained from Hutchinson, to the press.
This description, as you already made reference to, appears in the morning papers of the 13th.

Once Hutchinson became aware of his words being published it appears he was interviewed by the Star reporter.
As we know, on the morning of the 14th we read this second version that Hutchinson gave to the press.

The Morning Advertiser reports on the first Police release and concludes by saying:

“The detective officers engaged in the case attach the utmost importance to this statement, and are acting accordingly.”

Yet, on the evening of the 14th the Echo advises it's readers that the second version is not so special.
After all the debate over what the Echo suggests, in the end there is nothing of substance in the opinion published by the Echo.

The oft. repeated line, “There is not, ..... the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinson's veracity”, did not apparently come from the police, but is a line lifted from the Daily News, where they claim:

“...It will be observed that the description of the supposed murderer given by Hutchinson agrees in every particular with that already furnished by the police, and published yesterday morning. There is not the slightest reason to doubt Hutchinson's veracity, and it is therefore highly probable that at length the police are in possession of a reliable description of the murderer. “
Daily News, 14 Nov. 1888.

However, the very next day, 15th, the Star was backtracking from it's previous stance:

“Another story now discredited is that of the man Hutchinson, who said that on Friday morning last he saw Kelly with a dark-complexioned, middle-aged, foreign-looking, bushy-eyebrowed gentleman, with the dark moustache turned up at the ends, who wore the soft felt hat, the long dark coat, trimmed with astrachan, the black necktie, with horseshoe pin, and the button boots, and displayed a massive gold watch-chain, with large seal and a red stone attached. “

The above opinion appears to be aimed at Hutchinson's own press interview, not the police version.

Yet the Star still offer support for Blotchy as the only reliable description offered by a witness, even though this man's appearance at Miller's Court is considerably too early to have been the murderer.

Then, the very next day, Nov 16th, the Star report the sighting of another suspect who was pursued by a witness who declared to a constable,

“I was very much struck with his appearance, especially as he corresponded, in almost every particular, with the man described by Mary Ann Cox.”

“ I then informed the constable of what I had seen, and pointed out the man's extraordinary resemblance to the individual described by Cox. The constable declined to arrest the man, saying that he was looking for a man of a very different appearance."

One wonders just what that “very different appearance” was said to be.

I think there is no need to dwell any longer on the opinion offered by the Echo.
And we can see that the opinion offered by the Star lacks consistency, but still, we know the Star had a reputation for inflamatory reporting.

It would appear Hutchinson's police version was still maintained as the authorative version, while the more elaborate second version was not upheld by anyone in authority.
It is this second version which has drawn so much 'discredit' on the whole affair.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"I can tell you without fear of contradiction that a return to the good old bad old days simply will not be tolerated."

Nor should it be. And least of all should there be any need at all to discuss things like these from trenches.

"I hope that you have a thoroughly enjoyable vacation and will return in a month or so mindful of the foregoing paragraph."

Many thanks, Garry! And, to quote a mutual friend of ours: Don´t fear for me!

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Hi Garry.

...By the same token, however, I would have considerable difficulty in accepting that investigators rejected Hutchinson as a credible witness purely on the basis of this three-day delay.

The argument of rejection is purely modern, there's no suggestion in the contemporary press. However, it seems that a number of newspapers carried a line similar to this:

"He (Hutch) afterwards heard of the murder, but for certain reasons which it would be imprudent to state he did not immediately put himself in communication with the police."

The above line tends to suggest a reason was given but withheld.
What the reader is left to ponder is, who is witholding the reason? - is it Hutchinson himself, is it the police, or is it the press?

First, because this line is carried across a number of publications, I would suggest it is not the various newspapers who are witholding the reason. Too many fingers in the pie.

Secondly, I might have expected if it was Hutchinson who was witholding the reason the papers would have had no problem in putting this line in quotation, just like they have for his updated description, all in quotes.

Therefore, we are left to imagine that it is the police who do know what his reason was and have decided not to make this reason known to the public.
As it appears to be a police decision then it is incorrect for anyone to argue that the police rejected his story because they couldn't get a suitable, or a believable explanation for the delay.

I would interpret the above quote as, it appears the police knew what the reason was but decided it prudent not to release the reason to the press.

Regards, Jon S.