Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Wickerman]

You encourage Snapper to conduct his own research, but it appears you haven't done yours, or else you would know that Hutchinson's original statement contains "The Ten Bells" crossed out and replaced with "The Queens Head". There are a number of possible explanations for this amendment, but a realistic one is that Hutchinson invented the encounter and ballsed up his geography in so doing. It's a remarkably easy thing to do when conjuring up a fictional sequence of events, but it would be an extremely odd error for a local man - who experienced an actual set of events - to make.

You are joking right?
A local man knows the difference between the Ten Bells and the Queens Head, regardless whether he is lying or not.

What we see with the correction being written above the mistake is typical of what happens on the final reading prior to the statement being signed by all parties present.
The officer reads it through so Hutchinson can point out any errors, for correction, which is what we see here.

If the mistake had been made at the point of telling the story, eg: "I stood against the lamp of the Ten Bells, er I mean Queens Head.....", then the correction would have been written immediately after the mistake, not above it.

So here we have the same scenario as exists elsewhere in statements taken down by officials, they make mistakes.

If you recall, in Sarah Lewis's Inquest testimony 'Kelseys" is struck out as a mistake for Keylers. Lewis never said Kelsey's (no press account wrote Kelsey either), she knew the family, they were the Keylers. Hodgkinson made a mistake.
Likewise, in her police statement Abberline wrote "talking to a female" when taking notes about the loiterer. Here he was also confused, Lewis never suggested the loiterer was talking to anyone.

Police make mistakes when taking down witness statements, you can't simply blame the witness as part of your overall plan to present them as liars.

[Ben]

Second, now another suggestion is introduced, it is suffice to say that the Ten Bells was in the opposite direction (north of Dorset St), and as Hutchinson did not write his own statement, it is the recording officer who wrote "Ten Bells".

Yes, based on what Hutchinson told him.

Or are you seriously suggesting that Badham was off with the fairies, doing his own thing, and making up stuff as he went along? Is this the sort of dialogue you're envisaging here?:

Badham: So Mr. Hutchinson, you say you stood outside a pub...

Hutchinson: Yes sir, the Queen's Head.

Badham: Tell Bells, you say? I'll make a note of that.

Unless Hutchinson himself mentioned the Ten Bells, there wasn't the slightest reason for Badham to write the name of that pub on the statement, and it is obviously ludicrous to argue otherwise.

Where is "Fashion St." mentioned in his police statement?

It isn't, but that's where the Queen's Head stood.

[Wickerman]

Oh how you love to switch horses in mid-stream.

Two things here, first the discussion was about the Queens Head being on the corner of Flower & Dean.

"According to his account, Hutchinson was outside the ‘Queen’s Head at the corner of Flower and Dean Street’."

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/ripperoo-hutch.html

Clearly, Hutchinson made no such comment.
(Proven!)

Second, now another suggestion is introduced, it is suffice to say that the Ten Bells was in the opposite direction (north of Dorset St), and as Hutchinson did not write his own statement, it is the recording officer who wrote "Ten Bells".
How that came to be is anybody's guess, but as usual, the preferred interpretation of those "not so objective" members is to blame Hutchinson.

These are two separate issues.

If anyone needs a reminder of how easy it was for the recording officer to write down errors, you only need to check the police statements for the Kelly Inquest.

Yes, he does - the northern corner of Fashion Street and Commercial Street, where the Queen's Head stood. How could he have "stood against the lamp of the T̶e̶n̶ ̶B̶e̶l̶l̶s̶ Queen's Head public house" if he was on the other side?

Where is "Fashion St." mentioned in his police statement?
And, other side? - what do you mean "other side"?

[Ben]

I agree entirely with your post, Garry. Shawcross is indeed a stronger comparison, along with several others.

Hi Jon,

You encourage Snapper to conduct his own research, but it appears you haven't done yours, or else you would know that Hutchinson's original statement contains "The Ten Bells" crossed out and replaced with "The Queens Head". There are a number of possible explanations for this amendment, but a realistic one is that Hutchinson invented the encounter and ballsed up his geography in so doing. It's a remarkably easy thing to do when conjuring up a fictional sequence of events, but it would be an extremely odd error for a local man - who experienced an actual set of events - to make.

Now, reflect back to his police statement and tell me on the corners of which streets did he say he stood when Kelly & Astrachan walked passed him?

He doesn't say, does he.

Yes, he does - the northern corner of Fashion Street and Commercial Street, where the Queen's Head stood. How could he have "stood against the lamp of the T̶e̶n̶ ̶B̶e̶l̶l̶s̶ Queen's Head public house" if he was on the other side?

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

What he originally said, I believe, is that he was standing outside the Ten Bells.

Define "originally"? SVP

[Sally]

He doesn't say, does he.
So lets not go spreading untruths about what Hutchinson is supposed to have said, when we all know he said no such thing.

What he originally said, I believe, is that he was standing outside the Ten Bells.

[Wickerman]

And while we are at it, here is another untruth...

Contrary to what Jon just wrote, the police did have their doubts about Hutchinson's credibility, .....

[Wickerman]

Take this as a friendly hint Snapper, do your own research, don't rely on others.

First, show me where Hutchinson says the Queens Head is at the corner of Flower & Dean St.?

About 2 am 9th I was coming by Thrawl Street, Commercial Street, and saw just before I got to Flower and Dean Street I saw the murdered woman Kelly. And she said to me Hutchinson will you lend me sixpence. I said I cant I have spent all my money going down to Romford. She said Good morning I must go and find some money. She went away toward Thrawl Street. A man coming in the opposite direction to Kelly tapped her on the shoulder and said something to her. They both burst out laughing. I heard her say alright to him. And the man said you will be alright for what I have told you. He then placed his right hand around her shoulders. He also had a kind of a small parcel in his left hand with a kind of strap round it. I stood against the lamp of the Queen’s Head Public House and watched him. They both then came past me and the man hid down his head with his hat over his eyes.
Police Statement, 12th Nov. 1888.

Ok, so now that mistake is out of the way. Read what he told the press.

"He put his hand again on her shoulder and they both walked slowly towards me. I walked on to the corner of Fashion street, near the public house. As they came by me his arm was still on her shoulder."

The 'public house' referred to above is, yes you guessed it, the Queens Head (which was located at 74 Comm. St., on the corner with Fashion St.).
Now, reflect back to his police statement and tell me on the corners of which streets did he say he stood when Kelly & Astrachan walked passed him?

He doesn't say, does he.
So lets not go spreading untruths about what Hutchinson is supposed to have said, when we all know he said no such thing.

Read all the sources Snapper, all the sources, before you pass judgement.

[The Snapper]

How did he misplace a pub ?

http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...roo-hutch.html

According to his account, Hutchinson was outside the ‘Queen’s Head at the corner of Flower and Dean Street’. But astonishingly, there was no public house by any name at this location. Instead, as a contemporary map reveals, there was only the bleak rise of a tenement block, to be found there. As to the ‘Queen’s Head’: this public house, rather than being located at the corner intersection of Flower and Dean Street, was actually located at the corner intersection of Commercial Street and Fashion Street.

Snapper

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe: Precisely, Ben, which is why Arthur Shawcross represents a much better example of the type of man the Whitechapel Murderer is likely to have been.

Bingo, Garry - he is quite likely a much better choice for a comparison than Rader. Although there will be differences inbetween the Ripper and Shawcross too.

As for the outdoor crime scene venues, at least two of these were not anything like as dangerous for the killer as some appear to imagine.

The risks will have varied, but they were always there. The series was an extremely risky one no matter which other series we compare to.

Few people were out and about at the times of the killings, and those that were gave the murderer plenty of advance warning of their approach courtesy of the heavy leather soles worn by the vast majority of East Enders, policemen included.

Very true, and something that drastically reduces the number of potential killers.

Given the paucity of street lighting in the area it would have been a simple matter for the killer to have departed the body completely unseen under cover of darkness. Whoever he was, this man was not reckless. The fact that he escaped justice is a testament to such. The notion that he simply got lucky is sorely misplaced, I would suggest.

I think we are looking at a combination of skill and luck. And I think that we are also looking at a killer that was convinced that luck was something you could mould yourself. In that department, I do believe that the killer WAS reckless, but I don´t think he would admit it himself.

And in the end, he would be the one who ended up saying: There, I told you so.

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

A lot of it has to do with the type of people the killers encounter in day-to-day life. It is no coincidence, for instance, that prostitute killers tend invariably to be prostitute users, and these include some who even had relationships with prostitutes. A far cry from a church-going suburban community in Wichita, I would have thought. The point being that the amount of "planning" that goes into victim selection will often depend on the killer's type of victim, which in turn will be dictated by the type of environment the killer lives in.

Precisely, Ben, which is why Arthur Shawcross represents a much better example of the type of man the Whitechapel Murderer is likely to have been.

As for the outdoor crime scene venues, at least two of these were not anything like as dangerous for the killer as some appear to imagine. Few people were out and about at the times of the killings, and those that were gave the murderer plenty of advance warning of their approach courtesy of the heavy leather soles worn by the vast majority of East Enders, policemen included. Given the paucity of street lighting in the area it would have been a simple matter for the killer to have departed the body completely unseen under cover of darkness. Whoever he was, this man was not reckless. The fact that he escaped justice is a testament to such. The notion that he simply got lucky is sorely misplaced, I would suggest.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

But that´s the whole point I am making - Rader was not the type that would evolve into a prostitute killer.

Maybe so. A lot of it has to do with the type of people the killers encounter in day-to-day life. It is no coincidence, for instance, that prostitute killers tend invariably to be prostitute users, and these include some who even had relationships with prostitutes. A far cry from a church-going suburban community in Wichita, I would have thought. The point being that the amount of "planning" that goes into victim selection will often depend on the killer's type of victim, which in turn will be dictated by the type of environment the killer lives in.

It is unlikely that the ripper was able to do much better in terms of disposal locations than the ones he selected. For all we know, he might always have preferred a tucked-away indoor venue, but suffered from a lack of venues on that regard.

The fact that he stayed uncaught will probably not be something he felt owed to luck at all.

Quite possibly, but it did owe partially to luck, whether he accepted it or not.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

You raise some good points there, Snapper.

If Hutchinson was responsible for the murder(s), the act of coming forward, while undoubtedly risky, served three purposes; to legitimise his loitering presence outside Miller's Court, to deflect suspicion in a bogus direction, and to satiate his bravado in pulling the wool over the eyes of the police from right under their noses.

Contrary to what Jon just wrote, the police did have their doubts about Hutchinson's credibility, which is why they attached a "very reduced importance" to his account - evidently suspecting him to be a publicity-seeker or money grabber, as opposed to a killer attempting to divert suspicion. What he described as an "urban myth" is anything but. It is incredibly unlikely that anyone would flash their expensive clothes and thick gold watch chains in Dorset Street and the surrounding streets at that time.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

I've read every post in this thread.
.
.
His statements based on description of Astrakhan man alone are enough to cast doubt.

The police didn't seem to have any doubts.
Which other opinions matter more than theirs?

Flashing expensive items in a poor area was not exactly a wise strategy unless you were looking to get mugged.

That's a bit of an urban myth.

Why was Hutchinson ever taken seriously at all ?

Do you think the reason might have been contained among all those files that have not survived?

As for Hutchinsons motives for coming forward beyond those of short term gain I am puzzled. While it seemed to have the effect of clearing him of suspicion if indeed he was more implicated than he disclosed it was in itself a very desperate act. A bit like shooting yourself in the head to cure a bad headache.

Correct, it makes no sense, especially in a day when it was far easier to simply disappear among the masses.

Mind you anyone who could misplace a pub would probably have missed anyway.

How did he misplace a pub?

[The Snapper]

Phew

I've read every post in this thread. One of the shorter ones devoted to Hutchinson but I suspect it still has legs. My own distilled views are as follows.

I don't see how Hutchinson getting his dates confused lets him off the hook. His statements based on description of Astrakhan man alone are enough to cast doubt. Also the idea that it was a show put on by Kelly and an accomplice is stretching things somewhat. Flashing expensive items in a poor area was not exactly a wise strategy unless you were looking to get mugged. What that leaves me with is a problem. Why was Hutchinson ever taken seriously at all ? I wonder if it was something the police played along with for reasons unknown. As for Hutchinsons motives for coming forward beyond those of short term gain I am puzzled. While it seemed to have the effect of clearing him of suspicion if indeed he was more implicated than he disclosed it was in itself a very desperate act. A bit like shooting yourself in the head to cure a bad headache. Mind you anyone who could misplace a pub would probably have missed anyway.
So in essence I'm still confused.

Snapper