Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[DVV]

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

[Wickerman]

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

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

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

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the response?

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

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

[caz]

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

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

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

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

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

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

Hello Caz,

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

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

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

c.d.

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi CD,

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

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

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

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

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

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

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

Clearly an ill-informed point of view.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ben]

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

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

Witnesses were among the first suspects long before 1888.

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

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

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

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

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

You miss the point.

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

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

Well, if that's where your problem lies you'd better scurry on off and find someone who makes "accusations" against a "seemingly innocent man". There are plenty of those about. I'm not one of them, however. I make no "accusations". I simply explore possibilities that make sense historically and criminologically, and I get very testy indeed when those with inferior knowledge on both subjects mindlessly pooh-pooh those possibilities.

[Ben]

Ben knows that the Echo was privy to special police info that was kept from the rest of the press - but shared with the Penny Illustrated apparently

You can even address me directly if you fancy it, Lech.

There is no evidence that the police shared anything with Penny Illustrated, whose sketch was clearly not intended to depict Astrakhan man. There is, moreover, no indication that it was based on any police-endorsed witness account.

but he doesn't know that Booth produced two maps and the one without the Red lines also had a table with percentages in poverty per district.

I'm talking about Booth's poverty map.

You were describing that part of the east end as "affluent", which was shaded yellow on the map, and yet if you look at the area where the murders were committed, there is not a single trace of yellow (or gold?!) in that part of the east end on Booth's map.

Again if the A-man was catastrophically out of place I would have expected Abberline to have sussed it out immediately.

Not if he was expecting the ripper to be just as bizarre in his appearance as he was in his habits. And remember, this was also the silly bugger who completely overlooked Cross's murderous guilt - or one of them, at least!

There have been four books on Hutchinson - there is a massive amount more than can be said about these crimes and Lechmere's relationship to them than can be said about Hutchinson.

No Lechmere.

Absolutely not.

Otherwise a lot more would have been said.

The fact that there are four books written about Hutchinson (more than that, actually) as well as more articles, and many thousands more message board contributions* tells us that there is generally acknowledged to me more mileage in Hutchinson than there is in Cross.

All the best,
Ben

*From a combination of which the screenwriters for "Whitechapel" ended up favouring Hutchinson as the most likely suspect, and used him as the fictional detective's suspect of preference too.

[Wickerman]

Because the police wanted to avoid publicity-seeking or money-grabbing false witnesses, Jon.

There you go Ben, you answered it yourself.
Avoiding the possibility of a witness telling them lies, whether to avoid incrimination themselves or to intentionally incriminate another person, be that other person real or make believe.

The point is the police do not wish to add incentive for any potential 'false witness', whatever his reason.
A witness is questioned quite intensely where the possibility exists that this witness could be implicated in the crime. Not 'Rocket science' Ben, just thorough policing.

You miss the point.

Hutchinson's claim to have "walked about" at the likely time of Kelly's death effectively disposes of the issue of an alibi, whether the claim was accurate or not.

Yes, I am indicating that you are potentially reading too much into an excuse which may appear false to us today, but was more common at the time.

Well, if that's where your problem lies you'd better scurry on off and find someone who makes "accusations" against a "seemingly innocent man". There are plenty of those about. I'm not one of them,...

'Cough' - well look what you did, you made me spill my coffee.
Ok, I'll accept you have turned over a new leaf. Reason must be coming through at last

[Ben]

Avoiding the possibility of a witness telling them lies, whether to avoid incrimination themselves or to intentionally incriminate another person, be that other person real or make believe.

No, Jon, not as complicated as that.

Abberline and his fellow detectives had been blighted by bogus witnesses - people seeking money or publicity, and the purpose of the interrogation was to check for superficial signs that Hutchinson was one of those. It was most assuredly not an opportunity to uncover an immediate and permanent solution to the question of whether or not he was guilty of being Jack the Ripper, because that simply wasn't possible. Since nothing could be verified in so short a space of time, the interrogation can't have been based on anything more than personal impressions.

"Intense questioning" counts for absolutely nothing in the absence of evidence to back up what came out of Hutchinson's mouth, and there was no means of obtaining that evidence so soon after his first appearance at Commercial Street police station. He could have had a lovely polite, forthright, confident, honest-to-bleedin-goodness manner and still spouted utter lies that weren't easy (or even possible) to contradict.

And tellingly, once this "interrogation" was over, Abberline reported on it - yet again, before any of Hutchinson's claims could have been checked into - and mentioned nothing about conducting any further checks to ascertain whether or not this seemingly legit witness was secretly Jack the Ripper.

So don't get too carried away with the word "interrogation".

All the best,
Ben

[c.d.]

Hello Ben,

But isn't the logical conclusion in all of this that Abberline and others at Scotland Yard concluded that Hutchinson was not involved in Mary's death and that he was not the Ripper? We don't know how they arrived at that conclusion or whether or not it was correct. But since Hutchinson fades from the scene, isn't that the conclusion that we are left with?

c.d.

[Ben]

Hi CD,

No, for reasons I've outlined in several of my recent posts here, it is unlikely (although not impossible) that they considered the possibility of Hutchinson's guilt.

A) The 1888 police were unlikely to have fathomed for one moment that the real killer would inject himself into the investigation.

B) Hutchinson didn't remotely conform to the type of person the police were interested in.

C) We simply have no evidence anywhere of any police suspicions being leveled at Hutchinson. Some people like to invoke the "lost report", and often assert they it definitely said what they want it to have said, once upon a time, before it got conveniently bombed in the blitz, but no evidence of any extant report is the reality.

All the best,
Ben

[c.d.]

Hello Ben,

I have to strongly disagree with you. According to Hutchinson's own testimony, he knew the victim and was the last one to see her alive. That makes him a suspect or as they say here in the States "a person of interest." You don't have to be a trained detective to come to that conclusion. It should be obvious or as you Brits say "bleedin' obvious."

And even if his coming forward so blinded them in the beginning, what would have happened if his story started to change or the facts didn't jive. How long would he continue to get a pass?

c.d.