Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[Rubyretro]

Absolutely, Ben.

You have answered Fish's questions to me very well indeed.

I like the quote from Garry Wroe's book. I thought that Fish's assertion
that the Police would be grateful for lowly coppers filtering out time wasters
just laughable.

Can you imagine any vast organisation like the police Force functioning if
there was no structured hierarchy, and the least qualified members were allowed to make arbitrary decisions on what information from the public they decided to pass on, or not ?

[Garry Wroe]

Which is why I have long thought it likely that Hutchinson gave himself away whilst on walkabout with the two detectives on the Monday evening, Ben.

But on a different note, when was it that Harry expressed it as his belief that Hutchinson was a killer?

[Ben]

Hi Ruby,

You raise a very important distinction, and one that some people aren’t able to get to grips with for some reason. While the content of Hutchinson’s statement may have been extremely bogus, there can be little doubt that his presentation was considerably more convincing. It is a misconception that liars will always appear hesitant and nervous when lying, and that a policeman will always be able to distinguish the truth from falsehoods accordingly.

A sensible point that requires nobody to complicate.

That still doesn't mean that Hutchinson's statement was believed for any surprising length of time given its content. A "very reduced importance" had already been attached to Hutchinson's statement on the evening of 13th November, less than 24 hours after Hutchinson first put in an appearance. We can thus dispense with the idea, advanced by some, that Abberline would have looked silly had be endorsed a very clearly fictional account for any appreciable length of time.

It is perfectly natural that a police official should pay scant attention to any purported witness evidence that doesn’t relate to any of the crimes or any of the crime scenes. If a witness approached a policeman and spoke of some scary lodger from Aldgate, the latter would have no reason to investigate the matter. If, on the other, hand, a witness approached an officer with information relevant to one of the actual victims on the night and at the place where that the victim in question was murdered, that officer would be negligent in the extreme to ignore it. There is a world of difference between the two.

The idea that Hutchinson's evidence was just a “story” among many others is complete nonsense. If a witness approached a policeman with information that pertained directly to the victim, directly to the location in which she was murder, and directly to the time, no policeman is going to ignore it or fail to alert the station. Not unless he was some negligent monster. Defending such non-existent action on the part of this transparently non-existent police officer doesn’t say a great deal for the defenders, other than the obvious – that they would make shockingly bad policemen. Once again we find this bizarrely inconsistent approach to the police on the part of Hutchinson’s hapless defenders; criticise anyone who contemplates disagreeing with Abberline, but give the thumbs-up to those to would characterize the police on the ground as bunch of doughnut-munching can’t-be-arseders.

And all for the sake of undiscrediting that thoroughly discredited “witness” Hutchinson.

If a policeman failed to take any action with regard to Hutchinson, he would have been booted off the force for appalling dereliction on duty. As Garry Wroe observed in his book:

“…is it credible that any member of a police force desperate to resolve a series of barbarous murders would, just two days after the latest and most grotesque killing of all, have reacted with utter indifference on discovering a witness of Hutchinson’s potential importance?”

The answer is very obviously “no”.

Even if the policeman wanted to be a punchably negligent moron, he knew he could have been identified by superiors based on his location, so why risk it? He also knew that on-the-spot perceptions as to credibility were not the responsibility of the average copper on beat, even if he was faced with such a tall tale as Hutchinson’s.

Predictably, people have been skimming over the other elephant in the room here, which is Hutchinson’s total failure to mention this detail at the time of the initial police interview. Naturally, he could not have mentioned it, or else he would have exposed himself very easily as a liar. Had he told Abberline that he had initially reported the story to a constable, he would have been asked to pinpoint the time and location in order for the constable in question to be identified, with a view to grilling him as to why he did not report this story earlier. The end result would have been either a) the policeman in question was traced and fired behind close doors, and the report detailing the incident got conveniently bombed in the blitz (or whatever), or the vastly more probable b) Abberline and colleagues quickly and easily discovered that there was no such PC at that time or location, or that there was, but he heard nothing of Hutchinson’s tall tales.

But that’s if we explore the scenario that he told the police on 12th about this mysterious policeman, which he clearly didn’t. Instead, he only told the press about it a day later, knowing full well that the press were unable to trace beat times and individual policeman, unlike the police. As soon as the police did get to hear of the “Sunday policeman” episode, Hutchinson’s account was discredited!

Or is that yet another of those extremely striking coincidences again?

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"We know what he said he did.We do not know he did what he said."

That is the fairest assessment of the whole deal I have seen by anybody supporting the "Hutch-the-killer-theory" I have seen for a long time, Harry. Others will have it that it is a near certainty that he could not have done what he said he did, and that is where the debate takes a nosedive.

This summary of yours, however, is a very reasonable and useful starting point for a functioning debate.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

We know what he said he did.We do not know he did what he said.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Nobody has ever disputed that Hutchinson's story was initially taken seriously."

... and nobody ever explained why it was not laughed out of the legal system if it was so very ludicrous. THAT is what I need explained. No matter if a person is convincing personally, seasoned policemen will not accept a ****-and-bull story anyway.

But you don´t seem to regard his story ****-and-bull? You seem to be suddenly speaking of a story of calibre...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Fish -off to work and no time to reply..

Nobody has ever disputed that Hutchinson's story was initially taken seriously.

He probably had a very convincing manner (another reason to find it incredible that a policeman in the street would not take him seriously).

When his story was looked at closer, it didn't stand up to scrutiny, as evinced by sceptism in the Press, and the police quietly dropping him.

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"That appropriate enough attention?"

It will do for me!

... then again, that attention was awarded as the result of Hutchinson´s going to the police station, and we STILL do not know that his statement to the Sunday morning police received the same attention do we?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"I think that they took some stories "with a pinch of salt" but duly reported them anyway, because they didn't have the aurority to make personal 'calls'."

And I think that you are wrong. Already when the PC tells you that the police did not pay much attention to some of the stories, he HAS made a personal call. And you may rest assured that the people at the top would have been very happy to have things sifted along the way. There would have been no physical possibility that they were able to afford all material interest.

"Dropped by the policemen with the aurority to assess and drop 'witnesses'."

No - awarded scant interest by the policemen working at Leman Street station - and, reasonably, any other station too.

"I concluded that whereas alot of people went to the Police-station to give a
'witness' account, were politely listened to but were not taken seriously, Hutchinson was initially taken very seriously indeed."

Is that not a tad strange? You know, the family of Hutchinsonians have sort of painted themselves into a corner here, since they fervently claim that Hutchinson´s story about Astrakhan man is ridiculously unbelieveable, correct? It is a story that nobody with a functioning brain would ever buy into, right?
Would you not say that such a story - if the Hutchinsonians are correct, of course, not else - would have been the first one not to have been payed much attention to? The first one, as it were, that the discerning policemen on lower levels would ditch as being a clumsy lie?

You see, this is an instance where your stance works very much against you. If the police dropped preposterous stories and if Hutchinson´s story WAS preposterous ... well, you DO see the implications, don´t you?

Then again, Hutchinson WAS - just like you say - taken very seriously indeed at senior level from the outset.

Now, why was it that senior officers - who ought to be the best judges of things like these - did this? I mean if the story WAS preposterous, then surely, even if the lesser qualified policemen at ground level had been fooled by it - in spite of it so very obviously being a laughable fabrication - then reasonably, the senior officers should have put an end to the spectacle and thrown Hutchinson out swiftly. I mean, you yourself are of the meaning that stories WERE dropped and ditched, and I am quoting here: "by the policemen with the aurority to assess and drop 'witnesses'."

How very strange!

"I conclude, therefore, that the calibre of Hutchinson's story ... was vastly different from other people approaching the Police with 'witness accounts'."

But this is not what you normally say, is it? The quality of Hutchinson´s story was such that a kid could have revealed him for a liar, right? Astrakhan man was a total fiction that could not possibly have been real, right? It was agonizingly clear that Hutchinson could not have made the observations he claimed to have made under the circumstances, right?

I fail to see how these parameters could have made up a story of such a "calibre" as you will have it, as to convince Frederick Abberline that it was true? I also fail to see why you use the former arguments when you argue that we should not believe in what must be a concocted story, ridiculously easy to reveal as a falsary, whereas you argue that the calibre of Hutchinson´s story was so immense that it would make the copper on the front desk inform his superiors that he had a witness with a very important story, and that this calibre would have Abberline convinced that it was true.

Which is it, Ruby? Was Hutchinson´s story an embarrasingly easily revealed lie, or a completely compelling story of great calibre?

Or was it both? Please help me out, for I am having some trouble to see what you are arguing here.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

This is and remains the bottom line in this discussion, and until you find material that proves that either Hutchinsons report specifically or all reports generally WERE given appropriate attention, it stands

- Fisherman - Today 10:37 AM

An important statement has been made by a man named George Hutchinson which I forward herewith. I have interrogated him this evening and I am of opinion his statement is true. He informed me that he had occasionally given the deceased a few shillings, and that he had known her about 3 years. Also that he was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch them. He can identify the man and arrangement was at once made for two officers to accompany him round the district for a few hours tonight with a view of finding the man if possible.

-Report by Inspector Abberline - 12th November 1888 (MEPO 3/140)

That appropriate enough attention?

Monty

[Rubyretro]

The simple truth is that the police dropped some stories. And if this was in practice at Leman Street police station, where many colleagues worked at the same time, one may only imagine how a single PC on a beat could have made his calls in this department without being potentially bothered by any fellow policemen

.
I think that they took some stories "with a pinch of salt" but duly reported them anyway, because they didn't have the aurority to make personal 'calls'.

.

Some material - unclear how much, but it land in the region between 0,1 per cent and 99,9 per cent - was dropped

.
Dropped by the policemen with the aurority to assess and drop 'witnesses'.

I am afraid you forgot to read the article, Ruby

.
I read it with interest.

Out o interest, can I ask you why you reacted with your spine instead of simply acknowledging the factual contents of the article? Why did you not say "Gee, this means that Hutchinsons statement could have gone lost this way, and that he could have been truthful about approaching the Sunday morning PC"? I think that is what most people would conclude from this snippet - but not you
Why? Please explain.

I concluded that whereas alot of people went to the Police-station to give a
'witness' account, were politely listened to but were not taken seriously, Hutchinson was initially taken very seriously indeed. The copper on the front desk must informed his superiors that here was a 'witness' with a very important story, because Hutchinson was interviewed by Abberline himself, who believed him at that point. His story was taken so seriously that Hutchinson was sent to accompany Police officers around the area, and the Press were reporting on him.

I conclude, therefore, that the calibre of Hutchinson's story -and his convincing manner- was vastly different from other people approaching the Police with 'witness accounts' (whether at the Police-station or in the street).

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"It shows that people who think that they some information, have the natural instinct to call at a Police-station."

Regardless of what YOU think are natural instincts, we KNOW that Hutchinson claimed to have approached a PC, and I think we can safely conclude that BOTH police stations and PC:s on their beats were approached by lots and lots of people telling them stories. So I´m afraid this is an irrelevant remark as regards Hutchinson personally. We know what he said he did, end of story.

"not "much" attention, is not the same as no attention at all."

Aha. Are you suggesting that the poliecmen told their superiors 11 per cent of the statements? That they took down ALL stories, only in differing degrees? The simple and obvious truth is that the police dropped some material. And if this was in practice at Leman Street police station, where many colleagues worked at the same time, one may only imagine how a single PC on a beat could have made his calls in this department without being potentially bothered by any fellow policemen.

The one and only thing here that you need to keep in mind, Ruby, is that the Echo tells us extremely clearly that the police did NOT take all information seriously. Some material - unclear how much, but it would land in the region between 0,1 per cent and 99,9 per cent - was dropped. Add to this that no young PC would happily admit that they dropped 95 per cent of the statements (if this was the case, which I do NOT believe), but instead he would probably limit both the damage done to the force he represented and his own future career.

"For the Policeman to be telling this -detailed- story to a reporter, must mean that he had done his duty and reported it to his superiors "

I am afraid you forgot to read the article, Ruby. It says, quite clearly: ""We don't pay much attention to some of these," candidly confessed a young officer this morning to an Echo reporter. "Some of these people only make their statements for the express purpose of getting what they can. For instance, one woman ...", giving away that the PC used this exact story as an example of stories that were given very scant interest or totally dropped, this time for the explicitly worded reason that the PC thought that it was a story that had been concocted for the sole purpose of "getting what they can".

You are doing the best you can of a hopeless task, Ruby, I´ll give you that. But the fact remains that we have evidence telling us that the police were deluged by stories relating to the Ripper case, and that they payed very scant attention to parts of it. Full stop. And when you do not pay attention, things go unnoticed. Full stop. And this means, no matter how much agenda-ridden drivel somebody chooses to pour over it, that we are looking at a very distinct possibility when it comes to explain why the Sunday morning PC did PERHAPS not report Hutchinson´s story: because he may not have payed much attention to it, as per the Leman Street PC. And it´s only PERHAPS, mind you!

This is and remains the bottom line in this discussion, and until you find material that proves that either Hutchinsons report specifically or all reports generally WERE given appropriate attention, it stands.

Out of interest, can I ask you why you reacted with your spine instead of simply acknowledging the factual contents of the article? Why did you not say "Gee, this means that Hutchinsons statement could have gone lost this way, and that he could have been truthful about approaching the Sunday morning PC"?
I think that is what most people would conclude from this snippet - but not you.

Why? Please explain.

Fisherman

[claire]

It shows that people who think that they some information, have the natural instinct to call at a Police-station.

Quite. Look at Elizabeth Phoenix. Never did a person move so fast, and she didn't have anything to offer regarding the time of the murder itself.

[Rubyretro]

During the night and this morning several people have called at Leman-street Police-station and communicated to the police

It shows that people who think that they some information, have the natural instinct to call at a Police-station.

.

"We don't pay much attention to some of these," candidly confessed a young officer

not "much" attention, is not the same as no attention at all.

this morning to an Echo reporter. "Some of these people only make their statements for the express purpose of getting what they can. For instance, one woman came up to me about five o'clock this morning. 'Sergeant,' she said, 'I've got a little bit of news for you.' Of course I asked her what it was in the usual way, and she went on to tell me, with an air of peculiar mystery, that she lived in Mansell-street, just off Aldgate. She had a lodger, a tall, dark foreigner. He was out all Thursday night, but he returned yesterday morning about nine o'clock. He appeared to be 'hurried,' paid for his room, and left immediately. She had not seen him since, and had no idea where he went. He left a small bag behind, and she, anticipating a prize, burst it open during the day, to find it contained - nothing."

[/QUOTE]
For the Policeman to be telling this -detailed- story to a reporter, must mean that he had done his duty and reported it to his superiors (I can't believe that it was left to lowly coppers the right to decide what information was important or not).
Since the story is remembered in such detail, it suggests that it was written down anyway, whatever the policeman personally thought of the value of the information.

[Fisherman]

Thanks, Jon! It´s good to have this particular "obstacle" cleared away with useful evidence. I particularly appreciate that the paper that supplies this information is a paper about which it has been argued that they had extensive police contacts and informants ... They would have known, yes?

Needless to say, I very much agree with you about the underlying mechanisms governing a lot of the - so called - thinking out here.

All the best,
Fisherman