Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[Ben]

Hi Monty,

The Echo stated that they approached Commercial Street police station in order to ascertain the truth about the origin of Hutchinson’s statement, and were informed that the fuller description that appeared on the 14th proceeded from the same source as the briefer account that appeared a day earlier. We know now that this is true. Some of their press contemporaries had formed the mistaken impression that they were two independently supportive accounts, and the Echo, having approached the police to seek clarification, were assured that this was not the case. They were also informed that the statement had been “considerably discounted”.

Since the former confirmation could only have originated from the police, we now know that the Echo did approach the police station, and that they were supplied with what we know for certain to be accurate information.

I haven’t seen any evidence of errors or sensationalism from the Echo, unlike many of their press contemporaries.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

“The trouble with Ben is that he offers his own personal speculations regarding Hutchinson, rather than the collective wisdom of most modern theorists.”

I wasn’t aware of any “collective wisdom” regarding Hutchinson, Stewart. Some think he was non-murdering liar, some think he was a murdering one, while others believe he was a squeaky-clean eyelash-shade spotting witness. You even get the odd one or two believe the silly sausage muddled up the date! It occurs to me that there is considerable variety of opinion on the Hutchinson issue, rather than one collectively and wisely accepted version of events.

“If the man thus stopped was able to immediately (or even subsequently) clear himself and prove an irrefutable alibi he would be bothered no further and the witness's previous claim to be able to identify the suspect would thus be discredited.”

It would mean that particular identification was discredited, along with his claim to be able to “swear to the man anywhere”. That doesn’t mean that the entire account and its author would cease to be of use to the inquiry, and yet this is the strong inference from those press sources that established contact with the police. The reason cited for this “very reduced importance” had nothing, apparently, to do with honest confusion, but with doubts about his credibility that were triggered by his failure to approach the police with his evidence sooner.

“To suggest that Dew would not be immediately made aware that an important witness had been to any degree 'discredited' and for what reason (especially if his fellow detective officers had taken Hutchinson around the streets in an attempt to find the suspect) does not really hold water”

I agree that he would have been made aware of Hutchinson’s discrediting, as I believe he was, but I’m not nearly so certain that his relatively junior status at the time would have ensured that he was supplied with the “reason” for this. Indeed, Dew’s personal speculations make clear that he was not – either that or he had simply forgotten (he was writing 50 years after the murders). He would not have appealed to his readers to endorse his “is it not probable that…” type of musings if he was reporting established police wisdom at the time, otherwise he would naturally and logically have stated, “we eventually established that…”.

It is likely that the police on the ground were simply informed not to continue the search for the Astrakhan man. There was nothing to be gained from informing them why.

“I thought that I might just have qualified as I started studying the Ripper case around 1961 and photographed the murder sites in 1967. (I wonder how old Ben was then?).”

Ah, got me. Hutchinson can’t have lied if that’s the case. Good point. I was minus quite a few years in 1969, and I’d imagine that Fisherman’s testicles had just about descended that year.

But if the new rule is that the oldest poster wins the argument, that’s excellent news for Harry, whose contributions I’ve always admired greatly.

Bad news for me, though. I thought it was stamina wars and prolixity that wins the day.

All the best,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

I really am tired of Ben using the word discredited. Until he stops, i shall continue to use the name Toppy when referring to Hutchinson as so many factors have pointed to this identification.

If someone wants to say Toppy's account was discounted I will agree that that is a possibility.

Mike

[Monty]

Hi Monty,

I do not reject Abberline's initial endorsement of Hutchinson's statement. I have every faith that at the time he penned the report (a few hours after his first ever meeting with Hutchinson), he meant precisely what he wrote. It is very clear, however, that the police came to discredit his account very shortly after it first appeared, and this is not based on press speculation. We know for certain that the Echo communicated directly with the police, based on other observations they reported in relation to Hutchinson's account, and it was this paper that first alluded to the "considerably discounted" status accorded to Hutchinson's statement.

Cheers,
Ben

Hey Ben,

And this Police discreditation of Hutchinsons account appears where in the case file? I'm struggling to locate it.

Newspapers, including the Echo, are prone to erronous reporting and sensationalism. Its their nature to sell, so forgive me for not committing competely to a news account.

Unless officially verified of course.

Monty

[harry]

Stewart,
Thank you for your kind words.Old yes,but thankfully not yet senile.
Regards.

[Stewart P Evans]

Probably right...

Stewart Evans:
Ben: "It’s about time I had a credible opponent to give me a run for my money, if that is the cherished agenda, which is appears to be.
...
Stewart: "There is simply no answer to this. I wish that I was up to it. But I'm not and I am not sure that anyone is."

I do not think that Ben would regard you a credible opponent, I´m afraid.
...
Fisherman

You are probably right. He obviously knows a whole lot more than I do.

I thought that I might just have qualified as I started studying the Ripper case around 1961 and photographed the murder sites in 1967. (I wonder how old Ben was then?). I have written books on the subject and contributed to other projects and helped wherever I could, etc., etc.

Also I joined the police force in 1969 and trained in all aspects of police work. (I wonder how old Ben was then?)

I served for twenty seven and a half years as a front line police officer, also training as a police firearms officer (marksman), tutor constable, acting sergeant, custody officer, made dozens of court appearances, was involved in investigations from simple thefts to murders, dealt with dozens of criminals, compiled an untold number of court files for which I adduced the evidence, etc., etc. (now I'm getting boring).

Yes, I'm a dinosaur. I don't know what I am talking about, my opinions are worth little, my experience worth even less (in fact Ben probably thinks that it counts against me), I know little about the Ripper case, etc., etc.

Yes, you are right, I simply cannot be a 'credible opponent'. Perhaps if I changed my ideas, agreed with him and thought that modern criminal profiling was the be all and end all of criminology, perhaps he might then take me seriously. But I wouldn't be an opponent then, would I?.

No, I shall just retire back to obscurity - where I belong.

[Fisherman]

Stewart Evans:

"To suggest that Dew would not be immediately made aware that an important witness had been to any degree 'discredited' and for what reason (especially if his fellow detective officers had taken Hutchinson around the streets in an attempt to find the suspect) does not really hold water. And if that witness had then become a suspect in police eyes (at whatever level) Dew would certainly have known."

...to which it should be added that there is no reason not to believe that all of Dew´s colleagues in the East end (and many another district), regardless of level, would have been very well read up on the exact same thing at the time.
No police force would - unless there were extraordinary circumstances involved - benefit from obscuring changes in status regarding a witness such as this. The second the police discredited his story - if this WAS what happened - they would stand to gain from informing the force on the whole about it. Refraining from doing so would inevitably mean that they faced the risk that their men would be conducting their business from a misinformed point of wiew, thus wasting valuable time and insight.

I am not the policeman out here - Stewart Evans is - but I really don´t think you need to be a policeman to realize this.

The best,
Fisherman

[Stewart P Evans]

According to Walter Dew...

...
It seems likely to me that Dew became aware, during the course of the investigation, that Hutchinson’s account had been discredited, but was not necessarily informed as to why. This is hardly surprisingly considering that “Dew was still a bit of a freshman. He was 25 years old, and not in a commanding position. Therefore, we cannot conclude to which extent he knew about the discussions carried on at a higher level.”
...
Ben

According to Walter Dew he was transferred to H Division and attached to Commercial Street Police Station in early 1887. In his words he had 'attained my first ambition as a police officer, being now a member of the famous Criminal Investigation Department.' At that time his chief was the then Local Inspector, Abberline.

He had been 'promoted' to detective officer and was stationed in the divison throughout the period of the Ripper murders. He was, by his own account, one of the local detective officers involved in the investigation of the Whitechapel murders. His chief by then was the new Local Inspector, Reid. Hutchinson called at the divisional police station and was regarded as an important witness whose suspect description was circulated. Dew and his fellow officers would, obviously, be made aware of this.

To suggest that Dew would not be immediately made aware that an important witness had been to any degree 'discredited' and for what reason (especially if his fellow detective officers had taken Hutchinson around the streets in an attempt to find the suspect) does not really hold water. And if that witness had then become a suspect in police eyes (at whatever level) Dew would certainly have known.

[Stewart P Evans]

Harry

The Hutchinsonians(A rare breed).Some write as though we conspire together.For my part,I came to my conclusions,independently of any other poster.I know nothing of them,either socially or historically.I have never met them and probably never will.I make little impact on these boards.I do not and never have,tried to influence anyone to my way of thinking.I have however been inclined to the belief,that Ben,Bob,Garry and others,have presented Hutchinson as the best suspect.My first book of reading on the ripper murders was'Autumn of Terror".I too at first believed Hutchinson a credible and honest witness.I have changed my mind.I apolgise to those ladies whose names I missed,but I no less value your input.

Dear old Harry. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion and that should not be denied. You have been around these boards a long time and I don't think that anyone would, or should, say that you make little impact on these boards. You have made many interesting points in your posts over the years. I hope you don't mind me referring to you as 'Dear old' as, although I am old, I think you are a fair bit older than me. I'm old fashioned and I think that people should respect age.

[Stewart P Evans]

Walter Dew

For those who may not have a copy of I Caught Crippen here is a page from Walter Dew's book discussing the witnesses Maxwell and Hutchinson.

[Stewart P Evans]

Don't quite understand...

...
I would be somewhat surprised if an attempted identification involving Hutchinson and an Astrakhan man went on behind closed doors without the press hearing of it, which is precisely what occurred in the cases of Sadler, Grainger (with Lawende as the witness) and, to my recollection, the witnesses from Mrs. Fiddymont’s pub. As such, I would tend to doubt very much that any such attempted identification took place in Hutchinson’s case. Even if one occurred, I find it doubtful that Hutchinson would have been “discredited” on the basis of an incorrect identification. Joseph Lawende may have identified the Church Passage man as two separate individuals – Kosminski (1881) and Grainger (1895) – without being discredited.
...
Ben

I don't quite understand your point here. If a witness accompanies police officers around an area in an effort to spot a suspect he has seen and that witness then points out the man, on the street, who he had seen in suspicious circumstances the police would immediately approach that man and question him. A suspect thus identified cannot be then subjected to a formal identification by that witness, obviously as the man had just identified him on the street to the police. If the man thus stopped was able to immediately (or even subsequently) clear himself and prove an irrefutable alibi he would be bothered no further and the witness's previous claim to be able to identify the suspect would thus be discredited.

[Stewart P Evans]

The trouble...

Welcome back Stewart.
It depends what his motivation was for doing so, in my extraordinarily humble opinion. If he just wanted the attention, he probably wouldn’t have paid such specific attention to the man, but if he was preoccupied with concealing the true reason for his presence near a crime scene, as registered by Sarah Lewis, there was obviously a greater incentive for him to deflect attention away from himself. In the latter case, it would have made sense to provide a suspect that the police would latch onto as an investigative lead. “Can be identified” was therefore a necessary component to this. Bear in mind that this suggestion - and it’s only that – is not predicated on Hutchinson having been the murderer, necessarily.
I would be somewhat surprised if an attempted identification involving Hutchinson and an Astrakhan man went on behind closed doors without the press hearing of it, which is precisely what occurred in the cases of Sadler, Grainger (with Lawende as the witness) and, to my recollection, the witnesses from Mrs. Fiddymont’s pub. As such, I would tend to doubt very much that any such attempted identification took place in Hutchinson’s case. Even if one occurred, I find it doubtful that Hutchinson would have been “discredited” on the basis of an incorrect identification. Joseph Lawende may have identified the Church Passage man as two separate individuals – Kosminski (1881) and Grainger (1895) – without being discredited.
Moreover, we already know from the Echo’s communication with the police that the statement was “considerably discounted” in part because “the 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?”. This appeared on the 13th November. It was observed the next day that the statement was “considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner”.
Thus, there can be little doubt, in my opinion, that Hutchinson was discredited owing to doubts about his credibility, and not because of any consideration that he was “honestly mistaken”.
But if the police discredited him as a “total liar”, it would follow that his alleged presence in Dorset Street would have been thrown out with the rest of his statement, as occurred in the case of Emanuel Violenia. Despite Violenia’s claim to have been near a crime scene, his entire statement was apparently dismissed, including his alleged presence, and he was not considered a suspect. I suspect very strongly that Hutchinson was treated similarly.
The trouble with Dew is that he offered his own personal speculations regarding Hutchinson, rather than the collective wisdom of the contemporary police. It certainly was not established at the time that Hutchinson was “honestly mistaken”, or else he’d have said so, rather than appealing to his readers to accept his musings as to what he regards as “probable”. He was evidently impressed with the 1.00am time of death and the theory that the blotchy-faced man was the murderer.
I didn’t mean in general. I meant as a substitute to Fisherman as my principle combatent. But that was written out of intense and temporary irritation, which has since subsided, and I don’t really want Fisherman substituted.
All the best,
Ben

The trouble with Ben is that he offers his own personal speculations regarding Hutchinson, rather than the collective wisdom of most modern theorists.

[Wickerman]

....It is very clear, however, that the police came to discredit his account very shortly after it first appeared, and this is not based on press speculation. We know for certain that the Echo communicated directly with the police, based on other observations they reported in relation to Hutchinson's account, and it was this paper that first alluded to the "considerably discounted" status accorded to Hutchinson's statement.

This must be in reference to the Echo article of Nov. 14th.
The "inquiry at the Commercial-street police station" was to ascertain the source of the "elaborate description" given at the beginning of the article. This was the 2nd version given by Hutchinson to the press.

The answer was that this second version came from the same source and the police do not attach so much importance to THIS (2nd) document as our contemporaries do.

This explanation say's nothing about the official police version, it only concern's us with the opinion of the police with respect to this 2nd unofficial version which was the subject of this Echo article.

In the first paragraph the Echo explains that the first official version was of "discounted" value when compared with witness testimony given at an inquest, not that the description had no value at all.
It is just 19th century terminology which confuses. Discounted only means 'of lesser value' than it could have been.

Because Cox's description was 'sworn to', the Met. police were induced to give Cox's testimony precedence. Which does not automatically mean that any 'out of court' testimony is useless, it is simply of lesser legal value.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Hi Monty,

I do not reject Abberline's initial endorsement of Hutchinson's statement. I have every faith that at the time he penned the report (a few hours after his first ever meeting with Hutchinson), he meant precisely what he wrote. It is very clear, however, that the police came to discredit his account very shortly after it first appeared, and this is not based on press speculation. We know for certain that the Echo communicated directly with the police, based on other observations they reported in relation to Hutchinson's account, and it was this paper that first alluded to the "considerably discounted" status accorded to Hutchinson's statement.

Cheers,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Lesley,

I agree entirely with your thoughts on Dew. A crucial point that tends to get overlooked very often is that he subscribed to the theory that Kelly had been killed at 1.00am, and that Blotchy (who he mistakenly described as “bearded”) was the killer. This evidently influenced his entire thinking on the Hutchinson question. As you sensibly point out, Dew was offering his personal speculations only in 1938, rather than the accepted wisdom on the matter in 1888 amongst his then police superiors.

Dew proved himself quite willing to provide his own acutely personal views, even if they differed markedly from those of his superiors at the time of the murders. For example, he did not believe that the GSG was written by the killer, in stark contrast to the views of Charles Warren, Henry Smith and others.

His “honestly mistaken” view of Hutchinson was obviously just another of his private opinions, and one which did not enjoy mainstream support in 1888. Dew is often erroneously credited with having suggested that Hutchinson had confused the time of his alleged Astrakhan encounter by an exact 24 hours, whereas in fact, his remarks were far more generalized than that. He observed that some witnesses make errors as to time and date, and that Maxwell and Hutchinson were probably "wrong". People tend to gloss over the “time” bit, but the reality is that Dew never claimed that Hutchinson was “a day out” or whatever it is that modern commentators allege.

It seems likely to me that Dew became aware, during the course of the investigation, that Hutchinson’s account had been discredited, but was not necessarily informed as to why. This is hardly surprisingly considering that “Dew was still a bit of a freshman. He was 25 years old, and not in a commanding position. Therefore, we cannot conclude to which extent he knew about the discussions carried on at a higher level.”

All the best,
Ben