Could Hutchinson have been a minder?

[Ben]

My own take on it is that Hutch had been up to something on the night of the other murders and the police knew it-he must have had sound alibis if you like

What's the basis for this "take" on it, just out of curiosity? Where's the slightest semblence of evidence that the police had a record of what Hutchinson was doing or where he was for a small time frame six weeks prior to the Kelly murder? There isn't any. What was the average single labourer likely to have been doing on the night of the double event? Why sleeping in one of the many lodging houses that proliferated the locality of course. Is their presence there likely to be documented over six weeks later? Absolutely no way. So why the need to conjur up some imaginary "major event" that established his whereabouts for a murder than happened six weeks ago at the very least.

Something so astonishingly naive for Abberline not to twig when some stranger comes in after the inquest and announces he has been standing at the end of Millers Court for two hours on the night of the murder-----Abberline and his men werent "mentally challenged" after all, so how could he and they have let that glaringly obvious fact pass without comment---unless that is they happened to "know" Hutch wasnt the killer?

Do not repeat the same objection once it's been addressed. If the objection is addressed, the thing to do is to respond to that. We don't know whether Hutchinson was suspected or not. If he wasn't, it wouldn't be remotely surprising or unlikely given the absence of any precedent for offenders coming forward as witnesses. If he was, there was nothing concrete with which to snare him anyway, just as there was nothing concrete with which to snare Gary Ridgway when he was initially roped in. He was simply dismissed for lack of evidence.

There isn't always some magic formula for instantly determining whether or not a suspect is guilty or innocent. Far more often, suspects come under police scrutiny but are released because of a lack of evidence, not because they have been proven innocent. If that wasn't the case, we can just as well say "Oh well, nobody ever proved Druitt, Klosowski, or Barnett to be the murderer, so than must mean that somebody discovered proof that neither of them did do it"...and that would be nonsense. We don't apply this ludicrous loopy logic to Klosowski or Druitt, so we shouldn't do it with Hutchinson either. As I said, Ridgway was interviewed as a suspect and was released through lack of evidence. He turned out to be the killer.

I think it is a fairly safe bet that the police at the time saw them too. I mean we are talking about Scotland Yard here not the Keystone Cops.

Yep, and that may explain why he was discredited, CD. More experienced detecives than Abberline have been duped by killers, and in 1888, you can hardly expect anyone to jump to the conclusion that here was Jack the Ripper marching into a police station and asking to be interviewed.

[Natalie Severn]

I have been reading," The Suspicions of Mr Whicher" a true British murder case from 1860.There is no doubt they were trained to interpret suspicious or strange behaviour,search for clues in false testimony ,recognise false leads etc.To imagine that they threw all their training to the wind,in the middle of their hunt for Jack the Ripper and accepted at "face value" and "without question" that Hutchinson was just this "jolly decent,plain speaking,bona fide ,2am "stalker" of Mary Kelly is just plain ridiculous Mike.
No,they must have had a reason for not suspecting Hutchinson.An alibi or some funny business they knew he was involved in.It makes no sense whatsoever to "assume" they didnt bother to check him out.Its just like all the other ridiculous nonsense that gets talked about Hutch.

[Ben]

It makes no sense whatsoever to "assume" they didnt bother to check him out.

We don't, Nats.

We examine both possibilities:

1) Hutchinson wasn't suspected: Not remotely unusual given that policing in general was in its infanyt, let alone police investigations into serial killers. Not remotely unusual given the apparent propensity towards foreign suspects and/or those with butchery/medical skills or those who exuded a more obvious and external "madness".

2) Hutchinson was suspected: There was almost certainly nothing to prove him innocent or guilty, leaving surveillance as the only course of action. Absolutely no reason to posit some magical barometer for determining guilt or innocence with ease. If you check out a suspect, it's very often impossibile to determine guilt of innocence. That isn't how the world works, let alone policing. In this case in particular, they could only "check out" so much.

So he was or he wasn't suspected. Either way, there is nothing whatsoever to support the opinion that he was conclusively ruled out, not without positing the existence of fictional imaginary alibis and the like. As implausible as I consider Druitt as a suspect (for example), I would never in a million years advance the argument that "He wasn't proven guilty, so that must mean he was proven innocent!"

Its just like all the other ridiculous nonsense that gets talked about Hutch.

Most of which emanates from you and all the others who come up with the worst excuses possible for elimating any suspect that interferes with the precious shepherding of some sexed-up rippertoff theory.

[Natalie Severn]

Policing was quite sophisticated actually----read Professor Clive Bloom"s account of the tactics over Fenians----or Christy Campbell"s.
Hutchinson? Do get real!They"d have had his guts for garters Ben---seriously read up on the sophisticated espionage techniques possessed by Monro and Anderson and their international network of spies! Read up on Melville---"M"---
Cheers
....and Abberline was up to his neck in all that,as was Littlechild.

[c.d.]

OK. Let's try it this way --- I think it is a pretty safe assumption that the police would have considered Hutchinson a prime suspect and therefore would have investigated him. But as Ben has pointed out, it is also reasonable to assume that their investigation would have been limited. Now this leaves open the possibility that Hutchinson was Mary's killer and/or the Ripper. But ultimately, I think the police satisfied themselves that he was not Mary's killer for whatever that is worth.

c.d.

[perrymason]

Hi again,

I know how you hate these positions of mine cd...hows the knee by the way?.....but its been on my mind a while just how mixed Abberlines agenda may have been at that time, and whether we should assume all Policemen have a knack for sniffing out the truth. Abberlines forte is Fenians...maybe Undercover work, tailing Fenians, getting them to talk....its what got him downtown. And realistically, the only reason for his re-assignment is his knowledge of streets, and groups and locals. Not necessarily his keen detective acumen, perhaps.

He does make a huge error with Hutchinson, on the suspect details particularly.

That may be why there is no record of a thorough investigation of a man claiming false witness, it was not a shining moment for Abberline, maybe he just wanted distance from the man after being lied to. Moving on...so to speak.

We know Fenians were in high activity with a pending assassination attempt on the near horizon, we know Abberline is a Fenian Fighter...as is Reid, and Pearce, and Thicke...all men assigned to Abberlines posse.

What Im suggesting is that with all that was on his plate, which may have been much greater than just chasing a serial murderer, it may have involved national Revolution,..taking out his disappointment about Hutchinson via a thorough shakedown of the man might have seemed trivial to him. Just Move on....Get this man out of my sight, kind of thing.

Cheers mate.

[Ben]

Well said, Mike.

Policing was quite sophisticated actually

Not in relation to serial killers it wasn't, Nats. They could only have become sophisticated with experience, and they had no experience of serial killers or serial killer investigations. It wasn't instantly figured out that the earth was round, but it doesn't make early geographers stupid or easily duped for believing otherwise.

Hi CD,

I think it is a pretty safe assumption that the police would have considered Hutchinson a prime suspect and therefore would have investigated him.

It's no more or less safe than the assumption that they didn't. As it stands there is absolutely no evidence of any description that they did suspect him, and more than sufficient reason to assume they never did. If they suspected him - and that's a mammoth if - they could not have "satisfied" themselves that he wasn't the killer unless that satifaction was something as trivial as his failure to conform to the "mad" foreginer stereotype.

[perrymason]

Thanks Ben, youve been very supportive pal..appreciate it.

I think it is reasonable to suggest that Hutchinson slipped through the cracks after his suspect was tossed out. And not by neglect...perhaps just priorities.

It is tantalizing to wonder if this man may have been the guy they wanted all along, and he literally walked into the station and duped them. What b***s.

Cheers.

[c.d.]

Hi Michael, Ben,

Well all I can say is that all of us on the boards should pat ourselves on the back because we can see things that trained police at the time did not. And not just any police force but Scotland Yard at that.

And again, and I don't know why I have to keep making this point over and over, but it is not just Abberline who was supposedly duped but anybody at Scotland Yard who was privy to Hutchinson's story.

I'll leave it at that because I have to go now.

Michael - Thanks for asking about the knee. Went to the doctor this week and he said that I am on track as to where I should be at this point. Good strength and range of motion. I have gotten rid of the brace and the cane but am still going to therapy for a few more weeks. Just a matter of time now.

c.d.

[perrymason]

Hi Michael, Ben,

Well all I can say is that all of us on the boards should pat ourselves on the back because we can see things that trained police at the time did not. And not just any police force but Scotland Yard at that.

And again, and I don't know why I have to keep making this point over and over, but it is not just Abberline who was supposedly duped but anybody at Scotland Yard who was privy to Hutchinson's story.

I'll leave it at that because I have to go now.

Michael - Thanks for asking about the knee. Went to the doctor this week and he said that I am on track as to where I should be at this point. Good strength and range of motion. I have gotten rid of the brace and the cane but am still going to therapy for a few more weeks. Just a matter of time now.

c.d.

Glad to hear your mending well cd..

All the best.

[Dr. John Watson]

Poor Hutch. He just gets no respect! There's absolutely no evidence or suggestion he had any business connection with McCarthy, or with Kelly. He was probably a street person and likely well known to the coppers, possibly even Abberline. May even have been a police informant with a proven track record. It's my belief his story of seeing a bloke with Kelly and following them to her room is true. Sure, his incredibly detailed description of the man is open to question, but perhaps he embellished a little to impress Abberline. Abberline was, by all accounts, an astute cop, and if he considered Hutchinson a valid witness, I'll go with that. The fact that we don't find any police reports referencing Hutchinson is not surprising. Police had nothing to go on but his description, so unless a matching suspect was found, there would be no need for a report. There might be reason to report that the evidence Hutchinson gave was false, but how would you prove he was lying? And who's to say there were no reports written about Hutchinson? As I recall, many reports have gone missing, including the entire "Suspects" file. Was the guy Hutchinson saw the Ripper? Probably not. Was Hutchinson? Well, I think he was the guy seen loitering across the street from Kelly's room. And I think that after her murder, he kept quiet, fearing he might be considered a suspect. When he learned he'd been seen, he went in and told his story, a story that might have been true in the basics. As for being the Ripper, he doesn't really match the descriptions of any of the men seen with the victims, so on that account alone, I'll give him a pass.

[Ben]

Well all I can say is that all of us on the boards should pat ourselves on the back because we can see things that trained police at the time did not. And not just any police force but Scotland Yard at that.

Oh for feck's sake, CD!

Either they suspected him or they didn't. We have no evidence either way. There are good reasons for suspecting they didn't, but equally, there are good reasons for suspecting that they may have done. Whichever option you choose to go with, Hutchinson doesn't get ruled out. He just doesn't. It doesn't happen, not without positing the imaginary existence of something that was almost certainly never there or inventing some completely baseless "alibi" from weeks and weeks ago. Again, if people can't get to grips with the notion that experienced detectives are capable of being fooled by liars and killers (and I don't mean you necessarily here, CD), it's clear that they need to read up a little more on a subject they purport an interest in.

[Ben]

Hello John and welcome,

He was probably a street person and likely well known to the coppers, possibly even Abberline.

Wow, John, that's awfully confident isn't it? "Probably" known to the coppers despite it being pretty stinkingly apparent that Hutchinson had introduced himself to the police on 12th November, with Abberline conveying no hint in his report that here was a bloke who was a regular police informer? You can't say there's "absolutely no evidence" of a connection with Kelly or McCarthy whilst claiming in the next breath that he was "probably" well known to Abberline and the police. Surely it's better to concede that there's no proof of an association between Hutchinson and any one of those parties?

Sure, his incredibly detailed description of the man is open to question, but perhaps he embellished a little to impress Abberline. Abberline was, by all accounts, an astute cop, and if he considered Hutchinson a valid witness, I'll go with that.

But he didn't, not in the long run, and nor apparently did any of his police colleagues and superiors including Anderson, Swanson and Macnaghten. He didn't embellish a little. He embellished a lot, and these were not simply off-the-cuff embellishements designed to impress authority or they would hardly have re-appeared with near exactitude and in the same order when he subsequently recited his account to the press. He was effectively memorizing and regurgitating that which he couldn't possibly have noticed. When serial killer Ivan Milat's false witness account was examined, the meticulous detail contained therein was initially chalked up to "photographic memory", but he had nothing of the sort, and he certainly wasn't trying to impress the Australian police.

Not sure quite what you mean about Hutchinson not matching the descriptions of men seen with victims. From what little we know of his appearence, he fares a good deal better than most suspects. If he was the wideawake loiterer, it would make him short, stout, of the labouring class and with a military appearance. This is perfectly compatibile with the descriptions of men seen by Lawende, Schwartz, Wilson and Cox.

Best regards,
Ben

[Dr. John Watson]

Hello, Ben. Actually, I'm an old-timer on the boards, just haven't posted for awhile. I recall many discussions over the years about Hutchinson and his possible relationship with McCarthy and Kelly, but it was all conjecture, as are most of the comments I've read in these recent postings. I don't believe we know any more about the man than was known in 1888. I can't prove that he was a street person known to the local coppers, or that he was an occassional tipster, any more than you can prove he wasn't. I only offered that as a possible explanation as to why Abberline believed his story. You think he "embellished a lot," I think not so much. You believe the police eventually discounted his story. Perhaps, perhaps not. The fact they never mentioned him in connection with their own pet suspects is hardly evidence of that.

As for Hutchinson not matching the descriptions of the Ripper, I had in mind the witness in the Chapman murder, who described a Jewish appearing man, and witnesses Lawende and Schwartz, who described a younger man dressed like a sailor (I don't recall them stating that he was "stout"). There is no evidence that Hutchinson was Jewish, and from the one supposed photograph of him, he wasn't stout (although he did have a mustache). That's all conjecture, of course, as are your statements. Perhaps some day, someone will discover some lost record that will add more to our knowledge of this very interesting man, but until that time, it's fun to hypothesize.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi John,
I agree with what you say.This is a Hutchinson who is credible and real-not a fantasy of JtR.

Ben,
The police I referred to were Anderson,Monro and Littlechild.
A mark of intelligence is the ability to use methods of analysis for different
purposes.Anderson simply could not have been the man of extraordinary skill and intelligence that he was when head of the Special branch[Irish] without being able to transfer those skills of deduction to the Ripper.That was why he was head of the investigation.
Abberline could not have been the man put in charge of the arrest of the Fenian ,who gave his name as James Gilbert----aka Cunningham, at the Tower Of London in 1885,which is why he was picked out to take charge of the Ripper Investigation in a "hands on" way.
Monro was over them all.
I accept to some extent what you say about their "unfamiliarity" with serial killers but lets not forget that within a few years[1891],it was a British agent [Irish] who caught the top hatted toff, "Serial Killer Dr Cream.
Best