Could Hutchinson have been a minder?

[brummie]

I am a little confused by George Hutchinsons motivation and timing.If we believe that Abberline believed his story,and he was the person best placed to make that judgement, then the man seen by Hutchinson has a strong possibilty of being the Ripper and yet his decision to make a statement to the police was not made until days later.could it be that he was the man seen hanging around the square that night and having realised he had been seen needed to explain his presence to avoid being identified and suspected.

[Natalie Severn]

Brummie,
There has been a lot of speculation about Hutchinson as to why he did this and that.Bob Hinton has written an very well researched book about him possibly being the Ripper.I am not convinced as I think there may be a simple reason for Hutchinson apparently not being suspected.He may have been someone the police knew "didnt do" or "could not have done" the murders.Maybe they knew he could not have done the Hanbury Street murder for example ,because he was into small time crime and they knew he had been doing something else at the time.We just dont know.To assume the Police didnt know what they were doing isnt at all convincing if you have ever read about what those very same cops did to uncover and foil the Fenian Dynamiters.Or the story of the surveillance and capture of Dr Cream.
With regard to Anderson and his Polish Jew suspect,I believe Anderson may have been led to a certain extent by his prejudices about Polish Jews and their "secret activities" , I accept though that there must have been a reason and a basis for thinking what he did and saying what he said .However because he was head of CID and throughout his life was required to be duplicitous in his own secret world of espionage, he could have been telling us less than the full truth when he said he knew "for certain" about the Ripper.
If they had known who the Ripper was for certain, Macnaghten wouldnt have said,in 1894,not that long after the murders ,that he had "three" men in mind that he suspected,his own prime suspect being Druitt.He would have only given just one name.

[Observer]

Hi John

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.

Sarah Lewis and Schwartz's both refer to a broad shouldered man, I know it's not much, but if Lewis's man is Hutchie then it appears he had broad shoulders

Observer

[Observer]

Hi all

In fairness should you judge the effectiveness of the LVP police force on the strength of the fact that they failed to catch JTR?

As Anderson said undetected murder in London was a rare thing

It’s hard enough nowadays to catch the serial killer, look at the merry dance Sutcliiffe lead Scotland Yard, and the West Yorkshire police.

All the best

Observer

[perrymason]

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. 1, I don't believe we know any more about the man than was known in 1888. 2, 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. 3, You think he "embellished a lot," I think not so much. 4, 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.

Hi John,

I suspect that we might have seen you as Clem before. We'll see. It does seem that you form some opinions using incorrect base data.

1. We dont know what they knew, or if they knew anything, so suggesting that we and they had similar overall knowledge of George Hutchinson is mere conjecture at this point.

2. Whether he was a police informant or not, a snitch, a stool pigeon, it has little bearing on his Monday statement that leads us to believe he was Wideawake, or his reasons for doing so. Or his fanciful suspect description.

3. "Embellished" implies that there is a truth, or a nugget of one, in his suspect description. It suggests Mary was returning.... when we have no evidence she went out, and with a man who at after 2am, in dim light, Hutch described down to his tie pin. I think you'll find that not one serious researcher uses any of Hutchinson's account regarding the suspect he claimed...and for good reason.

4. To end this speculation once and for all......HUTCHINSONS SUSPECT WAS DISCARDED BY NOVEMBER 16th, BLOTCHY MAN REPLACED HIM.

The police as of November 16th were looking for Mary Ann Cox'x Blotchy Faced Man....because, according to the credible evidence presented by the court and house residents, and the best reasoning they could apply, he was the last man seen with Mary Jane.

Best regards.

[Dr. John Watson]

Hi John,

I suspect that we might have seen you as Clem before. We'll see. It does seem that you form some opinions using incorrect base data.

1. We dont know what they knew, or if they knew anything, so suggesting that we and they had similar overall knowledge of George Hutchinson is mere conjecture at this point.

2. Whether he was a police informant or not, a snitch, a stool pigeon, it has little bearing on his Monday statement that leads us to believe he was Wideawake, or his reasons for doing so. Or his fanciful suspect description.

3. "Embellished" implies that there is a truth, or a nugget of one, in his suspect description. It suggests Mary was returning.... when we have no evidence she went out, and with a man who at after 2am, in dim light, Hutch described down to his tie pin. I think you'll find that not one serious researcher uses any of Hutchinson's account regarding the suspect he claimed...and for good reason.

4. To end this speculation once and for all......HUTCHINSONS SUSPECT WAS DISCARDED BY NOVEMBER 16th, BLOTCHY MAN REPLACED HIM.

The police as of November 16th were looking for Mary Ann Cox'x Blotchy Faced Man....because, according to the credible evidence presented by the court and house residents, and the best reasoning they could apply, he was the last man seen with Mary Jane.

Best regards.

Hello Perry.

First of all, I was never known as "Clem." When I first joined the forums, I used the screen name "Sherlock." Later, I had to re-register and began using the name "Dr. John Watson," and readopted that name after the crash. I'm a retired legal investigator and have been studying JTR since Don Rumbelow's book came out in 1975. I never professed to be a "serious researcher," but as a trained investigator, I try to be objective.

As for your comments:

(1) Agree.

(2) Disagree.

(3) Rubbish.

(4) It's possible police eventually discarded Hutchinson's suspect, just as they may have discarded the "blotchy" faced fellow. After all, why should they believe Cox any more than Hutchinson? Was either "suspect" ever identified or located? Neither matches the descriptions given by credible witnesses, such as Schwartz and Lawende.

Sometimes we get so carried away with our pet theories that we make the mistake of "making our case" by building one inference upon another, which usually leads to untenable positions. It's fun to speculate, which is what we're doing here. But sharing various theories is not research. When you stop to think of it (with apologies to the many fine researchers who have added to our knowledge of the murders over the years), there is really is no convincing evidence against any of the named Ripper suspects - nothing that would stand up in court.

[Ben]

Hi John,

I only offered that as a possible explanation as to why Abberline believed his story

I understand and appreciate that, and when you argue that no evidence exists for a prior relationship between Hutchinson and McCarthy, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Trouble is, there is equally no evidence for a prior relationship between the police/Abberline and Hutchinson. The fact that Abberline made no reference to being familiar with Hutchinson in his 12th November report speaks even less for the possibility of a prior acquaintance, but that's just my view.

The fact they never mentioned him in connection with their own pet suspects is hardly evidence of that.

Ah, no.

Here I'd have to disagree rather more strongly.

Sir Robert Anderson stated that the only person to have acquired a view of the murder was Jewish. Hutchinson wasn't Jewish, and yet he alleged a better look than any of the Jewish suspects. Clearly there is an element of congruity here, and even more clearly, Hutchinson is conspicuous in his absence from any identity parade involving Kosminski (and Sadler and Grainger for that matter). Anderson, Swanson et al could only have discarded Hutchinson in this regard unless they had a pretty compelling reason to believe that his evidence was usless for the purpose of tracking down a potential murderer. Such a reason would not - and could not - include a mere assumption on the part of the police that the real killer arrived on the scene after the Astrakhan man left. It could, however, be explained by a police consensus against Hutchinson's veracity, which was the case with Packer, Violenia and others.

Bear in mind that Macnaghten agreed, stating that nobody saw the murderer unless it was the City PC in Mitre Square, and even Hutchinson's early champion, Frederick Abberline, had dismissed his evidence by 1903 or he would not have stated that the witnesses had only acquired rear views of their suspects or described men with peaked caps - bit odd considering that here was an idea opportunity to draw paralells between surly foreign Astrakhan and surly foreign Klosowski. Not so coincidentally, the witnesses that do meet this criteria were the ones mentioned in a report on the witnesses drawn up by Swanson.

I had in mind the witness in the Chapman murder, who described a Jewish appearing man

That witness had only acquired a rear view of the man, so she was in literally in no position to judge. It's like saying "He had a long overcoat on, but he definitely had pink underwear!"

and witnesses Lawende and Schwartz, who described a younger man dressed like a sailor (I don't recall them stating that he was "stout").

That's true of course, but younger than who? Nobody has ever been able to track down an age for Hutchinson. We've only short, stout (if he was widewake man), military appearence, and labouring class to work with, and that's perfectly compatible with the Cox, Schwartz, Lawende, and Wilson sightings. Certainly more compatible with the majority of other suspects. Don't be fooled by that photograph, by the way. It's of the wrong man entirely.

Hi Nats,

I am not convinced as I think there may be a simple reason for Hutchinson apparently not being suspected

Again, we don't have enough information to say with any certainly whether or not Hutchinson was suspected. What we can say, with some confidence, is that whether they suspected him or not, they were incredibly unlikely to have determined his guilt or innocence. We can conjur up the imaginary existence of some magic alibi that almost certainly never existed, but if we don't do that to "exonerate" Druitt, Stephenson, Klosowski and Barnett (who were all investigated as suspects) we don't do it for Hutchinson. More experienced detectives who operate in this day and age are regularly in the habit of releasing suspects due to lack of evidence; suspects that turn out to be the killer. It's not unusual, it's fairly text book.

Hi Brummie,

could it be that he was the man seen hanging around the square that night and having realised he had been seen needed to explain his presence to avoid being identified and suspected.

Absolutely. That's long been by take on it, and would certainly account for the "coincidence" of timing that led to his coming forward very shortly the inquest was terminated and became public knowledge.

All the best!

Ben

[Natalie Severn]

John ,thankyou for your contibution-I thought you might have some professional expertise in investigative techniques somehow
You are absolutely right too.Not only is there no "convincing evidence" that would stand up in court-there is "no evidence" on any of them-period.
And in my opinion, Ben is barking up the wrong tree with Hutch .

[Ben]

And in my opinion, Ben is barking up the wrong tree with Hutch .

An opinion to which you're entitled, Natalie, but none of the current objections really hold water. In particular, the "X wasn't proven guilty so that means X must have been proven innocent" is far more applicable to other suspects than it is to Hutchinson, not that it's a valid objection anyway.

[Natalie Severn]

But no evidence Ben----none.And it applies to every suspect we know of.
Best
Norma

[perrymason]

Hi John,

Ill address your points inside the quote...

First of all, I was never known as "Clem."

Then my apologies for suggesting you might be. He was someone that had a bit of a fetish for Hutchinson and giving Ben pain, its that you are the only other poster Ive seen giving Hutch's suspect description credibility.

I never professed to be a "serious researcher," but as a trained investigator, I try to be objective.

I think thats a pre-response to my contention that no such researcher would use Hutchinson's suspect details John, Im sure you are objective, but I stand by that remark.

As for your comments:

(1) Agree.

(2) Disagree.

My contention in point 2 was that whether Hutchinson was being used as a police snitch or not it has no bearing on his statements or suspect description. After having you disagree with that, I did see one way it might....and thats when they should have investigated him after discovering he fabricated his story. Had he been a local snitch, payroll type, maybe they would have let him go without follow-up. But I cant see where evidence he was one is present, and I still think the original point is correct.

(3) Rubbish.

Exposing your Nationality...North Americans I think would use "bull". This is the serious researcher area. I said there wasn't embellishment, it was pure fabrication, and its treated as such by any serious student of the crimes that Ive read. But they assert the position more gently than I do. You think that rubbish, Im curious as to why.

(4) It's possible police eventually discarded Hutchinson's suspect, just as they may have discarded the "blotchy" faced fellow. After all, why should they believe Cox any more than Hutchinson? Was either "suspect" ever identified or located? Neither matches the descriptions given by credible witnesses, such as Schwartz and Lawende.

Again John, its not possible, its a fact it was discarded..try to find one reference to Astrakan Man as suspect in Mary Janes murder after November 16th. The suspect of record was, and still is today, Blotchy Faced Man. Cox lived in the courtyard and walked by Marys room a number of times between midnight and 3am. We know Mary Ann Cox knew Mary Jane. Ms Cox is eminently qualified to offer us the best witness evidence of Mary's last sighting...at 11:45pm pm on the 8th. Thats why she is a better witness than Hutchinson. As far as matching suspects from other Ripper cases, no, none of the suspects suggested are a "match" for any prior sightings, but why should there be.....its far from a given she was even killed by the same man that some others were.

When you stop to think of it (with apologies to the many fine researchers who have added to our knowledge of the murders over the years), there is really is no convincing evidence against any of the named Ripper suspects - nothing that would stand up in court.

I could'nt agree more. There are some compelling stories that have some sound supporting circumstantial evidence, but no Trial Worthy arguments.

Sorry about my initial tone John, you seem a decent fellow, Im sorry I wondered aloud about your intentions.

Best regards.

[Dr. John Watson]

Ben: Although you rely almost entirely on inferences, I must say you present your case logically and persuasively. Certainly after a period of time, police came to consider Schwartz and Lawende more credible witnesses than any other, which is not surprising considering that both men were likely describing the same suspect. But the fact remains that Hutchinson, for whatever reason, was able to convince Abberline that he was telling the truth. It also shows that Abberline, who certainly knew of the earlier suspect descriptions, was keeping an open mind, the sign of an experienced investigator.

I put very little value on the remarks of Anderson and Macnaghten or, for that matter, on Abberline's "you've got Jack the Ripper at last" comment concerning Chapman. I think they were as much in the dark then as we are now, an appraisal Abberline himself is quoted as making.

Michael: Your questions are valid, and I'm working on a response.

[Ben]

Hi John,

Thanks for the kind words.

I fully accept that Abberline was initially of the view that Hutchinson was telling the truth, just as I accept that he was keeping an open mind on the matter*, but it does appear that this opinion was subsequently revised, and that other senior officials shared that view. They didn't agree on everything, or even most aspects of the case, but here was one detail upon which they appeared to be in collective agreement, as I outlined in my previous post.

Best wishes,
Ben

*Given that he penned his report before any investigations into Hutchinson could commence, he had little choice, and he would certainly have exposed himself to criticism had he given a witness account an instant knee-jerk dismissal (however implausible it may, on the surface, have appeared).

[Dr. John Watson]

Hello Michael.

Re: Point 2. I disagreed because if Hutch was known to Abberline or his fellow officers, possibly as an informant, it might explain why Abberline believed him. Absent any such relationship, Abberline must have been persuaded by Hutchinson's story on its own merits, lending that much more credence to it.

Re Point 3. I'm a Yank, but I've always loved the British use of "rubbish" as a total rejection of another's argument! Yes, it certainly is a stretch to believe Hutchinson could have noticed - and remembered - things like a fellow's tie pin and shoes, especially considering the conditions under which he observed the man, but that doesn't mean he didn't see the man with Kelly when he said he did. You also mention that no one was found who saw Kelly go out. You realize, of course, that doesn't mean she didn't go out, or that she didn't come back, go out again, do a cartwheel, vomit, sing "Rule Britania" and solicit the parish priest! It only means that police found no one who saw her. So to my mind, rejecting Hutchinson's entire statement on the inferences you have mentioned would be a mistake no skilled investigator would make. And your contention that no "serious researcher" puts stock in Hutchinson's account, even if valid, is hardly evidence of anything, except perhaps tunnel vision on the part of the researcher.

Re: Point 4. The problem here, Michael, is that when you cite something as "fact" which is supportable only by inferences, you're just asking to be challenged. You say Hutchinson's suspect "WAS DISCARDED" by Nov. 16th, and you emphasized "was" in every way you could (caps, bold, underlined), which is tantamount to strapping me down, shoving a blow-horn in my ear and blasting directly into my brain! Okay, you got my attention! Now, where's your proof? Show me one document, one report, one news story, heck, I'll even settle for one verified rumor, that Hutchinson's suspect had been "discarded" by even one cop. See, except for the word "discarded," (which I take to mean thrown out as totally worthless) what you're suggesting is a logical conclusion based on a reasonable inference - but it's not fact. By the way, if you'll settle for the liklihood that police quickly placed more importance on the chap described by Schwartz and Lawende than on Hutchinson's man, I'll agree with you.

[Dr. John Watson]

Ben:

I'm happy to say, we are in total agreement!

John