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.

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

You certainly don't like making assumptions do you? But you are right in that we have no records that the police checked Hutchinson out. It is an assumption. But let's keep in mind that we are not talking about Abberline as if he operated in a vacuum. It would also include anybody with whom he discussed Hutchinson's story, superiors and underlings. For them to accept Hutchinson at face value would make them ALL dumb as bricks. I believe that trained Scotland Yard detectives would see that he had prime suspect written all over him and would have acted accordingly. And yes, that is an assumption.

c.d.

Before you start patting Abberline on the back for a job well done, lets remember its his Fenian work that gets him the swift promotions, not just his everyday Police skills, his mild nature and treatment of locals might be his strengths,... and he did heartily support the most preposterous suspect statement presented during these cases. An account that is dismissed...obviously...by the replacement of Blotchy Man as # 1 suspect in Mary's murder by November 16th.

In my opinion, we have no reason to suggest they did do any due diligence on Hutch as a suspect, or fully investigate him. We have no records that they did...we have no records that say they did, and we have no records that those records that say they did were destroyed, lost or stolen. In short...there is no evidence that the man who gave an obvious false witness statement, and placed himself in a "suspects" guise, was questioned or investigated at all after they abandoned the story.

I think that before we assume all was done to the "T", its best to remember that no proof of that assumption can be found. And based on the above, IMHO, the lack of any evidence of a suspect oriented investigation, suggests they dropped the ball with Hutch.

Best regards all.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi c.d.,
Thats right.And its best to remember they had some very good detectives amongst them.Abberline was one such by all accounts.

[c.d.]

......exactly Vigilantee.There is indeed something very odd indeed about the Hutchinson tale.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.Did he do one or two favours for the police now and then....kept watch on certain Lodgings---whatever? 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?

Hi Natalie,

If we here on the Casebook who have no training in police matters can see numerous red flags with regards to Hutchinson, 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. We simply don't know what they did about it.

c.d.

[Natalie Severn]

Yes, but the police don't seem to have considered him a suspect for some reason.

......exactly Vigilantee.There is indeed something very odd indeed about the Hutchinson tale.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.Did he do one or two favours for the police now and then....kept watch on certain Lodgings---whatever? 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?

[Ben]

Wouldn't surprise me, Vigilantee.

There was little to no precedent for that sort of behaviour in 1888, and policing in general (let alone policing into serial killers) was in its infancy. Even today, killers occasionally come into police contact without eliciting suspicion.

[Vigilantee]

Well, we appear to be in agreement that Hutchinson more than likely lied in his account, and that he only came forward when he realized he'd been seen by Sarah Lewis near the crime scene an hour or so before Kelly's likely time of death. Someone must have killed Kelly, and if the above holds true for Hutchinson (as I strongly believe it does), it would naturally make him legitimately suspicious character and thus a plausible suspect. Doubly so when we consider that other serial killers have come forward with false "evidence" after fearing incriminating evidence. There may be other reasons for his actions and movements which don't involve him murdering anyone, but I'd suggest he's as good a suspect as you're likely to encounter at this remove in time.

Best regards,
Ben

Yes, but the police don't seem to have considered him a suspect for some reason.

[Ben]

Getting paid? What they do and what they are told to do could well be different

Yes, but why pay them in the first place if they're not doing anything more useful than looking, watching, and hoping that the dodgy client isn't Jack the Ripper? However way you look at it, such a person isn't remotely useful in protecting the prostitutes.

I don't see any special reason to suspect H for murder, just because he lies about the suspect and loiters about on the night

Well, we appear to be in agreement that Hutchinson more than likely lied in his account, and that he only came forward when he realized he'd been seen by Sarah Lewis near the crime scene an hour or so before Kelly's likely time of death. Someone must have killed Kelly, and if the above holds true for Hutchinson (as I strongly believe it does), it would naturally make him legitimately suspicious character and thus a plausible suspect. Doubly so when we consider that other serial killers have come forward with false "evidence" after fearing incriminating evidence. There may be other reasons for his actions and movements which don't involve him murdering anyone, but I'd suggest he's as good a suspect as you're likely to encounter at this remove in time.

Best regards,
Ben

[Vigilantee]

Hi Vigilantee,



But what use is that as a preventative measure against a potentially dangerous client? Keeping an eye on a prostitute is fine, but if the "minders" aren't even bothering to vet the clients, what are they actually acheiving by loitering in the general vicinity?

Getting paid? What they do and what they are told to do could well be different, hence H's need to become a 'useful witness' for his boss to save himself from a dreadful fate. Maybe.

Ah, but what if he didn't exude any external and obvious manifestations of a werido, just as Gary Ridgeway, Ted Bundy and Dennis Rader didn't?

Well in that case it could be anyone. I don't see any special reason to suspect H for murder, just because he lies about the suspect and loiters about on the night. Many reasons for that, of which my hypothesis was just one.

I wouldn't worry about the Indian Harry account. It's likely press tittle-tattle since he makes no allusion to any "stranger" at the inquest.

Not so sure, its quite unusual.

[Ben]

Hi Vigilantee,

I'm not sure the job title is important, just someone to keep an eye on them.

But what use is that as a preventative measure against a potentially dangerous client? Keeping an eye on a prostitute is fine, but if the "minders" aren't even bothering to vet the clients, what are they actually acheiving by loitering in the general vicinity?

Maybe but I think if he was a weirdo he'd be noted as such by the community and we'd know more about him.

Ah, but what if he didn't exude any external and obvious manifestations of a werido, just as Gary Ridgeway, Ted Bundy and Dennis Rader didn't?

I wouldn't worry about the Indian Harry account. It's likely press tittle-tattle since he makes no allusion to any "stranger" at the inquest.

All the best,
Ben

[Vigilantee]

bb

Hi Vigilantee,
If that was the case, then was absolutely no need for the role of a minder at all, which is why I doubt Hutchinson was one. In fact, I'm extremely doubtful that such a job title existed in the East End of 1888. I'm sure you had the occasional "vetter"; someone who checked for concealed weapons etc, but not some hapless loiterer who just watches and hopes that the client isn't Jack the Ripper! You seem quite convinced of McCarthy's dodginess; an opinion to which you're entitled, but there's no evidence that he was running a bothel, and he certainly wouldn't have gone bankrupt if his hypothetical "minder" was a little too thorough in his investigations. Firstly, Miller's Court was not inhabited exclusively, or even primarily, by prostitutes, and even if McCarthy was pimping his residents out, it's clear that some of them servived their clients on the streets rather than in Miller's Court.

I'm not sure the job title is important, just someone to keep an eye on them.

Never underestimate the stupidity of the average person....


I'm not convinced McC was a crook, that was just an arbirary assumption to seed the argument for testing.

But then why fabicate the details of the man's appearance?

The three possibilities related to McC's perception of what had and might happen, not what actually did happen.

We don't know this. He could fit the bill very well indeed, living in the heart of the murder district as many serial killers do (Goulston Street was on a direct path of retreat between Mitre Square and Hutchinson's residence). His proximity to, and apparent fixation with, the crime scene at an hour crucial to the murder certainly ought to place him above most suspects (assuming Hutchinson was the wideawake man which is probable rather than proven), and if he lied about his reasons for being there, even more so. It has been known for some serialists to keep their victims under surveillance (particularly the ones that are killed indoors for some reason), just as it has been known for serial killers to come into contact with the police with false "witness" evidence.

Maybe but I think if he was a weirdo he'd be noted as such by the community and we'd know more about him.

Now the guy seen in the afternoon by Indian Harry sounds far stranger.

He was unlikely to be captured if he came forward. Firstly, an 1888 police force were unlikely to assume that Jack the Ripper had waltzed into a police station requesting an interview, and secondly, even if they did suspect him, there wouldn't have been anything concrete with which to snare him.

Best regards,
Ben

They could always stage an entrapment, it was easier to get away with that then.

[Ben]

Hi Vigilantee,

Its a no win situation, I can't see how a minder could hope to stop the killer.

If that was the case, then was absolutely no need for the role of a minder at all, which is why I doubt Hutchinson was one. In fact, I'm extremely doubtful that such a job title existed in the East End of 1888. I'm sure you had the occasional "vetter"; someone who checked for concealed weapons etc, but not some hapless loiterer who just watches and hopes that the client isn't Jack the Ripper! You seem quite convinced of McCarthy's dodginess; an opinion to which you're entitled, but there's no evidence that he was running a bothel, and he certainly wouldn't have gone bankrupt if his hypothetical "minder" was a little too thorough in his investigations. Firstly, Miller's Court was not inhabited exclusively, or even primarily, by prostitutes, and even if McCarthy was pimping his residents out, it's clear that some of them servived their clients on the streets rather than in Miller's Court.

3) He just watches, doesnt stop killer, but sees him > as a witness he possibly prevents many other killings.

But then why fabicate the details of the man's appearance?

No crush, no domestic, and H doesnt fit the bill of a serial killer

We don't know this. He could fit the bill very well indeed, living in the heart of the murder district as many serial killers do (Goulston Street was on a direct path of retreat between Mitre Square and Hutchinson's residence). His proximity to, and apparent fixation with, the crime scene at an hour crucial to the murder certainly ought to place him above most suspects (assuming Hutchinson was the wideawake man which is probable rather than proven), and if he lied about his reasons for being there, even more so. It has been known for some serialists to keep their victims under surveillance (particularly the ones that are killed indoors for some reason), just as it has been known for serial killers to come into contact with the police with false "witness" evidence.

He was unlikely to be captured if he came forward. Firstly, an 1888 police force were unlikely to assume that Jack the Ripper had waltzed into a police station requesting an interview, and secondly, even if they did suspect him, there wouldn't have been anything concrete with which to snare him.

Best regards,
Ben

[Vigilantee]

I can buy the hypothetical scenario wherein Hutchinson the lazy minder tries to cover his tracks by telling McCarthy alone that he "almost" stopped the killer, but the actual content of his statement doesn't bear this out at all. He didn't "almost" stop him at all. He had him under surveillance, but did nothing about it, which is arguably worse than not being there at all.

If I was McCarthy I'd shot him for not being there, but only break his legs for failing to stop him by watching. )

Its a no win situation, I can't see how a minder could hope to stop the killer.

But I think there's a logic it to it though, if you look at the alternatives and possible results.

1) He's not there > Jack kills Kelly, possibly goes on to kill many others. McCarthy has small loss.

2) He intervenes with all clients scaring off Jack and others > Kelly lives, McCarthy goes bankrupt, killer kills many others.

3) He just watches, doesnt stop killer, but sees him > as a witness he possibly prevents many other killings. I.e. he just scans for the killer and doesnt need to scan every punter. McCarthy hires him out as witness to assist other more professional minders, makes increased profit.

The fact he lied doesn't matter, as this is just in McCarthy's perception of H's value. Its not in H's interest to report anything to police or press. Until he has to clear his name as a suspect when realises he's been spotted.

No, that isn't what "off the record" means. I've tried to explain this to a few others. Abberline's police report was written by a senior police offical to a senior police official. It was intended for police circulation only, and certainly not for contemporary public consumption. That being so, Abberline was at liberty to say whatever he liked about Hutchinson and his account, and if he deliberately suppressed some complicated shinanigan involving the police doing deals with McCarthy and so on, he'd effectively have been lying to superiors for absolutely no reason. They may have "realised he was lying" at a later stage, but on the evening of 12th November, there can be little doubt that Abberline forwarded all the salient information with regard to Hutchinson's statement.

Hmmmm, okay I stand corrected on the term. But wouldn't it benefit Abbeline to have a pool of informers his superiors didn't know about? Career benefit?

Why would he need a motive or a "crush" to be involved in the murder, unless the Kelly murder was a "domestic" as some people believe?

Yes, thats what I meant. The kind of mutilation involved has been allegedly been seen in serial killings and domestics. No crush, no domestic, and H doesnt fit the bill of a serial killer, and if he was he would have been caught after he came to police scrutiny surely? Especially if he couldn't account for his whereabouts during the other murders. I'm assuming the police checked this and that there weren't two serial killers of same type in Whitechapel.

[Ben]

This is why his statement portrays himself as a diligent minder

It doesn't, though, Vigilantee. His statement portrays himself as a lousy minder who didn't investigate or vet the client, but who just plonks himself in a useless position on the opposite side of the street to where the murder took place. That's not diligent. Allowing the killer access to Kelly was bad enough, but to actually detail the sequence of events that acutely highlights his inadequecy as a minder to McCarthy and everyone else seems a very imprudent and unlikely move, and disasterous for his hypothetical "minding" career to boot, since any prostitutes who knew of Hutchinson's employment would avoid his lousy "services" at all costs thereafter. I can buy the hypothetical scenario wherein Hutchinson the lazy minder tries to cover his tracks by telling McCarthy alone that he "almost" stopped the killer, but the actual content of his statement doesn't bear this out at all. He didn't "almost" stop him at all. He had him under surveillance, but did nothing about it, which is arguably worse than not being there at all.

By off the record I mean nothing written down anywhere ever, and word of mouth between a few people only.

No, that isn't what "off the record" means. I've tried to explain this to a few others. Abberline's police report was written by a senior police offical to a senior police official. It was intended for police circulation only, and certainly not for contemporary public consumption. That being so, Abberline was at liberty to say whatever he liked about Hutchinson and his account, and if he delberately suppressed some complicated shinanigan involving the police doing deals with McCarthy and so on, he'd effectively have been lying to superiors for absolutely no reason. They may have "realised he was lying" at a later stage, but on the evening of 12th November, there can be little doubt that Abberline forwarded all the salient information with regard to Hutchinson's statement.

And without a crush he's unlikely to be involved in the murder as he has no motive.

Why would he need a motive or a "crush" to be involved in the murder, unless the Kelly murder was a "domestic" as some people believe? The killer of Eddowes didn't need a motive beyond any satisfaction he derived from murder and mutilation, and he certanly didn't need to have a "crush" on her, so why would we expect anything different with Kelly? Other serial killers have stalked their victims from a vantage point without having a crush on them, or even knowing them, while other killers have come into contact with police under the guise of witnesses with false information.

Surely an attention diverter (or even an attention seeker) should make it simple and believable, with no curious details, something like 'then he glanced up at me and I saw his evil face'.

If he was a good attention seeker, yes, but if he was a rather lousy one who wanted to take advantage of the "sinister Jew" stereotype and believed that the more detail he included, the more it would lend weight to his assertion that he could "swear to the man anywhere"...then a false claim to have scanned the client would make sense. In any event, minders needn't have been expert scanners since the only pertinent detail of a man's appearance concerned the likelihood of him carrying a concealed weapon. Our hypothetical minder is hardly going to bother noticing horseshoe tie-pins and white buttons over button boots, and nobody would expect such "scanning" abilities of him.

I think an 'interview' or even a questioning chat would have killed Kelly's trade.

Yes, but so would delivering Jack the Ripper to the prostitutes all the time. If an interview or questioning chat was not required, then the role of a "minder" would have been rendered utterly redundant.

Best regards,
Ben