Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

1. Abberline and the whole police force were under stress and scrutiny and no different than any other police force in the free world that couldn't apprehend a notorious villain.

Absolutely, just as long as we accept that this sort of "stress and scrutiny" can obviously lead to mistakes and misjudgments. If there's a difference, we're talking here about an era in which organised policing was still in its relative infancy, and when serial killers were virtually unheard of.

2. Hutchinson was questioned, checked out rather thoroughly, produced viable alibi, and was believed for a time by an excellent detective.

Viable alibi? No. Even Hutchinson himself makes clear he didn't have one. According to his account, he left Miller's Court entrance at 3.00am and "walked about all night". Unless you're now arguing that he bumped into a strategically and conveniently located night owl half an hour later, and withheld the detail from his interviewers, he most certainly did not have a "viable alibi". Checked out "rather thoroughly"? Well, as thorough as it's possible to be within a couples of hours' time frame. "Excellent" detective? Competent perhaps, but I haven't see too much evidence of "excellence".

3. Hutchinson was so credible that he even accompanied the police on a sort of reenactment of what he claims to have seen

No, there was no "reenatment", just an attempt to spot the Astrakhan man on the streets with police accompanying him. This lasted until his statement came to be doubted, i.e. not very long at all. Garry Wroe even suggested, rather persuasively to my mind, that it might have been on one such Astrak-hunting perambulation that he slipped up somehow and injured his credibility.

4. Walking from Romford was not suspicious enough, nor was the idea of his waiting near the Court entrance, nor the idea of giving money periodically to Kelly, for the police to doubt his statement and interrogation (if they were not the same thing)

No, but that could only mean the difference between a good liar and a lousy one.

“5. The police would have wanted to believe Hutchinson's story once he, as a person, was checked out, because if he were credible, his lead would have seemed of massive importance.”

Agreed…I think.

As long as it’s understood that if any “checking out” occurred, it could only have gone so far, short of crystal balls and magic wands.

“6. Other, earlier reports of a fairly well-to-do suspect would certainly have come into play when it came to believing Hutchinson's story.”

Which earlier reports are these?

“7. Somewhere along the way, but not quickly, the lead soured. We don't know why.”

We do, if we accept the Echo report, which we should.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere,

“I agree ‘interrogate’ is a useful word. It was used specifically in relation to Abberline’s questioning of Hutchinson and implies a considerable degree of rigour was involved. I would hazard a guess that by this stage in the enquiry they were used to Walter Mitty types coming forward, who under ‘interrogation’ contradicted themselves and altered their story, which progressively fell apart.

Absolutely. I’ve made this point several times. By this stage of the investigation, the police were deluged with publicity seekers, money grabbers and, yes, Walter Mitty types. An interrogation was required to separate the wheat from the chaff. However, this late stage was also when desperation set in; when it was more likely – not less – for the police to “clutch at any straw” in response to mounting pressure. In early September, by contrast, mutilation murder was essentially brand new, and with the external pressure less intense, the interrogations conducted at that time were probably more thorough. We can forget the idea that Cross was subjected to any less thorough an interrogation than Hutchinson. Cross can at least be placed at a crime scene (as the body’s discoverer no less), whereas Hutchinson only claimed – with no corroboration – to be there.

“We are able to determine (with a fair degree of certainty) that the police did not establish Lechmere’s real name because they continued to refer to him just as Cross whenever they mentioned him in their internal files”

No. I strongly disagree. The police could easily have paid a visit to Cross’s residence and ascertained his true identity. There was no onus on them to adjust the records. If he had introduced himself to the police as Cross, and they knew it was a legitimate name, i.e. the name of his police stepfather as opposed to a random alias, there wasn’t the slightest need to adjust the official record. The consensus of opinion, as you’ll note, is that there was nothing suspicious about his use of his stepfather’s name, and that there was never a more understandable time to use it than during a murder investigation, when he didn’t want his birth name associated with such things in the press. It is also highly doubtful that Cross-as-murderer would use an alternative name that could so easily be exposed upon a visit to his known address. He could hardly have relied on the police inexplicably not bothering.

It is completely untenable to argue that they didn’t bother investigating the first person to discover a body, and who was unquestionably there at the crime scene, but became indefatigable and obsessed when it came to checking out Hutchinson.

“Lechmere – so far as we can determine – came forward voluntarily.”

So did Hutchinson, and that’s definite, not just “so far as we can determine”.

“Another murder happened on the doorstep of Paul’s workplace – not on the doorstep of Lechmere’s workplace”

But right along Cross’s self-confessed work route. I’m afraid there is no escaping the reality that if Robert Paul was suspected of being the killer, they would certainly have looked into Cross. Paul arrived at the body later that Cross did, and there was every possibility that they were in cahoots.

“It isn’t my purpose to insert Lechmere into this Hutchinson discussion – I was merely responding to the now commonplace endeavour to deflect criticism from suspect Z by attempting to bring Lechmere into the equation”

I was responsible for bringing up Cross, so no worries there, and I only “deflect criticism” when I note that the criticisms concerned are far more applicable to the critic’s suspect than they are to Hutchinson. If the Good Mike, for instance, chimed in with the “criticism” that Hutchinson can’t be placed at the other murder scenes, we’d be having a nice long James Kelly thread now!

“The other point about Hutchinson is that he remained part of the police investigation for a considerably longer time than the duration of his interrogation by Abberline.”

Not at all.

Hutchinson’s statement was discarded very shortly after it first appeared, unlike Cross’s, which as far we’re aware continued to be treated as both truthful and accurate.

And as you know people living in lodging houses with no regular employment were the very class the police tended to view with suspicion.

No, not much evidence for that.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I did miss “to whatever extent this was possible” – apologies for that. Just as long as it is appreciated that they would have investigated Cross to precisely the same extent, and perhaps more, when we consider that he had a proven connection to the crime scene, as opposed to a self-alleged one, like Hutchinson. No, I don’t rule out the possibility that a policeman entered the Victoria Home to inquire about Hutchinson. It is unlikely in the extreme that anything productive would come of such a visit – “Yes, he came here as George Hutchinson”, “Don’t know much about him – seems alright” “Keeps imself to imself” etc etc. However, if you wish to argue that the police visited the Victoria Home to investigate Hutchinson, you effectively deny yourself the right to argue that the police didn’t investigate Cross’s home and Pickfords, lest you be accused of glaring inconsistency and double standards by a very stroppy me! That’s all I’m objecting to here.

As I’ve made clear to Lechmere, I completely reject the suggestion that the failure to substitute “Cross” for “Lechmere” in the official record means that the police were so lazy and incompetent that they were incapable of conducting, or unwilling to conduct the very simplest of investigations (and if that’s the case, Hutchinson ran rings around them). If he introduced himself to the police using his police stepfather’s name, that’s how he would have been recorded in official records, regardless of whether or not the police ascertained his birth name (and they probably did).

We do not “see” that Hutchinson’s story continued to be “followed up on”. If you follow up on something, you actively investigate it, and there is no evidence of that happening in Hutchinson’s case after mid November of 1888. I hope you’re not suggesting – and do please correct me if I’m putting words in your mouth again – that IF Hutchinson continued to be “valued” as a non-lying witness, that points away from guilt, because if you are, that’s yet another own goal scored for Cross, who unquestionably continued to be taken seriously as a genuine witness.

Boris’s point is a good one, and it parallels James Tully’s precisely. The police at the time were under enormous pressure and suffered from a paucity of strong leads. This may have led them react more favourably towards Hutchinson than they would under more “relaxed” circumstances. It would have been music to Abberline’s ears, for instance, to learn that the suspect, if real, “can be identified”.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

I did miss “to whatever extent this was possible” – apologies for that. Just as long as it is appreciated that they would have investigated Cross to precisely the same extent, and perhaps more, when we consider that he had a proven connection to the crime scene, as opposed to a self-alleged one, like Hutchinson.
All the best,
Ben

So let me see if I got this right: you apologize for once more having misrepresented me and put words in my mouth - but only if I accept that Lechmere would have been subjected to "precisely the same extent, and perhaps more" of investigation that Hutchinson suffered...?

Are you actually trying to trade your way out of having stepped in it? Please tell me that I misread that.

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

From dusk till dawn

2. Hutchinson was questioned, checked out rather thoroughly, produced viable alibi, and was believed for a time by an excellent detective.

Mike

Hi Mike.

No.
He did not produce any viable alibi.
He said he had been roaming the streets alone.
The night was warm and starry that spring, he could not resist.
Seriously, it can't be called an alibi.

Cheers

[DVV]

forgot one:
7. serial killers are known to be pretty good liars.

Hi Abby,

and indeed the Petticoat Lane episode is...I lack words...in French I'd go for : un incroyable foutage de gueule...

Cheers

[bolo]

Hello Fisherman,

In Hutchinson´s case, they listened to him, interrogated him and came to the concllusion that he was telling a true story. That does not translate into not leading to any wortwhile results. Instead they initially believed that they had secured a star witness and a description of a man who was quite possibly the killer. That would have been regarded as worthwhile, methinks.

From what I've read in the JTR Sourcebook and other sources, Abberline believed Hutch's story to be true and rated him as an important witness, and that's it. I fail to see any "star witness" rating here.

And as we can see that Hutchinson´s story was still followed up on even after the diminution of importance it suffered, I think we must accept that significant value was ascribed to him throughout.

I don't think we have to accept that. Hutch went to the police after the inquest and came up with a testimony that seems fabricated to me to some extend. The very detailed description of A-Man sounds too good to be true in my ears.

What's more, I'm having difficulties finding contemporary sources that support the claim of a significant value of Hutch's statement after he was interrogated by Abberline, that's why I would be helpful if you could point me to some.

That´s an odd way of putting it. If he reported the theft of a bike, or what?He was a murder case witness, so how could the situation be less urgent? Or are you suggesting that they would have thrown hi out if he surfaced after the Nichols deed, but pounced on him after Kelly?

I want to say that Abberline was under great pressure to catch the Whitechapel killer(s) so it's only natural he believed Hutch's story. He basically had no other option at that point in time. I think under normal circumstances, Abberline would not have called him an important witness.

Loss of memory ...? Where did you get that from? What was it he could not remember? More pertinently, what was asked and answered during the interrogation?

I may have mixed something up here. What I want to say is that Hutch's testimony is centered around his strangely detailed description of a man of Jewish appearance. I guess that is all he wanted to get across... but to top it all off, he also delivered a lot of rather meaningless details down to the horse shoe pin. Do you honestly believe he could spot all these details by just watching the couple walking past him? Personally I do not.

How could it be - if it was so very obvious that he should not be treated with any confidence? Are you not gainsaying yourself here?

No. He rated him as important because Hutch was the only one who came up with a detailed description of a man that could have been the last person to have been in Mary Kelly's company before her death (and after Blotchy went home, or not, who knows). I think Hutch made up his story and the fact that an obviously intelligent and experienced copper like Abberline believed him looks to me like a slightly desperate move.

What about Cox, Boris? Not substantial? Dew would have disagreed ... And I really don´t think that there is any police policy saying that the least bad witness must be believed!

You are right, Cox' sighting of Blotchy Man was an important detail. Maybe I was a bit too quick with my comment.

Best wishes,

Boris

[Fisherman]

bolo: Hello Fisherman,

From what I've read in the JTR Sourcebook and other sources, Abberline believed Hutch's story to be true and rated him as an important witness, and that's it. I fail to see any "star witness" rating here.

Well, Abberline would not word it "star witness", that´s for sure. Nevertheless, that was what Hutchinson seemingly was for some time.

I don't think we have to accept that. Hutch went to the police after the inquest and came up with a testimony that seems fabricated to me to some extend. The very detailed description of A-Man sounds too good to be true in my ears.

What's more, I'm having difficulties finding contemporary sources that support the claim of a significant value of Hutch's statement after he was interrogated by Abberline, that's why I would be helpful if you could point me to some.

It´s in the papers, bolo. The Echo, for instance, makes it clear that the Hutchinson track was followed up on alongside the Cox track for some significant time. Etcetera. It´s all been quoted numerous times on the boards.

I want to say that Abberline was under great pressure to catch the Whitechapel killer(s) so it's only natural he believed Hutch's story. He basically had no other option at that point in time. I think under normal circumstances, Abberline would not have called him an important witness.

Pressure only cannot itself shape belief. There must be quality to the testimony too. And Abberline always had the option not to believe a witness. That too was dependant on the quality of the testimony. I´ve said it before and I´ll say it again: police work is largely ruled by routine, in order to ensure not falling into traps like the one you suggest.

I may have mixed something up here. What I want to say is that Hutch's testimony is centered around his strangely detailed description of a man of Jewish appearance. I guess that is all he wanted to get across... but to top it all off, he also delivered a lot of rather meaningless details down to the horse shoe pin. Do you honestly believe he could spot all these details by just watching the couple walking past him? Personally I do not.

It matters not what you and I honestly believe. We both know that both camps have their spokesmen, and that will be because some people think it an impossible feat, whereas others think it´s completely viable. We really should not doubt the honesty of either group. That would be preposterous.

No. He rated him as important because Hutch was the only one who came up with a detailed description of a man that could have been the last person to have been in Mary Kelly's company before her death (and after Blotchy went home, or not, who knows). I think Hutch made up his story and the fact that an obviously intelligent and experienced copper like Abberline believed him looks to me like a slightly desperate move.

I can only point to the fact that others are of the opposite opinion. It also applies that none of the officers in charge who wrote memoirs ever mentioned any lack of faith in Abberline because of this. He walked untarnished through the affair.
I have also been told that witnesses furnishing very detailed descriptions are more prone to be liars than more economical witnesses. I doubt this very much, but even if it was true, then the police would be wary of this too, one would think.

You are right, Cox' sighting of Blotchy Man was an important detail. Maybe I was a bit too quick with my comment.

I wish I could say that I´m never too quick on the trigger myself, but alas ...

All the best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

... I think Hutch made up his story and the fact that an obviously intelligent and experienced copper like Abberline believed him looks to me like a slightly desperate move.

Then you must admit that your view of Abberline is predicated by an assumption that Hutchinson lied.
If you are wrong, what does that do to your view of Abberline?

[The Good Michael]

Hi Mike.

No.
He did not produce any viable alibi.
He said he had been roaming the streets alone.
The night was warm and starry that spring, he could not resist.
Seriously, it can't be called an alibi.

Viable for Abberline. Anyone's who's read Hugo knows that impoverished people may often do a lot of wondering around at night. Again, viable in the eyes of the police.

Mike

[bolo]

Hello Fisherman and Wickerman,

Pressure only cannot itself shape belief. There must be quality to the testimony too. And Abberline always had the option not to believe a witness. That too was dependant on the quality of the testimony. I´ve said it before and I´ll say it again: police work is largely ruled by routine, in order to ensure not falling into traps like the one you suggest.

If there is one thing that can be ruled out, it probably, if not certainly is that the series of unsolved murder cases in 1888 was a simple routine job for the police.

Abberline may have been an excellent inspector (I don't doubt that, btw.) but he also was a human being like you and me who read his morning paper during breakfast and had friends and neighbours who might have been apalled by the lack of results of the police investigation like tens of thousands of other people throughout the world, and don't get me started on the political side of things. I don't think that all this did not have any impact on the decisions of Abberline and his colleagues.

It matters not what you and I honestly believe. We both know that both camps have their spokesmen, and that will be because some people think it an impossible feat, whereas others think it´s completely viable. We really should not doubt the honesty of either group. That would be preposterous.

That's not an answer to my question, Fisherman. I'm not a member of any camp, nor do I want to propose a theory of my own, I'm just trying not to view the events of 1888/89 and the people involved in them on a purely technical level. The little evidence we have is too thin for that anyway.

I can only point to the fact that others are of the opposite opinion. It also applies that none of the officers in charge who wrote memoirs ever mentioned any lack of faith in Abberline because of this. He walked untarnished through the affair.
I have also been told that witnesses furnishing very detailed descriptions are more prone to be liars than more economical witnesses. I doubt this very much, but even if it was true, then the police would be wary of this too, one would think.

Thanks for pointing out to me that other people may have different opinions but I wrote my comment to get -your- opinion about it.

Something tells me that you think I'd be out to tarnish Abberline's name but that's not what I'm up to. I just think that he may have made a mistake or two, owing to the tremendous public outcry and a press echo of the murder cases that was unheard of before.

Then you must admit that your view of Abberline is predicated by an assumption that Hutchinson lied.

No, it's not. As this thread has been started in the suspect section under "Hutchinson, George", I'm interested in finding out whether Hutch was a proper witness, just wanted to have his 15 minutes of fame or should be taken into consideration as a viable suspect. I THINK he just wanted to get his name in the papers and cash in on the whole thing but DO NOT KNOW it for sure, that's why I'm hoping for worthwhile input on the matter.

If you are wrong, what does that do to your view of Abberline?

Nothing, really. I'd still rate him as a good inspector who most probably did the best he could to bring the Whitechapel murder cases to a good end.

Again, I'm not out to prove Abberline's inadequacy as a member of the force but he was not infallible either and may have made a mistake by calling Hutch an important witness because - and this is my conjecture - I think he may have made it all up, or even worse, came up with a flowery story to send the police off track in order to protect himself or another person we don't know about yet.

Best wishes,

Boris

[Fisherman]

bolo:

If there is one thing that can be ruled out, it probably, if not certainly is that the series of unsolved murder cases in 1888 was a simple routine job for the police.

Good - then we´re agreed. I don´t think anyone has ever suggested - or would ever suggest - that the Whitechapel killings was either simple or routine. Most certainly, I would never make such a suggestion.

I would, however, suggest that the police have routines that they apply, no matter what kind of issue they are dealing with. And in this case, as well as in any other case, I think that these routines would have helped Abberline get his job right.
He would have had routines about what questions a witness needs to be asked, about which type of answers implicates what, about all sorts of things, and he would have kept to those routines in order not to miss out on anything important.

That is what I am saying, and not that the situation was one of any ordinary day. I am slightly amazed that anybody should think that I had reached such a conclusion.

Abberline may have been an excellent inspector (I don't doubt that, btw.) but he also was a human being like you and me who read his morning paper during breakfast and had friends and neighbours who might have been apalled by the lack of results of the police investigation like tens of thousands of other people throughout the world, and don't get me started on the political side of things. I don't think that all this did not have any impact on the decisions of Abberline and his colleagues.

Any human being put under pressure runs the risk of having his or hers actions influenced by that pressure. Some will react a lot to it, others will not. The more routines you have, the lesser the risk is that you get it wrong. We cannot possibly know to what - if any - extent this played a role in Abberline´s judgement of Hutchinson. It´s all good and well to suggest that he would have beleived anybody as long as they had a little something to offer, as long as we keep in mind that it is all conjecture. We could equally have an Abberline that was totally on top of things in spite of the pressure, a man that sharpened his demands as the investigation went along, showing him that there were idiots aplenty who were ready to lie to him.
As usual, there are two sides to the coin. If you prefer to forget about the other side, it´s your own choice. I choose to keep an open mind on the matter.

That's not an answer to my question, Fisherman. I'm not a member of any camp, nor do I want to propose a theory of my own, I'm just trying not to view the events of 1888/89 and the people involved in them on a purely technical level. The little evidence we have is too thin for that anyway.

Then what was your question?
If I can honestly say that I believe that Hutchinson could have noticed the details he mentioned?
If so, yes, I am quite convinced that he could have, if the light and time allowed for it. And I feel pretty certain that Abberline would have asked about these precise things, before arriving at the conclusion that Hutchinson told the truth.
Interestingly, what we now have is people pretending to know these parameters and claiming that they are able to deduct from them that Hutchinson must have lied. I won´t not count you among those people, however, until you give me reason to do so.
I am equally open to the suggestion that Hutchinson may have known a number of details beforehand, since he says that the man he saw probably lived in the neighbourhood - he may have picked up on a number of details before.
He may also have embellished his story, consciously or subconsciously.
And he may have lied.

Does that answer your question?

Thanks for pointing out to me that other people may have different opinions but I wrote my comment to get -your- opinion about it.

You can have it. For free, even! Just ask.

Something tells me that you think I'd be out to tarnish Abberline's name but that's not what I'm up to. I just think that he may have made a mistake or two, owing to the tremendous public outcry and a press echo of the murder cases that was unheard of before.

No, I don´t think you want to tarnish Abberlines name. I cannot for the life of me see what satisfaction that would give you. And you are quite right in saying that he may have made a mistake. There is no way we can exclude that.
The problem is that there is no way that we can excloude that he did not make any mistake either. And to me, Abberlines very good reputation seemingly points to a man cherished by his superiors. Normally, people who break under pressure and who make the wrong decisions are not that much liked by their bosses.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Ben

In the earlier stages of the investigation the police can be seen to have ‘clutched at straws’ too readily and been publicly embarrassed or privately frustrated and irked.
The Pizer-Leather Apron episode will have taught them a salutary lesson in jumping too readily to conclusions – as will Iscenshmid. With both those suspects it is fairly clear from police internal files that they thought they had their man for a period, which will undoubtedly mean they would not have focused elsewhere so diligently, for vital moments.
I would suggest that a sensitivity not to be so caught out again will have motivated a thorough interrogation of Hutchinson before his story was accepted – and probably also was the cause of ongoing and healthy scepticism with respect to his version of events, which may have been the genesis of whatever doubts were later to surface as to his usefulness.

We can see a more thorough approach to the Kelly murder, than for example that of Nichols.
Dorset Street was cordoned off and no one was allowed to leave Millers Court until they had been questioned.
In Bucks Row the police failed to even interview most residents. In the early stages they were sloppy and missed things.
By Kelly’s murder the police had no useful lead.
Immediately after Nichols’ death the police were onto Leather Apron – and before that thought it was a gang attack.

All the evidence we have of the police investigation is that it was more thorough and more sceptical by the time of the Kelly murder.

These factors explain why there is no point of comparison between the police’s likely treatment of Lechmere and Hutchinson – treatment which will have been influenced further by their differing status.
Regular working family man householder – against a man with no fixed work and no fixed abode.

I’m not quite sure why you say the onus wasn’t on the police to change their records if they established that Cross’s real name was Lechmere.
The fact is that in their internal reports they routinely recorded known aliases.
The fact that they did not do so for Cross suggests they were not aware of his real name.
It is that simple.
They could have visited his home address but this is suggestive that they did not.

If you think that a ‘consensus of opinion’ that it is innocent behaviour for someone found at a murder scene to tell the police that his real name is that of a long dead step father, who happened to be a policeman, so as to legitimise that person by attaching a police connection, then I would suggest that innocent people do not tend to need to give themselves the name of a dead police step father to make themselves more believable to the police.

If there is such a ‘consensus of opinion’ on here then it would merely be reflective of the flaky views that whirl around this field.
‘Normal’ people have no trouble understanding why a guilty party often throws out a false name on reflex and that people with something to hide tend to use names with family associations as they are easy to remember and nearer the forefront of their minds – and such names are doubly useful for being explicable if push comes to shove.

I pointed out that Lechmere came forward voluntarily to contrast him to Paul – not Hutchinson. It is why Paul was put through the mill and Lechmere wasn’t. By the time Paul was in the frame Lechmere had been dismissed as a nobody with not much to say.
Clearly as Paul did not commit either murder, once the police had him – for a day – he was cleared. Hence no need to look in greater detail at Lechmere.

Are you suggesting that for a long time the police did not regard the lodging houses as the likely dwelling place of the culprit?
Do I have to rake up a load of quotes to show that this was the case?

[Abby Normal]

Hello Fisherman and Wickerman,



If there is one thing that can be ruled out, it probably, if not certainly is that the series of unsolved murder cases in 1888 was a simple routine job for the police.

Abberline may have been an excellent inspector (I don't doubt that, btw.) but he also was a human being like you and me who read his morning paper during breakfast and had friends and neighbours who might have been apalled by the lack of results of the police investigation like tens of thousands of other people throughout the world, and don't get me started on the political side of things. I don't think that all this did not have any impact on the decisions of Abberline and his colleagues.



That's not an answer to my question, Fisherman. I'm not a member of any camp, nor do I want to propose a theory of my own, I'm just trying not to view the events of 1888/89 and the people involved in them on a purely technical level. The little evidence we have is too thin for that anyway.



Thanks for pointing out to me that other people may have different opinions but I wrote my comment to get -your- opinion about it.

Something tells me that you think I'd be out to tarnish Abberline's name but that's not what I'm up to. I just think that he may have made a mistake or two, owing to the tremendous public outcry and a press echo of the murder cases that was unheard of before.



No, it's not. As this thread has been started in the suspect section under "Hutchinson, George", I'm interested in finding out whether Hutch was a proper witness, just wanted to have his 15 minutes of fame or should be taken into consideration as a viable suspect. I THINK he just wanted to get his name in the papers and cash in on the whole thing but DO NOT KNOW it for sure, that's why I'm hoping for worthwhile input on the matter.



Nothing, really. I'd still rate him as a good inspector who most probably did the best he could to bring the Whitechapel murder cases to a good end.

Again, I'm not out to prove Abberline's inadequacy as a member of the force but he was not infallible either and may have made a mistake by calling Hutch an important witness because - and this is my conjecture - I think he may have made it all up, or even worse, came up with a flowery story to send the police off track in order to protect himself or another person we don't know about yet.

Best wishes,

Boris

Hi Boris
a very sensible post.

[Garry Wroe]

No, there was no "reenatment", just an attempt to spot the Astrakhan man on the streets with police accompanying him. This lasted until his statement came to be doubted, i.e. not very long at all. Garry Wroe even suggested, rather persuasively to my mind, that it might have been on one such Astrak-hunting perambulation that he slipped up somehow and injured his credibility.

In addition to which, Ben, the two detectives would almost certainly have taken Hutchinson to Dorset Street, if only to test and clarify elements of the earlier police statement. If it became apparent that the lighting conditions were insufficient to allow Hutchinson to see what he'd claimed to have seen immediately before Kelly's death, this would have introduced doubt about the veracity of his statement and thus his overall credibility.