Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[Wickerman]

... If the police and abberline, initially believe Hutch so much that they allocate so much resources with him-what happened to that belief later?

Caz rightly points out that in terms of the lack of using Hutch as a witness for IDs might be simply be because he was no longer to be found, but it does not explain the silence of the police so soon and then forever about hutchs suspect.

Hi Abby.
I only mention this because no-one else has pointed it out.

The press were still aware of police activity on Hutchinson's story on the 16th:
"The police are now to a great extent concentrating their efforts upon an endeavour to find a man so vividly described by George Hutchinson.."

And again, 3 days later, on the 19th:
"Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson as to his having seen the latest victim with a gentlemanly man of dark complexion, with a dark moustache. Others are disposed to think that the shabby man with a blotchy face and a carrotty moustache described by the witness Mary Ann Cox, is more likely to be the murderer."

So, a full week later we have indications the police were still actively involved investigating Hutchinson's story.

Then finally on Dec 6th, Abberline took Isaacs into custody as the suspect identified by Hutchinson, and investigated his movements on the night of the murder.
Even the press described Isaacs as, "whose appearance certainly answered the published description of a man with an astrachan trimming to his coat."

I am intrigued as to why you are repeating the assertion that the police dropped him as a witness.

[Wickerman]

You know as well as I do that if Hutchinson's claims are to be held truthful, then Lewis would have walked right into JtR and MJK while they did their red hanky dance for 3 minutes. 3 whole minutes according to Hutchinson.

Hutchinson said, "...about, 3 minutes", thats all he said.

You also have to support the claim that she saw a couple going into Miller's court. All we have are couples walking down Dorset St., passed the court, not going into it.

"I" have to support the claim?
You mean this?
" I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."
Is that what you mean, to provide the quote?


I'm not sure if you are aware, but Mrs McCarthy said she spoke to a customer in the shop very early that morning, who told her that “I saw such a funny man up the court this morning”.
McCarthy cannot remember who the customer was, so this customer must not have been a tenant, it may have been Lewis.
If Lewis had stepped into the shop momentarily before going down the passage it would explain why there is a gap in her story.
If, this is what happened, then you have your answer to why she did not witness the "3 minute dance", as you call it.

Lewis should have seen the loiterer standing in Dorset St. as she walked down towards Millers Court, if he was there at that time.
Maye he wasn't there yet.

If you notice, in her police statement Sarah Lewis says:
" when I came up the Court there was a man standing over against the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset St."

"When I came up the court", but from where?
She apparently did not see him while walking down Dorset St., only when she went up the court (read, passage).

Even in the press coverage, we do not read of Lewis walking down Dorset St., her contribution on this issue begins "when she went up the court".
By her own words, we know she was up on the corner by the Britannia pub, but the next detail is "I walked up the court". There is nothing about her walk down Dorset St.
Lewis does not say, nor was she asked, where she was prior to going up the court.
She may have been in the shop.

[John G]

Hi Abby,

Yes, to be fair I have significant, if not serious, doubts about Hutchinson myself. However, to use a boxing pun, for me he is the witness that keeps being knocked down but has yet to be counted out!

As you rightly point out, Caz's argument, that they may simply have lost contact with him, is persuasive. I mean, wasn't it couple of years before the police's prime witness, Joseph Lawende, was effectively utilized, i.e in the identification of Kosminski? By such time, Hutchinson may have long disappeared into the ether.

I also feel that, in relation to Kelly, estimates of time of death may have been crucial. Thus, Hutchinson claimed that he encountered Kelly and astrakhan man at 2:00am. However, Dr Bond believed that Kelly was killed at 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning, which suggests that she was already dead by the time of Hutchinson's alleged encounter.

Dr Phillips' concluded that time of death was between 5:15 and 6:15 am. If this was accepted, the authorities may well have concluded that it was improbable that the killer would wait several hours before murdering Kelly. Of course, we also have Caroline Maxwell's evidence supporting an even later time of death. Therefore even if astrakhan man existed, it might have been reasoned that he was, in all probability, innocent.

And why were other witnesses, including PC Smith, apparently rejected in favour of Lawende? Could it be simply be a case of the police focusing on the importance of proximity of sighting to estimated time of death of a victim, at the exclusion of all other criteria?

As for Abberline, as I noted earlier, he clearly became obsessed with the notion that Chapman was the killer. And as Hutchinson's estimated the age of his suspect as being more than a decade older than Chapman at the time, Abberline possibly concluded that his evidence had to be discarded.

[Abby Normal]

I think what should be remembered is that Abberline's initial opinion of Hutchinson, and confidence in his account, was so favorable that he not only circulated the description of the suspect to police stations, he also attached two detectives to him, resulting in a search of the East End for the suspect, which took place over two nights and lasted several hours, i.e. until 3:00am the next morning and again on the 13th.

Was there such an initial commitment of resources in respect of any other suspect? Blotchy? Lawende's suspect? Schwartz's suspect?

And as I noted earlier, to a modern observer what makes astrachan man so unlikely is the incongruity of such a well-dressed man being present in such a notorious neighborhood. However, not to Abberline it seems. And the fact that at least one suspect who matched the description, Joseph Isaacs, was found suggests to me that astrachan man's presence in Miller's court was perhaps not such an unlikely event as it might seem.

Hi JohnG
but that's kind of the point isn't it? If the police and abberline, initially believe Hutch so much that they allocate so much resources with him-what happened to that belief later?

Caz rightly points out that in terms of the lack of using Hutch as a witness for IDs might be simply be because he was no longer to be found, but it does not explain the silence of the police so soon and then forever about hutchs suspect.

Abberline, who took hutchs account of Aman first hand never mentions him again, eventhough his favored suspect chapman fits the description of Aman.

This is a witness, who BY FAR out of all the witnesses, SHOULD have been the most important-he knew the victim, got a good look at the suspect, thinks hes seen him around, Can ID again, heard him talk etc, etc, etc, vanishes, as does his suspect.

And the only police who does mention him again is Dew-but in terms that hutch may have been mistaken. Not as a liar, yes, but certainly not the stellar witness he SHOULD have been.

And I totally agree with the previous poster Harry, that Abberline's initial impression of Hutch as truthful was just that. An initial impression of the man-he didn't have the time to check out his story, or analize/think about his story before he sent his note up.

Im sure Abberline regretted writing that about him, probably rather embarrassed I would imagine-which is probably another reason why he never mentions him or his suspect again-hoping it would just quietly go away-which it did.

[John G]

I think what should be remembered is that Abberline's initial opinion of Hutchinson, and confidence in his account, was so favorable that he not only circulated the description of the suspect to police stations, he also attached two detectives to him, resulting in a search of the East End for the suspect, which took place over two nights and lasted several hours, i.e. until 3:00am the next morning and again on the 13th.

Was there such an initial commitment of resources in respect of any other suspect? Blotchy? Lawende's suspect? Schwartz's suspect?

And as I noted earlier, to a modern observer what makes astrachan man so unlikely is the incongruity of such a well-dressed man being present in such a notorious neighborhood. However, not to Abberline it seems. And the fact that at least one suspect who matched the description, Joseph Isaacs, was found suggests to me that astrachan man's presence in Miller's court was perhaps not such an unlikely event as it might seem.

[Batman]

You can 'think' what Lewis might have said, but that does mean she had to say. What she does not say, is not proof of anything.

You know as well as I do that if Hutchinson's claims are to be held truthful, then Lewis would have walked right into JtR and MJK while they did their red hanky dance for 3 minutes. 3 whole minutes according to Hutchinson.

You also have to support the claim that she saw a couple going into Miller's court. All we have are couples walking down Dorset St., passed the court, not going into it.

[harry]

We do not know that Aberline did believe Hutchinson.We only know it was a stated opinion,based on one interview.Not enough,even for an experienced policeman, to make a correct assessment. So was it the information that he believed truthfull,or was it an impression of the person himself that he found satisfying.It would take some time to check the story,and as has been pointed out ,the majority of the tale was beyond immediate proof.Therefor I believe an opinion was the only option open,and that it referred to the image that the man(Hutchinson) presented,and not to the information given.

[Wickerman]

The couple walked along Dorset street not into the court. Otherwise don't you think Lewis would have said something about Hutchinson's red neckerchief little 3 MINUTE chat and dance between JtR and MJK?

Hutchinson doesn't mention Lewis going up the court.

You can 'think' what Lewis might have said, but that does mean she had to say. What she does not say, is not proof of anything.

Hutchinson not mentioning Lewis is only to be expected, women were everywhere and drew little attention in the late 19th century.

The whole point of an inquest is that we do know. Hutchinson is a post-inquest case.

We do not learn everything at an inquest. How many times have we discussed 'exactly' what an inquest is for?
A Coroner's inquest is not a murder enquiry, we only learn what the Coroner chooses to hear.

I'm pretty sure the police said they saw nothing unusual. Zip. Zero. That is why there is nothing. Not that they kept it secret.

Not sure what you mean by "I'm pretty sure", either you have read something or not.
The police keeping information out of the press was why the press complained so often about the police.
Have you not read of their consistent complaining?

He saw MJK go up the court with Isaacs right before her murder and there is no connection? How did you work that one out?

Not difficult, we know the police knew of the cry of murder between 3:30 and 4:00 o'clock - it is hardly feasible that she is killed an hour before the cries were heard.
And remember, the mutilations must have taken 30 minutes to an hour longer after the time of the cry of 'murder'.

This means the killer had to leave sometime after 4:00, at the earliest.

Mrs Cusins told police she heard Isaacs walk about his room that night. We don't know what time this was, but the police would have known.
If she told them he came in just after 3:00, and walked about his room then this is the alibi.
Abberline now knows Mary must have gone out and met someone else after Astrachan left.

All I'm saying is, what you perceive as certainties are nothing of the sort.
There is much we do not know.

[Batman]

Sarah Lewis.
In the expanded version of her inquest testimony, published in the press, she tells us while the loiterer was standing opposite, she saw a man and a woman -with no hat on and the worse for drink, pass up the court.
Exactly what Hutchinson saw.

The couple walked along Dorset street not into the court. Otherwise don't you think Lewis would have said something about Hutchinson's red neckerchief little 3 MINUTE chat and dance between JtR and MJK?

Hutchinson doesn't mention Lewis going up the court.

There were at least 50+ witness statements concerning Kelly, the contents of which we know nothing about, but Abberline did.

The whole point of an inquest is that we do know. Hutchinson is a post-inquest case.

And, don't forget, it was the press who claimed that no-one else saw Astrachan that night, the police never made this claim.
The police did not tell the press what they knew.

I'm pretty sure the police said they saw nothing unusual. Zip. Zero. That is why there is nothing. Not that they kept it secret.

They never located Astrachan, but they found the most likely candidate in the first week of December, Joseph Isaacs, and he was investigated but cleared.
So, it appears Abberline believed Isaacs was Astrachan, but that he was not the killer, therefore, no need for Hutchinson.

He saw MJK go up the court with Isaacs right before her murder and there is no connection? How did you work that one out?

[c.d.]

This most certainly has been discussed before. If we say that apparently Abberline believed his story does it necessarily mean that he believed it 100% and would bet the souls of his children on its veracity? Unless Hutch was clearly a drunkard, or mentally unstable or immediately started talking about a reward, or had two heads, I think a better question is why WOULDN'T Abberline tend to believe him. Especially if he thought this was the break they needed to solve the case. What's the old saying -- shoot first and ask questions later.

c.d.

P.S. Nice to see you posting again, CAZ. Don't be such a stranger.

[Wickerman]

Who corroborated anything Hutchinson had to say?

Sarah Lewis.
In the expanded version of her inquest testimony, published in the press, she tells us while the loiterer was standing opposite, she saw a man and a woman -with no hat on and the worse for drink, pass up the court.
Exactly what Hutchinson saw.

There were at least 50+ witness statements concerning Kelly, the contents of which we know nothing about, but Abberline did.
And, don't forget, it was the press who claimed that no-one else saw Astrachan that night, the police never made this claim.
The police did not tell the press what they knew.

Why wasn't he used anymore after a very short while? He claims to have seen him face to face.

They never located Astrachan, but they found the most likely candidate in the first week of December, Joseph Isaacs, and he was investigated but cleared.
So, it appears Abberline believed Isaacs was Astrachan, but that he was not the killer, therefore, no need for Hutchinson.

[Batman]

We must not forget that Abberline giving importance to a witness can be revoked at any stage but usually shortly after as in the case of Packer. Its temporary in such early stages, especially outside of inquest.

[John G]

Thanks for your kind comments, John.



So it's not only on Hutchinson and Lechmere threads that we see this kind of obsession then.

Mind you, Abberline was a real detective and should have known better. Not so the armchair variety, eh?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,
Yes, Abberline should definitely have known better! What amazes me is that Abberline's absurd and totally inaccurate statement, that no witness "alleged" that they saw JTR from the front, is so often referred to as supporting evidence that he no longer had faith in Hutchinson, when in actual fact he is simply conveniently ignoring any witness evidence that questions the validity of his own suspect (and regarding the age of suspects this basically means every witness!)

[Batman]

Yeah, I know. What's your point?

The police had to know where to find Schwartz and Lawende if they wanted to use them again. Hutch would have vanished from the investigation and into thin air if he didn't stay put at the Victoria Home every night from then on.

Love,

Caz
X

The pressure to find JtR following the murder of MJK must have been huge. From the royal family/government down to the PC on the street, resignations had already been put in it was so tough.

A witness who claimed to have seen JtR point-blank would never have been let just wander off like that. In fact, there is no evidence he wandered off anywhere. Just that they didn't use him anymore and Abberline faded out of the investigation at the same time.

It is to Swanson we turn, who doesn't use Hutchinson. Swanson appears to be following another line involving searching houses which quite possibly turned up the 'crazy' jew Kozminski who fit Bond's profile. Who is the witness they use here? Hutchinson? No. The Met police used Schwartz and the City police used Lawende.

Hutchinson made the claim that the person he saw lived in the area. He searched the area and Whitechapel with police for a few weeks after. Then it all just stops for him and Abberline. It's like someone above stepped in and put and end to it.

The problem for Hutchinson is that there is not a single part of it that can be corroborated by anyone but himself, despite him wandering around Whitechapel all night and early morning without anyone, including the police, seeing him.

[caz]

Thanks for your kind comments, John.

His misguided comments are therefore driven by his obsession that Chapman was the killer...

So it's not only on Hutchinson and Lechmere threads that we see this kind of obsession then.

Mind you, Abberline was a real detective and should have known better. Not so the armchair variety, eh?

Love,

Caz
X