Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[caz]

Hutchinson's statement didn't get reduced in terms of importance and then subsequently discredited simply because another witness saw the victim earlier on the evening, which was old news anyway. If we're going to use the Echo as a source, at least acknowledge what they actually recorded as reasons for Hutchinson's evidence being "considerably discounted".

"such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?"

...(it was) considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner"

Reasons that related directly to the issue of credibility in other words. It is entirely consistent with the report in the Star on the 15th November, which stated that the account was "now discredited" along with Matthew Packer's - both witness having supplied "worthless stories (that) lead the police on false scents".

I've rarely seen such poor reasoning, Ben. Certainly on the part of the Echo hacks if they seriously believed the authorities had only just thought to ask why Hutch had not come forward sooner. The 'authorities' had known this from the moment he walked into the police station, so Abberline would have asked the question while interrogating him and taken his explanation into account when stating his belief that the statement was true (despite its bad timing). The delay itself would only have affected his credibility if he could come up with no satisfactory excuse for it. Yet one of your constant refrains is that he would have had evasive answers up his sleeve for every occasion, which could not be disproven. So what went wrong on this one, for the 'authorities' to suddenly decide his explanation had been so poor that his entire story must now be in doubt?

If Hutch's account really was discredited and put in the bin with all the other 'false scents', Mrs Cox's account must have gone the same way in the long run, assuming Blotchy similarly failed to feature among the senior policemen's major suspects as fingered in their various memos and memoirs.

The police tried, but evidently failed, to track down either Hutch's or Cox's man and the trail simply went cold like all the others did eventually. It is circular reasoning to argue that Hutch's account must have been totally discredited or the police would have recalled him as a witness for future identifications. Chance would have been a fine thing. How would they ever have found him again if he was no longer 'in residence' at the Victoria Home and had long since gone off without telling anyone where? Mrs Cox may or may not still have been living in Miller's Court, but they apparently didn't try to recall her either.

Knowing where to find Lawende again greatly increased his own chances of being recalled. Granted, he was also the most likely witness to have seen the ripper, but his credibility at the identification stage would have been compromised by his early doubts of recognising the man again. At least Hutch had claimed he could identify his man, and it's not hard to see why if Abberline's belief in him was not misplaced after all. But again, if there was no way of tracking him down at a much later date, their failure to use him again would have been assured, regardless of the credibility issue.

Please remember, I am not arguing that Hutch retained his credibility as a witness; I merely find the 'evidence' presented for his total fall from grace leaves much to be desired.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

If Hutchinson had no money - as he claimed he told Kelly - he had no possibility of securing lodgings for the remainder of the night, unless he was in possession of a daily/weekly pass for the Victoria Home or any establishment that operated a similar policy (I don’t know of any). This, of course, renders the closure of any home completely irrelevant, and yet he offered this explanation – the closure of the place where he “usually” slept – for his alleged homelessness that night, and not his lack of money. If anyone can suggest a plausible explanation for this beyond the obvious (i.e. that he lied about it), I’d be interested to hear it.

Here you are, Ben, in your own words:

Boris mentioned the case of Cooney’s, which would certainly have been open to paying customers when Hutchinson allegedly arrived back in the area, and for a long time afterwards.

So it would have been 'closed' to anyone who couldn't pay the going rate. Yes, I see.

Similarly the Victoria Home would have been 'closed' to Hutch without a valid pass.

Similarly, his "usual" place, if not the VH, would likely have been 'closed' to him if he didn't have enough money or a valid pass.

So how exactly have you proved Hutch was lying about his inability to secure lodgings that night? What evidence do you have that he had either sufficient funds or a valid pass? If he had tried but failed to earn enough doss money before arriving back in Whitechapel, or had no pass on him, he may have tried his "usual" place anyway, hoping to get a sympathetic reception.

Love,

Caz
X

[Batman]

Who corroborated anything Hutchinson had to say? Lewis said she saw a man standing there. Hutchinson turns up post-inquest talks about wandering around all morning and no one, not even a PC can say he saw that witness. Heck even Hutchinson omits seeing Lewis.

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

The Jewish villain was music to their ears. Still is for many others too even today. Hutchinson was just yet another publicity seeker.

[caz]

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

Well they had to find a suspect first, Batman, before they could ask Hutch to look him over.

If you looked anything like Hutch's suspect, would you have hung around the district without changing your appearance?

No, nor me.

Love,

Caz
X

[Batman]

They sent Hutchison on a search around Whitechapel. Schwartz and Lawende are the witnesses used after Hutchinson vanishes from the investigation.

Hutchinson said he thought the man lived in the area.

[John G]

What I find most remarkable about Hutchinson's evidence is that even though it seems pretty implausible from a modern perspective- too much detail/ suspect too well dressed- a highly experienced detective, Inspector Abberline, believed him.

I would also tend to agree with the excellent arguments put forward by Caz. Moreover, to my mind it is certainly possible that the reason for Hutchinson not being subsequently utilised as a witness was that the police decided to put all of their eggs in one basket and relied upon their prime witness, Joseph Lawende, possibly because of proximity of sighting to the time frame in which Eddowes must have been killed.

Of course, this might explain why the likes of Long, Cox, Schwartz and Hutchinson were not utilised. In the case of Kelly, for example, we have no real idea what time she was killed - Dr Bond calculated sometime between 2:00am and 8:00am- therefore Hutchinson's suspect, if identified, and assuming he existed, could simply have argued that Kelly was fine when he left her.

Of course, he subsequently seemed to have rejected Hutchinson's evidence when he stated "One discrepancy I have noted, and this is that the people who alleged they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another, state that he was a man of about 35 or 40 years of age. They, however, state that they only saw his back..." This is clearly absurd as no witness claimed to have seen Jack the Ripper, they only alleged that they saw suspects, and plenty of witnesses, including Hutchinson, "alleged" that they had a front view of a suspect.

Abberline's comments need to be viewed in context: he is arguing that George Chapman was JTR and trying to explain why no witness described anyone as young as he would have been, 23, in 1888. His misguided comments are therefore driven by his obsession that Chapman was the killer, causing him to have selective amnesia regarding witness testimony!

[Amanda]

Really..?

Easy: I've always thought Hutchinson was a police spy in the area, though potentially one hired just for the express purpose of Ripper-watching. He probably saw nobody on 9 November and invented the story to retain Abberline's confidence.

Or it's possible Abberline didn't actually believe him, but allowed his testimony to go public anyway, for fear that to do otherwise would be to jeporadize Hutchinson's role as a spy.

Either way, he needn't be the murderer to have a good reason to be loitering around like a creep in the neighborhood.

Hi Defective Detective,
Do you seriously consider the possibility that Hutchinson was a spy?
If that were true he certainly wasn't a very good one as he didn't make an attempt to conceal his identity, didn't find a discreet place in which to observe and then came up with a bizarre detailed description of the assailant which was obviously 'exaggerated' given the lighting conditions and circumstances.

Amanda

[caz]

They sent Hutchison on a search around Whitechapel. Schwartz and Lawende are the witnesses used after Hutchinson vanishes from the investigation.

Hutchinson said he thought the man lived in the area.

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

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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?