Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[GUT]

G'day Jon

What amazes me even more is that we have Isaacs who s said to have fit the description to a T and yet people insist on saying that no one dressed like that would venture into the East End.

[Wickerman]

Hi GUT.

Yes, but this belief that "no-one would dress like that", is more of an urban myth. There are no sources that make this assertion, nor could there be. Only modern theorists trying to poor cold water on Hutchinson's story.

There is one case, I think her name, Lady Hamilton, riding through Brushfield St. (behind Dorset St.) in her carriage, when some local thief jumped up on the step, and reached in grabbing her watch, and ripped it from her, taking off down the street.

Affluent men & women were being robbed, and mugged, in Spitalfields (press reports, court cases, etc). They could hardly be victims if they didn't go there, right.

[harry]

I believe that Aberlines opinion of honesty would have been added in anticipation of the certain request of seniors,"How must trust can be put into the person giving the information",and that the opinion related to the person and not the details.The real test of course,would only arise if Hutchinson did in fact make an ID.Would it prove positive or negative?So I do not accept that Aberline's opinion of that evening has any bearing on the guilt or innocence of Hutchinson,and that Hutchinson,as a suspect,rests on what was contained in Hutchinson's statement,and the fact he withheld that information for three days.By the way,how do we know it was 6PM when he arrived at the police station?

[Wickerman]

The initial statement given by Hutchinson is not sufficiently detailed, which is why, among other reason's, Abberline would need to interrogate Hutchinson.

A minimum of what Abberline needs to know can be listed:
- What time, precisely, did you leave Dorset St.?
- Where, exactly, did you go afterwards, and who did you see?
- Why did you stay in Dorset St. for so long?
- Who else did you see coming and going in Dorset St. while you were on your vigil?
- Can you name anyone who can substantiate any part of this statement?

No answers to the above questions are contained within his initial statement, and until his story is verified, Hutchinson - by his own admission is a suspect due to the fact he is the last person who claims to have been in the company of the victim shortly before her death.

Abberline view's Hutchinson as an obvious suspect first, and witness second.
The interrogation is required to satisfy the first query, so he can then proceed to the second.

Hutchinson's responses need to be recorded so they can be investigated.
He can only be a valued witness if he can clear himself of any suspicion.
This is one reason why the interrogation is to be written down, another is the very fact, perhaps expectation, that he will unknowingly say something to incriminate himself.

This paperwork has not survived.

[Batman]

For your hypothesis to work MJK had two clients on Friday night/morning before the killer struck. So you have 3 actors involved. That makes MJK a pretty active prostitute.

Cox described MJK, an alcoholic, as in a drunken state when last seen with Blotchy who was carrying a pale of ale with him to her room.

Are we really to believe that MJK would have been in any condition to service anyone else after that happening? She had a sing song, ate fish and potatoes and I doubt she avoided the ale.

At 1am Mary was still singing. He was likely still there then.

Somewhere between 1am and 1:30am the light was out in Mary's room. No singing.

Now what Hutchinson et al would have us believe is that for 30 minutes Mary either sat in the dark or went walkabout because its 2am before Hutchinson claims to meet her. Nobody claims to have met her between. Nobody else saw her. Nobody saw Blotchy leave. Hutchinson doesn't describe seeing Blotchy with her either. Blotchy was never found.

Why would MJK have gone out looking for more clients? She found one already. That's all they needed to pay the rent.

[c.d.]

Hello John,

What evidence is there that Abberline was "obsessed" with Chapman? Even Abberline's statement that he believed Chapman to be the killer has a questionable source. And wasn't Abberline reported to have said something like "I can't help but feel that this is the man that we were looking for?" That would seem a far cry from stating I know beyond a doubt that this has to be the man.

Chapman was hanged in 1903 so he was never a contemporary suspect. Therefore there is no way that Abberline would have dismissed Hutchinson's statement simply because it did not match a description of Chapman.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

For your hypothesis to work MJK had two clients on Friday night/morning before the killer struck. So you have 3 actors involved. That makes MJK a pretty active prostitute.

Cox described MJK, an alcoholic, as in a drunken state when last seen with Blotchy who was carrying a pale of ale with him to her room.

Are we really to believe that MJK would have been in any condition to service anyone else after that happening? She had a sing song, ate fish and potatoes and I doubt she avoided the ale.

At 1am Mary was still singing. He was likely still there then.

But that is another assumption.
Blotchy arrived about 11:45, if he was equally drunk he may have not been able to get his moneys worth out of Kelly because of the drink .
He could easily have left long before 1 o'clock, serviced or unserviced.

Somewhere between 1am and 1:30am the light was out in Mary's room. No singing.

Right, so is she out again, or not?

Nobody claims to have met her between. Nobody else saw her. Nobody saw Blotchy leave. Hutchinson doesn't describe seeing Blotchy with her either. Blotchy was never found.

No confirmation that Blotchy even existed.

Why would MJK have gone out looking for more clients? She found one already. That's all they needed to pay the rent.

She needs to eat and drink tomorrow morning.
Prostitution is mostly a nighttime activity, if she doesn't earn enough tonight, she doesn't eat or drink until tomorrow night.
Can you go all day without eating?