Vetting Hutchinson

[GUT]

Or Hutch could have been hoping for a freebie in Mary Kelly's nice warm bed after her client had gone, and was left disappointed.

G'day Rosella

That suggestion wouldn't surprise me at all. Or he was smply jealous over who was getting what he wanted.

[Wickerman]

2) A-Man was real, Hutchinson saw him - and had intended to rob the man. This would explain his loitering in the first.

He does not need to have been the Ripper to have been a mountebank.

Yes, the loitering aspect is interesting, and could be incriminating.
If Hutchinson was telling the truth he was obviously waiting for Astrachan coming out.
Whether this was to mug him, or to go in and see Mary, is anybodies guess.

If Hutchinson made it all up, the loitering aspect makes no sense.
On the one hand he makes up a story to incriminate Astrachan, yet on the other hand he causes suspicion for himself by admitting he stood around for about 45 minutes.
It would have been sufficient for him to merely claim to have seen Astrachan with Kelly, that they went indoors so I left Dorset St.

[Hatchett]

Hi,

My own view, on the ballance of probabilities, is that Hutchinson told the truth. That there is no explanation for the loitering (apart from human weakness and nowhere else to go) is exaclty how people act some times. An old girl friend (I am being kind here) seen going off with someone else because he has no money would disturb anyone. The sheer motivelessness of hanging around on a dreary night is so unexplainable that it is true to human nature. Admitting to it adds to its credibility. After all he was in essence putting himself in the frame. Who else but a truthful man would do that?

[barnflatwyngarde]

Hi,

My own view, on the ballance of probabilities, is that Hutchinson told the truth. That there is no explanation for the loitering (apart from human weakness and nowhere else to go) is exaclty how people act some times. An old girl friend (I am being kind here) seen going off with someone else because he has no money would disturb anyone. The sheer motivelessness of hanging around on a dreary night is so unexplainable that it is true to human nature. Admitting to it adds to its credibility. After all he was in essence putting himself in the frame. Who else but a truthful man would do that?

I cannot accept the premise that Hutchinson was telling the truth.
His description of "Astrakhan Man" is so detailed it borders on parody, although I accept that he was loitering.
Why he was loitering is a matter for speculation.

Abberline did at first appear to give credence to Hutchinson's evidence, but it is telling that Hutchinson quickly vanishes from the case.

In the 2 interviews Abberline gave to The Pall Mall Gazette in March 1903, he seems to be leaning towards Klosowski/Chapman as the possible murderer.
It is telling that he makes no reference to Hutchinson.

It is also noticeable that Abberline does not say that he bases his suspicions of Klosowski/Chapman on the fact that he matches the description given by Hutchinson.

Surely this is evidence that the police had come to believe that Hutchinson's evidence was worthless

[Ben]

That there is no explanation for the loitering (apart from human weakness and nowhere else to go) is exaclty how people act some times.

I'm not sure what you mean by "no explanation".

Hutchinson provided an explanation himself: "I stood there for three quarters of an hour to see if they came out". As most of us are aware, however, an independent witness also saw a man loitering opposite the court apparently waiting for "someone to come out". So unless this was a highly unusual coincidence, Hutchinson probably was stationed at that location at the time he stated. That does not legitimize his entire account - just his presence there at that time. "Who else but a truthful man would do that?" Well, an obvious candidate would be a not-so-truthful man who realised he'd been sighted at a crime scene and wanted to provide a superficially innocent for his presence there before awkward questions are asked. Or do you mean who else besides "truthful men" stand outside murder scenes shortly before the murders in question are committed? Well there's Ted Bundy, Dennis Rader, Robert Napper...

[Ben]

Surely this is evidence that the police had come to believe that Hutchinson's evidence was worthless

Indeed, Barnflatwyngarde.

From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, 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? - Echo, 13th November 1888.

[Scott Nelson]

"If nonsense were solid, the nonsense written about Isaacs being Astrakhan Man wouldn't be enough to sink an origami paper boat because, blissfully, there isn't much of it!"

That's funny, Ben.

[Wickerman]

I cannot accept the premise that Hutchinson was telling the truth.
His description of "Astrakhan Man" is so detailed it borders on parody, although I accept that he was loitering.
Why he was loitering is a matter for speculation.

Abberline did at first appear to give credence to Hutchinson's evidence, but it is telling that Hutchinson quickly vanishes from the case.

In the 2 interviews Abberline gave to The Pall Mall Gazette in March 1903, he seems to be leaning towards Klosowski/Chapman as the possible murderer.
It is telling that he makes no reference to Hutchinson.

It is also noticeable that Abberline does not say that he bases his suspicions of Klosowski/Chapman on the fact that he matches the description given by Hutchinson.

Surely this is evidence that the police had come to believe that Hutchinson's evidence was worthless

It could indicate a number of things, among them it could also indicate that Abberline discovered Astrachan was not the killer.

[Abby Normal]

I cannot accept the premise that Hutchinson was telling the truth.
His description of "Astrakhan Man" is so detailed it borders on parody, although I accept that he was loitering.
Why he was loitering is a matter for speculation.

Abberline did at first appear to give credence to Hutchinson's evidence, but it is telling that Hutchinson quickly vanishes from the case.

In the 2 interviews Abberline gave to The Pall Mall Gazette in March 1903, he seems to be leaning towards Klosowski/Chapman as the possible murderer.
It is telling that he makes no reference to Hutchinson.

It is also noticeable that Abberline does not say that he bases his suspicions of Klosowski/Chapman on the fact that he matches the description given by Hutchinson.

Surely this is evidence that the police had come to believe that Hutchinson's evidence was worthless

Exactly. very astute.
You would think Abberline would have mentioned it-somewhere along the lines of "and chapman closely matched the description of a man seen with Mary Kelly given by the witness Hutchinson on the night of her murder."

That he doesn't is very telling.

[Hatchett]

Hi,

I dont actually follow that reasoning. Just because Abberline didnt mention a witness is eveidence of nothing. Why would or should he? Abberline had a belief in a suspect which pehaps was nothing to do with a witness statement. I dont think there is any record of Chapman wearing or owning an astrokan coat or owning a gold watch.Abberline could have believed Hutchinson but not believed later that the person he had seen was the murderer.

[Ben]

That's funny, Ben.

Thanks, Scott!

Hi Hatchett,

Klosowski may not have owned an Astrakhan coat or a thick gold watch chain, but at the very least he had the same foreign appearance and dark moustache that might have invited comparison from Abberline who did, after all, discuss eyewitness evidence in connection with the Klosowski theory. That Abberline failed to allude to such a comparison is very telling with regard to his supposed continued faith in Hutchinson's credibility (or rather lack thereof), especially when coupled with his observation that the witnesses only saw the suspect's back.

If Astrakhan was accepted as genuine by the police, it was impossible for them to rule him out as the murderer, unless we accept an extremely unrealistic scenario in which he finds an ultra-convenient "alibi" shortly after 3.00am.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Indeed, Barnflatwyngarde.

From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, 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? - Echo, 13th November 1888.

Good post Ben.

I hadn't seen the Echo article before.

Good digging!

[Hatchett]

Hi Ben,

The point is surelly this; Abberline believed Hutchinson was telling the truth. It doesnt necessarilly follow that as time went on that he believed, or had believed at all that Astrokhan man was the killer. That is basic ABC logic.

As has been argued time and time again, the only "evidence" and I use that word very lightly, that the police had lost interest in Hutchinson's statement is a dubious report in one newspaper at a time when the press was getting no co operation or information from the Polce. If indeed it was true it could have been that they no longer believed that Astrokhan man was the killer.

There is nothing at all to suggest, let alone prove, that the Police believed that Hutchinson was lying.

Best wishes.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Hi Ben,

The point is surelly this; Abberline believed Hutchinson was telling the truth. It doesnt necessarilly follow that as time went on that he believed, or had believed at all that Astrokhan man was the killer. That is basic ABC logic.

As has been argued time and time again, the only "evidence" and I use that word very lightly, that the police had lost interest in Hutchinson's statement is a dubious report in one newspaper at a time when the press was getting no co operation or information from the Polce. If indeed it was true it could have been that they no longer believed that Astrokhan man was the killer.

There is nothing at all to suggest, let alone prove, that the Police believed that Hutchinson was lying.

Best wishes.

Surely the fact that this sterling witness who provided an astonishingly detailed description of someone he claimed to have see with Kelly, simply vanishes from the case very quickly, speaks volumes.

As I have said elsewhere, the fact that in later life Abberline apparently transferred hi suspicions toward Klosowski/Chapman is surely highly significant.

Nowhere does Abberline say that his suspicion of Klosowski/Chapman is based on the fact that he matches the description given by Hutchinson.

I think that Hutchinson was quite happy to be chaparoned around London by a couple of detectives, looking for Astrakhan Man and being fed and watered, and probably even getting a roof over his head for a few days.

I think that after a couple of days the penny probably dropped with CID, who realised that they were being taken for a ride.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Ben,

The point is surelly this; Abberline believed Hutchinson was telling the truth. It doesnt necessarilly follow that as time went on that he believed, or had believed at all that Astrokhan man was the killer. That is basic ABC logic.

As has been argued time and time again, the only "evidence" and I use that word very lightly, that the police had lost interest in Hutchinson's statement is a dubious report in one newspaper at a time when the press was getting no co operation or information from the Polce. If indeed it was true it could have been that they no longer believed that Astrokhan man was the killer.

There is nothing at all to suggest, let alone prove, that the Police believed that Hutchinson was lying.

Best wishes.

Hi hatchet
Surely if the police continued to believe Hutch's story of A-man then Hutch is clearly the best witness in the whole case and Aman the best suspect.

here is a witness who knows the victim, got a great description of a suspect, heard him speak, says he's seen him around, thinks he knows where he lives, thought he saw him again, and can positively ID him, and saw said suspect entering the victims place when and where she was murdered.

And very shortly falls off the face of the earth as does his suspect?

And Abberline when speaking of his favored suspect and mentioning witnesses never brings this up, but even states that none of the witnesses got a good look at the suspect?

I really don't see any other viable explanation, except that Abberline came to believe that the witness hutch was not credible.