Vetting Hutchinson

[Wickerman]

One of the things about Inspector Dew, as a policeman who had been attached to H Division and worked alongside the detectives & Inspectors who worked on the case as he rose through the ranks, he was certainly in a position to know for sure if Hutchi(n)son had turned out to be a false witness.

The account he gave in his memoirs still contains points of accuracy and, as he compares the sighting of Hutchi(n)son with Mrs Maxwell, it appears he is inclined to think they were both mistaken as to the woman being Mary Kelly, not that either one had been intentionally lying.

[Bridewell]

My guess is one of the following (mutually contradictory) positions with respect to Hutch:

1) He was a police shill on the payroll and invented A-Man to justify his keep. This would explain why Abberline put any stock in his tale when the papers, usually far worse than the police, dismissed him as a witness - along with his story, which surely would have moved copy had they run with if.

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.

I'd go along with your (2). Hutchinson had followed Kelly and her companion back to the Court.The key question is, if Hutchinson was waiting as he claimed, what was he waiting for? Presumably, as he was positioned across the road from Millers Court, it was for someone to emerge. That someone has to be Astrakhan Man (who would surely emerge from her room before MJK herself). So what was his business with Astrakhan Man?

(The usual arguments against the existence of this individual are:

(a) Hutchinson couldn't, under the prevailing lighting conditions, have seen the detail he claims to have noted.

(b) Anyone dressed as Astrakhan Man was would have been sure to attract the attention of a local street robber.

IMHO if Astrakhan Man existed he was (i) Kelly's killer and (ii) Hutchinson's 'mark'. If that's right, the irony would be that Hutchinson, had he waited around to attack his target, could have achieved mortality as the man who caught 'Jack the Ripper'.

(But don't forget the 'if', 'cos it's a biggie.)

[Ben]

Hi Hatchett,

Barnflat and Abby have addressed your points more than admirably.

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.

This is completely wrong.

The Echo were one of the very few newspapers that did receive "co-operation or information from the police", which is why they were able to extract accurate information from a direct visit to Commercial Street Police Station. As "argued time and time again", the Echo can't have been lying about this police visit because we know that other details (i.e. in addition to Hutchinson's apparent discrediting) obtained on that visit and reported in the 14th November edition were accurate and only obtainable from a police source.

Moreover, there is no credible motive for the Echo to fabricate the "very reduced importance" attached to his account. Had they done so, they would surely have depicted the police as gullible dupes who accept anything at face value, as opposed to meticulous "authorities" who have the gumption to scrutinise and conduct investigation.

"If indeed it was true it could have been that they no longer believed that Astrokhan man was the killer."

That's not how policing works.

They don't just abandon potential leads arbitrarily, and because they think they might not be relevant. If they genuinely believed Astrakhan man existed, there was every reason to continue to consider him the most viable candidate for her murder. On what grounds would they have suddenly decided otherwise - the arrival of a non-existent alibi (see my previous post)? What do you mean "as time went on"? How does the passage of time increase or decrease the probability of Astrakhan being the killer? A policeman might have a hunch that maybe the Astrakhan man wasn't the ripper, but a hunch simply won't do when it comes actual police investigation. Such a hunch would not, therefore, explain the use of a Jewish witness in an 1891 suspect-confrontation and non-use of Hutchinson.

As for Dew, yes, he would in all likelihood have been informed as to whether or not he should still be pursuing the man described by Hutchinson. But no, he did not need to be told why. He had obviously been told that the Astrak-hunt (still funny) was off, but simply speculated as to why, and recorded those speculations decades after the murders.

All the best,
Ben

[Amanda]

Just a note....

Hi Hatchett,

Barnflat and Abby have addressed your points more than admirably.



This is completely wrong.

The Echo were one of the very few newspapers that did receive "co-operation or information from the police", which is why they were able to extract accurate information from a direct visit to Commercial Street Police Station. As "argued time and time again", the Echo can't have been lying about this police visit because we know that other details (i.e. in addition to Hutchinson's apparent discrediting) obtained on that visit and reported in the 14th November edition were accurate and only obtainable from a police source.

Moreover, there is no credible motive for the Echo to fabricate the "very reduced importance" attached to his account. Had they done so, they would surely have depicted the police as gullible dupes who accept anything at face value, as opposed to meticulous "authorities" who have the gumption to scrutinise and conduct investigation.



That's not how policing works.

They don't just abandon potential leads arbitrarily, and because they think they might not be relevant. If they genuinely believed Astrakhan man existed, there was every reason to continue to consider him the most viable candidate for her murder. On what grounds would they have suddenly decided otherwise - the arrival of a non-existent alibi (see my previous post)? What do you mean "as time went on"? How does the passage of time increase or decrease the probability of Astrakhan being the killer? A policeman might have a hunch that maybe the Astrakhan man wasn't the ripper, but a hunch simply won't do when it comes actual police investigation. Such a hunch would not, therefore, explain the use of a Jewish witness in an 1891 suspect-confrontation and non-use of Hutchinson.

As for Dew, yes, he would in all likelihood have been informed as to whether or not he should still be pursuing the man described by Hutchinson. But no, he did not need to be told why. He had obviously been told that the Astrak-hunt (still funny) was off, but simply speculated as to why, and recorded those speculations decades after the murders.

All the best,
Ben

Hi,

I've read a lot about 'Astrakhan' man in the last few posts. The search to identify this man may be fruitless, there would have been hundreds of immigrants wearing such attire.
In fact, I actually have a photo of my great great grandfather from around 1890 wearing an Astrakhan coat and felt hat. Just as a matter of interest, he also lived in London and had a sandy coloured moustache....

Amanda

[SirJohnFalstaff]

So, back to the topic... (Like I said, I'm not interested in Hutchinson as a suspect)

Sgt Edward Badham and Abberline spoke to the man after the inquest was done (same day)
Policemen accompanied him trying to locate the man he saw with MJK.
He lived in at the Victoria Working Men's Home, Commercial Street.
He was either an unemployed laborer or night watchman.

Is that it?

[Ben]

Hi Amanda,

I've read a lot about 'Astrakhan' man in the last few posts. The search to identify this man may be fruitless

Well, especially if the man in question did not exist, and was rather a work of fiction created by Hutchinson to deflect away from his own loitering outside Kelly's home shortly before she was killed, as seemingly witnessed by Sarah Lewis.

I'm interested to hear about your great great grandfather. It is doubtful, in my opinion, that the more impoverished immigrants sported Astrakhan coats. It was made of lamb's wool and beyond the price range of the working class poor of Whitechapel. It would certainly have been associated with Eastern Europe.

All the best,
Ben

[Amanda]

Exactly...

Hi Amanda,



Well, especially if the man in question did not exist, and was rather a work of fiction created by Hutchinson to deflect away from his own loitering outside Kelly's home shortly before she was killed, as seemingly witnessed by Sarah Lewis.

I'm interested to hear about your great great grandfather. It is doubtful, in my opinion, that the more impoverished immigrants sported Astrakhan coats. It was made of lamb's wool and beyond the price range of the working class poor of Whitechapel. It would certainly have been associated with Eastern Europe.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,
I agree with your thoughts about Hutchinson creating the Astrakhan character to cover his own dubious actions. He certainly seemed a bit of a glory seeker.

Excellent observations. My great great grandfather was a very wealthy Russian.

Amanda

[Bridewell]

Hi,

I've read a lot about 'Astrakhan' man in the last few posts. The search to identify this man may be fruitless, there would have been hundreds of immigrants wearing such attire.
In fact, I actually have a photo of my great great grandfather from around 1890 wearing an Astrakhan coat and felt hat. Just as a matter of interest, he also lived in London and had a sandy coloured moustache....

Amanda

Did he by any chance write a diary?

[Amanda]

Ha, ha...

Did he by any chance write a diary?

Hi Bridewell,

Nope! He didn't trade in shawls either...

Amanda

[Sally]

The account he gave in his memoirs still contains points of accuracy and, as he compares the sighting of Hutchi(n)son with Mrs Maxwell, it appears he is inclined to think they were both mistaken as to the woman being Mary Kelly, not that either one had been intentionally lying.

'Points of accuracy', Jon? Hardly a ringing endorsement, is it? I read Dew's memoirs some time ago and came away with the impression that his recollection of Hutchinson was vague and somewhat disinterested. I think it's also relevant to point out that we have no way of knowing what Dew, not a senior policeman in 1888, knew.

But let's not embroil ourselves in a 'What Dew Knew' debate - life's too short.

Moving on...

I'm delighted to see a thread regarding Honest George Hutchinson - it makes a refreshing change from Crossmere's Shawl.

I think that there is circumstantial evidence to support the premise that Hutchinson invented part, or all of his account. An account which, point by point, is strikingly similar to Hutchinson's own appeared in the press in the days before Hutchinson came forward; raising the possibility that his account was derivative and thus, invented.

There is also an error in Hutchinson's original statement to the police in that the name of the pub that he claims to have stood outside whilst first watching Kelly and Mr.Astrachan has been scored through and replaced with another. It has been suggested that the error was made by the police officer who took Hutchinson's statement - but of course, it could as easily have been Hutchinson himself who made the error.

At the very least, the above should give rise to doubt as to the truthfulness of Hutchinson's statement - and that's without taking into account his improbable Astrachan Man.

If his story was an invention, we are then left with the issue of his motivation - there is more than one possibility there.

[Wickerman]

I think that there is circumstantial evidence to support the premise that Hutchinson invented part, or all of his account. An account which, point by point, is strikingly similar to Hutchinson's own appeared in the press in the days before Hutchinson came forward; raising the possibility that his account was derivative and thus, invented.

I realize this is an older post, but at the time you wrote it I had to wonder what you saw as "strikingly similar", seeing as the man described by Kennedy/Ronay, etc. is nothing like Astrachan.

I mean, since when did a 40 year old man, 6 ft tall, wearing a Billycock hat and carrying a black bag, sound "strikingly similar", to a 35 yr old, 5ft 6 tall, wearing a felt hat turned down, and carrying a parcel?

Please hi-lite what is "strikingly similar" in the two descriptions. A detailed comparison may help immensely.
I'll give you the black moustache, you take it from there....

At the very least, the above should give rise to doubt as to the truthfulness of Hutchinson's statement

At the very least you should provide a detailed comparison in order to demonstrate your argument. Only when a point-by-point comparison can be observed, then might your suggestion be taken seriously.

- and that's without taking into account his improbable Astrachan Man.

"Improbable"?, based on what?
Jews did not live in the area, Jews were not allowed out at night, Jews could not afford 'fancy' attire?
Please elaborate.

If his story was an invention, we are then left with the issue of his motivation - there is more than one possibility there.

Ah, but that is only "if", to which the counter argument is, "if" he is telling the truth.
And seeing as such a Jewish man was known to live in the area, and was known to 'fancy' himself up, and was known to flee the area the very next morning....well, therein lies a clue.

[Sally]

Jon,

Don't do the Isaacs thing with me. It will certainly be ill-advised.

As for the rest, it'll have to wait til morning.

[Wickerman]

I like a challenge...

[Ben]

FFS...

How many Hutchinson threads are you seriously intending to dredge up?

It's Hutchbook again, obviously...

[Wickerman]

FFS...

How many Hutchinson threads are you seriously intending to dredge up?

It's Hutchbook again, obviously...

Stressing out?