Vetting Hutchinson

[Wickerman]

He is reputed to have said:
" I was quite sober, not having had anything to drink all day."

[Amanda]

Is it likely that Hutchinson was drunk that night & perhaps continued his drunken stupor (presuming that someone gave him money).

Therefore when he gave his statement to the police, his memory was fuzzy.
Then later, when speaking to the press he recalled other details.
Just a suggestion..
Amanda

[Wickerman]

Lying, for what reason?
What is to be gained by him providing more detail to the press than he did in his statement to police?
It doesn't matter to Abberline which end of the passage he stood at, he was there at the crime scene, and just as guilty, or innocent.

Your point about this being of some significance is yet to be explained.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Garry,

But if that is what Hutch told the police, surely they would have asked him what made him halt there and merely look into the court, if he hoped to see the couple there. "Why didn't you go right in then, George?"

Maybe Ben has the answer:



So was Ben's scary invisible dragon preventing Hutch from leaving this direct - but apparently fruitless - vantage point, to go into the court via the passageway, when it failed to give him his hoped-for sighting of the couple? Or when he told the police he went "to" the court to try to see them again, is that what they naturally inferred, that he would have gone right in, just as the press had it?



See, this is what doesn't really make any sense if this was a significant departure from what he told the police, and therefore a reason to suspect him of murder. Would he really have put himself directly outside the victim's room for the newspaper reading public, having just assured the police he had stopped at the passage entrance and gone no further in? Surely not if he had in fact gone right into her room and killed her there! Wasn't he the least bit worried that the police might spot this glaring difference and want to know what was going on? Do you think they didn't spot it, and he was just lucky, or didn't they consider it as important as you do today? The only reason I could see for Hutch embellishing his account for the papers in this way, to put himself nearer the murder scene than he told the cops, would be if he was making the whole thing up and it never occurred to him that it might be risky to provide this extra drama.



Yes, that's what I'm trying to do here, Garry. The latter claim being of 'such evidentiary value' is what makes it seem unlikely to me that a guilty Hutch would have blabbed it to the papers after deliberately not mentioning it to the police. It smacks of pissing on one's own chips.



So Garry, do you believe Hutch must have learned about Lewis's inquest testimony and fashioned his own statement accordingly, hot-footing it to the police station pretty much straight away? If so, how do you see this coming about, and how much does the theory rely on all this not merely making 'perfect, logical sense', but actually having taken place? What if Hutch wasn't in a position to learn that he had been mentioned at the inquest as a loiterer?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
If I may.

Hutch told the police he stood outside the court, waiting to see if they came out.

Hutch later told the press he went into the court, standing near her place.

simple and straightforward.

To me, experience has shown that this smacks of classic lying behavior, where the subject, after saying they were somewhere, later thinks someone saw him somewhere else, and changes his story accordingly.

[caz]

There is absolutely no reason to think that a voluntary witness in 1888 would be considered a potential Jack the Ripper himself walking into the station and requesting an interview. That doesn’t mean his story is “automatically” trusted. He only claimed to be the last person to see Kelly alive, which invites the possibility...

Gotta love Ben. If someone claims to be the last person to see a murder victim alive, it usually invites the police to accuse that person of being the murderer.

Yes I know that's not quite what Ben meant to say, but it brought a smile to my face.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hutchinson appears to have been sighted by Sarah Lewis, Scott, as he stood on the southern footway of Dorset Street peering down the passage as though 'looking or waiting for someone'. His witness statement implies that he then crossed the road, halted at the mouth of the interconnecting passage, then looked into the court in the hope of seeing Kelly and/or Astrakhan.

Hi Garry,

But if that is what Hutch told the police, surely they would have asked him what made him halt there and merely look into the court, if he hoped to see the couple there. "Why didn't you go right in then, George?"

Maybe Ben has the answer:

Unless there was a scary invisible dragon on the other side of the road that we don’t know about, the likelihood is that he was on both sides of the street (which was a cavernous 10-12 feet wide!), and leaning against a wall to facilitate a direct vantage point “up the court” makes particular sense.

So was Ben's scary invisible dragon preventing Hutch from leaving this direct - but apparently fruitless - vantage point, to go into the court via the passageway, when it failed to give him his hoped-for sighting of the couple? Or when he told the police he went "to" the court to try to see them again, is that what they naturally inferred, that he would have gone right in, just as the press had it?

His press statements, on the other hand, tell a different story. Now he wanders down the passage and stands directly outside Kelly's room for a couple of minutes where he claims to have discerned neither light nor sound.

See, this is what doesn't really make any sense if this was a significant departure from what he told the police, and therefore a reason to suspect him of murder. Would he really have put himself directly outside the victim's room for the newspaper reading public, having just assured the police he had stopped at the passage entrance and gone no further in? Surely not if he had in fact gone right into her room and killed her there! Wasn't he the least bit worried that the police might spot this glaring difference and want to know what was going on? Do you think they didn't spot it, and he was just lucky, or didn't they consider it as important as you do today? The only reason I could see for Hutch embellishing his account for the papers in this way, to put himself nearer the murder scene than he told the cops, would be if he was making the whole thing up and it never occurred to him that it might be risky to provide this extra drama.

The point I've been attempting to make is that this latter claim was of such evidentiary value that it would have been included and elaborated upon in his official police statement had it been made in the presence of investigators. The fact that it wasn't is sufficient to tell us that it was never mentioned. And this, in turn, means that Hutchinson gave differing accounts to the press and police - something Jon insists never happened.

Draw your own conclusions.

Yes, that's what I'm trying to do here, Garry. The latter claim being of 'such evidentiary value' is what makes it seem unlikely to me that a guilty Hutch would have blabbed it to the papers after deliberately not mentioning it to the police. It smacks of pissing on one's own chips.

Hutchinson’s non-mention of a Lewis makes perfect, logical sense if it was her sighting of him that compelled him to come forward and “explain” his loitering presence near a crime scene, and he didn’t wish to draw attention to the fact that it had.

So Garry, do you believe Hutch must have learned about Lewis's inquest testimony and fashioned his own statement accordingly, hot-footing it to the police station pretty much straight away? If so, how do you see this coming about, and how much does the theory rely on all this not merely making 'perfect, logical sense', but actually having taken place? What if Hutch wasn't in a position to learn that he had been mentioned at the inquest as a loiterer?

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

In exists in reality.

Care to show me an official source?

If the Met were "not involved", they were extremely negligent - simple as that. Fortunately, the article you quote from assures us that they were "bound to investigate" Packer's claims in spite of their reduced faith in his credibility.

This was the City Police, according to the article.

So what do you propose the maximum length of time might be, then, for witnesses or suspects who cannot verify their claims to be kept in detention? What happens if the police are indefinitely suspicious of an individual but cannot detain them indefinitely?

Here are a few examples:

".....some men who had been arrested the preceding night having been discharged as soon as their identity had been established."

"Several men were arrested during Tuesday night and in the course of yesterday under circumstances considered suspicious, but in no case did the detention last more than a few hours."

It's as simple as that Ben.

I hope you're not seriously suggesting that anyone who could verify their identity and home address was automatically proven innocent of the murders in the minds of the police? Maybe they were that criminally negligent, who knows? I strongly suspect otherwise, however.

I'm not suggesting anything, I only try to show you the procedure, it is not my place to justify it.
The way these investigations read to me is, the police were satisfied if they had a permanent address so they could find you if necessary.
I'm sure we both know there was no guarantee in that assumption.

[Wickerman]

On a different note altogether, I attended a Blue Jays game last night, which was a fantastic experience. They were worthy winners too!

We must all still head out for that brew, if we can just tear Jon away from the Hutchinson threads for one evening.

Happy to hear you enjoyed the game Monday Ben, nice weather too, sadly they got well and truly thrashed last night.

[Wickerman]

Well, then, let’s have a look at the post which set the ball rolling:-


Maybe next time you’ll think twice before attempting to belittle another poster.

Knowing you as I do, however, I very much doubt it.

Garry, do you have anything through the time of the Whitechapel murders to show us what rank Walter Dew was?

[Garry Wroe]

I hope you're not seriously suggesting that anyone who could verify their identity and home address was automatically proven innocent of the murders in the minds of the police? Maybe they were that criminally negligent, who knows? I strongly suspect otherwise, however.

Generally speaking, Ben, these were the 'suspects' given into custody by members of the public to whom I've referred several times over recent weeks. Dr Holt was one of these men and there were many more besides. So again, there was a clear distinction between such men and those who generated genuine investigative interest. Compare the case of Dr Holt to that which resulted in Kosminski being kept under round-the-clock surveillance and that distinction is self-evident.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Where does Violenia claim to have been the last person to see Chapman alive?
Was he in the backyard?

If Violenia's account was true, the overwhelming likelihood is that he would have been the last person to see the Annie Chapman alive, with the exception of the killer. Just so with Hutchinson in the case of Kelly.

But I thought you told me he saw no-one else, one man enter the lodging-house, and one policeman.
According to you, he never saw Lewis.

No, that is not my position at all. I don't doubt that he saw Lewis as she entered the court immediately in front of him, but I suspect that he deliberately omitted to mention her.

You have no police dismissal of Hutchinson, it only exists in your mind

In exists in reality.

The City took up the case, you read it yourself.
The Met. were not involved.

If the Met were "not involved", they were extremely negligent - simple as that. Fortunately, the article you quote from assures us that they were "bound to investigate" Packer's claims in spite of their reduced faith in his credibility.

I didn't say it did, I even gave you examples (who said anything about "lifelong"?).
Exaggerate the case beyond reason, then knock it down - this approach seems endemic among the vocal minority, I've noted it twice before.

So what do you propose the maximum length of time might be, then, for witnesses or suspects who cannot verify their claims to be kept in detention? What happens if the police are indefinitely suspicious of an individual but cannot detain them indefinitely?

So long as the suspect could provide a home address and verification of who he was they let them leave - numerous accounts testify to that.

I hope you're not seriously suggesting that anyone who could verify their identity and home address was automatically proven innocent of the murders in the minds of the police? Maybe they were that criminally negligent, who knows? I strongly suspect otherwise, however.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Few cohesive and rational explanations exist for Hutchinson making his statement about being there at all....this, imho, is one good one, and to date, the only good one.

Thanks, Mike. Glad we're in agreement on this.

On a different note altogether, I attended a Blue Jays game last night, which was a fantastic experience. They were worthy winners too!

We must all still head out for that brew, if we can just tear Jon away from the Hutchinson threads for one evening.

[Garry Wroe]

You might find better success if you concentrated more on debate than trying to upstage another poster.

Well, then, let’s have a look at the post which set the ball rolling:-

Stunning!

I assume you are talking about Detective Sergeant Dew?

I cannot resist pointing this out, but it was you, yourself, who complained to me that Det. Sergeant Dew was apparently not aware that Isaacs/Astrachan had been eliminated from the inquiry.

Maybe next time you’ll think twice before attempting to belittle another poster.

Knowing you as I do, however, I very much doubt it.

[Wickerman]

That's rich coming from someone who only a few weeks ago was whooping and hollering about Dew having been a Detective Sergeant!!!

"Detective-sergeant Dew attended from Commercial-street Station, and stated that the prisoner had been arrested that morning" ...etc.
Times, 19 Nov. 1888.

Detective Sergeant Dew testified at Worship Street Court, if you stop to think for a moment, policemen who testify in Court introduce themselves with, Name, Rank & Serial Number.

This pretty much rules out a mistake on behalf of the press, it's not impossible, but very unlikely.
Given that Constables, especially those who show initiative, can be upgraded to Sergeant on a temporary basis, this is more likely the solution.
Det. Constable Dew was known to move through the ranks rather quick.

You might find better success if you concentrated more on debate than trying to upstage another poster.

[Garry Wroe]

Dew was a Detective Constable, not a Police Constable, you appear to be confusing the two.

That's rich coming from someone who only a few weeks ago was whooping and hollering about Dew having been a Detective Sergeant!!!