Vetting Hutchinson

[Fisherman]

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.

That IF....such had been the case then Dew SHOULD have been aware of this and mentioned that fact in his book.

Why did you ask me this, if you also believe that Dew was not on the "need to know" list?

P.S.
Lets not go into your other assertion that these same "Secret Police" ran to the press at every opportunity.....

Well, Jon, I think that effectively ends THAT discussion!

[John G]

Timelines

How did Hutchinson fix the time? Thus, Edward Spooner estimated that he checked Stride's body at around 12:35, but he must have been at least half an hour out. I mean, what if he saw Kelly with the suspect at, say, 1:45? He says he waited about 3 quarters of an hour but it could have been less. Under this scenario it's possible that he left before Lewis arrived.

However, another difficulty for me is that if the man Lewis saw wasn't Hutchinson, who was he? Why didn't he come forward? Of course, considering that his behaviour could be regarded as suspicions, as could a failure to come forward as a witness, this opens up the possibility, perhaps even probability, that Kelly's murderer had an accomplice. However, I would consider that highly unlikely, which then makes me wonder if the man Lewis saw was, indeed, Hutchinson.

[Sally]

Did you ask them, Sally - all of them? Impressive!

Oh no need for that, Fish - there are over 1600 posts on the question of the wrong night which clearly demonstrate mainstream opinion.

Although, we could have a poll if you like - you know, like we did for your 'Did Lewis Lie?' theory.

And of course for Cross the Ripper. How's that going, by the way?

[harry]

Fisherman,
Aberline,Badham and Hutchinson were not remembering from many years before.Just three days,so I find your comparison a little lame.Not only the weather,but Kelly's murder,a trip to Romford,the lord mayors show all were aids to memory as to what day was meant.
That the police were lax as you suggest is a bit unjust.One man among thousands,and little to go on.
Aberline writes of an interrogation.Certainly he would have treated each element of Hutchinson's information as vital."How can you be sure it was the 9th Mr Hutchinson"as perhaps the most vital of all,and at the end Aberline was satisfied it was the 9th.That,I assume,after much verbal exchange.
After Hutchinson appeared,then the information Lewis had given,of seeing a man at Crossingham's, became unimportant.The interview was not about her,and she could give no information of the person Hutchinson claims met Kelly.So mention of her was not necessary to the statement.Doesn't mean it wasn't asked for,or wasn't given It was however on record.
So fisherman,if you want to believe Dew's assumption years after the event ,over Aberlines first hand interrogation after three days,be my guest.

[Garry Wroe]

Stunning!

I assume you are talking about Detective Sergeant Dew?

‘As Detective Constable, H Division, actively engaged on Ripper case.’ (The Jack the Ripper A-Z, Begg, Fido and Skinner.)

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.

Complained? I don’t complain, especially to those with a ‘stunning’ capacity for self-deception. If you wish me to comment on a specific point then provide the quote in question. I certainly do not believe that Dew was unaware that Astrakhan was out of the frame. My contention has been that he was obviously unaware as to why this had come about. It’s a simple premise, though one that’s obviously too complex for you to comprehend.

That IF....such had been the case then Dew SHOULD have been aware of this and mentioned that fact in his book.

Oh, I see. First you attribute to me something I never said, then you adopt a stance of feigned indignation over the thing I never said. Nice try.

Why did you ask me this, if you also believe that Dew was not on the "need to know" list?

Stunning.

P.S.
Lets not go into your other assertion that these same "Secret Police" ran to the press at every opportunity.....

What on earth are you talking about?

[Garry Wroe]

Well, Jon, I think that effectively ends THAT discussion!

You could be right, Fisherman, but not for the reasons you’d assumed.

[Garry Wroe]

The problem I see here is, that Hutchinson only mentions two men.

Today, we have a better appreciation for the fairer sex, but in the late Victorian period women, especially of the poorer classes, were little more than background noise.

What!!??

If he had said he saw another woman idling along at some point then there may be a case for the absence of Sarah Lewis in his testimony. However, the fact he mentions no other women at all in the street could simply be due to class recognition. He may have seen women, but they didn't matter, they were not important.

Well, he claimed to have seen Mary Kelly, and followed her, and monitored her dwelling place for the best part of an hour. Another theory bites the dust.

[Fisherman]

Oh no need for that, Fish - there are over 1600 posts on the question of the wrong night which clearly demonstrate mainstream opinion.

Although, we could have a poll if you like - you know, like we did for your 'Did Lewis Lie?' theory.

And of course for Cross the Ripper. How's that going, by the way?

I have my very own poll, Sally. But you don´t want to know what it´s about.

[Fisherman]

harry: Fisherman,
Aberline,Badham and Hutchinson were not remembering from many years before.Just three days,so I find your comparison a little lame.Not only the weather,but Kelly's murder,a trip to Romford,the lord mayors show all were aids to memory as to what day was meant.

What you need to ask yourself, Harry, is this: Do people sometimed mistake the days even if it´s just three days away?
Do people ever say "I met John on Tuesday", only to later realize that it was on Monday or Wednesday?
Do such things ever happen?

Let me answer it for you: It happens very frequently.

But did not these people, who made these mistakes, have other things to go by, that should help them not to get it wrong?

Answer: Yes, indeed.

So why is it, Harry, that people mix up the dates just the same? I´m sure you know - just as I do - that these things happen all the time.

The Lord Mayors´s show did not pass in Dorset Street as Hutchinson stood there. If he did not speak of the weather, how was Abberline to know he had the days wrong? Of course he had his trip to Romford to estimate from - but whay if he was mistaken on which day he was there?

Do SUCH things ever happen, Harry?

That the police were lax as you suggest is a bit unjust.One man among thousands,and little to go on.

Sorry, but before we know what happened, we can´t know if I was unjust. We have examples of the police being VERY lax in connection with the Nichols case. It happens.

Aberline writes of an interrogation.Certainly he would have treated each element of Hutchinson's information as vital.

And do the police miss out anyway at times? Yes or no?
The problem is that you can always say that people NORMALLY remember things correctly and you will be right. So if we are to go by what people NORMALLY do, then Hutchinson was right on the dates. To open up for him having been wrong demands an open mind. But once we apply that open mind, we can immediately see that things are in line with a mistaken date: Dew, Lewis, the weather, the "embarrasement" of the police, the trust in Hutchinson, Reg Hutchinsons statement about how his father was sorry that nothing came from his efforts; it all falls neatly in place. And that´s not a bad indicator.

"How can you be sure it was the 9th Mr Hutchinson"as perhaps the most vital of all,and at the end Aberline was satisfied it was the 9th.That,I assume,after much verbal exchange.

Yes, Harry, I also wish that we lived in a perfect world, where the police never goofed up and always remembered to ask all the right questions and always interpreted the answers correctly. Sadly, this only happens in Utopia - mistakes are made, things are forgotten, and information that should be requested is left out.
At the end of the day, the suggestion of a muddling of the days has more going for it factwise and evidencewise than the suggestion of Hutchinson the killer. That´s why I see things the way I do.

After Hutchinson appeared,then the information Lewis had given,of seeing a man at Crossingham's, became unimportant.

It never could have, unless it was thought to be a lie. As long as it was regarded as the truth, it was vital information.

The interview was not about her,and she could give no information of the person Hutchinson claims met Kelly.So mention of her was not necessary to the statement.Doesn't mean it wasn't asked for,or wasn't given It was however on record.

Show me one single example where the police leaves out this kind of information, and I will listen. Up til then, I´m afraid I think the mere suggestion is without any value at all.

So fisherman,if you want to believe Dew's assumption years after the event ,over Aberlines first hand interrogation after three days,be my guest.

In what respect do you think Abberline and Dew differ, Harry? They both identified a trustworthy man, and they both had to accept that his information was of lesser value than what was originally thought. Therefore, I think they are totally in line with each other - and with me.

[Fisherman]

You could be right, Fisherman, but not for the reasons you’d assumed.

Oh, I think we may safely conclude that I am right: The police does NOT hide vital information from their men on the street unless there is a really good reason to do so.
In this case, you are suggesting that the larger part of the Metropolitan police were kept in the dark about how Hutchinson´s story had been discarded. I see little value in such a suggestion, since it would have the same larger part applying their skills and powers to the object of catching a man their superiors thought did not exist.

Wouldn´t that be totally bonkers, Garry? Of course it would!

I asked you before what the reasons would be for keeping their men out of the know.

Any answers on that one?

[John G]

But if the man that Lewis claims to have seen wasn't Hutchinson then who was he? He was described as looking up the court as if waiting or looking for someone, so his behaviour might be regarded as suspicious. And if he was an innocent bystander then why didn't he come forward? Why didn't he at least try and sell his story to the press as others had done? Why was he never identified, if we assume he wasn't Hutchinson? If Hutchinson had fallen out of favour, then why did the police not turn their attention to this suspiciously- behaving character who had failed to come forward? Why is there no record of him being investigated, i.e. on the ground that the police had determined that the man wasn't Hutchinson as his account was now discredited?

And if he was JtR then that undermines Cox's evidence and Blotchy as a suspect. If it's argued that he was some sort of lookout then...well, that surely opens up a can of worms! In fact, taking an Occam's Razor approach, isn't it far simpler to conclude that Hutchinson wasn't thoroughly discredited, i.e. because there was a consensus that he was the man seen by Lewis?

[Fisherman]

John G: But if the man that Lewis claims to have seen wasn't Hutchinson then who was he?

He was either a lodger or the killer, by the looks of things, John.

He was described as looking up the court as if waiting or looking for someone, so his behaviour might be regarded as suspicious.

According to Lewis´ SECOND statement, yes. In the first, she had no idea about his appearance or demeanor. It cannot be stressed enough that witness psychology would regard the second statement as highly dubious.

And if he was an innocent bystander then why didn't he come forward?

For any reason - the proximity to the crime, for not being able to read, because he was not much sought after, for not wanting to have anything to do with the police, for having been in a street where prostitutes were ripe...

Why didn't he at least try and sell his story to the press as others had done?

What did he have to sell, in all honesty? A story of how he came out of Crossinghams, took a look into the rain, and walked away?

Why was he never identified, if we assume he wasn't Hutchinson?

Because he never came forward.

If Hutchinson had fallen out of favour, then why did the police not turn their attention to this suspiciously- behaving character who had failed to come forward?

Maybe they did. He must have been of interest, we can conclude that much. But if he did not come forward on his own account, there was little that the police could do.

Why is there no record of him being investigated, i.e. on the ground that the police had determined that the man wasn't Hutchinson as his account was now discredited?

There is no much evidence of Church passage man, of Long´s man etc being investigated as such. Their presence was noted, and then we surmise that they were sought after. But we have no evidence to prove it.

And if he was JtR then that undermines Cox's evidence and Blotchy as a suspect.

True.

If it's argued that he was some sort of lookout then...well, that surely opens up a can of worms!

Not to me - I am not going near the lid of the can, since I don´t think there was any accomplice. To my mind, Jack was a lone hunter.

In fact, taking an Occam's Razor approach, isn't it far simpler to conclude that Hutchinson wasn't thoroughly discredited, i.e. because there was a consensus that he was the man seen by Lewis?

If his story was bogus, he would be thoroughly discredited. So it seems it was not.

[John G]

Hello Fisherman,

But the fact that no alternative to Lewis' man appears to have been found surely means that, at the very least, Hutchinson could not be completely discounted. What I also find interesting is that in his statement he said: "I believe that he lives in the neighbourhood, and I fancied I saw him in Petticoat Lane on Sunday morning, but I was not certain."

Now, considering the weather, poor lighting conditions, and brief sighting of the suspect, it is clearly remarkable that Hutchinson recalled so much detail, particularly as he took several days to come forward, so his memory wouldn't have been fresh This, of course, casts suspicion on his detailed account- although Lawende's account was also detailed for a man who claimed to see very little. However, is it possible, because he would have been understandably eager to give as much information as possible, that he simply amalgamated what he recalled about Petticoat Lane man with what he remembered of the Miller's Court suspect, at least subconsciously?

Of course, it's suspicious that he didn't come forward for several days, but then if he wasn't Lewis' man then Lewis' man didn't come forward at all, which is even more suspicious! So maybe he didn't come forward for one of the reasons you noted in your previous post... proximity to the crime, not being able to read, not wanting anything to do with the police, but then his conscience got the better of him... I mean, clearly what applies to an alternative Lewis Man must, logically, equally apply to Hutchinson!

[Wickerman]

‘As Detective Constable, H Division, actively engaged on Ripper case.’ (The Jack the Ripper A-Z, Begg, Fido and Skinner.)

I am well aware of how he is described in the A-Z, but he appeared at Worship Street Court on November 19th as, Detective Sergeant Dew, ten days after the murder.

[Wickerman]

Complained? I don’t complain, especially to those with a ‘stunning’ capacity for self-deception. If you wish me to comment on a specific point then provide the quote in question. I certainly do not believe that Dew was unaware that Astrakhan was out of the frame. My contention has been that he was obviously unaware as to why this had come about. It’s a simple premise, though one that’s obviously too complex for you to comprehend.


Oh, I see. First you attribute to me something I never said, then you adopt a stance of feigned indignation over the thing I never said. Nice try.

Lets just repeat what you said to PCDunn six days ago, below....

Let's not forget, either, that Astrakhan would have been a valuable witness had he been located and cleared of any involvement in Kelly's death. He could have provided critical information as to when she was last seen alive, for example, or even the description of someone he'd observed loitering about the court or Dorset Street itself. This being the case, I think it unlikely that he was traced and yet slipped under the press radar. And why would Walter Dew have neglected to mention such an incident when recounting the Hutchinson episode in his autobiography?

Remember now?

Then, just yesterday you tell this to Christer...

Information was disseminated on a ‘need to know’ basis. As a lowly detective constable Dew was not a party to the decision making process of those leading the manhunt. This was a high profile murder investigation, not a casual gathering of the Women’s Institute. Secrecy was key and protected wherever possible. Thus the upper echelon reduced the risk of leaks by informing the likes of Dew only what was required to get the job done.

So, in your opinion, Dew was only informed on a 'need to know' basis, so he was not informed about every aspect of the murder investigation.

Yet, only six days ago you attempted to promote the idea that IF Astrachan had been found, and cleared, then Dew would have noted this in his memoirs. Who is going to tell him?

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=336378&postcount=1501

Do you need any help in keeping track of your arguments?

And, as a footnote to this charade, you have already stated often enough that in your opinion Scotland Yard would share case related information with the press, ....but now you say, not with their own officers????

Maybe Dew had to mingle with the press in order to learn anything about the case?
How do you keep a straight face...