Vetting Hutchinson

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Once again, Hutchinson explained in print that this was his meaning.

Hutchinson explained in print that "to the court" and "up" it referred to two separate locations:

"They both then went up the court together. I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away"

The above makes clear the fact that Hutchinson regarded the act of going "to" the court to be quite different to going "up" it.

Warren never put a time limit on the receipt of paperwork, it is only made clear that every communication must pass over his desk.

Yes, and at the very earliest opportunity. A manhunt for an all-too-active serial killer could ill-afford to conceal important information at ground level, which is why Abberline would certainly not have withheld crucial revelations from the Hutchinson interrogation had any emerged.

“They can hardly listen for his footsteps if they are making noise themselves.
On the other hand, Cox believed she heard footsteps outside and thought of a policeman on his beat. Maybe that is what they thought.

I don't see the point of this line, why does it matter?”

I’m simply trying to ascertain why a couple, who had been chatty and giggly and spreeish a few seconds previously, would suddenly go silent upon entering Kelly’s room, and it “matters” because your theory demands that such bizarre behaviour actually occurred. The idea that they were trying to “hide” from Hutchinson doesn’t really ring true, considering the complete lack of interest Astrakhan man had previously shown in Hutchinson’s overtly intrusive behaviour.

As for witnesses requiring specific questions to encourage them into providing information that they might not have considered relevant, I’m quite happy with that as a general principle. I’m not happy with the suggestion that the statement-taking offer simply told Hutchinson to deliver a monologue and hold court uninterrupted for as long as he wishes, with no questions being asked. That appears to be your impression alone, and I note that none of the police experts who post here have supported your contention that it happened that way. Nor am I happy with the idea that an innocent, truthful Hutchinson didn’t consider the act of entering the court itself to be an important point to mention.

“Here you go again, what cause is there to be so childish?”

I had no belittling intentions, Jon; I was simply drawing humorous attention to the latest trend of trying to make Badham look as bad as possible (bad, bad Badham!) for Hutchinson to look good.

“The subsequent information is obviously the result of further questions by the reporter, or show me wrong by proving he invented this extra information.”

Let’s just improve the above by flipping it around:

The subsequent information is obviously the result of additional invention by Hutchinson, or show me wrong by proving that it was the result of further questions by the reporter.

There, much better.

“Badham should have been looking for details which establish an alibi, to waylay any thoughts that this witness was somehow involved.”

But no such “thoughts” existed, or were likely to exist, in the absence of any experience of serial killers coming forward as witnesses. Why would it have been the fault of Badham, or any other police officer for that matter, if Hutchinson was not able to provide “details which establish an alibi”? It wasn’t as if he was likely to procure one “walking about” alone in the small hours, conveniently enough for him.

“The "fear he was recognised" has been used by others, yet it is quite clear from the above comparison that Lewis's description is no description at all. Far too general to be used to single anyone out”

It seems you’re another one who doesn’t understand the basic difference between a description and a sighting. A suspect may be essentially non-descript, and a witness may lack the ability to describe people very well, but that does not for one moment mean that the witness will not be able to “recognise” that suspect again. It is more than possible to remember another person's face without being able to provide a very detailed description of them; nondescript is not the same as unmemorable. In the case of Lewis, there may not have been much to describe, especially if wideawake man had the appearance of an average working class local.

It's a bit shabby to describe an argument as “poor” just because you haven't understood it properly, and you should try not to misinterpret the stated positions of others. Nobody, as far as I’m aware, has stated that Hutchinson was recognised; only that he feared he might be if he didn’t come forward.

Regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi Jon,
I am not saying that Hutchinson was aware of being seen, although for all we know he may have been spied in Commercial street with Kelly..?
I was suggesting the fear of being seen, and not knowing by who..
My argument was if Hutchinson had given the Handkerchief to Mary, and left the room without it,after spending a few hours in the room, and realised that expensive item may have been considered possibly left by the killer, the whole Mr A scenario, may have been invented by Hutchinson, to explain how that item was in the room..and his description fitted a person who may have carried such a fine silk hanky..
The police would have believed his story , as the Handkerchief would have confirmed its authenticity..
As mentioned I have always believed Topping to have been Hutchinson, and I would suggest that a Dapper appearance would have fitted his character, and a silk handkerchief would have been possibly a trade mark....thus the panic..
If anyone had been in that room during the night, and left a item there, slight concern I would suggest....
Regards Richard.

[Wickerman]

Richard.

I think you will forever be inseparable from the theory that George Hutchinson was Topping, but as to the rest of your belief, I still feel that accepting George Hutchinson told the truth avoids the ever increasing hoops and hurdles required to believe his story was in some way false.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Hutchinson explained in print that "to the court" and "up" it referred to two separate locations:

"They both then went up the court together. I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away"

The above makes clear the fact that Hutchinson regarded the act of going "to" the court to be quite different to going "up" it.

Hi Ben.
No, there is no difference. It's no different than anyone saying, "I'm going up the shop", or an observation that "they went up the shop".
In both cases all that is being indicated is going to the shop.

It's more of a colloquial expression for going somewhere that is at the end, like a shop at the end of the street - "I'm going up the shop".
In this case the Court was at the end of the passage - "they went up the Court". That is, up (to) the Court.
The meaning is the same.

We have the meaning already, so however you choose to interpret his words they must be in keeping with his explanation:
" I went up the court, and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house, or hear any noise."

As has been pointed out before, what he told the police is the same as what he told the press, except he clarified the meaning to the journalist. So this clarification also applies to the police version.
That's all there is to it Ben.

Yes, and at the very earliest opportunity. A manhunt for an all-too-active serial killer could ill-afford to conceal important information at ground level, which is why Abberline would certainly not have withheld crucial revelations from the Hutchinson interrogation had any emerged.

We have no indication that Swanson was directing Abberline.
All Abberline was doing is filing his paperwork through Swanson. Abberline is acting on his own initiative so he will decide when to dispatch paperwork, and when to act upon information received. So long as he informs Central Office (via Swanson) he is fulfilling his duty.

I’m simply trying to ascertain why a couple, who had been chatty and giggly and spreeish a few seconds previously, would suddenly go silent upon entering Kelly’s room, and it “matters” because your theory demands that such bizarre behaviour actually occurred.

But it doesn't "matter" if we do not know the reason for every unverified claim in his story. You seem to operate under the impression that if someone does not know ALL the answers there is a flaw in the story, yet we have no firm answers to anything, neither you nor me.
So why pretend that having all the answers "matters" when we do not even posses all the questions.

We do not know if Astrachan asked Kelly "who was that man?", he may not have. Equally, Kelly may not have noticed Hutchinson following the pair, so Astrachan was nervous about approach of slow footsteps, and Kelly did not make the connection.
This is another case where you are trying to draw conclusions on a question that has no answer.

As for witnesses requiring specific questions to encourage them into providing information that they might not have considered relevant, I’m quite happy with that as a general principle. I’m not happy with the suggestion that the statement-taking offer simply told Hutchinson to deliver a monologue and hold court uninterrupted for as long as he wishes, with no questions being asked.

I have said, "if he was questioned, we have no firm indication of it." So yes, I am quite prepared to accept him not being questioned by Badham on his story, but that does not mean they did not speak to each other. Badham could have guided him while the story unfolded, without asking him specific details.
I am quite certain the description WAS the product of questioning, it being so professionally put together.

Sutcliffe related 33 pages of confession, covering most of his victims, in chronological order, without being questioned.
He was questioned before the taking of his statement, and after, but not during.
So what I am suggesting is not unlikely, nor impossible.

I had no belittling intentions, Jon; I was simply drawing humorous attention to the latest trend of trying to make Badham look as bad as possible (bad, bad Badham!) for Hutchinson to look good.

Ok, but your posts tend to be peppered with similar little comments that come across as more juvenile than anything else.
I think it contributes to the frequent descent into sarcasm, and worse, on both sides.

Let’s just improve the above by flipping it around:

The subsequent information is obviously the result of additional invention by Hutchinson, or show me wrong by proving that it was the result of further questions by the reporter.

There, much better.

Hutchinson HAD already told his story to the journalist.

In telling that story he has been granted the opportunity to insert embellishments or exaggerations as he retells it to the journalist, yet he did not. There is also a chronological flow to this story.

Then, the editor inserted the 'cut and paste' description.

After which we are given very disorganized scattering of details that do NOT flow chronologically. Just as would be the case if the journalist was firing questions at him concerning various points in his story.
That is how we can see we are reading answers to questions.

It makes no sense whatsoever for the newspaper to publish changes in his story, after his story has been given. It is the editors job to make the story flow, not offer up a disjointed bundle of additions as a supplement.
So, no changes, just explanations in greater detail at the request of the journalist.

But no such “thoughts” existed, or were likely to exist, in the absence of any experience of serial killers coming forward as witnesses.

Are you suggesting the police will not look for confirmation of a story because the term 'Serial Killer' has not been created?

I don't believe your objection Ben, it also makes no sense. The police will always want to know if their star witness was more involved than he is letting on.
It has nothing to do with future Serial Killers.
Ordinary killers in 1888 can tell lies too, can be deceptive, and need alibi's.

Why would it have been the fault of Badham, or any other police officer for that matter, if Hutchinson was not able to provide “details which establish an alibi”? It wasn’t as if he was likely to procure one “walking about” alone in the small hours, conveniently enough for him.

Badham was deficient in his questioning of the witness, when compared with todays standards (that detail is important), or, he chose not to question him at all. It isn't necessarily a matter of "fault", it is only different with what is done today.
DS Smith & DI Boyle, chose not to interrupt Sutcliffe with questions either.

It seems you’re another one who doesn’t understand the basic difference between a description and a sighting.

Why do you assume I cannot see the difference?
Lewis only saw a figure at a distance, across the street, at night.
Which only serves to weaken any claim that he was concerned about being recognised.
Your attempt at a distinction between a poor 'sighting', in the dark at a distance, as opposed to a 'description' which lacked any helpful details, fails to impress. It seems you have only made your belief more difficult to accept.
There was nothing for him to be concerned about, the eye-witness was too far away.

***
By the way, I meant to ask you, did you manage to meet up with Michael, or anyone from here while you were in Canada?
It's a shame we couldn't get together

[richardnunweek]

Hi Jon,
I have always portrayed our Hutch as squeaky clean, telling the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, but as the years roll on, not so certain that he was being honest..
That is not to say, I believe he was involved with any foul play towards Kelly, but the authenticity of Mr A. I find harder to accept..
Most of Casebook, depict him as a glory seeker after financial gain,[ which may well be true]...I see him as someone caught in a corner, and inventing a scenario, that could explain his involvement in the area, and also placing the ownership of the Red Handkerchief onto someone else..the item he left in Mary's room , which he shared until daybreak.
If that happened, we are left with the possibility that the morning sightings of Kelly are likely, it should not be forgotten , that the police initially stated, that they believed this murder happened in daylight.
Once Hutchinson made his statement, he had to stick with that account, not for one minute believing he would have to patrol the streets with officers, looking for this fictitious character, or paid a sum of money out of police funds,[ which I believed happened]..
Throughout the rest of his life Hutchinson [ which I shall label as Topping] he had to religiously stick to his account he could never alter it.
I believe my suggestion is very plausible, it would dismiss Mr A as fantasy, it would dismiss Hutchinson as a killer, it would explain Topping in later life, recalling exactly what he told the police.
We are still left however, with the little puzzle''Who killed these women''?
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
Hutchinson returns from Romford TRUE.
Hutchinson is to late to get in his lodgings ..TRUE.
Hutchinson meets Mary Kelly..TRUE.
Hutchinson sees her initially in Commercial street..FALSE.
What if Hutch is standing outside the lodging houses in Dorset street., hoping to get admission for a couple of hours, and sees Blotchy man come out of the passage followed by Kelly...Blotchy continues on his journey home..
Kelly sees Hutch across the road..
''What are you doing Mr Hutchinson''? she asks..
''Got nowhere to stay for a few hours , so nothing I can do''
''Have you got sixpence '' she asks,
''No I have spent my money going down to Romford'' he replies..
''How about that handkerchief in you pocket, worth a bit?''
He hands Kelly the item, and she utters ''Come along my dear, you will be comfortable'' .
So in this scenario,he gives Kelly his handkerchief, and therefore does not forget it, even more plausible..
But same consequence..
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“No, there is no difference. It's no different than anyone saying, "I'm going up the shop", or an observation that "they went up the shop".”

But people who use such expressions tend to stick with them, as opposed to using entirely different expressions to describe visiting the shop in two successive sentences. Hutchinson clearly differentiated “to the court” and “up the court” in his police statement, thus establishing for certain that he only went to the court entrance on Dorset Street and stood there for 45 minutes, as opposed to entering the passage itself. That is the first reason for accepting that no mention was made of entering Miller’s Court. The other, which you keep failing to address, is that Hutchinson claimed to have stood at only one location – “I stood there for three quarters of an hour” – before leaving the area completely; which means that if you want him to have followed the couple into the court itself, you’re obliged to accept his statement that he stood there for the full three quarters of an hour, as opposed to just a couple of minutes before walking back onto Dorset Street.

I’m at a loss as to how I can explain the irrefutable and inescapable contradiction more clearly, but I will try. What I’m going to do is quote the relevant extract from Hutchinson’s police extract and substitute the word “there” for the two locations under scrutiny, 1) Outside Kelly’s room in the court, and 2) Outside the court entrance in Dorset Street, and with any luck, we’ll hereafter see no more insistence that the police and press accounts correlate:

Version 1)

“They both then went up the court together. I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood outside Kelly’s room in the court for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away.”

Okay, that’s the first one. Notice that no mention is made of Hutchinson leaving his 45-minute vantage point inside the court, with none of his vigil occurring on Dorset Street. An acceptance of this version would mean that Lewis’s wideawake man was someone other than Hutchinson. It would also mean that he completely contradicted himself when he informed the press that his surveillance activity occurred primarily on Dorset Street.

Version 2)

“They both then went up the court together. I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood outside the court entrance in Dorset Street for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away.”

This is the more traditional and mainstream interpretation of Hutchinson’s location (not that interpretation is really required). Here, Hutchinson’s entire vigil takes place on Dorset Street, and no mention is made of venturing into the court “for a couple of minutes”, which means that here too we have a discrepancy with his press account.

[Ben]

“We have no indication that Swanson was directing Abberline.
All Abberline was doing is filing his paperwork through Swanson. Abberline is acting on his own initiative so he will decide when to dispatch paperwork, and when to act upon information received.”

Yes, we most assuredly do have an “indication that Swanson was directing Abberline”. Swanson was the superior officer in charge of “directing” the entire Whitechapel investigation, as well as being responsible for collating all paperwork (in which, as other reports indicate, he invested a great deal of personal interest). Your suggestion that Abberline decided was the ultimate barometer of what was and wasn’t important is very much misplaced, as is your claim that it was his decision “when to dispatch paperwork, and when to act upon information received”. The nature of the investigation was such that Abberline could ill afford to withhold information from his superiors simply because he felt like it, and he would have been severely censured had he been found to have done so. I suspect Hollywood bears some of the blame for the woefully erroneous notion that the buck stopped with Abberline.

“But it doesn't "matter" if we do not know the reason for every unverified claim in his story. You seem to operate under the impression that if someone does not know ALL the answers there is a flaw in the story, yet we have no firm answers to anything, neither you nor me”

But when presenting an entirely new interpretation of Hutchinson statement, you’re obliged to explain how that theory is feasible, and at the moment, you haven’t convincingly explained why Kelly and Astrakhan would warp into silent mode immediately upon entering Kelly’s pitch-black room, especially after being so talkative and full of laughter just moments before. This is not so much a flaw in the story, but rather a flaw in your interpretation of the story. You say we don’t have all the answers, and I acknowledge as much, but my only “answer” here is that based on the illogicality of the above scenario, your interpretation must be wrong. Hutchinson never claimed to have followed the couple into the court immediately after they entered it, and nobody but you seems to be suggesting otherwise.

“so Astrachan was nervous about approach of slow footsteps, and Kelly did not make the connection.”

And Kelly didn’t wonder why Astrakhan urged her - as he presumably must have done, in your theory - to keep absolutely silent and still, and ensure they remained in darkness??

“So yes, I am quite prepared to accept him not being questioned by Badham on his story, but that does not mean they did not speak to each other. Badham could have guided him while the story unfolded, without asking him specific details.”

Fair enough – it’s just that we were recently informed otherwise by someone with more knowledge of police matters than either of us possess. But even if you accept that Badham’s statement-taking was deficient, you still need to explain why Abberline didn’t trouble to redress that failing during the interrogation, or if he did, why no mention of these amendments in the covering report? Why submit a report knowing that the subordinate who put it together had done a botched job?

I’m not talking about “confessions”. We’re discussing a witness statement taken during an active manhunt for an uncaught, unidentified serial killer, with all the need for urgency that entailed.

“In telling that story he has been granted the opportunity to insert embellishments or exaggerations as he retells it to the journalist, yet he did not.”

Says who, you?

Where do we find the claim that he saw the suspect again on Petticoat Lane in Hutchinson’s police statement? Where do we find the claim that he approached a policeman (who mysteriously took no action)? Where’s the mention of a lodger that he supposedly related his experience to? Where’s the Romford ramble? Where’s the big seal on Astrakhan's watch chain that had a red stone hanging from it? Where’s the “American cloth” and “brown kid gloves”?

Where is your evidence that these were anything other than embellishments created by Hutchinson, which he had no intention of informing the police about (and might not even have dreamt up at that stage?) Unless we’re prepared to accept that this was what happened, all other parties must be depicted as incompetent and/or dishonest. Suddenly it’s all the fault of the Central News reporter for inventing all these details (many of which you appear to treat as gospel), or the police for failing to extract important information. The latter explanation is particularly weak – painting the police in the worst light possible, and making the press more worthy of wearing police uniforms that the supposedly incompetent officials who tackled Hutchinson’s story when it was first provided. It’s another perpetuation of the fallacy that everyone else must be tarred as incompetent for Hutchinson to emerge smelling of roses.

“I don't believe your objection Ben, it also makes no sense. The police will always want to know if their star witness was more involved than he is letting on.”

I do fervently hope you’re not starting that “automatic suspect” malarkey again. It is absolutely, emphatically not the case that all witnesses are first treated as potential killers - not in today’s world, and certainly not in 1888. If they adopted such a policy, witnesses would never come forward, fearing that outcome. “Serial killer” was just an example, albeit the most relevant one; this applies to any type of offender. Numerous offenders, serial and otherwise, have come forward under the false guise of witnesses, and most of them did so in comparatively more enlightened times in terms of policing and investigation. Very few of them were caught as a direct result of this behaviour.

In any case, if the police were hoping for Hutchinson to provide an alibi, they clearly failed in their efforts to extract one. Did Violenia provide an alibi? No, he was simply discredited as a bogus, attention-seeking witness.

“Your attempt at a distinction between a poor 'sighting', in the dark at a distance, as opposed to a 'description' which lacked any helpful details, fails to impress.”

I’m not trying to “impress” you – your position is very entrenched, but I can produce irrefutable facts that illustrate the folly of your argument, which is what I’ve done here. It absolutely does not follow that a weak description implies that the witness did not get a good look the suspect; it could just as easily mean that there wasn’t much to describe. What’s this “too far away” business? You do realise we’re talking about 10 feet here, closer than Lawende was his “sailor-like” man, about the same distance Schwartz to Broadshoulders – both of whom provided decent and detailed descriptions, without going overboard?

“By the way, I meant to ask you, did you manage to meet up with Michael, or anyone from here while you were in Canada?”

Alas no, Jon! I’ve very sorry indeed that the get-together didn’t pan out. There would have been an idea time, too, after my work period had finished and I had some leisure time. If I recall correctly I squandered it on drink, women, and trips to Niagara. I will definitely be back, though, as I’ll be wanting to re-unite with the chums I made out there. Perhaps then we can meet for a few IPAs at the Loose Moose! Hopefully it can coincide with a period when we’re not vigorously debating Hutchinson – being the sensitive soul that I am, I’d feel very bad if we got along famously but then returned to our screens to renewed argy bargy.

All the best,
Ben

[Scott Nelson]

Smyth and Holm debating Hutchinson. Hey guys, there's nothing to debate.

[Wickerman]

...The other, which you keep failing to address, is that Hutchinson claimed to have stood at only one location – “I stood there for three quarters of an hour” – before leaving the area completely;

Hi Ben.
But he didn't claim to stand at one location. You seem to want "there" to mean a precise X on the pavement, and for him not to move.

Whereas "there" can quite easily mean collectively.
He may have stood outside Crossinghams for several minutes (seen by Lewis), then crossed the road and walked up the passage and stood outside Kelly's room for a couple of minutes (as per the explanation in the press version), then back down the passage to stand in Dorset St for the rest of the time.
Collectively he stood "there" for about 45 minutes.

If you change "stood" for "was", you might get the intended meaning.

'I was there for three-quarters of an hour" - all his activities took place within that time, so standing at three different spots, merely a few feet apart, still means he "stood" for 45 minutes.

What I’m going to do is quote the relevant extract from Hutchinson’s police extract and substitute the word “there” for the two locations under scrutiny, 1) Outside Kelly’s room in the court, and 2) Outside the court entrance in Dorset Street,

However you choose to interpret his words, he still gave the explanation as:

"I went up the court, and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house, or hear any noise."

As this was his explanation for BOTH stories (them being the same), then the only correct interpretation for you is the one that best fits the explanation.

[Wickerman]

Yes, we most assuredly do have an “indication that Swanson was directing Abberline”. Swanson was the superior officer in charge of “directing” the entire Whitechapel investigation, as well as being responsible for collating all paperwork (in which, as other reports indicate, he invested a great deal of personal interest).

Hi Ben.
Did you forget to include this "assured" evidence you have that Swanson was directing Abberline?
Being a superior officer does not mean you are required to direct every movement of every member of your staff.

You gave me quite the list of reason's (all self-derived I might assume?), that you "think" justified your argument.
The way I see it, Abberline was sufficiently experienced to act, and was expected to act, on his own initiative.

At no time do I envisage Abberline handing in his interrogation report, with the question, "..what do I do now Donald?".

If you read Warren's instruction, "Chief Inspr. Swanson who must be acquainted with every detail"
It says nothing about Swanson "directing" the investigation. Merely that he be kept informed.

It also says Swanson's superiors (Anderson, Warren, Williamson) are to consult him before they issue any directives concerning the investigation.

As I indicated before, the interrogation report is of no use if he sends it to Central Office to sit on a desk for how many hours?
As you say, time was of the essence.

So we both agree then that the information contained therein is best served by immediate action, not mailing it off to Central Office.

It is sufficient that Abberline forward the initial statement, as it both informs Swanson while at the same time being surplus to Abberline, now that he has his interrogation notes. Which I expect are far more complete.

[Wickerman]

But when presenting an entirely new interpretation of Hutchinson statement,

Wait a minute?
What is "entirely new"?
For over a hundred years those statements have been accepted verbatim.
Any "entirely new" interpretation is due to some recent poorly constructed theory (ie; easily shot full of holes), that he was lying about something.

And Kelly didn’t wonder why Astrakhan urged her - as he presumably must have done, in your theory - to keep absolutely silent and still, and ensure they remained in darkness??

Maybe she did wonder, but if she talks and they are interrupted, she looses her client.
If a paying customer tells her to "hush!", she will "hush". what is so unbelievable about that?

Fair enough – it’s just that we were recently informed otherwise by someone with more knowledge of police matters than either of us possess.

I quoted Stewarts opinion more than once. If you disagree with it, just come right out and say so.
Alternately, if you think Colin & Stewart provided opposing opinions (which I do not, incidentally), then that is something beyond our abilities to resolve.

But even if you accept that Badham’s statement-taking was deficient, you still need to explain why Abberline didn’t trouble to redress that failing during the interrogation, or if he did, why no mention of these amendments in the covering report? Why submit a report knowing that the subordinate who put it together had done a botched job?

Did I suggest Abberline thought it was deficient?
I think I said, exactly what Stewart said, that when compared with today's standards, it was deficient.

I’m not talking about “confessions”. We’re discussing a witness statement taken during an active manhunt for an uncaught, unidentified serial killer, with all the need for urgency that entailed.

The difference being what?
Are you suggesting a witness statement is more important than a Confession?

Where do we find the claim that he saw the suspect again on Petticoat Lane in Hutchinson’s police statement? Where do we find the claim that he approached a policeman (who mysteriously took no action)? Where’s the mention of a lodger that he supposedly related his experience to? Where’s the Romford ramble? Where’s the big seal on Astrakhan's watch chain that had a red stone hanging from it? Where’s the “American cloth” and “brown kid gloves”?

Where do you draw the line between extra detail and embellishment?
Can you show me anything in that last paragraph (in the press version) that suggest a change in his story?

[Wickerman]

I do fervently hope you’re not starting that “automatic suspect” malarkey again. It is absolutely, emphatically not the case that all witnesses are first treated as potential killers - not in today’s world, and certainly not in 1888.

Where did this "ALL" come from?
This witness is claiming to be the last person to see the victim alive, the police are going to want to know if he is all that he claims to be.

In any case, if the police were hoping for Hutchinson to provide an alibi, they clearly failed in their efforts to extract one.

They are not going to know that UNTIL they get all his story down on paper, and investigate it.

It absolutely does not follow that a weak description implies that the witness did not get a good look the suspect; it could just as easily mean that there wasn’t much to describe. What’s this “too far away” business? You do realise we’re talking about 10 feet here,

I think you'll find the Ordnance map of Dorset St. shows it 25 feet wide, not 10.

Alas no, Jon! I’ve very sorry indeed that the get-together didn’t pan out. There would have been an idea time, too, after my work period had finished and I had some leisure time. If I recall correctly I squandered it on drink, women, and trips to Niagara. I will definitely be back, though, as I’ll be wanting to re-unite with the chums I made out there. Perhaps then we can meet for a few IPAs at the Loose Moose! Hopefully it can coincide with a period when we’re not vigorously debating Hutchinson – being the sensitive soul that I am, I’d feel very bad if we got along famously but then returned to our screens to renewed argy bargy.

Thats a pity you couldn't make any connections.
I'm sure we can put our differences aside for an hour or two

Just think of it like Christmas Eve on the Somme, both forces put aside their differences for a time, ...then resumed to taking shots at each other

[caz]

Police version:

I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away.

Press version:

I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house or hear any noise.

In what world are these the same version of events and in what world is this not someone changing there story significantly?

Police version-45 minutes outside the court
Press version-couple of minutes inside the court

But the obvious(maybe not so obvious) difference-In the second version he places himself very near the murder scene, but more significantly(since he indicates that since there was no light or noise from the house)-he KNOWS exactly where Kelly lives. According to the police version-he does not know this.

uh-oh.

Hi Abby,

But the question would then be who do you think Hutch lied to – the police or the press?

If it was to the police, his motive would have been to distance himself as far as possible from the actual crime scene, which then makes no sense of his subsequent admission to the whole world – via the press – that he had been right outside Kelly's room at one point.

If he lied to the press and never did venture into the court, he was clearly innocent of the murder and his motive would merely have been to add more drama to his story for the papers.

In either case he was going the right way about earning himself all the wrong kind of attention. Yet the police didn't bat an eyelid at this supposedly suspicious development?

Is it not more likely that during his interrogation Abberline had asked the obvious question: "When you went to the court to try and see the couple again, George, did you wait the whole time at the entrance, despite being unable to see them from there?" To which Hutch would naturally have replied: "I went into the court for a couple of minutes, but as there was still no sign of them I assumed they had gone indoors, so I went back to the entrance to wait there".

When recounting his story to the press Hutch would have been able to volunteer this extra detail if Abberline's prompting had served as a reminder.

Alternatively, if Abberline didn't think to ask that particular question, why would Hutch have thought to clarify exactly what he meant by 'to the court', or account for every minute he spent there? Again, the fact that he did clarify this willingly for the press suggests he wasn't lying or being deliberately evasive with the police.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Why would failure to include Hutchinson's trip to Romford and the reason for his being on Commercial Street constitute negligence on Badham's part? Hutchinson was giving a witness statement, not an alibi. What was included was what the statement taker deemed to be of evidential value. In that context Romford and the reason why he was on the street at 2am are irrelevant.

Hi Bridewell,

I think this point is often missed by those who see Hutch as a liar or worse. While Abberline asked extra questions to help him assess the truthfulness of his statement, it was the meat of his account as a witness that was important. In that regard, Abberline rightly sought to establish if Hutch had known the deceased long enough and well enough to be sure it was her he saw. This was especially important as he claimed to see her some two hours after Cox had seen her entertaining a different suspect. Then he naturally wanted to know what had caused Hutch to watch the couple. But it was always about Kelly and this potential suspect, and what they were doing. So the fact that Hutch revealed he had ventured into the court for a couple of minutes during his 45-minute vigil may not have been considered particularly relevant since he saw and heard nothing of evidential value once the couple disappeared from view.

Love,

Caz
X