An hypothesis about Hutchinson that could discard him as a suspect

[Ben]

Hi Roy,

I agree with Scott; the above sounds perfectly reasonable.

It wouldn't have been difficult for Hutchinson to have ascertained that a verdict had been returned at the end of the Kelly inquest, and that there would not, therefore, be any further sittings. If Sarah Lewis's evidence had been the catalyst for Hutchinson coming forward, he would have been fairly secure in the knowledge that he would not have to face public scrutiny in court.

All the best,
Ben

[Michael W Richards]

The inquest is not a trial, and any witness showing up after can still face interrogation, identity lineups, and still be charged if deemed suspicious.

By avoiding the Coroner's Inquest, he wasn't avoiding anything of consequence. Kelly would still have been identified, and found to have been murdered.
The Inquest was all about the victim, not the killer.

His story would make cross examination a must had he shown up Jon, and the Inquest is about how the victim died, not about the victim. Therefore, a possible murder suspect is very germane.

[Wickerman]

Hi wick



he wasn't? Sarah lewis was there.

Hi Abby.

But who was Sarah Lewis, to him?
This woman had not told her story prior to the inquest.

[Wickerman]

His story would make cross examination a must had he shown up Jon,

That is what a police interrogation does, they try to break him down, destroy his story with questions. Scotland Yard are more than capable of testing the witness to try shake his story.

.....and the Inquest is about how the victim died, not about the victim.

It's ALL about the victim Michael, who she was, and the when, the where, and by what means she met her death.

[Sam Flynn]

That is what a police interrogation does, they try to break him down, destroy his story with questions.

The police of 1888, or the police of the "post-Sweeney" era?

[harry]

Interrogation is questioning in a forcefull manner.Not recommended when dealing with witnesses, unless there is a suspicion the witness is not telling the whole truth.
Therefor Aberline's use of the word interrogation in respect of Hutchinson, is interesting.

[Wickerman]

The police of 1888, or the police of the "post-Sweeney" era?

Pre P.A.C.E.?

[Wickerman]

Hutchinson would be regarded as a potential suspect.
By his own admission he was with the victim shortly before her death. That is sufficient for the police to interrogate him to try break his story.

[Ben]

Hutchinson was "interrogated" for the purpose of determining whether or not he was telling the truth, as Abberline made very clear in his report. The interrogation had nothing to do with any consideration that he might have been responsible for the crime, or else the report would have read, "I have interrogated him this evening, and I am of the opinion that he is not Jack the Ripper". It was never on the cards for the simple reason that an 1888 police force would not have entertained, for one minute, the idea of the real killer strolling into a cop shop and requesting an interview.

Was Violenia suspected of being the ripper after it became apparent that he was a bogus witness? "By his own admission" he would have been the last witness to have seen the victim (Chapman, in that case) alive, and yet we have no evidence to suggest he was ever considered a suspect, let alone exonerated as one.

[Fisherman]

It was never on the cards for the simple reason that an 1888 police force would not have entertained, for one minute, the idea of the real killer strolling into a cop shop and requesting an interview.

So can we take this assertion of yours as definitely laying down that Charles Lechmere would never have been regarded as a suspect, since he did the exact same thing?
Does your certainty in this errand mean that we can be absolutely certain that the cops would never, not in a million years, search the registers to check the name of the carman, for example?

We keep saying that it is pretty obvious that Lechmere was never looked into, while Robert Linford tells us that the police MUST have cleared him.

But why would they make the effort of clearing him if they knew that he could never be the killer?

I realize that this is not a Lechmere thread, but I think your assertion must be looked into. When - according to you - did the police learn that people could pose as witnesses and be the killer nevertheless?

I think that you have a point - but not an absolute one. I would love for it to BE absolute, seeing as I favour the idea that Lechmere was not checked out. But I fail to see that it can be absolute. Surely the concept of people taking on a fake role would be known to the police?

[Wickerman]

Hutchinson was "interrogated" for the purpose of determining whether or not he was telling the truth, as Abberline made very clear in his report.

That's a bit of an 'about-face' isn't it Ben?
Wasn't it you who tried to spin the yarn that Abberline didn't interrogate Hutchinson, he just told his superiors he did, to pacify them?
Or something along those lines.
Abberline lied to his bosses?
"Lies" seem to figure quite prominently in your view of the world don't they Ben.

The interrogation had nothing to do with any consideration that he might have been responsible for the crime, or else the report would have read, "I have interrogated him this evening, and I am of the opinion that he is not Jack the Ripper".

No, too blunt, besides the police did not know if the killer was "Jack the Ripper" at this stage.

It was never on the cards for the simple reason that an 1888 police force would not have entertained, for one minute, the idea of the real killer strolling into a cop shop and requesting an interview.

Ah, so you think deception was unknown in 1888, there's nothing new under the Sun Ben.

Was Violenia suspected of being the ripper after it became apparent that he was a bogus witness? "By his own admission" he would have been the last witness to have seen the victim (Chapman, in that case) alive, and yet we have no evidence to suggest he was ever considered a suspect, let alone exonerated as one.

Really?, then please remind me Ben, did Violenia claim to have seen this altercation 'before' Mrs Long came down Hanbury St., or 'after'?
And let us not forget, Violenia was not able to identify the body, Hutchinson was able.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

You've repeated that hoary old argument about Hutchinson becoming an "automatic suspect" many times before, and I doubt that trying it again will prove effective. It'll be tedious for me to have to type "automatic suspect" into the search engine and copy and paste my previous response, albeit less so than explaining the reality yet again using different words.

Wasn't it you who tried to spin the yarn that Abberline didn't interrogate Hutchinson, he just told his superiors he did, to pacify them?
Or something along those lines.

No, it was me who succeeded in exploring the possibility that Abberline chose his words carefully in order to convey an impression of thoroughness to his superiors; "interrogated" reading somewhat better than "had tea and scones with". I never once disputed that Abberline would have been on the alert for slip-ups and inconsistencies, but that doesn't mean Hutchinson received the harsh and brutal grilling that you seem to be suggesting.

No, too blunt

I wasn't aware that obliqueness and evasion were considered virtues for detectives submitting reports. If Abberline interrogated Hutchinson as a suspect for the Kelly murder, he would certainly have made reference to it in the report.

Ah, so you think deception was unknown in 1888, there's nothing new under the Sun Ben.

But this particular form of deception was completely unknown to the police of 1888, and was thus unlikely to have been entertained at any stage. Of course, if you have evidence to the contrary...?

Really?, then please remind me Ben, did Violenia claim to have seen this altercation 'before' Mrs Long came down Hanbury St., or 'after'?

He didn't say a single thing about Mrs. Long, who was not, in any case, considered the barometer of truthfulness against whom all other Chapman witnesses were compared. If Violenia's account was true, he would, in all probability have been the last person to see the victim alive, bar her killer; and yet when the police decided his account was not true, he did not "convert" into a suspect, and nor did Hutchinson.

And let us not forget, Violenia was not able to identify the body, Hutchinson was able.

Who says they were "able" or "unable"? That's right, the discredited witnesses themselves - a really great method of gauging truthfulness (and calpability!), that.

Cheers,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

This is a Hutchinson thread, as opposed to a Cross one, so I'll address your points briefly here, and then if you have any further concerns or objections, better to raise them in the newly created Crossmere forum.

As far as Cross being treated as a suspect is concerned, I would argue that the ball is firmly in the court of those attempting to present a case for his guilt. For instance, if you want to argue that Robert Paul was treated as a suspect (and I might be confusing you with you co-theorist here), there is no possibility - and I don't even slightly exaggerate - of Cross not receiving the same treatment. There is absolutely no way that the police would treat the second man on the scene as a potential suspect, whilst being totally oblivious to the mere possibility of the first man on the scene being responsible.

The other major problem is the "name change" business. For Cross to have had the remotest chance of avoiding scrutiny as a potential suspect, he must have been known as "Cross" at work, not "Lechmere", otherwise the deception would have been registered in no time (following either a tip-off from his work colleagues or a visit to his missus), thereby inviting inevitable suspicion. He was clearly known as Cross at work; it's an unavoidable reality if you don't want him to have been considered a suspect at any stage.

Hutchinson came forward of his own volition - something the 1888 police were unlikely ever to have contemplated the real ripper doing - whereas Cross would have been forced to don a false witness guide if, as you claim, he had been "found" near the body by Paul.

Anyway, see you on the Cross threads if have any thoughts on the above.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby.

But who was Sarah Lewis, to him?
This woman had not told her story prior to the inquest.

The woman who saw him standing there.

[Abby Normal]

Hutchinson was "interrogated" for the purpose of determining whether or not he was telling the truth, as Abberline made very clear in his report. The interrogation had nothing to do with any consideration that he might have been responsible for the crime, or else the report would have read, "I have interrogated him this evening, and I am of the opinion that he is not Jack the Ripper". It was never on the cards for the simple reason that an 1888 police force would not have entertained, for one minute, the idea of the real killer strolling into a cop shop and requesting an interview.

Was Violenia suspected of being the ripper after it became apparent that he was a bogus witness? "By his own admission" he would have been the last witness to have seen the victim (Chapman, in that case) alive, and yet we have no evidence to suggest he was ever considered a suspect, let alone exonerated as one.

Exactly right ben.
Some people seem to have a problem with viewing things in context.