Would we have known?

[Fisherman]

Hi all!

I think the ongoing discussion about whether the police concealed - or not - the true reason about why George Hutchinson´s story was discredited deserves a thread of it´s own.

It has been put forward that an important factor in the dismissal of the story lay in Hutchinson´s coming forward at a late stage, after the inquest. This has also been contested, and it has been said that no important witness is discarded because of a late arrival at the police station.

One solution to the riddle that has been offered is that George Hutchinson would have been a timewaster or an attentionseeker. If this was true, then would the expected outcome of such a revelation be that the police kept quiet about it? My own feeling is that such a thing would be totally uncontroversial to mention to the press, and therefore I think that if this view was entertained by the police, it would have made the newspapers. I also think that the work on the ground would have benefitted from a clean cut, made public - that would have put an and to unnecessary speculation and to any enterprising efforts on behalf of the police, vigilante committees and the public in general.

At any rate, no obstacle would have been created to the hunt for the true killer by publishing such information. And as for the risk of being liable to pay damages to a potentially outraged Hutchinson, I fail to see that such a case could be made.

Indeed, we do have what the papers made of Violenia, the man who came forward to help with the Chapman investigation and was subsequentially dismissed as having come forward out of a wish to see Chapmans dead body. In this case, proving that this was Violenia´s true reason for approaching the police would have been hard, and it could be reasoned that the police took a risk by telling the press what had happened. But the police obviously did not refrain from passing on the information anyhow, as can be seen by a number of articles, like the ones quoted below:

”Subsequently, cross-examination so discredited Violenia's evidence that it was wholly distrusted by the police” (The Times, September 12).

”The manner of this man, who is, apparently, of Spanish blood, and displays a blue ribbon on his coat, did not inspire much confidence in his veracity, and he was severely cross examined by a sort of informal tribunal, consisting of experienced detective officers. The witness added to his first statement that he not only saw the prisoner in Hanbury street on the day of the murder, but that he actually took him by the collar when he was about to strike the woman. The man first volunteered his statement on Monday, and he subsequently displayed anxiety to view the remains of Mrs. Chapman, which, however, was not permitted.” (Evening Standard, September 12).

”he has since displayed anxiety to view the remains of the murdered woman Chapman. This curiosity, which may really be the inspiring motive of his voluntary testimony, has not yet been gratified.” (Daily Telegraph, September 12).

After this, we must ask ourselves what could have lain behind the total absense of any other motive than the late arrival on Hutchinson´s behalf when it came to dismissing what he had to say. One must bear in mind that the pressure from the press would have grown into very much larger proportions at this stage of the Ripper hunt, and thus any uncontroversial reason for the dismissal would likely - as was the case with Violenia - have made the papers.

To my mind, only the fewest of reasons could have lain behind the reluctant attitude on behalf of the police when it came to sharing information about Hutchinson´s dismissal. Either there was the risk of obstructing the investigation - and such a thing comes not from a false witness that looks for attention or wants to waste time - or the police was unwilling to tell the press about some sort of mistake they had made themselves. And one such thing could well be the police having missed out on a factor that made it obvious that Hutchinson´s testimony did not belong to the murder night. To a police corps that was already under immense pressure, admitting such a thing in public would put them in a very poor light, and it would be quite understandable if they provided the press with a hint that it was the lateness in Hutchinson´s coming forth that had his story distrusted - whereas they preferred not to reveal the true reason.

Thoughts? Parallels? Anybody?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

If there’s a difference between Hutchinson and Violenia , the latter was probably the less superficially plausible of the two. This would explain why the police were reluctant to be excessively condemnatory when discussing their treatment of Hutchinson’s statement with the press. They were simply being guarded in their terminology and thus “hedging their bets”, rather than providing a false reason for his discrediting. As we’ve discussed elsewhere, the police did not exactly “keep quiet” about their views of Hutchinson’s integrity. Despite the failure of the Echo - or rather their police informant – to elaborate further, they make it quite clear that the reason for Hutchinson’s discrediting had something to do with doubts about his honesty, otherwise they would not have alluded specifically to his failure to present his evidence where he would have been questioned “under oath”.

Had the police suspected or known that Hutchinson was honestly mistaken, they would certainly not have allowed negative aspersions about his character to go to print, especially when they know them to be false. Clearly, therefore, the true reason for Hutchinson’s discrediting must have been connected with a suspicion of fabrication.

The Star were even more blunt, describing Hutchinson’s account as not only “discredited”, but a worthless story that had led the police on a false scent. Also mentioned in this context was Matthew Packer, and it’s pretty clear what the police thought of him.

In conclusion, I would say there’s good reason to believe that the police played down the true reason for Hutchinson’s discrediting, as opposed to concealing it or providing false information.

All the best,
Ben

[babybird67]

One solution to the riddle that has been offered is that George Hutchinson would have been a timewaster or an attentionseeker. If this was true, then would the expected outcome of such a revelation be that the police kept quiet about it? My own feeling is that such a thing would be totally uncontroversial to mention to the press, and therefore I think that if this view was entertained by the police, it would have made the newspapers.

As uncontroversial as admitting that Hutchinson was trying to be helpful but the Police had discovered he had the wrong day? What possible reason would there be to conceal that from the Press, if it were true?

[Garry Wroe]

Don't forget, Fish, that Violenia was not only a 'foreigner' - and one doesn't need to look very far in order to discern the contempt with which many newspapers viewed the 'pauper alien' - but he was also embroiled in the Leather Apron fiasco, an episode out of which the print media made great capital. Thus there are contextual differences between Hutchinson and Violenia that have to be taken on board when assessing their individual circumstances.

Another point worthy of consideration is that if, as the police almost certainly came to believe, Hutchinson really was a profiteer or attention-seeker, he succeeded in duping Abberline into believing that he was the real deal. Given that investigators were already being deluged with press accusations of incompetence over their handling of the murders, it is quite understandable that they would wish to keep such information 'in-house' for fear of precipitating yet more negative publicity - especially since the media-savvy Anderson was back at the helm by the time of the Kelly murder.

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"there are contextual differences between Hutchinson and Violenia that have to be taken on board when assessing their individual circumstances"

There are, yes. But that is true of every comparison we make of two individuals. And Violenia remains the best comparison to look at in this case.

"Another point worthy of consideration is that if, as the police almost certainly came to believe, Hutchinson really was a profiteer or attention-seeker..."

As you know, Garry, I do not concur with this assumption at all. We have no police material telling us anything like this, but we DO have Dew´s statements, flying in the face of it a full fifty years down the road.

" ...he succeeded in duping Abberline into believing that he was the real deal."

He would have been - if he had gotten the dates right. That´s my take on it.

"Given that investigators were already being deluged with press accusations of incompetence over their handling of the murders, it is quite understandable that they would wish to keep such information 'in-house' for fear of precipitating yet more negative publicity"

I don´t think this is correct, Garry. If Hutch had been proven a liar, then the police stood to loose no credibility by telling the press. That would only serve to prove that they had gone about their business and gotten a result. Keeping quiet about it would not be an easy thing to do - the information about it would have gone down the ranks, in order to erase all possible misconceptions within the police, and the press would have milked it along the way. That´s my contention, at least.

If, on the other hand, the police had missed out on an obvious pointer towards a mistaken day, then they may have found this embarrassing enough to shut up about it. That said, I often entertain the possibility that it WAS talked about, and that it DID reach the streets - it is kind of clear that the police did not take any prolonged interest in Hutchinson after the dropping of his story. If they had done so, one would expect him to be mentioned in memoirs and such, apart from Dew´s ditto. But he disappears totally, does he not? To me, that speaks of a very uninfected and trivial story.
Maybe, Garry, the other papers, apart from the Echo and the Star, thought a dismissal due to a mistaken day, so trivial and uninteresting a story that they did not even bother to write about the dismissal. Maybe the word WAS out that Hutch had been wrong on the dates, and maybe that was what lay behind the fact that nobody bothered to speculate about the possible connection between Lewis´loiterer and Hutchinson. This is not a half bad suggestion, actually: if Lewis (and Prater) were regarded as totally unbelievable witnesses, due to the built-in differences in their stories, varying wildly from opportunity to opportunity, and if Hutch was regarded as being a day off but completely honest, then who would take even the briefest of interest in such a thing? Then the conditions for a match would never even have been there. And that in it´s turn would neatly explain why no policeman, no journalist, no nobody picked up on the "coincidence" that seems so compelling to some of us. I have always said that the police would have been a bunch of blindfolded idiots if they missed out on it - but maybe the opportunity was never considered to be there back in 1888.

The best,
Fisherman

[sleekviper]

Hello Fisherman,
I think that it maybe along another line; someone has killed inside after possibly multiple times outside. While people are biting the diversion over the increase in damage, they have skipped the true difference in the method; the killer has given himself ample more time to get further away, which is major trouble. There is no suspect in custody, or close to being thought about as the killer, and the police have voiced pleasure with a witness, perhaps the only good witness to date. This guy leaves, gets to another country, becomes a model citizen, and returns to London in a year or so to start back again, who might be the next headless torso to be found? They can't take back what has been said, and they can not call Hutch a liar if they believe him; someone spots a man with the description equal to the one provided by Hutch, they do not report it since the description would have been labeled a sham. Lose interest in Hutch, and hope that the killer does also. If Hutch finds out about the possibility, he may leave England, if the papers find out, it could be seen as a ploy to use a witness as bait to draw a killer to a potential witness without the consent of said witness, and that would haunt them for years, and ruin anyone speaking to them about any crime. Just my thoughts on it.

[Wickerman]

Hi Fisherman.

Hi all!
I think the ongoing discussion about whether the police concealed - or not - the true reason about why George Hutchinson´s story was discredited deserves a thread of it´s own.

I think it more prudent to dispense with the inflamatory verb's thrown out by the Star, Hutchinson himself was not discredited.

If criticism is to be aimed at anything it is at the second more elaborate version offered to the press by Hutchinson.

As the police were still looking for a well-dressed man then obviously the source (Hutchinson) was not discredited, however the authorities did not condone, nor give credit, to the second description.

Apparently, the Morning Advertiser (14th), were under the impression that the police had withheld some portion of the details;

"...This information may not result in the immediate capture of the assassin, but it will, it is thought, place the police in a position to guard effectually against further outrages. For obvious reasons certain particulars are withheld. The person who has had an opportunity of being within speaking distance of the supposed assassin is an individual whose veracity is not doubted for a moment."

One wonders what these particulars were, or whether they were the differences that Hutchinson gave away in the unauthorized second version.
I wouldn't have thought so, because in my opinion the differences were minimal.

However, pressing on with the next issue, that of "diminuition".

The Echo (12th), made a reasonable attempt to present the conflict which existed between the two predominant descriptions that the police had to deal with. They write:
"The police are embarrassed with two definite descriptions of the man suspected of the murder."

The first by Cox, which we call "Blotchy", and the second by Hutchinson, known by us as "Astrachan".
The Echo proceed to quote from the official police description given by Hutchinson (ignoring the early morning publication of the second description), they then observe...

"The highly-respectable appearance of this individual was in such great contrast to that of the woman that few people could have failed to remark them at that hour of the morning."

Continuing.... "and the importance they attached to this man's story may be imagined when it is mentioned that it was forwarded to the headquarters of the H Division as soon as completed by a special detective. Detectives Abberline, Nairn, and Moore were present when this message arrived, and an investigation was immediately set on foot."

The Echo then offer the Cox version:

"However, it is well in the face of this statement to recall the evidence given at the inquest by Mary Anne Cox, a dweller in Miller's-court. She described the man whom she saw entering the court with the woman on Thursday midnight...."

"This description, however, materially differs from the other given to the police. Cox stated in the most positive manner that the man was short and stout, shabbily dressed, wore a round black billycock hat, and had a blotchy face, and a full carrotty moustache, with a clean-shaven chin."

Then follows the important pice of information, the police are said to have compared the description of "Blotchy" with all the witness descriptions offered at the previous murder scenes, the paragraph concludes with the description of the man seen by Lawende, and the City police are said to have concluded,

"The City police have been making inquiries for this man for weeks past, but without success, and they do not believe that he is the individual described by Cox."

However, the Echo then drops a 'bomb' on the very next line, by reporting:

"The Metropolitan police, however, have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement."

Induced to attache more significance to Cox's description than that of Hutchinson. This is the "diminuition", not discredited, not rejected, this line suggests that wheree Hutchinson's "Astrachan" was given precedence as No1 on thre suspect list, he has been replaced by "Blotchy", so fallen to No2?
This is what "diminuition" means, but the more important question is left unanswered, who, or what department "induced" the Metropolitan Police Dept. to attach more significance to Blotchy?

All the while, the PC on the beat was still looking for a man of "very different description", in the Star.

So, once again Hutchinson himself was not discredited, diminuition, is not an argument to discard Hutchinson's official police description.

Regards, Jon S.

[Lechmere]

I agree that by the time of the Kelly murder, the police were very jumpy, self conscious and sensitive to public criticism. After announcing, prematurely, and with evident glee that they had this significant witness at last, I don’t think that they wanted to admit that they had a bum.
I think they ‘checked him out’ and found his story didn’t add up.
Incidentally this same sensitivity I think led to various policemen in later years claiming to know who dunnit.

[Ben]

It seems the intention behind the creation of this thread was to promote the “date-confusion” Dew theory again.

If the police considered Hutchinson a liar, the publication of that fact could potentially have embarrassed them. If, in the other hand, it had emerged that the poor hapless labourer had confused the dates, it would not have been remotely embarrassing for the police, since it would not have reflected badly on them at all. With this transparently obvious truth in mind, we must accept that “date confusion” had nothing whatsoever to do with the discrediting of Hutchinson. Otherwise, it would have come out in the press. Instead, what really happened was that Hutchinson’s late arrival and failure to appear at the inquest “on oath” was cited specifically as a reason for his discrediting – nothing to do with "honest confusion", and everything to do with doubts surrounding his credibility.

Date-confusion was a suggestion that Walter Dew piped in with in 1938, in a book that was “riddled with mistakes” and “got lots of things terribly wrong”. There is not the slightest scrap of evidence that this was ever a contemporary view. In fact, the idea that Hutchinson was 24 hours out is a completely modern invention, as Dew was quite clearly of the opinion that Hutchinson had mistaken the time too. He believed that Kelly was already dead by 2.00am, hence the Astrakhan encounter could not be accurate.

Lewis and Prater, by contrast, were considered genuine witness who provided mutually corroborative evidence. They attended the inquest, observed the “strict reticence” evidently requested of them by the police, and were not discredited.

The Star’s report was not “inflammatory” at all. Who were they “flaming”, anyway? The police? No. Because when Hutchinson’s account first appeared in the press, they were very enthusiastic about it. The next day, however, they reported that the same account had been discredited. The Star would hardly have undermined their previous day of reporting unless that had very good reason to believe that the “discredited” reference was accurate.

There is no evidence that the police renewed the hunt for the Astrakhan man or any well-dressed suspect type after the Star published their report.

The differences between the police statement and press accounts are not minimal, They contained numerous embellishments, some polar opposite descriptions, and contradictions, and it was only after these were published that Hutchinson went from being “very reduced” in terms of importance to “now discredited”. This was obviously not a coincidence.

All the best,
Ben

[Lechmere]

With all due allowance for your endeavour at pastiche, it is clear from Dew that the out-by-date scenario isn’t a modern invention – quite unlike the ‘Hutchinson for Ripper’ theory.
Nor need it be the case that the police wouldn’t have been embarrassed to discount Hutchinson publicly for whatever reason his testimony was discredited. If he was discredited because he got his dates muddled up, then the police should really have checked his story before releasing the A-man’s description to all police stations and before gleefully announcing their star witness to the press.

[Ben]

Do stop following me around, Lechmere!

it is clear from Dew that the out-by-date scenario isn’t a modern invention – quite unlike the ‘Hutchinson for Ripper’ theory.

I thought your intention behind bringing up the Washington Evening Star report was to demonstrate there were contemporary hints that he should be investigated as a suspect?

If he was discredited because he got his dates muddled up

...Then the police would not, under any circumstances, have told the press that the discrediting was due to the late presentation of his evidence. Whether the police were "embarrassed" or not, they were quite content to concede that the account suffered a "very reduced importance" in light of "later investigations".

[Lechmere]

The Washington Evening Star only half developed that theory!

We don't know what the police may have said to cover their own **** ups -
"very reduced importance" in light of "later investigations" - could mean almost anything, including being out by a day as revealed by 'later investigations'. Perhaps.

[Ben]

Well no, Lechmere, because they specified that the reason for Hutchinson's "very reduced importance" was his three-day lateness in presenting his evidence. Even if this was only part of the story, it was still connected to the issue of the witness's honesty, rather than date-confusion. It makes no sense whatsoever to cover up a mildly embarrassing reason with a very embarrassing one.

[Wickerman]

If the police considered Hutchinson a liar, the publication of that fact could potentially have embarrassed them.

Had that been the case the police would never have released the description he gave them in the first place.

Instead, what really happened was that Hutchinson’s late arrival and failure to appear at the inquest “on oath” was cited specifically as a reason for his discrediting

I would love to see your 'cited' source, just to be sure we are not dealing with your opinion .....again.

The Star’s report was not “inflammatory” at all. Who were they “flaming”, anyway? The police? No. Because when Hutchinson’s account first appeared in the press, they were very enthusiastic about it. The next day, however, they reported that the same account had been discredited. The Star would hardly have undermined their previous day of reporting unless that had very good reason to believe that the “discredited” reference was accurate.

You are apparently unfamilar with the Star's track record.

re: Star 12 Nov.
"At this point, a subhead assured readers that 'No part of the body is missing' because the surgeons had identified every organ and replaced each one in its original position. Only a day later, however, the Star reversed its stance by announcing emphatically, 'some portions of the body are missing'. No source was cited for this claim"
Jack the Ripper and the London Press, Curtis, 2001.

Just off the top of your head Ben, what comes to mind from the Star that you have been recently touting as 'fact' for which also had no cited source!

Ben, the Star could not cite the police as a source because they had stupidly made enemies of the police. In their eagerness to sell copy by being controversial they had "bitten off the hand that fed them".

Right at the start of Kelly's murder investigation, on the 9th the press in general were claiming the police were not communicating with the press.
However, the Star may have been singled out for special treatment.

"A Star man went to Commercial-street Police station to learn some further particulars, but was politely but firmly referred to Scotland-yard."

And again, the Star complained...

"From the police, who, in uniform and plain clothes, simply swarm all over the place, nothing whatever can be gleaned."

And again, the Star...

"The police, however, refuse to supply information of any kind to certain of the reporters,..."

Certain reporters, were the Star reporters!

The Star were NOT informed of any "discrediting" by the police because the police were NOT talking to them! The Star made up the "discrediting" claim, as we can all see, and as their press contemporaries could see, which is perhaps why the story was not repeated by their morning contemporaries. They knew it was false, and they had reputations to maintain.

The Star had once again resorted to Tabloid Journalism, and 123 years later you believe this rubbish, ....their contemporaries didn't!

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

“Had that been the case the police would never have released the description he gave them in the first place.”

The police later discovered that this was the case, Jon, which was why the Echo commented on what had transpired after the police had released the Astrakhan description. The Echo was an evening paper, and the police circulated Hutchinson's description to the press in time for the morning edition. It seems that some people are getting awfully confused as to the sequence of events.

“ would love to see your 'cited' source, just to be sure we are not dealing with your opinion”

If you had studied the relevant discussions, you would have understood precisely what I was talking about, which wasn’t “my opinion” at all. The Echo stated that Hutchinson’s account was “considerably discounted” because of the late arrival of his evidence. We know that this was a legitimate and correct police communication because the Echo ascertained the truth about the origin of the Astrakhan account directly from the Commercial Street police station.

The Star were not attempting to embarrass the police in stating that Hutchinson’s account was discredited. The Star had been enthusiastic about the account the previous day, and they would certainly not have poured cold water on their own early report unless they had ample reason to conclude that Hutchinson was genuinely discredited, otherwise they would only have been embarrassing themselves. The he "discredited" reference agrees with the both the Echo articles AND all subsequent police memoirs that tackle the issue of eyewitness evidence. So the idea that the Star “made up” the idea of Hutchinson being discredited is unutterably galling nonsense.