Prater/Lewis/Hutchinson/Cox

[Chava]

Hi Observer!

The thing that stands out for me in l'affaire Hutchinson is that they immediately went back to looking for Blotchy Face. Which meant that they discounted every facet of Hutchinson's statement. I could see them disbelieving his x-ray vision, but I don't see why he still couldn't have seen Kelly in the street at 2.00 am and maybe followed her and her trick back to Millers Court. If he is indeed the man Lewis saw standing at the entrance to the court, then his evidence as to what he saw and didn't see would have been extremely useful, and it takes Blotchy Face completely off the hook. But BF isn't off the hook. So Hutchinson may have later admitted that he was hanging around the entrance to the court but didn't see Kelly at all. Or someone or something sent up a comprehensive red flag to the police. I do think it's possible he was the man seen by Lewis, however his behaviour is inexplainable without his secondary story about Kelly. If he wasn't waiting to see her or to kip down in her room, why on earth was he there?

Simon, that 'utterly without foundation' was in quotes in the text? I wonder who said that...

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Not everyone was as sold on GH as Abberline appears to have been. Here are two contemporary examples of healthy scepticism.

Evening Star (Washington, D.C.)
Wednesday, 14 November 1888

"The London police have celebrated the retirement of their chief by stumbling upon the first clue which looks as if it could possibly lead to anything. Unless the story told by the man Hutchinson is made out of whole cloth ["utterly without foundation in fact"] - a question which it ought not to take a competent detective two hours to settle - there is now a shadow of hope of capturing the miscreant who has been committing so much butchery. [my brackets]

"But, in the meantime, it would be just as well to keep a sharp eye upon Hutchinson himself. He may be a convenient person to have about at a critical stage of the investigation which is soon to follow. The man popularly known as "Jack the Ripper" is full of devices, and it would not be surprising if it were found necessary later to put Hutchinson in his turn on the defensive."

The Graphic
Saturday, 17 November 1888

" . . . It is true that on this last occasion a man has given a very precise description of the supposed murderer. The very exactitude of his description, however, engenders a feeling of scepticism. The witness in question admits that at the time he saw him he did not suspect the person he watched of being the Whitechapel assassin; yet, at two o'clock in the morning, in badly-lighted thoroughfares, he observed more than most of us would observe in broad daylight, with ample time at our disposal. A man who in such a hasty survey notes such points as 'a pair of dark 'spats,' with light buttons, over button boots,' and 'a red stone hanging from his watch-chain,' must possess the eyes of a born detective . . ."

Regards,

Simon

[Observer]

Hi Chava

As Ben says Packer and Violenia were quickly discounted as reliable witnesses once the press accounts were published, I would guess the same happened with Hutchinson.

But you make a viable point regarding Blotchy, to wit, if the police eventually came to the sensible conclusion that Hutchinson was not to be trusted, then Blotchy's involvement in the saga would warrent a major suspect tag. He would in effect be the last person to be seen with Kelly.

Of course I'm of the belief that it was Hutchinson whom Lewis saw, so if his account of what happened that morning is a lie then what brought him to be standing opposite 26 Millers court at 2:30 a.m. on the morning of the 9th Nov? It's all very complex is it not, complex to us, but clear as day to the participants, there is an answer though.

All the best

Observer

[Ben]

Hi Chava,

I'd have to agree with Observer here. Matthew Packer was discredited because he gave divergent and conflicting accounts to police and press. When we consider that the first indications of Hutchinson's "discrediting" coincided more or less exactly with the public disclosure of his press accounts, it seems a very safe bet that these played a significant role in his being reconsidered as a witness. Emmanuel Violenia (sp?) dropped off the map as a witness with pretty much the same speed that Hutchinson did; not because the police had procured evidence to prove him definitely wrong or a definite liar, but because they arrived at an educated consensus against his veracity.

All the best,
Ben

[Chava]

Observer, it's still not enough for them to drop the description completely. They could water down some of the details certainly, but I don't see why they'd drop the whole thing. It just doesn't make sense because there are two pieces of info in that statement. And the first is that Kelly was alive and alone after she had been with Blotchy Face, which takes him out of the frame for her murder. If they reverted to interest in BF, it means they didn't believe that part of the statement either.

[Observer]

Yes, but here's the thing: the police almost immediately withdraw Hutchinson's description. There has to be a reason for that beyond the fact that it's absurdly hyper-detailed.

Why is that?

It could well be that Hutchinson hit a nerve when giving his description to Abberline of the man he saw with Kelly, this description by sheer coincidence tallying on some points with a description of the killer already formulated in the mind of Abberline.

But Abberline was not the only senior policeman investigating the murders, someone might have taken Abberline to one side and pointed out that it would have been nigh on impossible for Hutchinson to have observed what he saw in the short time he spent looking at Kelly and the Commercial Street suspect, Abberline finally seeing sense and dropping Hutchinson as a result.

All the best Observer

[Chava]

although you're right to make the distinction between the police believing that the whole thing was garbage (including his presence there) and having conclusive evidence to that effect. I think the latter is unlikely but the former eminently possible.

Ben, I could be very wrong here, but I don't think the police would have dismissed this evidence out of hand without having a good reason to do so. Yes, it's so detailed as to be unbelievable, but that could just be a witness going overboard and trying to look like a mastermind. Which I'm sure has happened before and since. But that is a long way away from having the whole thing pulled. Caroline Maxwell--whose evidence was in direct contradiction to the medical evidence--testified at the inquest, and I'm sure was interviewed by the police first. They probably thought she was either mistaken or a grandstander also, but they let her evidence stand because she couldn't be shifted on it. Hutchinson of course comes forward afterwards, but I don't believe they would have 86-ed his testimony quite that quickly without some evidence to suggest it was wrong. What would be the upside to doing that? We know that Lewis's description was of a short stout man in a very distinctive hat. If Hutchinson didn't present like that, they might have inquired further. They might well have asked him for his wideawake hat. I suggested that earlier, but I was half-joking. However now I think that would be the question I would ask him seriously. Because if he couldn't come up with it, the chances are he wasn't the man Lewis saw...

[Fisherman]

Chava writes:
"Yes, but here's the thing: the police almost immediately withdraw Hutchinson's description. There has to be a reason for that beyond the fact that it's absurdly hyper-detailed."

Exactly so, Chava - Abberline had no objections to the amount of detail from the outset, and then, suddenly "Thanks, but no thanks, mr Hutchinson".

I agree; there has to be more to it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Which tells me that they thought the whole thing was garbage including Hutchinson's statement about having met Kelly on the street at 2.00 am.

Hi Chava - a reasonable alternative to Observer's proposal, I'll admit, although you're right to make the distinction between the police believing that the whole thing was garbage (including his presence there) and having conclusive evidence to that effect. I think the latter is unlikely but the former eminently possible.

Best wishes,
Ben

[Chava]

But I do not believe that the police dropped him from their enquiries on the grounds that they did not believe that he was the man seen by Lewis, rather I think they realised that his sighting of the man he saw with Kelly was too detailed and fantastic to warrent further investigation. In short they came to their senses, they were desperate for any information at this point in their investigation, and Hutchinson fooled them for a short time at least.

Yes, but here's the thing: the police almost immediately withdraw Hutchinson's description. There has to be a reason for that beyond the fact that it's absurdly hyper-detailed. Yes, he could have embroidered a bit, so they might have noted that, brought him back in for a chat and said 'we think you're gilding the lily, now what exactly did you see? Because we're not putting this description out as is, it's impossible for you to have noted all that.' Alternatively, if they couldn't find him, they could have reduced the specificity of the description. But they didn't. It's my understanding that they pulled the whole thing and there had to be a reason for that. Because if any part of Hutchinson's story is true, then he saw the Ripper picking up a victim and that makes him Witness #1 for the Prosecution. If the Ripper is found, Hutchinson would have to be brought forward to identify him. Which he might well do. But any good defense counsel would be able to destroy his evidence on the stand because the police had withdrawn his detailed description from circulation. And if the police didn't believe him, why should the jury? That is the effect of pulling the description and yet they pulled it and went back to looking for Blotchy Face. Which tells me that they thought the whole thing was garbage including Hutchinson's statement about having met Kelly on the street at 2.00 am. Because if they believed that, then Blotchy Face wouldn't be a factor at all. Kelly got rid of him and then went out looking for another trick.

[Ben]

But I do not believe that the police dropped him from their enquiries on the grounds that they did not believe that he was the man seen by Lewis, rather I think they realised that his sighting of the man he saw with Kelly was too detailed and fantastic to warrent further investigation. In short they came to their senses, they were desperate for any information at this point in their investigation, and Hutchinson fooled them for a short time at least

Seems a very reasonable interpretation to me, Observer. Good points.

Best regards,
Ben

[Observer]

Thanks for the info on Dick van Dyke Sam, it appears I've mixed up the film that the song "me old bamboo", appears in.

As you say Chava we can argue until we're blue in the face whether Hutchinson was the man seen by Lewis, and I will admit that it's possible that the whole of Hutchinson's story is a lie, including his attendance in Dorset Street on the morning of the 9th Nov.

But I do not believe that the police dropped him from their enquiries on the grounds that they did not believe that he was the man seen by Lewis, rather I think they realised that his sighting of the man he saw with Kelly was too detailed and fantastic to warrent further investigation. In short they came to their senses, they were desperate for any information at this point in their investigation, and Hutchinson fooled them for a short time at least.


Lets considerer the scenario in which Hutchinson is not Lewis's man. Kelly is murdered, the next day up until the release of the witnesses nobody apart from Lewis and the police knew of the stranger loitering at 2:30 a.m. If this scenario is to work you now need to rely on Hutchinson finding out about that stranger, the penny dropping in Hutchinson's devious skull that he can impersonate that stranger, and then the time to concoct the detailed meeting he had with Kelly which included the fantastic description and dialogue Kelly had with his suspect.

Not only do I think that the above scenario is highly unlikely on intuative grounds, but I don't think there's enough time between Friday and Monday evening for this to happen.

All the best

Observer

[Chava]

With regard to the Mary Bell Case how long did it take for those story's to reach your middle class enclave?

About 5 minutes. Or more exactly the day after the body was found. Our cleaning lady came from the Westmoreland Road area. Almost everyone's cleaning lady came from round there.

To get back to the Hutchinson question. My point is that all we have as to Hutchinson's movements is Hutchinson's account of them. The shortest distance between two points is certainly that Hutchinson was the man seen by Lewis. However the police withdrew circulation of his very detailed description almost immediately. So either Mr A came forward and was exonerated--although it would be difficult to see how he could do this--or the cops no longer believed Hutchinson's account. And they had to have had good reason for that, because his story was so detailed. It's hard to see how he could got all of that down and then mistaken the date or whatever.

These are the facts in order:

- Lewis sees a short stout man in a wideawake hat standing across from Millers Court and looking up the court. This is at 2.30 am.

- Hutchinson comes forward and gives a highly-coloured account of seeing Kelly near Dorset St and watching her pick up a man and take him back to her room. He says he waited outside the court for 3/4 of an hour and then walks off. He doesn't give an account of why he waited--perhaps he wasn't asked. Now it's simple to say 'Here's our man!' However Hutchinson's discrediting, and he was clearly discredited, might have been as simple as 'Show us your wideawake hat.' Because Lewis might have been mistaken as to height and weight, but I'll bet she wasn't mistaken about that.

We all argue this back and forth all the time. I will admit that it is possible that Hutchinson was the man that Lewis saw. However I hope you will also admit that it is possible that he wasn't. We can't look at his actions and explain them away without knowing more about him than he himself tells us. He could be the most honest of honest citizens, just trying to help out the police. He could be a brutal murderer trying to explain why he was seen loitering outside the court. He could be a moron who got a kick out of putting himself in the middle of the investigation.

[celee]

Hi,

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, Ian Flemmings very first book. He also wrote a fairly good spy series you may have heard of.

Your friend, Brad

[Sam Flynn]

With respect I'm not mixing anything up, Chava me old china. I was refering to the song "Me old bamboo" from Mary Poppins

...that's from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. There's a very similar-sounding song in Mary Poppins called "Step in Time" - or "Shtaap in Toyyym", accoring to Mr Van Dyke. Whatever, it's him in both films, and - yes - his accent was dreadful. Great performer, though.