The Red Handkerchief...

[harry]

Another way to look at it is this.If Hutchinson did go to the press against police wishes,and in the process,as we know, changed or elaborated on his statement to the police,then would not the police have become suspicious of him? As some of us do.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Harry and JohnG
Agree.
Ive often felt that Hutch going to the press might have been a factor in his diminuation as a credible witness. It may given the police the impression he was just an attention seeker and looking for a quick buck, especially if he brought up payment for his walkabouts.

Compounded to that is that in his press account he now says he stood outside her apartment, a significant change to the story.

[John G]

Hi Abby,

Stewart Evans, in his dissertation, argues that the elaborated press version of Hutchinson's account might have been the responsibility of the newspaper, rather than Hutchinson, to make the story seem dramatic. Thus, in the press version Hutchinson is described as going up the court, and it is stated that he saw no light in the house and heard no noise. This is in contrast to the official police report, where he is reported as simply saying "I then went to the court to see if I could see them but I 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."

It is also worth noting that Sarah Lewis also altered her statement. In her first written statement she said: " When I came up the Court there was a man standing over against the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset Street...but I cannot describe him". However, in her inquest statement she states:"He was not tall-but stout-he had on a black wideawake hat." Isn't this an example of another witness who is, perhaps, a little too eager to please?

[Ben]

Hi JohnG,

As Abby points out, it is more than likely that Hutchinson's press embellishments played a part in his ultimate discrediting, and probably a significant one. The very act of communicating with the Central News reporter on 13th was probably against the wishes of the police too. It is doubtful, however, that the police were concerned about the suspect fleeing or "radically altering his appearance", or else they would not have informed the press themselves about the Astrakhan description. It will be remembered that prior to Hutchinson's own consultation with a journalist, the police had engineered the press circulation of Hutchinson's description, albeit without his name or any further details being included. They cannot, therefore, have harboured any serious concern that Hutchinson's behaviour had thwarted the hunt for his suspect.

Even if they were "annoyed" at Hutchinson for communicating with the press, that would not have been adequate grounds for abandoning the Astrakhan hunt altogether. If they trusted his account, the suspect was still out there to be found, and Hutchinson would have remained the best witness the police had; far better that any of the Jewish witnesses, who were used to identity later suspects, in preference to Hutchinson (significantly).

No, something led the police to believe that Hutchinson's suspect didn't even exist, and that something was almost certainly a conclusion that Hutchinson was probably just another time-wasting publicity-seeker.

It would strike me as very odd for a news agency journalist to fabricate details of Hutchinson's account and description, especially if it was already pretty sensational in terms of detail, and I don't see how the differences in the press versions necessarily make his account more "dramatic". On the other hand, Hutchinson's "very reduced importance", coupled with a complete absence from any report or memoir addressing the subject of eyewitnesses, would appear to tally perfectly with the alternative - and frankly more likely - explanation that Hutchinson himself was responsible for the embellishments.

I suspect Sarah Lewis was terrified, deprived of sleep, and detained within an enclosure in which the most brutal mutilation murder London had ever witnessed had just occurred. I further suspect that these factors, as opposed to an over-eagerness to "please", were responsible for the discrepancy you mention. It's difficult to see how the former circumstances could have applied to Hutchinson.

Regards,
Ben

P.S. Sugden argued that Astrakhan man resembled Klosowski, and that they may have been one and the same. This view is not a popular one these days, and that is to understate matters greatly.

[John G]

Hi Ben,

In my opinion the reference to going up the court, in the press report, coupled with the mention of not seeing any light or hearing any noise, might suggest that he was virtually standing directly outside Kelly's lodgings. In contrast, the less dramatic official police version of "I then went to the court to see if I could see them, but I could not", could mean that he didn't even enter the court, but merely waited on the fringes. That is one reason why I would contend that the press version was more dramatic and may have been elaborated; that could also help explain Hutchinson's "reduced importance", i.e if the Police believed that he was exaggerating his evidence, thus undermining his credibility as a witness. As, of course, could Hutchinson's failure to identify anyone resembling Astrakhan, despite the police's best efforts. I would suggest that what appeared initially to seem like a very promising lead probably just gradually fizzled out, just like Blotchy, resulting in both Hutchinson and Cox disappearing from the enquiry.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Sorry for the late reply.

“You like to think so, that is evident. Though apart from your irrepressible desire to make it so, there is not one shred of evidence that the Echo obtained anything beyond a brush-off from the Met. police.”

A “brush-off” in the sense that the police did not divulge the full details to Echo, perhaps, but they at least imparted the crucial information that it was doubts surrounding Hutchinson’s credibility that lay at the heart of their decision to attach only a “very reduced importance” to his account. If the police wanted to deter the Echo completely, they had only to turn them away at the entrance to the Commercial Street police station. They had no obligation to go through the rigmarole of inviting the Echo in and supplying them with dangerously misleading information regarding the direction of the investigation. If your fantasy world were a reality, and the Met never divulged any case-related information to the police at any stage during the investigation, the police need only have slammed the door in the face of the Echo’s journalists, and yet that obviously didn’t happen.

“Swearing to your statement does not make it true.”

I’m aware of that, but on the other hand, if a witness comes forward three days late and conveniently soon after the termination of the inquest, it begs a good explanation, and unfortunately for Hutchinson’s perceived credibility, it appears that “later investigations” conducted by the “authorities” had undermined or negated whatever “explanation” Hutchinson might initially have provided. I do hope you’re not repeating the fallacy that all eyewitness evidence should be accorded equal credibility, irrespective of its source. According to that “logic”, Lawende is on a par with the third-hand hearsay offerings of some woman who might have been called “Sarah Roney”, for instance.

(Jon thinks the latter is the more likely of the two to have seen the actual ripper, by the way – no, seriously, he does!)

“No point in telling the constable that, not when half the men in the East End look shabby. How old was this Blotchy, 20, 30 40 50?
And how many men had dirty brown hair, drink-sodden complexion, and a moustache?”

The police do not simply abandon their search for a suspect just because his appearance might fit many others. The man was described as being about 36 years old, 5ft 5ins tall with a fresh complexion and blotches on his face. He had small side-whiskers, a thick, carroty moustache and dressed in shabby dark clothes, dark overcoat and a black felt hat. That’s pretty detailed as far as non-discredited witness descriptions go – far more detailed than Lawende’s in the facial department. Are you claiming that the search for Lawende’s suspect was also abandoned for the same reason?

“But, at the same time watering down your "discredited" theory by now saying they didn't totally dismiss his story.”

I’m saying that they couldn’t PROVE IT FALSE, Jon. That’s all.

I totally dismiss the theory that Sir William Gull was the ripper, but I’m in no position to prove him totally innocent as I’m not in possession of any such proof. The difference is an important one, and shouldn’t be too problematic to grasp.

“Packer changed his story, first he saw nobody, and nothing. Then he saw somebody, and something. Plus, his times were all over the place.”

But worst of all was his failure to describe the sort of expensively-dressed black-bag carrying ghoul that Jon so desperately wants Jack the Ripper to have been. I think that’s where he really slipped up, don’t you? In reality, of course, Hutchinson was no less discredited than Packer, and just like the greengrocer, Hutchinson’s story contained numerous contradictions and embellishments between his police and press statements. If anything, Packer fares just that bit better inasmuch as he was at least proven to have been where he said he was at the time, unlike Hutchinson.

“I've addressed this diversion before, it failed then just as it fails now.”

I know you’ve “addressed” it, and I've "addressed" your very bad attempt to "address" it. In fact, if repetition seems to be something you enjoy, I may as well just repeat myself verbatim:

Unless the police were able to rule out the possibility of Mrs. Schwartz being wrong in her estimation of the time, asleep, or covering up for her husband, she would have been a pretty poor alibi-provider for Schwartz. I love the idea that Harris, Levy, and Lawende providing alibis for each other. I wonder if Fred West ever provided an “alibi” for Rose? (No, I’m not suggesting any of these men were involved. I’m highlighting the senselessness of arguing that they “alibi” each other). It doesn’t matter if Violenia wasn’t the man seen by Long – it is quite clear that the police did not especially cling to Long’s man as a likely killer, or even accept that Long was correct in her estimation of the time.

I will be revisiting this point every single time I catch you talking nonsense about Hutchinson becoming an “automatic suspect”. I just hope you’re as anxious to have duplicate arguments on multiple threads as I am.

“Why even mention it?”

Because you were trying, without success, to demonstrate that the IPN was in possession of accurate police information regarding the imaginary ongoing search for the Astrakhan suspect. There is no evidence of any active pursuit of Astrakhan after mid-November. If you’re capable of demonstrating that actual investigation continued after that stage, that would be a start, but don’t even think about quoting from the 19th November Echo edition again, which merely tells us that some unnamed, unknown, and evidently uninfluential policemen still wondered if the real Jack the Ripper went around with a tightly grasped black parcel, dark eyelashes and a devilish horseshoe tie-pin.

“Why then vaguely use "the authorities"?”

They didn’t. They obtained their information “on inquiry at Commercial Street police station”, which I somehow doubt means they asked Abberline’s pet lizard.

Regards,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

I ought to have clarified that I don't believe for a moment that Hutchinson's three-day "delay" in coming forward was the only reason for his account receiving a "very reduced importance", and not do I doubt that the "later investigations" alluded to in the Echo uncovered additional reasons for doubting his credibility. The only reason I've continued to stress the "late appearance" angle to Jon and chums is to illustrate the fact that whatever circumstances were ultimately responsible for Hutchinson's statement being "considerably discounted", they related directly to his credibility, as opposed to some of the more nonsensical "reasons" we've seen doing the rounds, such as "date confusion" or Bond's time of death being favoured to the exclusion of all other evidence.

I didn't doubt it for a moment, Ben. The problem with the Hutchinson threads over the last few years is that they have been permeated by oddball ideas which not only distract from the real issues, they can also prove misleading to some of the newer posters. Anyway, keep up the good work. Common sense will prevail in the end.

[Garry Wroe]

Philip Sugden in his book, seemed to believe Hutcinson's story. This is an interesting quote, regarding Hutchinson's decision to go the press: "We cannot tell because the police records have almost all been lost. But the CID view at the time seems to have been that it blighted Abberline's efforts to trace the suspect alerting him to the hunt and perhaps encouraging him to change his appearance." (Sugden, 2002)

Which is precisely, John, why readers should do their own thinking rather than trusting to the opinions of authors. I began researching Hutchinson in the mid-1980s and have never seen the slightest evidence to support Mr Sugden's contention. Moreover, within days of Hutchinson's appearance at Commercial Street Police Station investigators were swooping on common lodging houses and casual wards in their search for the killer. Since Astrakhan was never going to be found at any such establishment we may safely conclude that it was Blotchy who was the focus of the manhunt rather than the man described by Hutchinson. Perhaps this sheds some light on what for me is Mr Sugden's curious interpretation of events. Maybe he'd concluded that Astrakhan had dressed down and was hiding in one of the local hell-holes. If so, he had clearly overlooked the reality that those with whom Astrakhan had long come into everyday contact would have recognized him from the newspaper descriptions of Kelly's alleged companion and provided police with his details.

Could it therefore be possible that the police lost confidence in him because, by going to the press, they believed that he had undermined their efforts to find the suspect, and assumed that the alerted suspect would either of fled the locality or radically changed his appearance? This annoyance towards Hutchinson may have been compounded if they had specifically asked him not to go to the press.

It's about the chronology of events, John. Hutchinson was interviewed by journalists at the Victoria Home on the Tuesday evening - by which time the Echo had already printed its 'diminution' piece. Thus Hutchinson was clearly the focus of police scepticism twenty-four hours before his newspaper interview(s) saw the light of day.

[Garry Wroe]

There is no evidence of any active pursuit of Astrakhan after mid-November. If you’re capable of demonstrating that actual investigation continued after that stage, that would be a start, but don’t even think about quoting from the 19th November Echo edition again ...

Echo?

... which merely tells us that some unnamed, unknown, and evidently uninfluential policemen still wondered if the real Jack the Ripper went around with a tightly grasped black parcel, dark eyelashes and a devilish horseshoe tie-pin.

Which couldn't have been the case owing to the (Jon) fact that the police never revealed case-related details to journalists. Especially those lying toe-rags at the Echo.

[Wickerman]

Philip Sugden in his book, seemed to believe Hutcinson's story. This is an interesting quote, regarding Hutchinson's decision to go the press: "We cannot tell because the police records have almost all been lost. But the CID view at the time seems to have been that it blighted Abberline's efforts to trace the suspect alerting him to the hunt and perhaps encouraging him to change his appearance." (Sugden, 2002)

Hi John.

That quote by Sugden comes across as a little strange, it is as if he was not aware that the police were the first to issue a press release giving the description of the latest suspect.

So, why Sugden suggests that Hutchinson's press story may have caused the suspect to change his attire is a mystery.
All the mainstream papers carried the rather brief official release directly on the morning of the 13th.

This is from the Times:
" He was about 5 ft. 6 in. in height, and 34 or 35 years of age, with dark complexion and dark moustache turned up at the ends. He was wearing a long, dark coat, trimmed with astrachan, a white collar with a black necktie, in which was affixed a horse-shoe pin. He wore a pair of dark gaiters with light buttons, over button boots, and displayed from his waistcoat a massive gold chain."

Each newspaper added a brief preamble of their own choosing to this description, but the content remained the same.

Just by way of comparison, this description below is taken directly from Hutchinson's statement:

"Description age about 34 or 35. height 5ft6 complexion pale, dark eyes and eye lashes slight moustache, curled up each end, and hair dark, very surley looking dress long dark coat, collar and cuffs trimmed astracan. And a dark jacket under. Light waistcoat dark trousers dark felt hat turned down in the middle. Button boots and gaiters with white buttons. Wore a very thick gold chain white linen collar. Black tie with horse shoe pin."

Scotland Yard appear to be the source as the above details were sent to A.S. (All Stations), likely distributed by Telegram, and to one of the Agencies, who sold it on to the press, who reworded it as they each saw fit.

Sugden's comment doesn't seem to fit what we know.

[Wickerman]

... In contrast, the less dramatic official police version of "I then went to the court to see if I could see them, but I could not", could mean that he didn't even enter the court, but merely waited on the fringes.

The pertinent word being "could".
In recent differences of opinion on Casebook it was like trying to pull teeth to get some people to admit that the police version "could" mean either scenario.
Yet the press version only has one interpretation.

That being the case it is false for some to claim that Hutchinson told police he didn't enter the court - his statement can be taken either way.

That is one reason why I would contend that the press version was more dramatic and may have been elaborated;...

The press interview with Schwartz is another example, ie; the "pipe" changed into a "knife".
It is in the press interest to spice it up, but that doesn't mean they did. Just that they "could" have.

..... if the Police believed that he was exaggerating his evidence, thus undermining his credibility as a witness.

That, I doubt.
What you are suggesting is that the police are going to believe everything they read in the press, without any doubt. This is totally untenable.

The police are not naive, they know press stories are a mixture of fact & fiction, so they wouldn't care less what he told the press, it's what he tells the police that matters.

The police did keep abreast of the news, we have statements to that effect. But if the police had any concern about what they read attributed to a witness, they will bring the witness in for a second interview.

I would suggest that what appeared initially to seem like a very promising lead probably just gradually fizzled out, just like Blotchy, resulting in both Hutchinson and Cox disappearing from the enquiry.

Yes.

[Wickerman]

Hello Ben.

A “brush-off” in the sense that the police did not divulge the full details to Echo, perhaps, but they at least imparted the crucial information that it was doubts surrounding Hutchinson’s credibility that lay at the heart of their decision to attach only a “very reduced importance” to his account.

It doesn't imply anything of the sort.
Dr. Bond's estimated 'time-of-death' for Kelly, will have exactly the same effect.
There is no evidence of the Echo receiving "crucial information", however, some medical men were not so reticent.

If your fantasy world were a reality, and the Met never divulged any case-related information to the police at any stage during the investigation, the police need only have slammed the door in the face of the Echo’s journalists, and yet that obviously didn’t happen.

If what you claim is true the Echo had no cause to consistently write this:
"Up to the present the police refuse the Press any information".


As it stands, all we read in the Echo are vague references. Had they been able to obtain quantifiable and reliable case related information what was stopping them from saying so in unrestricted detail?
What?
You want us to believe they knew something, while actually reporting nothing.
If they knew what the "later investigations" unearthed (assuming it is true), why are they not telling us?
Maybe, because they are guessing? - Yes.

... if a witness comes forward three days late and conveniently soon after the termination of the inquest, it begs a good explanation, ...

And we can be assured that Abberline obtained his explanation.
The police have no cause to inform the press, so today, interested parties like yourself are left to guess what this explanation was, along with the press of the time.
And naturally, you prefer to cast it in a dark light rather than giving the benefit of the doubt. Whatever explanation was given, Abberline was satisfied with what he heard.

Because 'you' do not know, 'you' are making it an issue, just like the press of the time. They didn't know either.
What cause do you have to believe that the police didn't know?

The police do not simply abandon their search for a suspect just because his appearance might fit many others. The man was described as being about 36 years old, 5ft 5ins tall with a fresh complexion and blotches on his face. He had small side-whiskers, a thick, carroty moustache and dressed in shabby dark clothes, dark overcoat and a black felt hat. That’s pretty detailed as far as non-discredited witness descriptions go – far more detailed than Lawende’s in the facial department.

It might appear distinctive to you, or anyone today, but when you take into account how the poor did dress in those days, it is pretty common.
Average height, middle-aged, "dark" clothing, black hat - take a look at photo's of the period.

I’m saying that they couldn’t PROVE IT FALSE, Jon. That’s all.

The police are not interested in proving a story false, they only care about it being verified as true.
If they can't, he will stay there until they do, or until he comes up with another version, but, Hutchinson isn't going anywhere.
Check the papers, lots of suspects were held until their stories checked out - they were HELD, Ben, not sent away.

This is the basic flaw in your theory.

In reality, of course, Hutchinson was no less discredited than Packer, and just like the greengrocer, Hutchinson’s story contained numerous contradictions and embellishments between his police and press statements. If anything, Packer fares just that bit better inasmuch as he was at least proven to have been where he said he was at the time, unlike Hutchinson.

Wow, such a lot of assumptions here.
- The police were aware that Packer changed his story, not so with Hutchinson.
- Hutchinson's story contains no contradictions, these are all your inventions. Sugden said much the same, you should read it sometime. In fact I showed you a line-by-line comparison, so I know you are being untruthful here.
- Any embellishments in the press version could easily be the reporters doing, like we suspect with Schwartz's press account.
- Where do we read that Hutchinson was not proven to be where he said he was?

Unless the police were able to rule out the possibility of Mrs. Schwartz being wrong in her estimation of the time, asleep, or covering up for her husband, she would have been a pretty poor alibi-provider for Schwartz.

Not only that, in your preferred Ripper source, the Star, we read that two suspects were arrested in connection with Schwartz's story.
Their statements could have implicated Schwartz or exonerated him, as the case maybe.
Apparently, the police had no cause to suspect him - though not due to guesswork.

I love the idea that Harris, Levy, and Lawende providing alibis for each other. I wonder if Fred West ever provided an “alibi” for Rose? (No, I’m not suggesting any of these men were involved. I’m highlighting the senselessness of arguing that they “alibi” each other).

That is precisely what their separate accounts do, they alibi each other.

It doesn’t matter if Violenia wasn’t the man seen by Long

That doesn't make any sense. I said nothing about Mrs Long seeing Violenia.

– it is quite clear that the police did not especially cling to Long’s man as a likely killer, or even accept that Long was correct in her estimation of the time.

It is clear, is it?
I'd be interested in what makes you think it is clear.

I will be revisiting this point every single time I catch you talking nonsense about Hutchinson becoming an “automatic suspect”. I just hope you’re as anxious to have duplicate arguments on multiple threads as I am.

That is precisely how he would be viewed in the real world, but apparently in your world he is just sent home as a naughty boy.

Because you were trying, without success, to demonstrate that the IPN was in possession of accurate police information regarding the imaginary ongoing search for the Astrakhan suspect. There is no evidence of any active pursuit of Astrakhan after mid-November. If you’re capable of demonstrating that actual investigation continued after that stage, that would be a start, but don’t even think about quoting from the 19th November Echo edition again, which merely tells us that some unnamed, unknown, and evidently uninfluential policemen still wondered if the real Jack the Ripper went around with a tightly grasped black parcel, dark eyelashes and a devilish horseshoe tie-pin.

Accurate?
The press only have indications, they know the direction of some investigations by following the detectives around, and questioning the witnesses after the detectives leave.
But as for accurate case related inside information, no, they have no idea.

The IPN was of interest, like so many other reports through November, because the press can see the investigation in progress on the streets. They know what line of inquiry is being followed, they talk to the people spoken to by the police.
This demonstrates how false your theory is, that the Hutchinson suspect was still being investigated - much to your chagrin.

They didn’t. They obtained their information “on inquiry at Commercial Street police station”, which I somehow doubt means they asked Abberline’s pet lizard.

You are confusing press reports now.
One report has the Echo using "the authorities" as their reference, which is the one we are talking about.
Your "Commercial-street" reference is only with respect to the Echo learning what was already public knowledge, that both descriptions came from the same source.
No great revelation there.

Considering you think the Echo had an inside source with police, they sadly lack anything close to accurate detailed information.

[John G]

Which is precisely, John, why readers should do their own thinking rather than trusting to the opinions of authors. I began researching Hutchinson in the mid-1980s and have never seen the slightest evidence to support Mr Sugden's contention. Moreover, within days of Hutchinson's appearance at Commercial Street Police Station investigators were swooping on common lodging houses and casual wards in their search for the killer. Since Astrakhan was never going to be found at any such establishment we may safely conclude that it was Blotchy who was the focus of the manhunt rather than the man described by Hutchinson. Perhaps this sheds some light on what for me is Mr Sugden's curious interpretation of events. Maybe he'd concluded that Astrakhan had dressed down and was hiding in one of the local hell-holes. If so, he had clearly overlooked the reality that those with whom Astrakhan had long come into everyday contact would have recognized him from the newspaper descriptions of Kelly's alleged companion and provided police with his details.

It's about the chronology of events, John. Hutchinson was interviewed by journalists at the Victoria Home on the Tuesday evening - by which time the Echo had already printed its 'diminution' piece. Thus Hutchinson was clearly the focus of police scepticism twenty-four hours before his newspaper interview(s) saw the light of day.

Hello Gary,

But didn't the Echo update its report on the 19th by stating that some of the authorities were inclined to support Hutchinson's account over Cox's, suggesting opinions were divided? I sense that the police were becoming increasingly frustrated at their lack of progress. Thus, on the face of it they had in Astrakhan Man the first highly detailed description of a suspect. However, despite their best efforts they were unable to find astrakhan or any other witnesses that recalled seeing Kelly in the company of such a man.

The problem is, much the same could be said of Blotchy. And it's worth pointing out that Cox also quickly disappears from the enquiry, as does Schwartz for that matter, possibly as the result of a failure to find BS man. In fact, the police seemed to have no luck in finding any suspects seen by witnesses in the company of the victims. In respect of Stride, for instance, as well as BS man suspects seen in her company by Brown, Marshall and PC Smith were not found.

I'm inclined to think that there was no proof that Hutchinson actually lied but that lack of progress simply meant that the investigation into Kelly's murder eventually just ground to a halt.

[Sally]

The problem with the Hutchinson threads over the last few years is that they have been permeated by oddball ideas which not only distract from the real issues, they can also prove misleading to some of the newer posters. Anyway, keep up the good work. Common sense will prevail in the end.

Hi Garry,

I couldn't agree more. Quite often the 'solutions' to the evident problems with Hutchinson's account are so preposterous as to be vaguely amusing - but the real problem is of course that it does distract from the real issues, as you say. I also think that the rather obsessive attempts of a vocal minority to 'exonerate' Hutchinson are bound to discourage any new debate. Perhaps that's the intention.

[John G]

This is an interesting article from The Times, 2 September, 1887: "At the Thames police- court , George Hutchinson, 33, respectably dressed....was charged on remand, with stealing a gold watch, value £5 , the property of Walter M'Lauchlin, of 49 , Wellclose- Square, Whitechapel."

Now disregarding the misleading reference to George Hutchison, this GH lived in Bow, what I find interesting is the reference to a Whitechapel resident owning an expensive gold watch. I mean, £5 would be the equivalent of £550 in today's money, and this was a time when a skilled occupation, such as a London bricklayer, payed around £2 a week.

Doesn't this article perfectly illustrate that there were Whitechapel residents, apart from Astrakhan, who could afford some of the finer things in life, such as expensive gold watches? If so, perhaps Astrakhan's presence in Whitechapel wasn't quite so incongruous as it might first appear.