|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 255
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 9:43 pm: | 
|
From the beginning there has been a contradiction relative to George Hutchinson.
First of all you have a man coming forward several days after MJKs death and telling a really improbable tale.
Then you have an experienced, capable professional like Abberline believing it.
I finally figured out why Abberline "accepted" GH's story, though he didn't, not really.
We are dealing with two Abberlines: Abberline, the very good detective, and Abberline, the very good politician. He had to be both to get where he was.
What was going on? Well, heads were rolling. Warren had just been forced to resign as a result of the JTR debacle. The media, headed up by the "Star" was no doubt clamoring for more officials to vilify and label incompetent. Abberline was probably in a pretty precarious position and he knew it.
Here comes George, one of those hangers on, kind of like Packer who wants to garner public attention and make himself important. So he makes up a tale about being the man in Dorset St. opposite Mary's door.
Abberline the detective sees through him in a wink, but Abberline the politician can pretty much guess what ol' George will do if he's told to buzz off. He'll go straight to the newspapers to see if he can get the attention he craves there.
What is the next headline in the "Star" going to say? "Police Ignore Important Witness"? So Abberline is forced to take action to cover himself. He has one of his men take George all over Whitechapel looking for Astrakhan Man. He even lets him testify at the inquest.
Did Abberline believe Hutchinson? I wonder.
But if the man seen opposite Mary's door wasn't GH, who was he? Notice that the woman who saw that man never identified Hutchinson! |
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 124
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 10:39 pm: |
|
Diana,
There seems to be good evidence Warren resigned because of internal politics and the publication of an intemperate article written by him without going through channels.
As for your last question, who was the man seen opposite the entrance to Miller's Court (not her door) if it was not Hutchinson: considering all the lodging houses in Dorset Street I have always been surprised a lot more men were not seen on the street that night.
Don. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 615
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 4:39 am: |
|
Hi Diana,
It has been recorded, that Abberline, was quoted as saying 'I believe the man'
As you mentioned, the question is why?.
My answer is there has to be something in his statement, that confirmed the recent belief the police had during that weekend, about the description , of the killer.
I cannot reveal my interpretation, for it will form the climax of our book.
But the clues are there, it is just a question, of sorting them all out.
But what i will say is, because of this new line of investigation, the police undertook, they let the main suspect go.
Regards Richard. |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 169
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 5:27 pm: |
|
Hi Diana,
Although this is an interesting idea, there are a few points to consider if he wasn’t the man actually seen by Sarah Lewis.
If Hutchinson wanted to pull it off, like the actual man seen by Lewis, he had to be a rather small, stout man too.
You say Sarah Lewis never identified Hutchinson as the man she had seen. This must have been his luck then, if Hutchinson was a publicity seeker, and it wasn’t a thing he could have known or counted on beforehand. So, there was every chance that his fame would be short-lived, or perhaps even that it remained non-existant.
Unlike Packer, he would not only have garnered public attention and made himself important, he also would have run the risk of becoming a suspect in the case, and of ending on the wrong end of a noose. Because after all, this stout man who wasn’t tall was seen hanging around very close to a crime scene and not very long before Mary Jane Kelly was considered to have been killed, so I’m sure the police would have been very interested in knowing more about this man. If the man would tell the ‘wrong’ story he would run the risk of becoming a suspect.
I’m not so sure that Inspector Abberline would have dismissed Hutchinson as a serious witness so quickly. After the latest atrocity he would have been under an immense pressure and I think he wouldn’t have had a choice but to follow the lead Hutchinson offered.
And as a ‘by the way’, Hutchinson never testified at the inquest, because he didn’t come forward until after the closure of the inquest.
All in all, I agree with you that Huchinson’s story remains a strange one and you might be right about him being a publicity seeker, but then it had to be one that liked to take some risks (including the risk of not achieving his goal) or a plain stupid one, which of course is also possible.
All the best,
Frank
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 256
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 8:44 pm: |
|
After the latest atrocity he would have been under an immense pressure and I think he wouldn’t have had a choice but to follow the lead Hutchinson offered.
My point exactly! |
Neale Carter
Sergeant
Username: Ncarter
Post Number: 43
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 9:22 pm: |
|
Diana,
Is it possible that Abberline said he believed GH not to tip his hand? If he thought GH's story to be a fabrication (in part or whole) why let GH know that. Sending GH and detectives out to spot Mr Astrakhan may well have a ruse to keep GH in sight. It is a tremendous longshot that this incongruous trio would stumble across Astrakhan in wondering the streets of Whitechapel in broad daylight. And why the need to have GH with them anyway - his description was so incredibly detailed that any PC would be able to detain him and Abberline could arrange for GH to identify him at their convenience. Why use two experienced detectives and not a PC to traipse around with GH?
What subsequently may have happened to dissuade Abberline from pursuing GH as a suspect is another question altogether.
Neale |
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 853
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 12:51 pm: |
|
Hi Diana
In his report of the evening of 12th November (Hutchinson did not report to make a statement until 6pm of the same day) Abberline does indeed say "I am of opinion that his statement is true." He then proceeds to give at least two reasons why he would consider Hutchinson's statement of some importance. Hutchinson said he had known Kelly at least three years, apparently longer than many who gave evidence surrounding her death, certainly longer than Barnett. He also said he could definitely identify the man - which considering the detail in which he described him is not surprising! This is in contrast again to many witness sighting where only a passing glimpse or even a view from the back is recorded and also the witnesses who say they could not positively the man again (e.g. Lawende). In the usual (admittedly vague) chronology of Kelly's life it is usually supposed she came to London some time about 1884. If Hutchison's statement that he had known her at least three years is true, he must have known her almost all her time in London.
In Abberline's statement there is mention of two follow up actions to Hutchinson's statement: that he is to be taken to the mortuary to identify the body and the next day to see if he could see the man he had described. I am reasonably certain from the tone of Abberline's statement that these would have happened but of course we do not know what outcome, if any, resulted therefrom.
By this stage in the investigation the police must have been plagued by many prurient, curious, publicity seeking or just plain deranged would be witnesses - details of only a few have survived but there were almost certainly many more who were simply a waste of police time.
It is possible that the tone of Abberline's report is simply saying that in his opinion, having interviewed Hutchinson personally, that there was sufficient in his manner and the impression that Abberline received of him, that made his story worth following up and not dismissing instantly.
It would be interesting to know if Hutchison attempted to cash in on his story by going to the press. In the research I have done on the US press Hutchinson's statement is widely reported and all the version I have seen seem to derive from one source in that they contain two items, one of which is definitely false - that Hutchinson' story was told at the Kelly inquest - and another questionable, that Hutchinson was a groom. It would be fascinating to know the ultimate story of the original of this account.
Regards
Chris
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 171
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 3:27 pm: |
|
Diana,
“After the latest atrocity he would have been under an immense pressure and I think he wouldn’t have had a choice but to follow the lead Hutchinson offered.”
Perhaps I didn’t put it all that well, but what I simply meant by this is that I think Abberline didn’t reach the stage where he had to bother about politics and take action to cover himself, or wonder what the next headline of the “Star” was going to say, like you suggest.
I think he took action before he could break his head over it because he considered him to be a potentially valuable witness, or he took action to try and learn more about this suspicious man, like Neale suggested, while at the same time putting the pressure on him.
Without trying to sound or be sarcastic, this doesn’t seem to have been exactly your point.
All the best,
Frank
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 688
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 1:12 pm: |
|
Hi All,
We don’t know what else GH may have confided in the police, either voluntarily or as a result of questions they put to him.
Imagine the reaction when he says he hung around for 45 minutes. Isn’t it likely that they would ask him why, and keep on asking until they got a satisfactory answer? It would be better for him to admit it, if he was waiting for a share of Mary’s takings. Waiting to rob a departing customer would be a more serious admission, and sticking with a lame excuse that just didn’t wash could have led to the police suspecting the very worst.
If GH admitted, readily or after a bit of persuading, that he had recently been finding work for Mary in exchange for a fee (which I think is at least possible), the police may have been more inclined to treat the rest of his testimony seriously, at least initially. He would have come forward, knowing that his reasons for being in the court on the fateful night could get him into trouble one way or another.
Maybe GH came across as a genuinely worried man who felt he had no choice but to give information about a man he saw who could be the ripper, even though it would probably involve confessing to his own dodgy dealings in the process.
Regardless of how much or little faith anyone put in GH’s description of the suspect, the police presumably had their reasons for not treating either the description, or the account of GH’s own movements that night, as unduly suspicious. I assume he would have been asked to account for his movements on the nights of the previous murders if there were any lingering doubts.
Love,
Caz
|
David Knott
Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 17
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 7:12 am: |
|
Hi All,
In the light of Chris Miles' book I have been looking again at Hutchinson's evidence, and I have come up with the following possible scenario to explain why Abberline believed him.
Miles echoes the observation originally made by Bob Hinton that there was something very strange about the way that Hutchinson walked all the way back from Romford in the rain, arriving back in Whitechapel at 2am, only to walk straight past his lodgings.
The source for this information is the Pall Mall Gazette article of 14th November. Later in the same article Hutchinson states: -
"After I left the court [at about 3am] I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed. I came in as soon as it opened in the morning."
As he does not state that he returned to the Victoria Home at 3am, it seems quite likely that he was already aware that it had closed for the night, possibly having looked in at 2am.
Therefore, at 2am, surely tired and exhausted, his main concern could well have been finding a bed for the night. It would seem that he had used the services of Mary Kelly a number of times in the preceding years, and would have been aware that she had her own room. The "Mr Hutchinson, can you lend me sixpence" conversation, may have been more along the lines of: -
"Hello Mary, I'm tired and exhausted having walked back from Romford. My usual lodgings have closed for the night. Can I sleep in your room?"
"George, I'm badly behind with my rent and need to make some money. You can stay if you can pay me sixpence"
"Sorry Mary, I've spent all my money going down to Romford"
"Never mind - look here's a customer now. Why not hang around until he's finished. He looks as if he's not short of a few quid. Then you can spend the rest of the night with me".
So Hutchinson hangs about outside the room, but at 3am the sounds from within cease and the lights go out, so he gives up and goes for a walk.
The subsequent police statement is watered down so as not to give the impression that he is a user of prostitutes, but this information is given to the police, who think it gives credence to his story.
David |
steven tavani
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 1:37 pm: |
|
Hi David,
I think your scenario makes great sense and was really well thought out. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 8:05 pm: |
|
David,
The scenario you offer is plausible, based upon what little we know about Hutchinson, but it has three main problems for me:
1) It requires a fairly substantial change of meaning in Hutchinson's statement... It seems more likely that if that's what he said, that that's what the statement would have read. If we choose to reinterpret the statement that liberally we can come up with several alternate scenarios that are just as likely.
2) Your scenario still doesn't explain to me why Abberline would have accepted the story. Even if that's what happened, Abberline would have no way of proving that and would just have to accept him at face value if he were to believe him. And, I'm sorry, but it'd be sheer recklessness for any police officer to just take the story provided by someone proven to be at the crime scene that close to a murder at face value.
3) "The subsequent police statement is watered down so as not to give the impression that he is a user of prostitutes, but this information is given to the police, who think it gives credence to his story." If there's a reason to water down information given to the public (and being a user of prostitutes does not strike me as a good reason at all) you don't change the police statement, you change what you say to the press. The statement is what's used for the police investigation. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 720
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 3:42 am: |
|
Hi,
Why did Abberline believe.?
Because he obtained imformation , on the day the body of kelly was found, that led him and his force to believe, that the murderer, was not the type they had been looking for, and when hutchinson told them his description on the monday evening, this was confirmed , at least they thought so.
That is why Abberline was quoted as remarking' I believe the man'
I am sorry I can not elaborate on this, for obvious reasons, for it is in my chapter on kelly, which Leanne is about to receive.
Regards Richard. |
David Knott
Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 18
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 5:21 am: |
|
Dan,
As I see it, there is no reason why the police should have accepted Hutchinson's statement in the form that it exists today. Therefore we have three possibilities: -
1) Privately, the police didn't accept his story (as postulated by Bob Hinton)
2) The police made a big blunder in believing him(as suggested by Chris Miles)
3) Hutchinson was able to convince Abberline that he was telling the truth, but the reasons why were never made public.
In my opinion, the last of these is the one that ties in most closely with the extant police records, although of course any of them are quite possible. Another possibility (and I forget who suggested it) was that Hutchinson was a thief, and was hanging around waiting for the re-emergence of Kelly's wealthy looking client. In either this instance, or the one that I suggested, I don't think that it is beyond the realms of possibility that the police would agree not to make public Hutchinson's motive for being outside the room.
David |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2174
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 5:39 am: |
|
Interesting, David. I think it unlikely that a prostitute like Kelly would ask for a loan of sixpence, rather than just offer her services. So unless GH was a known gay, I suppose his coyness about the sixpence might be down either to a desire to protect his own reputation (user of prostitutes) or Kelly's. But Kelly was branded a prostitute at the inquest, so maybe there's something in your theory - he was worried about his own reputation.
But as Dan says, why not have this in the police statement? Was GH so coy about being a user of prostitutes that he was too embarrassed to tell the police?
Robert |
David Knott
Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 19
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 6:18 am: |
|
Hi Robert,
If there is anything in my suggestion then I guess that the most likely sequence of events would be
1. Hutchinson realises that he has been seen outside Kelly's room, so gives his statement to Sgt Badham - this is a watered down version of events, but watered down by Hutchinson - not by the police
2. The police think it looks a bit fishy, so call in Abberline to interrogate him
3. Hutchinson gives Abberline a fuller version of events, and Abberline believes him but agrees to not make public the reasons for believing him, in order to protect Hutchinson's reputation.
I agree with you that Kelly may well have offered her services, as opposed to just asking for the loan of a sixpence, but either way it seems that Hutchinson had no money.
As to whether he would really be that bothered about it being made public that he was a user of prostitutes it's impossible to say, but it's certainly a possibility.
David |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2175
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 6:46 am: |
|
Hi David
Re GH having no money, what he said - or was reported as saying - seemed to imply that the only reason he was out of doors that night was that the Victoria Home was closed. So if he had no money, presumably GH thought that they'd trust him for it, at least for one night.
But I find this a bit difficult. Bob Hinton said that the Victoria Home only accepted people who were in work. Also, if GH was in no regular employment, what was he doing spending every last penny he had "going down to Romford"?
It's a mystery to me!
Robert |
David Knott
Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 20
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 7:41 am: |
|
Hi Robert,
The question of the Victoria Home closing for the night needs investigating. According to GH's statement it was closed by 3am on the night (Thursday/Friday) of MK's murder (possibly earlier) and yet in his statement to the press he says: -
"I was out on Monday morning until 3 o'clock looking for him..."
David |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 178
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 9:13 am: |
|
Interesting thread. I postulate that Abberline did not believe GH but put on the record that he did to give himself more time to investigate further. Some people dismiss this as being unbelievable, but what we have here is a simple ruse de guerre to put a suspect at his ease.
A similar ruse was used by the police in the hunt for the heiress Lesley Whittle. At a press conference there was a violent argument between the victims brother and the police which ended with the brother storming out. This, know only to a few select senior officers, was a ruse to buy the police more time.
The public and the press were shown one thing when in reality exactly the opposite was the case.
That is what I believed happened here. Dont forget that later on GH was completely dismissed by both Anderson and McNaghten as a serious witness. Why? Unless he wasn't held as a serious witness and never was.
Bob Hinton |
zxcter
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 7:14 am: |
|
One of the questions is did abberline ask sarah Lewis what she was wearing and then asked george what was the woman who came at past 2:30A.M. inside miller's court wearing.Or do you own a hat, like the one sarah described.George surely would have seen sarah lewis entering miller's court.And if he can see the red handkerchief then he could have partly describe sarah's dress. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
