Are the reports in the contempory newpapers sufficient to discredit Hutchinson?

[Natalie Severn]

---you have refreshed my memory David! Quite right-the "search" became useless.
Cheers
Norma

[DVV]

Indeed, Norma,

...and still, some wonder why Hutch has been discredited...or worse, wonder if he has been at all...

Amitiés,
David

[Tom_Wescott]

I think we're missing the point here. Although it would be nice to know why Hutch was discredited, what really matters is that he was. We don't know what the police knew.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DVV]

Not exactly, Tom.
We know the police knew what was in the papers.

Amitiés,
David

[Simon Wood]

The police knew what was in the newspapers about GH because they put it there.

[DVV]

In which case, Simon, they were stupid.
If you're right, the suspect would have been described in the press as 88 years old, one-eyed, with a Japanese face.

Amitiés,
David

[Tom_Wescott]

DVV,

What was in the papers doesn't matter if they felt Hutch could identify the Ripper. He still would have been used in identity parades, but wasn't. Policemen and officials when discussing who saw the Ripper did not include him (or Schwartz).

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DVV]

Agreed.
But where did their doubts start with ?

Press statements.

Amitiés,
David

[Natalie Severn]

Tom,
But you yourself say we dont know what the Police knew,---nor do we know what they did or exactly how they treated information.
Phillip Sugden points out that Abberline and others return to a description that seems close on several counts to Hutchinson"s man when they discuss in print ,much later on ,the similarity of features of George Chapman and a description being circulated in 1888.

Viz,Ex Superintendent Arthur Neil,who worked on the Chapman case ,writing in 1932 Forty Years of Manhunting says:


The only living description ever given by an eyewitness of the "Ripper",tallied exactly with Chapman, even to the height,deep sunk black eyes,sallow complexion and thick black moustache.

[Tom_Wescott]

The other way around I would imagine. The reason the press reported that the police doubted Hutch is probably because the police doubted Hutch.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DVV]

The reason the press reported that the police doubted Hutch is probably because the police doubted Hutch...
Tom Wescott

...since they read the papers...

Amitiés,
David

[Natalie Severn]

David,
What do you make of the description Arthur Neil quotes and Philip Sugden highlights that I posted above a few minutes ago?[writing in 1932 bear in mind but an ex superintendent who worked on the Chapman case]

"..... same height,deep sunk black eyes,sallow complexion and thick black moustache" [he"s likening Chapman to the description but ignore that for the moment]

Wouldnt you agree that it sounds quite a lot like Hutchinson"s description?And if so then clearly the police did not reject Hutchinson"s description outright but kept it on hold----or at least in their own memories.

[Phil Carter]

Tom, Nats, David, all,

With the greatest respect, anyone who was once a policeman commenting on his part in, his opinion of, his recollections of etc etc etc, is, in my honest opinion, to be treated with as much, if not more caution as the newspapers. Magnaghten, Anderson, Smith, Griffiths, Abberline, Neil, Littlechild et al.

Every single one of these people haven't produced a shred of factual evidence to support their theories. It is all supposition, guesswork and in one case, complete rubbish. There is a drowned person, or doctor, a Russian loony, a Polish Jew, Chapman, Tumblety, etc etc etc... it doesn't matter in actual fact what any of these policemen said. We are in the position to state that they, on 121 years of evidence, to date, were all wrong. It doesnt matter if they are Kosminsky, Kasminsky or Nijinsky... Ostrog, Konalov or Kellogg, Druitt, Frewiit or Blew-it... Tumblety, Tumlehed or Humblebum.

They are all wrong. And therefore their considered opinions are to be classed together as opinions...only.

As regards Hutchinson... I have grave doubts as to whether he even existed. And any connection to a man that suddenly turns up in a Joseph Sickert/Gorman story (George Topping Hutchinson) smells of another Netley, plucked from nowhere.... and I wouldn't trust a Gorman/Sickert story with my last lollipop. So unless we can actually PROVE he (Hutch) existed, I remain doubtful about the man. Existance through Gorman/Sickert means nothing at all. Netley existed. So what. The fact that he (Hutch) turns conveniently up at 6pm straight after the inquest on Kelly is unexpectedly closed quickly, (without the doctor even pronouncing a time of death), giving the most lurid and clear description of someone, (having told someone at the Victoria home about his sighting FIRST), who advised him to come forward and is NEVER interviewed by the police to corroberate Hutch's story......nah..call me a sceptic if you will... Hutchinson sounds more like a man made up to counter Maxwell's, Lewis' statements. No one knows the man..he ALONE says he has known Kelly three years but no one has ever heard of him, walks around at night, in and out of pubs.....and women talk about men. Not ONE has mentioned Hutchinson, let alone being seen at any time in three years with Mary.. (compare that to the other men she has known).

I know I know, I'll get this thrown back at me again... but I simply cannot see ANY reliability in Hutchinson as a person nor his supposed statement.

best wishes to you all

Phil

[Natalie Severn]

Phil,
I agree with you that we cant treat any of it as "impartial "exactly!And yes,Neil could have looked the description up or asked one of his ex-colleagues to look it up in the police files and just used it because it worked for what he wanted to say about Chapman.On the other hand we are not in a position to pick and choose which Police officials we"ll decide to believe or not believe.Thats why the more we can find out about each of them the better,even then we wont be sure of their total integrity.I like to believe Abberline was not just a very good detective but also honest and decent which I think he mostly was ,but in 1889 during the Cleveland Case he turned a blind eye to someone avoiding jail and fleeing to France---so who knows-
Best
Norma

[Observer]

DVV,
Policemen and officials when discussing who saw the Ripper did not include him (or Schwartz).

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom, or Elizabeth Long, why did they drop her?

So what happens when Hutchinson is discredited? OK they don't believe his story, but he still has to explain why he was sighted at the scene of the crime very shortly before Mary Kelly was murdered. I'd say he was in a very precarious situation, he has a lot of explaining to do, sighted at the scene of a murder, telling lies about what lead him there, what do the police do? Nothing, he slips into obscurity. I believe certain police officers kept an open mind regarding Hutchinsons encounter with Mary Kellly, wary of it, but not dismissing it out of hand.

all the best

Observer