The press, what they knew and how they knew it.

[Fisherman]

harry:
No,there is no evidence as such,either of guilt or innocence...

Right you are.

... most likely there was/is opinions based on experience,and quite likely on investigative measures by journalists at the time.

Then why did these enterpriseng gentlemen of the press spend a lot of time and effort to dig it out - only to withhold it from their readers later on? If the press worked like that in the Victorian days (get the scoop, then hide it), then I must say the profession has changed markedly since.

It's not a case of distrusting Dew or anyone else,just a realisation that anyone,policeman or not,can sometimes be at fault ...

Yes, they can. But as long as we do not have one single source stating that Hutchinson was NOT a good guy and a truthful witness, this is what we have - a great number of papers that called him unshakable and a man that confirmed his honesty fifty years later.

Anybody who wants to call him not truthful and a liar will have to conjecture that up with no substantiation behind it. The discrediting of his story does not have to discredit Hutchinson chacracterwise at all, as has been shown. Therefore, there is nothing to use but imagination if we need Hutchinson as the bad guy.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=DVV;265015]Hi Fish,

No. Clearly no. Dew meant something like "even people with best intentions can be mistaken, and perhaps Hutch and Maxwell were mistaken."

Nope - Dew clearly meant that since people with the best of intentions can make these kinds of mistakes concerning time and identity, then there would be nothing strange if people like Hutchinson and Maxwell fell in the same trap, them too corresponding with the "best intentions" description. This becomes very clear when Dew says that he would not reflect on the two as witnesses - for the simple and obvious reason that none of them had given him reason to.

Had they been shady people, they would have gotten another send-off in his memoirs. But maybe your linguistic talents can steer clear of that too!

The rest of us simply recognize that Dew was of the meaning that both persons had given a good impression and nothing had come up to change that. It is much like saying that some people are very generous, and then add something about Santa Claus. Of course, there would be nothing to prove ... And so on!

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

But even if we disavow the above, it is hardly surprising that Dew's date/time confusion haven't been revived - except by Fisherman - as the correct explanation for Hutchinson's discrediting. The objections are obvious. Why would Hutchinson confuse the date of an event that coincided with the Kelly murder, the Lord Mayor's Show, and (allegedly) a 13 mile hoof from Romford in the small hours?

It is therefore nonsense to say that "Dew is what we have".

Ben

Right you are, Ben : a sheer nonsense in bold type.

Using and misunderstanding Dew's hazardous and vague suggestion as a proof of Hutch's truthfulness is rdiculous.

Cheers

[Fisherman]

Ben:

I must admit I'm a little bemused to see this "date confusion" being dredged up again.

Are you now?

This was a purely speculative proposal

Just like the suggestion that Hutchinson lied, then? Or like the proposal that he was the killer? Or like the idea that he carried a false name? Or like the notion that he could not stand on one side only of Dorset Street for a full 45 minutes?

I see.

It should not be misconstrued as being in any way representative of contemporary police opinion, because it was nothing of the sort.

And this you know how? You just know, or?

The reason he made this suggestion was because he was evidently aware that Hutchinson's statement had been dismissed, but like many policemen of lower rank at the time, was not told why.

"Evidently", Ben? This you know how? You just know, or?

Being relatively junior and not on a need-to-know basis, he would have been told simply that the Astrak-hunt was off, leaving him to speculate many years later as to the reason why.

This you know how? You just know? Or?

Clearly his speculations were wrong.

This you know how? You just know? Because you are in a better position to know than Dew, who worked the case? Or?

It is therefore nonsense to say that nobody at the time mistrusted Hutchinson.

It is clear that his STORY was discredited, nothing else. All sources we have speak of the manīs honesty, in relation to the murders and fifty years on. Not a single policeman or paper has anything at all dishonourable to say about Hutchinsonīs character.
Packer and Violenia were stamped with reasons as to why they were disbelieved. You see, the public wants to know, and the press want to oblige. If Hutchinson had been exposed as a liar, it seems odd in the extreme that it never was put in writing. His case was of a potentially tremendeous importance.

To explain this you need to travel to conjecture country. Again.

But even if we disavow the above, it is hardly surprising that Dew's date/time confusion haven't been revived - except by Fisherman - as the correct explanation for Hutchinson's discrediting. The objections are obvious. Why would Hutchinson confuse the date of an event that coincided with the Kelly murder, the Lord Mayor's Show, and (allegedly) a 13 mile hoof from Romford in the small hours?

Because these things happen. They are not even very rare. You yourself seem to have forgotten Iīve told you this before, for example.

It is therefore nonsense to say that "Dew is what we have".

Is it? Donīt we have Dew? And if so, then what else DO we have, in terms of an assessment of Hutchinsonīs honesty AFTER the events?
Nothing, Ben. So like it or not - and I am starting to believe you donīt like it - but Dew is what we have.

Finally, let us dispense with the suggestion that his honesty "was not questioned in any paper". Besides the Echo's report on the authorities discounting Hutchinson for precisely that reason, we have the Star reporting that his statement was "discredited" as a "worthless story" that had led the police on a "false scent". Then there's the Graphic, who reported that the level of detail in Hutchinson's description of the Astrakhan man "engenders a feeling of scepticism", and perhaps most damningly of all, we have Washington's Evening Star whose comments made clear that they regarded Hutchinson as a potential suspect.

... whereas all other papers praised his honesty and straight-forward demeanor. One wonders why, when an US paper on the other side of Moder Earth with a reporter with such endearing fantasy could think of a sinister perspective ...?

Fisherman - If you're going to criticise my use of strong, uncompromising adjectives in dismissing certain theories of yours (and you seem to be chastising me for words I used years ago), it is perhaps a bit hypocritical to then accuse mine of being "laughable" and "preposterous", especially when you miss my point completely. I brought up the Manchester Guardian to illustrate the fact that news of the murder was readily available everywhere, and that a mythical, hypothetical excursion out of London was very unlikely to render Hutchinson oblivious to news of the Kelly murder.

Iīm sorry, Ben, but if you have not yourself yet realized that it is pretty damn obvious that the papers did find out about the killing at an early stage, there is only so much I can do for you. If you wanted to exemplify just how amazing it was that news travelled fast in the errand, maybe you should not have chosen a source devoted to and living from fast travelling news.

You see, with a telegraph line at the office, it will take you as long as it takes the sender to send his message to find out what has happened. It will happen in each case that carries some sort of news value, no exceptions whatsoever. But to know what it says in the paper, you need to read that paper. So no matter how news technology has brought the world to our doorsteps, it remains a fact that not all news are imprinted into peoples brains at the exact same time and with no exceptions. Once again, like it or not - and I feel certain you donīt - but your sentiments on the issue are nowhere near any sort of guarantee that Hutchinson must have known.

And thatīs as far as we are going to get on that issue.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Right you are, Ben : a sheer nonsense in bold type.

Using and misunderstanding Dew's hazardous and vague suggestion as a proof of Hutch's truthfulness is rdiculous.

Cheers

What is it that is hazardous about it, David? And who uses it as "proof"? To me it is evidence, an indicator. Not proof.

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Patricia Atkinson was killed indoors and sustained injuries which were unique in context of the Yorkshire Ripper murders. Yet we know that Patricia's boyfriend was not responsible for this crime.

Absolutely, Garry. And we know Barnett was innocent.

In short, there is no foundation for the belief that anyone other than Jack the Ripper killed and mutilated Mary Kelly. None whatever.

And that is why this murder has ever been attributed to the Ripper in 1888.
Another example is Kemper. He used to kill young students in his car, but finally murdered his mother in her house.

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal:

The idea that someone with the apparent memory of a supercomputer who could remember every little detail about the appearance of Mr. Astrahkan, could also forget which day it was, is in my honest opinion, frankly ridiciculous.

Did you know that there is a distinction inbetween detail memory and sequential memory, Abby?

Have you heard about people suffering from dementia? With them, what often happens is that the sequential memory falls away, whereas the detail memory stays strong.

These are people who remember what they wore at an occasion forty years ago, all the names of their school comrades etcetera - amazing memory feats.

... but they expect their husbands and wifes, who may have been dead for decades, to come and visit them, not because they have forgotten that they have passed away, but because they have lost their sequential memory.

Many people who have excellent detail memory can have lousy sequential memory. The two are not interdependant.

I have explained this on several occasions on these boards, and I am sure you have seen it.

So maybe your sequential memory is better than you detail memory?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Abby Normal:

The idea that someone with the apparent memory of a supercomputer who could remember every little detail about the appearance of Mr. Astrahkan, could also forget which day it was, is in my honest opinion, frankly ridiciculous.

Did you know that there is a distinction inbetween detail memory and sequential memory, Abby?

Have you heard about people suffering from dementia? With them, what often happens is that the sequential memory falls away, whereas the detail memory stays strong.

These are people who remember what they wore at an occasion forty years ago, all the names of their school comrades etcetera - amazing memory feats.

... but they expect their husbands and wifes, who may have been dead for decades, to come and visit them, not because they have forgotten that they have passed away, but because they have lost their sequential memory.

Many people who have excellent detail memory can have lousy sequential memory. The two are not interdependant.

I have explained this on several occasions on these boards, and I am sure you have seen it.

So maybe your sequential memory is better than you detail memory?

All the best,
Fisherman

Well that explains everything then Professor Fish. Hutch had dementia. Thanks.

And both my memories are fine.

[DVV]

Why would Hutchinson confuse the date of an event that coincided with the Kelly murder, the Lord Mayor's Show, and (allegedly) a 13 mile hoof from Romford in the small hours?
Ben

Ben, you should have read "Sequantial Memory for Dummies" before posting your nonsense.
I'm disappointed to see how ignorant you are on the subject.

[Abby Normal]

Ben, you should have read "Sequantial Memory for Dummies" before posting your nonsense.
I'm disappointed to see how ignorant you are on the subject.

Maybe he has dementia.

[Sally]

This thread should be retitled: 'Hutchinson: What he knew and how he knew it'

[Fisherman]

Well that explains everything then Professor Fish. Hutch had dementia. Thanks.

And both my memories are fine.

Oh, how hard it can be to graciously admit that one is sometimes uninformed about things, eh, Abby?

No, Hutch was in his early twenties (yes!), and so he would not have suffered from dementia. I mentioned dementia in order to facilitate an understanding of the difference between sequential memory and detail memory. What we call memory is divided into these two parts, and the parts are not connected as such.
Meaning - once again - that when you say that it is ridiculous to suggest that a man with a formidable detail memory would ever be wrong on matters connected to the sequential memory, you are comparing apples to pears. Itīs like saying that it is ridiculous to suggest that somebody can write with his right hand if the left one is broken.

I cannot be any clearer than this. If you donīt believe me or if I have worded myself incompletely, I advise a look in the literature written on the subject. It will confirm what I am saying.

All the best,
Fisherman

(No professor - but well read up just the same. Join the club!)

[Fisherman]

Ben, you should have read "Sequantial Memory for Dummies" before posting your nonsense.
I'm disappointed to see how ignorant you are on the subject.

Itīs sequential, David, with an e. Once you have got that right, you can google it and find out what it is all about - getting things in a correct sequence. Some do it easily, others find it hard. Dyslectics, by the way, belong to people who normally have problems with their sequential memory.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

This thread should be retitled: 'Hutchinson: What he knew and how he knew it'

Or - staying a bit more on topic - "The Manchester Guardian - what they knew and how they knew it and how that means that Hutchinson must have known it too".

Better?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

I prefer to make a distinction here that is very important to my way of seeing things. I donīt think that Hutchinson was dismissed as a viable witness at all. I think he was instead recognized as a completely trustworthy witness. It was not Hutchinson himself that was the weak link - it was his story. Just like Dew says, I think we are dealing with somebody on whom no accusations of lying should be cast - I wish to reflect on the manīs honesty as little as Dew did.
I think he told the truth - but mistook the day. That discredited his story - but not the man himself.

Even if your ‘wrong day’ theory were to hold true, Fish, Hutchinson would, as I stated, have been dismissed as a viable witness. The two conditions are not mutually exclusive.

If he had lied to the police, the papers would have reported on it, and Dew would have been very unhappy with him - and he would have been a much better choice for the killerīs role. As it stands, the exact opposite is whatīs on the table.

Investigators were pretty certain that Packer had been gilding the lily, Fish, but they never convened a press conference to issue a formal announcement of such. Nor was any official comment issued with regard to Violenia or any of those men who were taken into custody on suspicion and subsequently released. That’s the whole essence of this thread – that the police did not furnish the press with important case-related information. Rather, they maintained what was for the journalists involved an unprecedented and deeply frustrating silence on such issues. Thus I remain unpersuaded by your logic. The fact that investigators didn’t formally enunciate scepticism with regard to Hutchinson should not be taken to mean that Hutchinson retained his credibility. It simply means that any negative discovery remained in-house – and at a senior investigative level at that. Which, of course, explains why the lowly Walter Dew knew only that Hutchinson’s story had been discredited, but not why.