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

[Garry Wroe]

Hutch was in his early twenties (yes!) ...

Since no-one has found a date or place of birth for the George Hutchinson, we have no definitive evidence for his age in 1888.

and so he would not have suffered from dementia.

Early onset dementia can affect sufferers at an extremely young age, even twenty-two year olds. Some can even forget that they are time-served plumbers and thus define their occupation as labourer.

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

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.

What I find a bit treacherous here, Garry, is the term "viable witness". It has a tendency to point a finger at Hutchinson as being somebody not fit to witness. Much of my point is that there was never any problem with Hutchinson´s veracity - he was not untruthful, he was simply mistaken. And in this context, it matters a whole lot if he was there on Thursday or Friday, because if the former applies, then we can see that it was his failure to recognize this that made the police look at his testimony with a much diminished - but not entirely lost! - interest.
If he was there on Friday morning, this explanation cannot be the real one. If he was there on Friday, something else must have ruled his story out.
Either way, nobody had anything derogatory to say about Hutchinson the witness. Not then, not later. He ewoke zero interest, apart from that offered by Dew. My best guess is that this was because there was a totally trivial explanation to why his story was dismissed.

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.

Nevertheless, Garry, the press does tell us that neither man was to be trusted. The material is there. In the case of Hutchinson, there´s nothing.

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.

So why did they not manage to keep the negative discoveries regarding Violenia and Packer in-house? And why did not any high-ranking officer spill the beans later on? At that stage, it was okay to oficially declare that the killer was a low-class Polish Jew, among many other things.

Plus, of course, no matter how lowly, diminutive, unimportant and uninformed Dew was, he STILL is the only man involved in the investigation to mention Hutchinson. And he does so speaking of the best of intentions and asserting us that he would not reflect on him as a witness.

And of course, when the lowly, diminutive, unimportant and uninformed Dew put this on paper, he had been recognized as the greatest detective in British history for decades. It would be kind of odd if he did not consort with the top men of British justice and policing, I´d say.

He won´t go away, thus. And the others were never there in the first place.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

Since no-one has found a date or place of birth for the George Hutchinson, we have no definitive evidence for his age in 1888.

Found? Yes! Accepted by everybody? No.

Early onset dementia can affect sufferers at an extremely young age, even twenty-two year olds. Some can even forget that they are time-served plumbers and thus define their occupation as labourer.

Haha! Good one! Yes, Gary, I know that early dementia can be found. I just thought it a bit too much to introduce into the discussion with Abby. And I think that somebody who was able to testify the way Hutchinson did and repeat it all, more or less exactly, talking to the press later on, would not be our best bid for a case of early dementia.

In any case, Toppy - for it is him I speak of - would not have been a plumber at the relevant time. But I don´t think you really want to go down Plumber´s Row again, do you, Garry ...?

All the best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Fifty years on.

Fisherman,
Fifty years on,what exactly did the papers print that disagreed with the 1888 press conclusion that Hutchinson's story was to be doubted.That would be the 1930's,much e arlier than Richard's radio program,that is supposed to connect Toppy with George,and the only one I believe.Still neither the police nor the press remark on the connection,much less the claim that it supports a truthfull 1888 Hutchinson.

[DVV]

No, Hutch was in his early twenties (yes!)

No, Fish.
In his late twenties.
Almost 30.

Cheers

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
Fifty years on,what exactly did the papers print that disagreed with the 1888 press conclusion that Hutchinson's story was to be doubted.That would be the 1930's,much e arlier than Richard's radio program,that is supposed to connect Toppy with George,and the only one I believe.Still neither the police nor the press remark on the connection,much less the claim that it supports a truthfull 1888 Hutchinson.

Fifty years on, very little was printed by the papers concerning the Ripper murders, that´s true. The journalists that had handled the errand were retired or dead.
But in the fifty year SPAN between the killings and Dew´s book, there was more than ample space to print away about Hutchinson!

Yet nobody did. Not a single syllable. They wrote about how truthful he was and how he could not be shaken in the initial stages, and after that, not a single paper seems to have seen any need to amend that picture.

One wonders why.

Or not.

Just like you say, Harry, the absense of any written material cannot be taken as a guarantee of Hutchinson´s truthfulness. Then again, the exact same absense does not make for any certainty that he was NOT truthful either, does it?

So what we have are the initial reports (truthful and honest, a stand-up citizen) and Dew´s book (truthful and honest, a stand-up citizen), and that´s all. And Dew KNEW that Hutchinson´s story had been dismissed, remember! And still, he did not have one single derogatory word to say about him.
Therefore, he either knew that Hutch was kosher from information supplied by his superiors at the time or by the men in command long after the events, or he concluded this by himself for whatever reason.

Now, if the police say about a witness that he or she has told a story in which they put no faith, a fair guess would be that they would not trust the person that told the story. Normally - but not always - that goes with the territory. Still, Dew does not go down that path.
Therefore, I say that the much better guess is that Dew knew that Hutchinson was never regarded as a person to distrust. Quite the contrary.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

No, Fish.
In his late twenties.
Almost 30.

Cheers

If he aged that fast, that could explain his dementia, eh...?

Forget about Flemchinson. He never existed.

Now, David, what was that stuff about Dew choosing to say something hazardous? You forgot to expand on that.

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Forget about Flemchinson. He never existed.

You'll be surprised when my book will be translated into Swedish, my dear Fish.

Now, David, what was that stuff about Dew choosing to say something hazardous? You forgot to expand on that.

Have I to expand on that ? It's pretty clear : Dew provides no evidence at all that Hutch mistook the day. His sentence just means what I said it means in a previous post.
Shall I repeat ? Just a bit, then.
Dew never said : "I remember Hutch very well and I can tell you he came to us with the best intentions."
I have also to maintain that Dew wasn't inspired when he put Hutch and Maxwell in the same category, as if their possible inaccuracies could have the same cause.
Ben is right pointing out that Hutch could hardly be confused about the day.

All the best
James Evans

[Fisherman]

DVV:

You'll be surprised when my book will be translated into Swedish, my dear Fish.

I´ll be surprised if there IS a book. And a publisher. But hey, I´m all for surprises ...!

Have I to expand on that ? It's pretty clear : Dew provides no evidence at all that Hutch mistook the day. His sentence just means what I said it means in a previous post.
Shall I repeat ? Just a bit, then.
Dew never said : "I remember Hutch very well and I can tell you he came to us with the best intentions."
I have also to maintain that Dew wasn't inspired when he put Hutch and Maxwell in the same category, as if their possible inaccuracies could have the same cause.
Ben is right pointing out that Hutch could hardly be confused about the day.

What would be in any way "hazardous" about that? Nothing, as far as I can see. So where does the hazard enter the picture...?

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Desperate comments, as all can see.

It's pretty clear that you want to read far too much in Dew's words, Fish.

As for Hutch having the day wrong, seriously, who do you hope to convince ?

All the best
Hutchinming

[Fisherman]

David:

Desperate comments, as all can see.

Yes, but who can blame you?

It's pretty clear that you want to read far too much in Dew's words, Fish.

To establish that, we need to know if he was right or wrong. It would be "desperate" to claim we knew either way. If you disagree, just let us know.
Regardless of whether he WAs right or wrong, he remains what we have. A top notch detective, Britains best.

As for Hutch having the day wrong, seriously, who do you hope to convince ?

First all the rest. Then you, Sally, Abby, Ben and Garry.

All the best,
Fisherman
meticulous - not desperate

[DVV]

[B]To establish that, we need to know if he was right or wrong. It would be "desperate" to claim we knew either way. If you disagree, just let us know.

I personally don't need anything on the subject.
But you need to understand what Dew meant, or rather : tried to mean. Then you'll discover that what he meant here is of little importance and of very little value.

All the best

[Fisherman]

I personally don't need anything on the subject.
But you need to understand what Dew meant, or rather : tried to mean. Then you'll discover that what he meant here is of little importance and of very little value.

All the best

You don´t need anything on the subject? Impressive!

I try to stay away from making rash decisions. They may come back and bite your behind otherwise. Besides, I do not want to make the community of Ripperologists think that I cannot weigh an issue properly. But each to their own, eh?

Now, about that "hazardous" suggestion you say Dew made - what exactly was that?

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Here is what you have quoted from Dew :

"I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken, not necessarily as to a person, but as to date and time. And I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were wrong."

Clearly, in 1938, Dew did hazard an explanation. He meant : if Maxwell and Hutch were honest witnesses, well, I just can suppose they have been mistaken.

Shall we take as face value any suggestion/explanation/theory contained in police memoirs ?

Of course not. But that's your right to do so, Fish.

In your world, Hutch mistook the day.
Why ?
Because Dew suggested so in 1938.

Magnifico !

All the best

[DVV]

Forget about Flemchinson. He never existed.
Fisherman

Wishful thinking, Fish.
I understand : he rather makes a better suspect than a carman who could easily walk away to avoid another carman.

All the best