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

[DVV]

Hi,
Actually Gin and tonics were a tipple of mine at that period, so at least that was right.
Regards Richard.

And that's one more reason to take your word.
Teetotallers are so vicious, aren't they ?

Now, would you please shift to single malt ?

[Ben]

An average weekly labourers wage was approx one guinea per week , therefore five times that would obviously calculate to a rounded figure of five pounds /one hundred shillings.[ well as good as

No, Richard.

Hutchinson was not taking home an "average weekly labourer's wage" as far as the police were concerned. He told them he was not in regular employment, which meant he was not entitled to five times a non-existent "salary". The Wheeling Register were therefore talking utter nonsense, just as they were on the subject of Joseph Barnett, and his alleged "roaring drunkenness" at the inquest. Hutchinson would have been paid - if anything - a very small sum to cover expenses, but you can dispense once and for all with the idea that he was paid 100 shillings.

I don't think anyone's questioning your "sanity" with regard to the radio show, so much as the appropriateness of bringing it up as evidence when we have no proof of its existence. It's important that you don't take any of this personally. It's just the way things work. Until the goods are produced, it's wholly inadmissible as evidence for a pre-Fairclough Toppy provenance.

Best wishes,

Ben

[Ben]

Would that be the miscellaneous Toppy signatures, Ben, or the only one of the three Hutchinson statement specimens seen by Frank Leander?

Ah, the fond memories are flooding back, Garry!

Should anyone be wondering, just check out this thread, and Garry's excellent opening post in particular.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2891

Incidentally, I'm in complete agreement with your post #305, which got obscured 'neath the rubble before I could address it properly!

All the best,
Ben

[harry]

Thursday.

If the events of Wednesday,were substituted in the mind of Hutchinson as being on the Thursday,how then did Hutchinson spend his time on Thursday,or is it suggested,by those ?who believe it happened,that a case of amnesia or some other medical condition caused a whole day's blackout?Surely Dew didn't believe that, and nothing in the press suggests it,and I believe they would have explored all avenues of what then might have appeared a reputable tale.

[Fisherman]

If the events of Wednesday,were substituted in the mind of Hutchinson as being on the Thursday,how then did Hutchinson spend his time on Thursday,or is it suggested,by those ?who believe it happened,that a case of amnesia or some other medical condition caused a whole day's blackout?Surely Dew didn't believe that, and nothing in the press suggests it,and I believe they would have explored all avenues of what then might have appeared a reputable tale.

Hmm, Harry - I am suggesting that the events of Thursday were believed by Hutchinson to be the events of Friday. It does not follow that all the days before were substituted too.
Nor does it follow that a days blackout was involved. A slip-up of the sequential memory means that all the bits are there - but in the wrong order. Totally undramatic, and very common. The police would have seen the exact same thing many, many times.

Just like you, I also believe that the press would have researched his story as well as they could - and if they had found anything that was not trivial, they would have reported on it.

All the best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
In am too long in the tooth to take things personally, and what you say about evidence is acceptable.
What the Wheeling register implied, was that the witness was paid a sum equal to five weeks wages[ taking the average wage] ..it does not imply directly to the occupation [ if any] of Hutchinson.
Simply.. he was paid the sum of five weeks wages[ average man] and it is myself who has calculated that into the sum that GWTH, claims he received,
which would be a fair assumption.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Ben, Garry!

I see that I am "triple-dared" to speak of the signatures. Good one!

I take it you gentlemen know the normal reason why people do anything they can to avoid a subject ...? Especially when they go so far as to dare other posters?

The old stance of the Hutchinsonians was - rather ridiculously - that the witnesses´signatures and Toppys ditto were not even remotely alike. And when I, Mike, sam Flynn etcetera said that they WERE extremely similar, we were met by the odd scornful "says who - YOU?" with added remarks that we were certainly not experts, and thus not fit to judge.

So we brought in an expert. One of the best in the field.

He confirmed what we were saying - the signatures WERE very similar.

He even went further and said that he would be very surprised if they were not written by the same man. He added that he expected all forthcoming evidence to confirm that.

So the discussion should be over, gentlemen. The only thing that could change that was if you had the credentials to override Leanders verdict, and to be Frank (and he is!), once you told me that I was no expert, you simultaneously also ditched your own chances to contribute an informed opinion. Frank Leander therefore rules!

Whatever impact the other signatures would have had on Leanders verdict, we don´t know. We DO know, however, that saying that the signatures were not alike at all was utter tosh. This cannot be rationally contested.

As it turned out it could be irrationally contested, though - and it was. It was said that Frank Leander had only said what he said to get rid of my annoying approaches. What a proud, proud moment for our community of Ripperologists!

I am leaving this discussion for now, and I fully expect to see another expert mentioned, an expert of whom we don´t even know what material she looked at (how is that for professionalism and protocol, Garry?) as some sort of counterweight. Obviously, it is not until we know what she saw that we can tell the value of her stance.
I know I will - once again - be told that it is ridiculous to state that we do not know what she saw. Somehow we are expected to buy that her investigation was kosher ALTHOUGH it was never recorded what material she used. In Sweden we call such propositions a suggestion to "buy the pig in the sack" - it´s not until we open the sack that we know what we´ve buyed.
Such business is not for me - or any sound researcher of the case. As long as that sack stays closed, it is of no value.

I do not rule out that the accusations of unprofessionalism on behalf of Leander may also surface again, together with all sorts of derogatory remarks about myself. I am more or less counting on that part.

That will change nothing, however. We have a situation where it is obvious that anybody who wants to research George Hutchinson as a possible Ripper will need to do so from the angle that Toppy was the killer. And he may have been, of course.

However, those who will have Hutchinson as a killer in disguise will find that their efforts have been very much discredited. Worthless stories, no less. Ironically, this of course mirrors the destiny of Hutchinson´s story. And just like in the Hutchinson saga, we need to realize that it is the stories that are discredited, not necessarily those who tell these stories. And to add, just like the case was with the Hutchinson testimony, even though his story did not live up to the expectations either, there was still some value built into the story.

In this case, though, the value is purely pedagogical.

So gentlemen, the stage is now totally yours, until further notice. I have said what needed to be said, and there is nothing to add on my behalf. Contrary to Ben´s odd threat, I will however invite to further discussion if somebody feels like it.

After all, that IS what the boards are for: inviting to discussion, not scaring people away from it.

All the best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Wrong day.

But wouldn't the area around Miller's court on the Friday and well into Saturday be heavily patrolled by police.There is certainly no reports of a man being seen waiting outside Crossinghams then.It has to be the Wednesday Dew was referring to.Friday makes no sense.

[DVV]

Did Hutchinson got the year wrong ?

Indeed, Harry.
Nothing makes sense in that scenario.
More likely, Hutchinson mistook the year.

[Wickerman]

Sorry for my confusion, Jon, but would this 'crumbling theory' be a reference to Hutchinson's ultimate rejection as a viable witness? If so, are Anderson, Dew and Macnaghten to be numbered in the 'minority' to which you refer?

My apologies Garry, Ancestry.com has had my undivided attention for the past week - so engrossing.

I (along with the rest of humanity) have yet to see anything written by these particular officials which could lead anyone to believe they rejected George Hutchinson as an 'unreliable' witness.

[Wickerman]

Some good points have been raised on both sides of the argument since my previous post, but the fact remains that Hutchinson was dismissed as a viable witness.

But Garry, because Hutchinson was never called upon for future I.D.s (thinking of Lawende as one example), can quite easily be the result of either one of two circumstances.

1 - Hutchinson could not be so easily located as Lawende, as one was a casual labourer and the other had a stationary business.

2 - The police realized that Astrachan was not the murderer, as this was likely Joseph Isaacs, which means Hutchinson did not see Mary's killer afterall.

[Garry Wroe]

I (along with the rest of humanity) have yet to see anything written by these particular officials which could lead anyone to believe they rejected George Hutchinson as an 'unreliable' witness.

It's eminently straightforward, Jon. Had Hutchinson's story continued to be regarded as reliable, he and not the innominate Jewish individual would have been considered by Anderson to have been the best of the various witnesses. Macnaghten, similarly, would not have stated that no-one ever got a good view of the murderer, and Dew would never have felt the need to resort to guessing games in order to explain how Hutchinson’s story must have been in error.

Ergo, Jon, it can be stated beyond doubt that senior investigators came to view Hutchinson’s narrative as unreliable. And if Hutchinson’s story was considered unreliable, Hutchinson must by definition have been considered an unreliable witness.

This, I believe, Jon, is where confusion has crept in on your part. In the past you have assumed that an unreliable witness is a dishonest witness. Whereas this is certainly a possibility, it is equally possible that investigators believed Hutchinson but disbelieved his story – hence Dew’s tentative suggestion regarding date or time confusion. The fact remains, however, that Hutchinson would not and could not have continued to be regarded as a reliable witness once his Astrakhan-related narrative was rejected.

Unless, of course, those co-ordinating the hunt for the Whitechapel Murderer were irredeemable idiots.

Which they weren’t.

[DVV]

But how could they believe Hutch and disbelieve his story, Garry ?

[Sally]

The police realized that Astrachan was not the murderer, as this was likely Joseph Isaacs, which means Hutchinson did not see Mary's killer afterall.

No, because Isaacs was in prison at the time, as Lloyds tells us. So he wasn't Astroman, then. Or the killer of Mary Kelly.

Hah! - An on-topic post at last. A post that refers to a paper.

[Wickerman]

No, because Isaacs was in prison at the time, as Lloyds tells us. So he wasn't Astroman, then. Or the killer of Mary Kelly.

Hah! - An on-topic post at last. A post that refers to a paper.

You need to bring yourself up to date my dear.

The timeline for the movements of Joseph Isaacs have been known for some time.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=28335&postcount=1

Nov 9 Mary Jane Kelly found murdered, Miller's Court, house to house inspections commence. Mary Cusins mentions Isaacs to police. He disappears.

Nov 12 Joseph Isaacs prosecuted in Barnet Police Court and sentenced to 21 days hard labor.(1)

Dec 3 He is released from jail at Barnet

The press, as per usual, got it wrong.

He was under arrest at the time of the attack on Annie Farmer, not at the time of the murder of Mary Kelly.