Possible reason for Hutch coming forward

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Joshua.

I don't have a link, I have the copy downloaded from JTRForums, but here is a quote with the relevant paragraphs:

[I]...Bowyer, the young man in Mr. McCarthy's employ was out at different times up Miller's-court on the Thursday night for the purpose of getting water from a tap there-the only available supply.

Bowyer was no young man at the time. I wonder if newspaper reports like these were the source of Walter Dew's incorrect belief that Bowyer was a "youth"?

[Wickerman]

The good news is that I don't subscribe to that view, CD. One doesn't need to be incompetent to be taken in by a plausible liar - I'm sure that an experienced detective like George Oldfield wasn't incompetent at all, but he and some of his colleagues were well taken in by the "Wearside Jack" hoax letters and tape recording.

I think the point that several of us have been at pains to hi-lite is, that these personal suspicions like "you think" he lied, are nothing more than guesswork.
As with any investigation, whether it be ancient historical analysis or more recent murder investigations, the only credible arguments come from the evidence - not from idle speculation.
Let the evidence speak for itself, do not replace the evidence with conjecture - but that is precisely what the 'anti-Hutchinson' crowd are and have been doing from day one!

There is not, nor has there ever been, any indication Hutchinson lied, or made anything up. This is idle speculation. What exists in the court records & press testimony from the inquest, plus witness statements in the press is all we have by way of evidence.

The 'anti-Hutchinson' crowd, dismiss what doesn't support their theories in favor of idle speculation, but criticize bonafide arguments based on the existing evidence. That is the topsy-turvy world of Casebook, and one of the significant reasons the more knowledgeable authors no longer frequent Casebook.

[Wickerman]

Bowyer was no young man at the time. I wonder if newspaper reports like these were the source of Walter Dew's incorrect belief that Bowyer was a "youth"?

I know the term "errand boy" was used for anyone who did the runaround jobs like Bowyer, the label does not reflect the age of the person so named.

[Sam Flynn]

I think the point that several of us have been at pains to hi-lite is, that these personal suspicions like "you think" he lied, are nothing more than guesswork.

It is emphatically not guesswork or "idle speculation", Jon. Hutchinson's actions, as he recounts them, are bizarre, his story is incredibly (as in "unbelievably") detailed and some of it has parallels with what had been circulating in the press - and on the streets - throughout the Autumn of Terror.

For the record, I do not "guess", nor do I "idly speculate". If I believe something, then it's usually because I've given it years and years of thought. I also resent the implication that I am somehow partly responsible for "one of the significant reasons [why] the more knowledgeable authors no longer frequent Casebook". The latter is probably because of the sometimes adversarial nature of the postings of some of the otherwise knowledgeable authors who DO post here, but it's more likely due to the fact that the more knowledgeable authors have other things to do.

[Bridewell]

It is emphatically not guesswork or "idle speculation", Jon. Hutchinson's actions, as he recounts them, are bizarre, his story is incredibly (as in "unbelievably") detailed and some of it has parallels with what had been circulating in the press - and on the streets - throughout the Autumn of Terror.

However unbelievable Hutchinson's account may be to the modern reader, the fact is that Abberline recorded, in writing, that he was 'of opinion his (Hutchinson's) story is true'. It may have been true or it may not. When first given however - to a police officer who knew the ground as well as anyone - the account was believed. It may have been false, and the belief may or may not have persisted. Clearly though, as it was believed when given, it was not 'unbelievable'.

[Abby Normal]

I think the point that several of us have been at pains to hi-lite is, that these personal suspicions like "you think" he lied, are nothing more than guesswork.
As with any investigation, whether it be ancient historical analysis or more recent murder investigations, the only credible arguments come from the evidence - not from idle speculation.
Let the evidence speak for itself, do not replace the evidence with conjecture - but that is precisely what the 'anti-Hutchinson' crowd are and have been doing from day one!

There is not, nor has there ever been, any indication Hutchinson lied, or made anything up. This is idle speculation. What exists in the court records & press testimony from the inquest, plus witness statements in the press is all we have by way of evidence.

The 'anti-Hutchinson' crowd, dismiss what doesn't support their theories in favor of idle speculation, but criticize bonafide arguments based on the existing evidence. That is the topsy-turvy world of Casebook, and one of the significant reasons the more knowledgeable authors no longer frequent Casebook.

Not only is that a Weasley cheap shot that isn’t even true, but rich coming from you who cherry pick news reports, no matter how ridiculously obvious that they are erroneous, to fit into your well dressed man legendarium and then constantly spout this misleading nonsense ad nauseum as if it were fact.

[Abby Normal]

However unbelievable Hutchinson's account may be to the modern reader, the fact is that Abberline recorded, in writing, that he was 'of opinion his (Hutchinson's) story is true'. It may have been true or it may not. When first given however - to a police officer who knew the ground as well as anyone - the account was believed. It may have been false, and the belief may or may not have persisted. Clearly though, as it was believed when given, it was not 'unbelievable'.

Hi bridewell
That’s true but many things are originally believed until further info or circumstances come into play. One has to take into account everything like the later news accounts that discount his story, dews later recollection that hutch was mistaken and most telling to me any way, Aberlines later recollections that are devoid of anything hutch/ Aman and balance it with the later things that point to hutches truthfulness, like later accounts of the police still looking for a man, the toppling story etc, and try to come to a sensible conclusion.

[Wickerman]

It is emphatically not guesswork or "idle speculation", Jon. Hutchinson's actions, as he recounts them, are bizarre, his story is incredibly (as in "unbelievably") detailed and some of it has parallels with what had been circulating in the press - and on the streets - throughout the Autumn of Terror.

But Gareth, that is exactly what speculation is.
Your interpretation is subjective because it is based on nothing tangible - just your gut feeling.
You admitted yourself that you think he made the whole thing up. In spite of the fact Lewis saw the same couple, at the same time, walk up the court while this loiterer was present. That is evidence, but you reject it, and in favor of what?
Conjecture.
This is exactly what I am talking about.

For the record, I do not "guess", nor do I "idly speculate". If I believe something, then it's usually because I've given it years and years of thought.

You may deny to your hearts content, but as you have just admitted that you think he made it all up, contrary to Lewis's evidence, and that of Bowyer, then your position is very clear regardless of any denial.

Gareth, giving this issue years of thought doesn't mean your conclusion cannot be speculation.
You do not believe him because you have no firsthand knowledge of the nightlife and what class of people came and went throughout any given night, or what attire they wore.
Yet, you reject the opinion of someone who did have this firsthand knowledge (Abberline). And the best justification you can offer is that "people make mistakes"?
You think your lack of knowledge is superior to someone with proven knowledge. How does that make any sense?

I also resent the implication that I am somehow partly responsible for "one of the significant reasons [why] the more knowledgeable authors no longer frequent Casebook".

No Gareth, not you personally. I'm talking about this type of superior attitude from those who think they know better, while rejecting the meager evidence which has survived, and in favor of what? - speculation.

This has been going on for well over a decade, yet none of these 'anti-Hutchinson' proponents can even agree on what he is supposed to have lied about, or what he is supposed to have done wrong.
Disorganized nit-picking is probably the best summary of the complaints against Hutchinson.

[Robert St Devil]

Hi Robert.

My apologies, on reflection it might be fair to admit I unjustly focused on that one question of yours.

It's just that we've been down that road before, the time of Hutch's sighting at "two o'clock", a "respectably dressed man", who "approached the victim", plus a few other minor details can be read in the Saturday press. Which convinced one member that she had solved the problem - Hutchinson compiled his story from bits & pieces he gleaned from the Saturday press.

A right load of codswallop, to put it bluntly. Your remark just struck a cord, if you get what I mean.
Sorry about that.

Gotcha. Nothing really sticks out to me against Hutchinson, and it seems like it was the police who put George in the spotlight when they forwarded his statement up the chain of command post haste. It seems to me like he was just offering the piece of information that he knew to the police station; next thing he knows, he's talking with Abberline and his name's in the press a few days later. One thing, The Times have him stating that he identified Mary at the Shoreditch mortuary. Would he have had to offer some proof of acquaintance (ie general description) before he gained that type of access from the authorities?

[Sam Flynn]

But Gareth, that is exactly what speculation is.
Your interpretation is subjective because it is based on nothing tangible - just your gut feeling.

Not "gut feeling" at all. I studied experimental method for three years as part of my degree course. I know the difference between empiricism and subjectivity. That's not to say that I'm right, but I am at least capable of distinguishing subjectivity from objectivity.

[Wickerman]

Not only is that a Weasley cheap shot that isn’t even true, but rich coming from you who cherry pick news reports, no matter how ridiculously obvious that they are erroneous, to fit into your well dressed man legendarium and then constantly spout this misleading nonsense ad nauseum as if it were fact.

I "use" news reports. You "reject" news reports.
That is not cherry-picking, are you sure you even know what cherry-picking is?

When these same reports identify a respectably dressed man, then obviously it isn't me who is forming the theory, the issue existed at the time.

As Macdonald demonstrated a specific interest in that Britannia-man, and this same Britannia-man is identified in the press as one of the three suspects, along with Blotchy & Astrachan, then this is just another example of your blind approach to the problem, or you are not as well informed as you pretend to be.

[Wickerman]

Not "gut feeling" at all. I studied experimental method for three years as part of my degree course. I know the difference between empiricism and subjectivity. That's not to say that I'm right, but I am at least capable of distinguishing subjectivity from objectivity.

Well, your opinion is not the result of empiricism as you have no firsthand experience, and you seemingly reject alternative explanations for Hutchinson's story, so you cannot be accused of being objective, so what is left?

[Sam Flynn]

Well, your opinion is not the result of empiricism as you have no firsthand experience, and you seemingly reject alternative explanations for Hutchinson's story, so you cannot be accused of being objective, so what is left?

The fact that I find the bull$hit interpretation of Hutchinson's story the more probable. That may be incorrect, but it is NOT guesswork nor idle dismissal.

[Abby Normal]

I "use" news reports. You "reject" news reports.
That is not cherry-picking, are you sure you even know what cherry-picking is?

When these same reports identify a respectably dressed man, then obviously it isn't me who is forming the theory, the issue existed at the time.

As Macdonald demonstrated a specific interest in that Britannia-man, and this same Britannia-man is identified in the press as one of the three suspects, along with Blotchy & Astrachan, then this is just another example of your blind approach to the problem, or you are not as well informed as you pretend to be.

Blind approach? No wick, I keep an open mind, that’s why I always view things as likelihood of different scenarios. Unlike you who twist everything to fit your pre conceived well dressed man scenario

[Michael W Richards]

Gotcha. Nothing really sticks out to me against Hutchinson, and it seems like it was the police who put George in the spotlight when they forwarded his statement up the chain of command post haste. It seems to me like he was just offering the piece of information that he knew to the police station; next thing he knows, he's talking with Abberline and his name's in the press a few days later. One thing, The Times have him stating that he identified Mary at the Shoreditch mortuary. Would he have had to offer some proof of acquaintance (ie general description) before he gained that type of access from the authorities?

GH's statement itself gives us reason to question his story, because if he had a relationship with the woman he wouldn't have waited 4 full days and until after the end of the Inquest to come forward. If the glorious descriptive elements of his story weren't enough. And the fact that the press reports that Wednesday that his story is discredited.

I wonder if the Inquest had lasted a few days when he might have come in.