The Statement of George Hutchinson

[The Good Michael]

You address them each and every time, over and over again. You keep the battle alive, so that means you are interested, or have a stake in it.
You battle to get the last word in, every time. You are the resistance movement that will fight to its dying breath in order to keep Hutchinson alive. It's as if he were Achilles and you are Homer, and despite his fatal flaws, you are determined to protect his heel by not admitting he has one.

You say, "All I've done is address the points." All you do is refute everything regardless of the unsupportability of the refutation. It is an effort to keep the battle for Hutch's guilt alive, and no matter how completely likely a point might be, you will find a way to put holes in it, imagined or otherwise, so that Hutch remains immortal. It is absolutely unthinkable to me that you continue this war of attrition that you blame others for starting when it conclusively isn't the case.

Mike

[Ben]

Yes, but "keeping the battle alive" is not the same as starting the battle, which is something I've never done, not that I view discourse on a messageboard to be comparable to a battleground anyway. You claim that my refutations are unsupported and that I secretly believe certain observations from the opposing camp to be "likely", but argue against them anway. That, with respect, is fantasy, and if I felt inclined, I could level precisely the same accusations in your direction. If I challenge a point it is because I genuinely believe it to be flawed, and if I claim that something is unlikely, it is because I feel it is.

If you want to depict me as an aggressive warrior who'll naysay no matter what, go ahead, but if that truly reflects your characterization of me, there are better antidotes to that kind of mentality than engaging the perceived zealot in fight-to-the-death wars.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ally]

If you challenge a point you genuinely believe it is flawed? Are you joking? Like trying to say Crystal didn't claim Hutch was left handed, he just WROTE left-handed?

[Bob Hinton]

Hutchinson

So anyway, who started this Hutchinson nonsense anyway? It was that bastard Bob Hinton - lets get him!!!!

[Fisherman]

Bob Hinton writes:

"So anyway, who started this Hutchinson nonsense anyway? It was that bastard Bob Hinton - lets get him!!!!"

Well, sort of ... but not really. But I WOULD like some sort of answer to my post 199 on this thread if you feel up to it...?

The best,
Fisherman

[celee]

I'm not sure quite what you mean, Brad.

Are you saying that information is only useful if it impacts on someone's suspect status? I find it rather astonishing that anyone can say that Hutchinson's original statement is "of little value", since the reverse is so obviously the case and no elaboration is really required to explain why (I dearly hope?). As others have noted, several of Crystal's observation do impact on Hutchinson's suspect status.



Crystal wasn't attempting to "prove" anything in her original analysis. The likelihood that he did not report the squeaky-clean unblemished truth is self-evident from the actual content. As we've already established, his statement was discredited very shortly after Hutchinson's initial appearance at the police station, with his "Astrakhan" suspect clearly dropping off the map at around the same time. Clearly this rather militates against the suggestion that he was the star witness for very long.

I've never really understand this habit people have of dismissing the subject of a particular conversation as "useless" or "not worthy of discussion/investigation" and then posting just to make that point.

Ben

Hi all,

Happy Memorial Day,

Thanks to all the men and women who served in the armed forces to protect my freedom.

Hi Ben,

What I am saying is Crystal is giving her opinon about Hutchinson's statement that is all she is giving her opinion. Crystal's observations do not impact Hutchinson's suspect status. How does it impact his status. It is a very interesting document that alot of people can give an opinion. What ground breaking observations did Crystal post. Was Hutchinson left handed or not? Abberline was present, What?

Everyone is beating up on eachother over Crystal posting her observations. Why? Even if she did fudge about her credentials it would not be the first time, I am sure, someone has built them self up to be more of an expert then they are. It is not like she is trying to pass off a bogus diary.

Hutchinson had to have given a good interview. We know Abberline believed him after interviewing him. Someone comes along 131 years later, looks at his official statement and claims he was not being truthful. When given a choice, I am going to side with the Detective that looked the suspect in the eye when he was taking the statement. What ever caused Abberline to doubt Hutchinson, and he obiously did not think Hutchinson saw the Ripper, did not happend in the course of the interview.

The document is an interesting piece of paper, enjoy.

Your friend, Brad

[Ben]

Hi Brad,

I don't know if the observations were intended to be "ground-breaking", but personally I found them interesting. You highlight the fact that Abberline believed Hutchinson in the immediate aftermath of the interview on the evening 12th November, at which point no opportunity had arisen to investigate Hutchinson's claims. Shortly thereafter, it became apparent that his suspect sighting was "discredited", a reality that was borne out by the observations of other senior police officals who were inclined to use a Jewish witness (one who acquired a much weaker sighting than alleged by Hutchinson) in preference.

All the best,
Ben

[babybird67]

general question about his statement..

when it is claimed that Hutch's statement was discredited, is this based upon the choice not to use him as a witness?

[Ben]

Hi Jen,

Hutchinson's "discrediting" was first mentioned in The Star on 15th November, the same newspaper that had given it an enthusiastic endorsement the previous day, suggesting fairly strongly that whatever "discredited" him as a witness had occured at some point on 14th or 15th November, quite conceivably as a result of the various contradictions and embellishents that appeared in the press version of his account.

Best regards,
Ben

[babybird67]

hi Ben

thanks for that.

Why was nothing officially confirmed as to what had discredited him? If his account was quickly thought to be untrue, was there really no investigation as to what had led him to lie?

How reasonable would it be to surmise in the circumstances that the Police were satisfied that there was no nefarious motive at the time?

[Ben]

Hi Jen,

Why was nothing officially confirmed as to what had discredited him?

If there was, it has regrettably been lost to us. As for any investigations being conducted to determine his motivation for lying, that cannot be ruled out either, but I'm unaware that Packer received any such treatment. Rather, it may simply have been a general acceptance that he was a publicity-seeker. They may well have cast Hutchinson in a similar role, rightly or wrongly.

How reasonable would it be to surmise in the circumstances that the Police were satisfied that there was no nefarious motive at the time?

I personally consider it unlikely that they could have procured proof to determine his guilt or otherwise, even if they did suspect him, for which we have no evidence. That doesn't mean they couldn't have arrived at the collective opinion that he didn't do it. A local nondescript labourer was worlds apart from the mad and/or foreign suspect that was evidently the preference at the time, and he had no pretentions to medecine or butchery.

Hope this helps,

Ben

[babybird67]

yes Ben very helpful thanks

i still havent made my mind up about Hutch. He's an annoying little thorn in my side right now!

[Sam Flynn]

It's worth noting that it was Hutchinson's story that was reported as "discredited" by the Star, not Hutchinson himself. In this sense, "discredited" might simply have meant that the story was no longer believed.

[perrymason]

It's worth noting that it was Hutchinson's story that was reported as "discredited" by the Star, not Hutchinson himself. In this sense, "discredited" might simply have meant that the story was no longer believed.

I think thats a really interesting distinction there Gareth. If he told a story that was not believed, what does it matter whether the story or the man in general is what "discredited" refers to? Is someone who lies a liar...or is it just that the lie itself that is the offensive characteristic?

Was he disturbed mentally? There is no indication he was in the records...(save the fanciful invention of a horse head pinned Dandy)...but if he lied or told a falsehood intentionally without some kind of diminished mental capacity in evidence, then nothing else he might have said should be considered trustworthy.

Including that he was in fact there that night.

I do think this is a different case of extension of dis-belief than Caroline Maxwell's....I believe they assumed she told the truth, but didnt believe the medical evidence backed her story. Which leaves her as possibly a mistaken witness...not one that was deliberately incorrect. She may well have seen what she saw...but quite possibly on a different day. Therefore, she was not "discredited"....she was simply not believed, ....different animals. The records suggest he lied about his story.....whatever anyone takes from that account it should not be that he is still trustworthy regardless.

We all know the litmus test....and I hear "quacking".

Cheers Sam, all the best.

[Garry Wroe]

It's an interesting one, Sam. Another newspaper, on or about 15 November, was clearly suspicious about the microdetail inherent in Hutchinson's description of the Jewish-looking suspect. As such, I'm coming around to the view that a police officer (someone who had access to Hutchinson's witness statement) must have noticed the glaring inconsistencies between Hutchinson's police and press accounts. Another consideration is also the sheer implausibility of both accounts. The claim that Kelly was merely a little tipsy at 2:00am, for example, when other witnesses had her as blind drunk at midnight.

Irrespective of some of the opinions I have read on this and similar threads, I am of the belief that Hutchinson was at a crime scene at a time critical to a Ripper murder. On that basis alone, he merits close and careful investigation rather than the irrelevant nonsense of which the present thread largely consists.

Regards,

Garry Wroe.