Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are the reports in the contempory newpapers sufficient to discredit Hutchinson?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Are the reports in the contempory newpapers sufficient to discredit Hutchinson?

    In my own opinion no. If truth be known they had already condemned Hutchinson's story before any information regarding the poice giving him the boot could have emanated from police sources. So it didn't make any difference to them what information was coming their way (from the police) regarding the discrediting of Hutchinson, they had already made up their minds. Were they entitled to deduce that Hutchinson was a liar? Of course they were, and his observations of the man in question were somewhat far fetched, what bugs me though is the failure to compromise. Throw out the description of Astrachan, and he becomes believable, he was sighted at the scene as he professed, give his some leeway is what I say, try and construct what happened that night without the detailed description of Astrachan, and we might get somewhere.

    If only the police at the time had realised this, and had said to Hutchinson, "come on Hutchinson, we know you were at the scene of the crime shortly before Kelly was murdered, give us a real description of the man you saw with Kelly", or words to that effect. For I believe that it's possible that Hutchinson saw someone with Kelly that night, and played the description up to appear more important in the eyes of the police. In short he gave them what they wanted, the description that had impressed itself on the public mind, an impression put there by the press. How ironic, that the very institution that had put that image into the public mind, was now condeming Hutchinson for providing that self same description.

    all the best

    Observer



    all the best

    Observer

  • #2
    Information is insufficient.

    Comment


    • #3
      Hi Observer,

      Hutchinson is like Schwartz, the only difference being that Schwartz's evidence is prima facie more believable. Having said that, Hutchinson might have support that he was where he said he was when he said he was, whereas Schwartz does not. Bot men were interrogated by Abberline who - at that moment - felt they were credible. Both men had their stories investigated by police and appear to have been dismissed by police shortly thereafter, if one is to believe the press. But we do have a little more than press reports to go on here.

      Joseph Lawende is the only Ripper witness to be called in later to view suspects. Macnaghten says only one witness, a 'City PC near Mitre Court', saw the Ripper. I believe this should have read 'City Police witness near Mitre Square' and would refer to Lawende, but regardless, it certainly didn't refer to Hutchinson or Schwartz. Had their evidence continued to be regarded as credible, I would expect to see further references to them in memoirs, interviews, and in police and press reports. But they completely disappear.

      Yours truly,

      Tom Wescott

      Comment


      • #4
        Hi Tom what of Elizabeth Long? Was she discredited also? What of Mary Ann Cox, for those who believe in the dismissal of Hutchinson, the last person to see Mary Kelly alive, in the company of a man to boot? Those two slipped into obscurity, as far as the memoirs of Abberline, Anderson, and Macnagten were concerned, just as Hutchinson and Schwartz did. Looking at the various memoirs there's not enough information included to discredit Hutchinson, not in my mind anyway.

        all the best

        Observer

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
          Information is insufficient.
          Sorry? Could you elaborate?

          Comment


          • #6
            Hi Obs,

            Mrs. Long did not see the man's face and never claimed to be an 'identifying' witness' the way Schwartz and Hutchinson did. Neither did Lawende, and yet he's the sole witness used for identification. I'd say the evidence is pretty strong that the police came to see Hutch as a crank witness, although I couldn't tell you why.

            Yours truly,

            Tom Wescott

            Comment


            • #7
              Hi Tom, you're probably correct regarding Hutchinson. I'd like more concrete evidence though if we are to believe that the police discredited him out of hand.

              all the best

              Observer
              Last edited by Observer; 01-20-2010, 02:53 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                I'd say the evidence is pretty strong that the police came to see Hutch as a crank witness, although I couldn't tell you why.

                Yours truly,

                Tom Wescott
                We have evidences for that, Tom.
                It's all in his cranky statements to the press.

                The very fact that he talked to the press at such a crucial time, while he was supposedly searching the suspect in the district, is incredible.

                Amitiés,
                David

                Amitiés,
                David

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hi Observer,

                  Your thread title seems to indicate there was more than one news report discrediting Hutchinson's story. You said reports in newspapers. I only know of one report in one newspaper, which I learned of by asking Ben, who was kind enough to direct me to it. From the Nov 15 Star:

                  WHITECHAPEL.
                  Worthless Stories Lead the Police on False Scents - Scares also Keep Them Busy.

                  The only new thing to report this morning in connection with the Miller's-court murder - except the arrest of more innocent men - is another story told by Matthew Packer, the man on whose statement with respect to the Berner-street crime, the discredited "grape story" was built up. Now he says that two men came to him the other day and asked him to describe the man who bought the grapes, and that after he had done so one of the strangers expressed the conviction that the murderer was his cousin, who had come from America, termed everybody "boss," and one day referring to some Whitechapel women said he meant to

                  "CUT THEIR THROATS AND RIP THEM UP"

                  as they had been accustomed to do "where he came from." The reporter to whom Packer made his statement sent off a copy of it to the Home Secretary, and also to the Chief Commissioner of the City Police. This morning it was officially stated that the information has not led to any result.

                  Another story now discredited is that of the man Hutchinson, who said that on Friday morning last he saw Kelly with a dark-complexioned, middle-aged, foreign-looking, bushy-eyebrowed gentleman, with the dark moustache turned up at the ends, who wore the soft felt hat, the long dark coat, trimmed with astrachan, the black necktie, with horseshoe pin, and the button boots, and displayed a massive gold watch-chain, with large seal and a red stone attached.

                  As we have already said, the only piece of information of any value which has yet transpired is the description given by the widow Cox of a man - short, stout, with a blotchy face and a carroty moustache - who at midnight on Thursday went with the murdered woman into her room.


                  Again, I only know of one such report, above. If a forum member could direct us to any others, it would be appreciated. Otherwise, the tally is...one.

                  Roy
                  Sink the Bismark

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                    Hi Obs,

                    Mrs. Long did not see the man's face and never claimed to be an 'identifying' witness' the way Schwartz and Hutchinson did. Neither did Lawende, and yet he's the sole witness used for identification. I'd say the evidence is pretty strong that the police came to see Hutch as a crank witness, although I couldn't tell you why.

                    Yours truly,

                    Tom Wescott
                    Tom,

                    Erm, Lewande did see his face mate.

                    The first publication of the description of the man seen by Lawende was in the Times on 2 October - "of shabby appearance, about 30 years of age and 5ft. 9in. in height, of fair complexion, having a small fair moustache, and wearing a red neckerchief and a cap with a peak".

                    Report by Donald Swanson, dated 19 October 1888, has Lawende description of the man with a woman in Church Passage as "age 30 ht. 5 ft. 7 or 8 in. comp. fair fair moustache, medium built, dress pepper & salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak of same colour, reddish handkerchief tied in a knot, round neck, appearance of a sailor."

                    However, Lewande did state he may not recognise the man if he saw him again. Thats not to say he wouldnt have...which is what I think the Police were banking on.

                    Also, at the inquest Lawendes description of the man was witheld though he did say he had passed the description to the Police, hence Swansons report.

                    Monty


                    PS Tom, thousand apologies, I just got what you were saying there mate. Excuse my stupidity.
                    Monty

                    https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

                    Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                    http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Roy Corduroy View Post

                      Another story now discredited is that of the man Hutchinson, who said that on Friday morning last he saw Kelly with a dark-complexioned, middle-aged, foreign-looking, bushy-eyebrowed gentleman, with the dark moustache turned up at the ends, who wore the soft felt hat, the long dark coat, trimmed with astrachan, the black necktie, with horseshoe pin, and the button boots, and displayed a massive gold watch-chain, with large seal and a red stone attached.
                      Let's compare it with Hutchinson's statement:

                      Description age about 34 or 35. height 5ft6 complexion pale, dark eyes and eye lashes slight moustache, curled up each end, and hair dark, very surley looking dress long dark coat, collar and cuffs trimmed astracan. And a dark jacket under. Light waistcoat dark trousers dark felt hat turned down in the middle. Button boots and gaiters with white buttons. Wore a very thick gold chain white linen collar. Black tie with horse shoe pin. Respectable appearance walked very sharp. Jewish appearance.

                      What?

                      Middle-aged? Dark Complexioned? Bushy-eyebrowed? Soft hat? Foreign-looking? (don't get me started on foreign/Jewish)

                      This newspaper article must be discredited surely.

                      Cheers,

                      Mike
                      huh?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by The Good Michael View Post
                        This newspaper article must be discredited surely.

                        Mike
                        Unless it is a faithful transcription of Hutch's words to the press.

                        Amitiés,
                        David

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by DVV View Post
                          Unless it is a faithful transcription of Hutch's words to the press.
                          David,

                          Wow! Looks like another thread. As for me, I know Hutch was a good guy. His son had many good things to say about him.

                          Mike
                          huh?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            David,
                            Wow! Looks like another thread.
                            It doesn't, Mike.
                            I simply suggest that Hutch's interview led the police to consider him a crank witness - as Tom said.

                            As for me, I know Hutch was a good guy. His son had many good things to say about him.
                            Perhaps Winston Churchill loved his father too. I haven't read his memoirs, although he got the Nobel.

                            Amitiés,
                            David

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Hi Roy.

                              If you'd care to follow the following link

                              http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...wroe#post91304

                              to post number 26, you'll find the details of another press report that called into question Hutchinson's stated version of events.

                              Regards.

                              Garry Wroe.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X