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

[Tom_Wescott]

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

[Observer]

Information is insufficient.

Sorry? Could you elaborate?

[Observer]

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

[Tom_Wescott]

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

[Scott Nelson]

Information is insufficient.

[Observer]

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