Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[Fisherman]

Hi Garry!

I don´t smoke at all, as a matter of fact. But if for some reason I have inhaled substances that have made me make "deliberate misepresentations", then we may perhaps need to see the same doctor? I seem to remember that you scored three out of three the last time you dabbled in that business.

Since the two of you have been posting in tandem over these weeks and since you have made the strangest claims about things in tandem too, I was under the impression that I was not dealing with two persons but instead a smallish brigade of Hutchinsonians. And frankly, it has seemed to me that when an option could be chosen, speaking for Hutchinson being our Ripper, then that option was always chosen, regardless of the weight it carried in comparison to other options. So I´m slightly baffled now, but quite happy, if your contention is that it was not the description of Astrakhan man that made the police discard Hutchinson, and if you don´t think that Abberline reached that decision by scrutinizing the differences involved inbetween police report and news articles. Welcome to my world, Garry!

As for the quotation function, I´m quite fine without it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

YOU and Ben seem to believe that Abberline went over Hutch´s description over and over again, detail for detail, starting to doubt it. And on the 14:th, he continues it, by comparing each and every detail inbetween Police report and news articles, arriving at a confirmation that he had been correct in suspecting foul play. It is YOU that have produced that argument, not me. I consider it as wrong now as I did yesterday and the day before.

I don’t know what you’ve been smoking over the weekend, Fish, but I have never expressed any such opinion.

You state, together with Ben, that the article in the Echo is evidence that the police ruled Hutch out because of his description of Astrakhan man - that the inherent qualities of that description disqualified him.

And …

The Echo tells us that the statement Hutchinson had made was suddenly being seriously doubted. It does NOT tell us WHAT PART of the statement it was that was being doubted, however. It never says that the Astrakahan description was in doubt. It therefore applies that it could have been each and every part of it, or parts of it, or the statement on the whole that could have appeared suspicious. Now, how do you propose to have "followed the evidence" when you tell me that the wording could ONLY have meant the description of Astrakhan man?

Likewise, I have never claimed that Hutchinson was discredited as a consequence of his description of Astrakhan Man. Oddly enough, you posted the following concerning The Echo revelations on this very thread less than three weeks ago:-

...and this is what Garry Wroe had to say about it on a thread from last year:

"if factual, one can only surmise that it came about as a consequence of a police tip-off, and that Hutchinson had given himself away whilst searching the Whitechapel district with his police escort on the Monday evening. Then, as had been the case with Violenia before him, he was quietly dropped – viewed by the police as persona non grata."

So, a police tip-off is what Garry senses behind it, combined with Hutch giving himself away.

Since you appear to be somewhat confused, Fish, I would advise that, should you wish to make any future reference to my opinions, you do so by way of the quotation function. That way, you’ll avoid any allegation of deliberate misrepresentation.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Abby Normal,
I somehow do not see the 'watchout theory' as how would the 'lookout' warn the killer, danger approaching?
Its possible of course but?
Regards Richard,

[Abby Normal]

Hello all,
There are three alternatives, why Hutchinson may well have presented himself to the police on the monday evening.
1] He was kellys killer, and was paranoid about being seen, either by Sarah Lewis, or others, opposite Millers court at a time when medical opinion claimed a possible T.O.D, so by Inventing 'Astracan', he not only presented to the case a possible killer, but also a reason for being opposite the court.
2] He was NOT kellys killer , but knew that she had something of his in room 13, from that evening, ie, a hanky, its entirely possible that He was the one that gave Mary his hanky in Dorset street, and spent the hours between 2-6 in her room with Mjk very much alive, but as T.O.D, placed death. during that period, and leaving that article there ,and knowing he was not her killer, invented a man[ mayby the man he observed before he met kelly] out of pure fear.
Note.. who else but the owner of the hanky would know its colour in darkness?
Too far fetched?.then ...
3] Hutchinson told the whole truth , and invented nothing, and was indeed GWTH.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard
There is also the alternative (albeit, of coures,far less likely) that GH was an accomplice who not only waited outside Millers court while MK was being murdered, but also later gave the police a bogus 'suspect' who was very different in appearance than the real killer.

[richardnunweek]

Hello all,
There are three alternatives, why Hutchinson may well have presented himself to the police on the monday evening.
1] He was kellys killer, and was paranoid about being seen, either by Sarah Lewis, or others, opposite Millers court at a time when medical opinion claimed a possible T.O.D, so by Inventing 'Astracan', he not only presented to the case a possible killer, but also a reason for being opposite the court.
2] He was NOT kellys killer , but knew that she had something of his in room 13, from that evening, ie, a hanky, its entirely possible that He was the one that gave Mary his hanky in Dorset street, and spent the hours between 2-6 in her room with Mjk very much alive, but as T.O.D, placed death. during that period, and leaving that article there ,and knowing he was not her killer, invented a man[ mayby the man he observed before he met kelly] out of pure fear.
Note.. who else but the owner of the hanky would know its colour in darkness?
Too far fetched?.then ...
3] Hutchinson told the whole truth , and invented nothing, and was indeed GWTH.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

I’m still firmly opinion that it was the press versions of his testimony that assisted in the downgrading of his testimony from “a very reduced importance” to the more damning “discredited” two days later. I favour this explanation chiefly because it neatly accounts for another of those “coincidences” of timing. Out came the press accounts on the 14th, and the very next day, the account was discredited. If the police harboured doubts before the 14th, the release of the press versions almost certainly cemented them, and it is this, I contend, that culminated in his discrediting. You’re welcome, of course, to your opposing view that it was have taken some other external factor, but as with the Packer and Violenia cases, it clearly wasn’t needed.

I wish your son the very best with his badminton! The “demolishing of his antagonists” is a skill he inherited from his mother, no doubt.

Cheers,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Not an unreasonable suggestion, Fisherman, but whatever than "something" may have been, it can't have been any more compelling that the reasons cited in the Echo, or else it too would have been included; and it also couldn't have resulted in proof being secured. Yes, the account was downgraded two days later to become "discredited" but I strongly suspect that this was due to the publication of Hutchinson's press accounts which undermined his initial statement. "

I think, Ben, and I have stated it for ages, that whatever it was that sunk Battleship George, it would have been a trivial thing - no disclosure that he was a famous con artist or anything such - for then, just like you say, it would have made the headlines. No, what we´re looking at is, I believe, something that filled three premises:
1. something that effectively showed that the testimony given was at fault
2. something that at the same time allowed for letting him go, no suspicion attached
3. something that was trivial enough not to draw the interest of the papers

This, I think, is what we see in the affair on the whole. I know that you subscribe to the inherent differences inbetween police report and news articles being the vital factor, and I´m fine with that. My own stance, though, is that since the Echo tells us that something surfaced during the investigation into Hutch´s story, it would be very logical if that something found corroboration over the period of two days, resulting in the subsequent total discrediting of Hutchinson.

That is how I see things. And with that, just like Monty, I´m gone - I´m off to the badminton court to watch my son demolishing his antagonists. And good fun it is too!

Should Ruby or Garry - or for that matter you, Ben - have further things to add, I´ll see to it tomorrow.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Im afraid Im going to have to disagree with you on your 'probability' comment however I do understand the logic behind it.

Its a heavy responsibility we carry, future research depends on it.

Suffice to say, though 'suspectin' leaves me cold, I must admit that it does draw me in from time to time.

Monty

[Ben]

Hi Monty,

I fully accept your point that a distinction should be established between certainties and probabilites, and I hope I've been sufficiently cautious with my terminology. I would say, however, that it is very unlikely that the later embellishments were purely press generated, but this again belongs firmly in the realm of the "probable, as opposed to the "certain".

Best regards,
Ben

[Monty]

Ben,

I honestly have no energy for what I deem a pointless debate.

Suffice to say a lot of this evidence supporting Hutchinson as a suspect is newspaper based and not found in official documentation.

Hutchinson never placed himself inside Kellys room, ergo he was not at the scene of crime.

His powers of observation are, if believed, unique, granted. My point is that we are basing an assumption Hutchinson is lying on assessment of probability. That, as Ive stated, is logical and natural. However, having never met Hutchinson nor absorbed any feedback regarding his personality, we cannot dismiss him as a liar.

We both know what you, and others (including myself), cannot state with clarity that Hutchinson lied or told the truth.

To base a suspicion of murder on Hutchinson is fine, as long as its painted as such and not to the detriment of other logical, and innocent, scenarios.

Suspect Ripperology is beneficial in my opinion. However it is dangerous if not worded correctly (and Im not stating you or others do that, tis a mere obsevation) and creates falsities which in some cases never get corrected.

And with that Im gone.

Goodbye

Monty

[Ben]

That is why I don´t make that mistake, but instead settle for only telling you that it now seems apparent that I was correct in suggesting that something came up AFTER the police report was signed - as evidenced in the Echo.

Not an unreasonable suggestion, Fisherman, but whatever than "something" may have been, it can't have been any more compelling that the reasons cited in the Echo, or else it too would have been included; and it also couldn't have resulted in proof being secured. Yes, the account was downgraded two days later to become "discredited" but I strongly suspect that this was due to the publication of Hutchinson's press accounts which undermined his initial statement. Still no proof; just an educated police view which resulted in Hutchinson being dropped, just as Packer had been.

Cheers,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Yep, I know what the source said, Fisherman.

Too bad that the investigation did not turn up the necessary goods, and only resulted in suspicions and doubts being fostered, as we learn from the Echo. And if you think that "discredited" means "proven wrong", I'm afraid you're sorely mistaken."

Absolutely, Ben! That is why I don´t make that mistake, but instead settle for only telling you that it now seems apparent that I was correct in suggesting that something came up AFTER the police report was signed - as evidenced in the Echo. I then moved on to say that it was not something that had proven Hutchinson wrong at the moment it was published in the Echo, for at that stage it was obviously only a strong suspicion. But since we thankfully have the Star telling us two days later that the suspicions had moved on to become strong enough to rule Hutch out, I think we have a very good pointer to a confirmation right there and then.

Agreed?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Fish -I don't blame you for not bothering to read my previous Posts on this thread, but I DO blame you -the journalist- for being lazy enough to reply to me on this subject without seeing what I had to say on it.

I stated clearly 2 or 3 times that I agree with YOU, rather than Ben and Garry
(no, I'm not their 'lapdog'), that I feel that it is unbelievable that the Police would not have put Mrs Lewis's testimony at the inquest together with Hutch's statement and come to the conclusion that they were one and the same person."

Oh, I did see that, Ruby, both times over (or was it three?) - and I would not argue with you over it. And if I seem to treat all of you, in spite of your assertion that you are not their lapdog, as a uniform kennel, I´m sorry. But I have argued about Hutchinsonianism so long and so hard that I sometimes feel I´m wrestling with a ghost.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

I-N-V-E-S-I-T-G-A-T-I-O-N. That is written evidence from a contemporarty source. "We" know this.

Yep, I know what the source said, Fisherman.

Too bad that the investigation did not turn up the necessary goods, and only resulted in suspicions and doubts being fostered, as we learn from the Echo. And if you think that "discredited" means "proven wrong", I'm afraid you're sorely mistaken.

Just on a separate note: when people say "once again" at the beginning of their sentence, do they really mean "once again", or a potentially infinite number of times again?

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Can some of us try hard to condense their posts a bit – make them a little more succinct?

And I do wish people wouldn’t keep pinning “statements” on me that I’m supposed to have made, when I didn’t. Yes, I don’t consider it a matter for debate that the neither the Echo journalists nor the police had any more compelling reasons to rule Hutchinson out that the ones mentioned. We know some of the reasons why the “authorities” were attaching a “very reduced importance” to Hutchinson, and I’ve already accepted that they didn’t centre exclusively on the Astrakhan description. They were concerned with, amongst other things, the fact that Hutchinson took three days to come forward, and the incompatibility of Mr. Astrakhan with any other witness sighting.

What is ludicrously apparent is that whatever doubts the authorities harboured, they had absolutely nothing to do with proof having been secured to rule Hutchinson out for certain as a witness. Had it been otherwise, the Echo would not have referred to a “very reduced importance” (as distinct from “no importance at all”), and they certainly wouldn’t have cited lesser reasons for doubting Hutchinson’s account if they were sitting on bombshells that could prove Hutchinson was wrong.

Whatever they might have suspected, they certainly were not in a position to know the truth. Any insistence to the contrary has the almighty task of having to fiddle with the wording of the Echo and invent several scenarios for which we have no evidence. I accept, of course, that the article referred to a later investigation, but what is clear is that the results of it did not culminate in Hutchinson being ruled out as a witness or a suspect.

The Star stated that the account had been discredited, and this arrived – not so coincidentally – after Hutchinson’s press versions appeared, which contained numerous embellishments, contradictions, and at least one flat out falsehood. This certainly does not permit us to conclude that he was a proven false witness, but suggests instead that the press versions had compounded their suspicions against Hutchinson, and that they had arrived at an educated police consensus to drop him. Both Packer and Violenia were discredited as witnesses, but crucially, not because anything had emerged to “prove” that they were lying.

And as far as I’m concerned, “George William Topping Hutchinson” could never have been dropped as a witness because he was never involved in the investigation was not the “George Hutchinson” who introduced himself to police as such on the 12th November, and I’m distinctly troubled that people want to create antagonism by trying to incorporate that irrelevant angle into this discussion.

Best regards,
Ben