Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Hatchett]

Hi Ben,

Again the vindictive. What are you frightened of? Is there something you are not saying here. Just spell it out, man!

It was a simple question I asked. In your previous posts you have produced no evidence at all! I am asking you now to disclose it.

Why should you be bothered by putting a theory out on the boards and someone asking for what evidence you have and objecting to the manner in which you reply to posts?

You will have to explain to me the remark you made that I just entered the debate to be a nuisance. What do you mean? Please explain it to me.

Or is that just another of your evading tactics, belittle and avoid the question. I wouldnt say you were good at that. But you often repeat it, instead of putting any evidence forward.

Hatchett.

[harry]

Jon,
When I say quite a while,it may have been months rather than years,but I do know that the book came out after Hutchinson had been discussed ,as a suspect,on these threads.Whether the name was Carpenter,might be in error,but that is the name that sticks in my mind.What I am sure of is that this site was the first occasion of my reading of Hutchinson as a suspect,and I have been around for a long time.As to the question of my proving anything,I think Ben has put it in the right perspective.I see myself as a juror,who argues on the basis of the evidence put by all,and I see this site as a jury room,where I can express my beliefs as to the truth or otherwise of what is put there,whether it argues for or against any individual.And belief,rather than proof,is the basis on which many cases are resolved.

[babybird67]

hi Garry and Benz

just wanted to thank the pair of you for the research you have done on the topic of Hutchinson. It really is interesting and has opened my eyes in many regards.

Hatchett:

Garry and Ben have posted numerous instances of evidence which demonstrate their arguments. They are already on the boards if you are interested.

There is the 'fact' that, without a doubt, the most observant witness of them all, was Hutchinson. It would not make sense, therefore, to use any other witness for possible identification purposes of someone suspected of being the Whitechapel murderer...yet Lawende is the suggested witness. Why use a witness who categorically stated he would NOT recognise the man he saw again, rather than a witness who not only said he COULD recognise him again, probably because of the fantastically detailed first look he got, but also allegedly saw the same man more than once?

Then there is the search of common lodging houses, which Garry has pointed out. Why search for a wealthy suspect there?

There are the Press reports of the discrediting.

Even Dew refers to Hutchinson as discredited/not correct, although he puts the slant of this as down to date or time confusion, depending on what interpretation you put on what he writes.

The issue is not whether he was discredited: it is why, and that is where the subjective interpretation comes in.

[Garry Wroe]

Thanks, Jen. Most kind.

Thanks too for a post that cuts to the heart of the issue - although I feel it may be wasted on those who seem incapable of seeing the bigger picture.

[Ben]

Again the vindictive. What are you frightened of?

You, Hatchett.

You scare me with the intimidating incisiveness of your debating style. I mean, asking me to repeat the entire thread's content again - if that's not going to make me capitulate and cry, I don't know what will.

Hmmm...

Or not.

You will have to explain to me the remark you made that I just entered the debate to be a nuisance. What do you mean?

Well I don't "have" to if I don't want to, but I will. I can't think of any other reason for such a wishy-washy and inflammatory request for the regurgitation of an entire thread's content unless you wished to create mischief. Why you'd want to do this is anyone's guess - boredom probably. But you're not the first.

[Robert]

Not having 200 years to spare, I don't particularly want to get involved in a GH thread. But I love the coinage "Ben-botherers."

[Ben]

Thanks, Robert. Beautifully alliterative, innit?

Wish I could say there was any beauty in the reality!

[Wickerman]

Jon,
When I say quite a while,it may have been months rather than years,but I do know that the book came out after Hutchinson had been discussed ,as a suspect,on these threads.

Harry.
Certainly, I'm not suggesting Hutchinson was not considered by anybody prior to '98. Bob's book was, if I recall correctly, the first booklength study, which is what I made reference to.
Bob's book certainly elevated Hutchinson as a suspect, which does not mean no-one else was researching him beforehand.

As to the question of my proving anything,I think Ben has put it in the right perspective.I see myself as a juror,who argues on the basis of the evidence put by all,and I see this site as a jury room,where I can express my beliefs as to the truth or otherwise of what is put there,whether it argues for or against any individual.And belief,rather than proof,is the basis on which many cases are resolved.

You touch on the basic premise which started these exchanges, we are all jurors, though some choose to elevate themselves as the prosecution.
It isn't so much the suggestion that Hutchinson 'might' have lied, heaven forbid he should be the first. Of course there is room for doubt in any witness testimony, and newspaper articles.
The contention here is the dogmatic assertion, that he 'did' lie, that he 'was' discredited, and that he 'had' fallen from grace with the authorities.

None of which is substantiated, none of which can be demonstrated.

We have press claims that the reason for the delay was known but withheld, that his name had been withheld by the police? (but not the press), that his whereabouts over the 3 days are unclear (nothing suspicious about that), but that the police did not doubt his story.

So long as there are a variety of explanations available we cannot condem a witness with unfounded assertions. What happens then is that others will use these baseless accusations to promote their own misguided beliefs, and the house of cards grows ever higher, and so it goes.



Off Topic.
And yes, you have been around for quite some time, I recognise your name, writing style, reserved position. You may not remember but around that time you had explained to me that you were attempting to locate someone, I cannot remember exactly where, was it here in Kitchener, or Hamilton, London? - but you had asked if I could help in some way.
I never did ask if you located your friend/relative?

All the best, Jon S.

[Ben]

Thanks, Harry - that's precisely what I was getting at.

The whole idea of "prosecution" has crept into this thread entirely unsolicited, without any instigation from those posters who have argued in the past in favour of Hutchinson's possible involvement. It has been both "demonstrated" and "substantiated" that Hutchinson was discredited. The vast preponderance of reliable evidence reveals this to be the case. Having acknowledged this, the second question is why the police adopted this view, and fortunately, this explanation has also been provided. They "discounted" his story, and to discount means to regard with doubt or disbelief. What hasn't been fully resolved - and which is therefore open to rational debate - is how this evidence affects our perception of Hutchinson and his possible motivations.

The Morning Advertiser has been dredged up with futility in an attempt to undermine the above realities, but we know that this particular paper was ignorant of certain details that the vast majority of other papers were fully informed about. This does not bode well for some of their other bold claims that appear in no other press sources.

All the best,
Ben

[babybird67]

The contention here is the dogmatic assertion, that he 'did' lie, that he 'was' discredited, and that he 'had' fallen from grace with the authorities.

None of which is substantiated, none of which can be demonstrated.

Ahem.

These have been substantiated and demonstrated before, Wickerman, but here you go.

From The Echo 13th November 1888:

The following is a summary of the statement, and it may be said that, notwithstanding examination a the police at first believed nd re-examination by the police, the man's story could not be shaken, and so circumstantial and straightforward were his assertions thatthey had - to again quote the journalist - "at length been placed in possession of facts which would open up a new line of investigation, and probably enable them to track the criminal." The importance which they then attached to it has since suffered diminution. That will be seen by the result of more recent inquiries.

My emphases.

The Police at first believed...they then changed their mind. The importance the Police attached to it 'suffered diminution'.

Again from the Echo:

From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities , did not the informant come forward before?

My emphases again.

Inquiries made by the authorities, since they are the ones the paper is referring to when discussing the reduced importance. Since they are the ones questioning Hutchinson's delay.

Combine the Press reports with the searching of common lodging houses subsequent to Kelly's murder (where they wouldn't have a hope in Hell of finding a rich foreign Jew dangling a massive gold watch and carrying a knife-shaped package, one thinks one can safely assume); the fact that the Police put their faith in a Jewish witness as having the best sight of the possible murderer (which they clearly could not sustain as a possible position if they had not - by their investigations - discredited Hutchinson, who on paper saw so so much more than Lawende, and any other witnesses).

So, Wickerman, your assertion that there is no evidence to back up the claims Garry, Ben, I, and others, are making are clearly mistaken. These things have all been pointed out before, and yet you refuse to acknowledge they even exist.

[Wickerman]

So, Wickerman, your assertion that there is no evidence to back up the claims Garry, Ben, I, and others, are making are clearly mistaken. These things have all been pointed out before, and yet you refuse to acknowledge they even exist.

On the contrary, may I ask you to do me the favour of reading a previous post where I explained just how this scenario played out?

If you recall, it is not I who dismiss a news story on the basis of the papers financial affiliations (Morning Advertiser), as if that has anything to do with the stories they buy and carry.

(I have always advised caution when quoting the Star, especially when they carry a line or sentence which is not carried or repeated by any other paper. The Star intentionally pursued a line of reporting which was intended to entertain as well as inflame the opinion of the masses, with an obvious end to sell more copy.)

So as to my refusal to acknowledge your source (Echo) exists, perhaps you might re-read my earlier post on the subject:

Hi Ben.


On the contrary Ben, the Echo when taken in context, provides enough of the answers to stem one false claim, and we've touched on it several times. Let me try to gather it all together rather than pick on isolated points.

You have linked the issue of “diminution” to Hutchinson's credibility, yet the Echo, who both raise the issue and explain the issue make no such connection to his veracity or his credability.

So the Echo begins by explaining that:

“The police are embarrassed with two definite descriptions of the man suspected of the murder.”

(with referance to Hutchinson description)
“The importance which they then attached to it has since suffered diminution. That will be seen by the result of more recent inquiries.”

They then offer the contending description described by Cox, and conclude:

“This description, however, materially differs from the other given to the police.”

Subsequently, as I explained to Garry, according to the Echo the police then compared the leading suspect descriptions from the previous murders to the two latest descriptions they are dealing with (those of Cox & Hutch).
The City police gave an opinion as to the man they have been looking for, and, the Echo concludes:

“The City police have been making inquiries for this man for weeks past, but without success, and they do not believe that he is the individual described by Cox.”

What is important for our discussion is the conclusion reached by the Met. Police, that:

“The Metropolitan police, however, have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement.”

The Met. have been “induced”, either by orders from above, or by their review of the competing evidence to change the priorities of their inquiries.

However, the Echo do not agree with this change of direction by the Met, as they make clear:

“The descriptions of the dark foreign-looking man mentioned in connection with the previous crimes are, however, as we say, in the description of the man seen with the victim on the morning of the 9th.”

So the Echo support the initial direction of the search for Astrachan.

With all this in mind I think it is necessary to quote the subsequent paragraph in full which explains why the Met changed the focus of their inquiries, and it has nothing to do with Hutchinson lying, or his late appearance with the police, nor the reluctance of the police to reveal the reason for his '3-day' delay.

Quote:
“From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before? As many as fifty-three persons have, in all, made statements as to "suspicious men," each of whom was thought to be Mary Janet Kelly's assassin. The most remarkable thing in regard to the latest statement is, that no one else can be found to say that a man of that description given was seen with the deceased, while, of course, there is the direct testimony of the witnesses at the inquest, that the person seen with the deceased at midnight was of quite a different appearance.”

Your point about the line which begins, “Why, ask the authorities, .....” can be readily seen as another example of artistic license, unless you truly believe the Echo were present when Hutchinson was being asked, or that you believe the authorities actually asked the Echo what they thought?

If you naturally accept that neither of these scenario's took place then you will conclude that this is just artistic license to raise a question to which the Echo and their readers had no solution, simply because the police were not divulging what they knew to the press.

The actual explanation for a change in direction by the Met. is given at the end of the paragraph, to repeat:

“The most remarkable thing in regard to the latest statement is, that no one else can be found to say that a man of that description given was seen with the deceased, while, of course, there is the direct testimony of the witnesses at the inquest, that the person seen with the deceased at midnight was of quite a different appearance.”

That no-one else described the man Hutchinson saw to the same degree of detail, and that sworn testimony did exist in support of the man described by Cox.

Therefore the reason for the “discounting” (of reduced importance) stated in the next days edition (14th) is clearly understood, to which the Echo felt obliged to add:

“There is not, so it is declared, the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinson's veracity" (his truthfulness).

Nothing here supports your contention that Hutchinson lied to anyone, the police were compelled to put their support behind the sworn testimony, that is directly evident.
Neither does this support him being discredited. The police had to give precidence to sworn testimony, but they still did not discard the “gentleman-suspect” theory as subsequent news reports indicate.

I've tried to encapsulate the whole argument as I see it. Afterall, I am not the one with a theory to promote, rather, I have tried to explain the flaws in your argument and that it is based on conjecture not any factual or demonstrative evidence.

The charge of “discredite” was invented by the Star. Perhaps rather like the “knife” they placed in Pipeman's hand?

Regards, Jon S.

Thankyou, Jon S.

[babybird67]

If you acknowledge it exists, why are you stating in your previous post

The contention here is the dogmatic assertion, that he 'did' lie, that he 'was' discredited, and that he 'had' fallen from grace with the authorities.

None of which is substantiated, none of which can be demonstrated.

And as I have tried to explain to you, it is not just the Press reports. It is the search for a suspect where Astrakhan would not have been...the putting faith in other witnesses (Cox and Lawende) etc that build up a picture of evidence which points to Hutchinson being discredited.

This evidence exists. Whether you accord it any significance or interpret it any differently is up to you.

[Wickerman]

.....And as I have tried to explain to you, it is not just the Press reports. It is the search for a suspect where Astrakhan would not have been...

There were many middleclass houses, businesses, professional people, medical students, all within the immediate locality.
What do you mean by saying, " where Astrakhan would not have been...", ....according to whom?

the putting faith in other witnesses (Cox and Lawende) etc

They had to give precidence to sworn testimony. The chief investigator is obliged to do this, you might not appreciate this fact, but nevertheless it is true.

There is no indication Hutchinson's description was dropped altogether, the priorities of the Met. were realigned. This is quite different to intentionally discrediting another witnesses testimony.

Take as another example the testimony of P C Smith in Berner St. the 'clerk'-looking man he saw was in contention with that of Schwartz.
Just because Schwartz's man took precident does not mean that P C Smith was discredited.
However, Schwartz status was shortlived, according to the same source (Star) who had strongly promoted him only the day before.

"In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story."

So what do we make of this, is Schwartz now discredited just because the STAR said so?

Consider for a moment what Swanson wrote over 2 weeks later (Oct 19), when comparing the statements of PC Smith & Schwartz, which began with:

"If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows if they are describing different men that the man Schwartz saw & described is the more probable of the two to be the murderer,..."

So, what I am trying to get across to you is that trusting on one singular unsubstantiated comment like "Discredit" made by the Star, associated with Hutchinson, is demonstrably not to be trusted.

As can be seen above, what the Star promotes, and what the police actually think can be completely different.

The Star is not a trustworthy source, the Star has a proven track record of manipulating public sentiments. This paper has had a confrontationery attitude with Scotland Yard to the degree that their reporters were given the cold shoulder, not brought within the communication loop, so they openly admitted that they will have to make it up as they go.

And, it is this singular comment which is driving this contrary interpretation of the circumstantial evidence. If we had direct evidence we wouldn't be debating this issue.

Regards, Jon S.

[babybird67]

Wickerman

and again you are concentrating on the Press when that is only part of the overall picture.

Why would senior Police officials state the person who had the best view of 'jack' was Jewish if Hutchinson hadn't been discredited?

Are you suggesting any information they had which had not been 'sworn' would have to be disregarded in favour of witnesses who had sworn to what they had seen, even if that meant letting a killer escape?

Wasn't I quoting from the Echo, not the Star?

[Observer]

Why would senior Police officials state the person who had the best view of 'jack' was Jewish if Hutchinson hadn't been discredited?

Why would a senior police official state that the only person who got a good view of the killer obtained only a rear view, when this was certainly not the case?

Why would a senior police figure state that "no one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer", when this again is obviously not the case?

Considering their flawed musings, can we really hold up the reminicenses of the senior police officials who investigated the JTR series of murders and come to the conclusion that Hutchinson was discredited? Not in my opinion