Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Hatchett]

Hello Ben,

I am glad you are amused.

If you remember I was not asking you to regurgitate the whole thread. I was asking you to produce "Facts" instead of speculation. That should not take you too long, and in my view is well over due.

You have long argued that Hutchinson's statement was discredited by the police. Again all I am doing is saying that this is not supported by any police evidence. So it must be speculation.

For some reason you seem hell bent on avoiding acceptance that most of what you is is speculation.

If it is not. Then please produce the evidence.

I do not liked being called a liar. By you or anyone. I would appreciate in future if you regained some measure of manners.

Best wishes.

[Wickerman]

I really am trying to fathom you out, Jon. You have just spent a whole post demonstrating things which support my argument. That the Police discredited an extremely detailed description of the possible murderer by a witness who said he was sure he would know the man again if he came across him.

Yet they continued to have no clue! Really? Astonishing!

Babybird.
What I have been attempting to do is debate this with you issue by issue, if you introduce press statements, then I take issue with the same, if it's memoirs, I take issue with the same.

I understand you are looking at the overall picture, what I am trying to do with you "eat the elephant one bite at a time".

Taking each issue alone it can be demonstrated that there are different explanations available, however, without the erroneous Star claim of "Discredit", this house of cards falls apart.
All the circumstantial evidence I have read offered by the four of you are interpreted to support that bold claim by the Star.

Hatchett put my objection simply, I tried to drill this into Ben but, simply put, for the Met. police to redirect their investigation from the initial Astrachan-type suspect to the Blotchy-type suspect .....does ....not ....mean .... Hutchinson was discredited by the police.
The redirect is a decision of preference made by the authorities.

Jon

[Garry Wroe]

Let me see if I understand you correctly, Jon. You are stating that Hutchinson's story was believed, yet despite having at their disposal a description that could have broken the case, investigators disregarded this information and instead elected to waste time, effort and manpower in a search for someone who was not the murderer?

[Ben]

“If you remember I was not asking you to regurgitate the whole thread. I was asking you to produce "Facts" instead of speculation”

About what?

If you were really interested in learning anything, you would have asked me specific questions on specific points I raised, but you didn't. Let me know which particular claim of mine you are challenging and I will address it. If, for example, you’re challenging my observation that Hutchinson was discredited, you will need to read the post I made earlier today, preferably along with the other Hutchinson threads that you’ve obviously been following for a long time. Only then will you be disabused of your wrongness on this issue. It is most assuredly a fact that Hutchinson was discredited by the police, because the latter say so explicitly.

“I do not liked being called a liar. By you or anyone. I would appreciate in future if you regained some measure of manners.”

Then do as you would be done by, Hatchett, and don’t launch into ludicrous personal attacks and character assassinations. I'm not keeping you prisoner here or forcing you to read my posts, after all.

“If they go on record to state that they believe what he had to say, the only way that should change is by reversing what has been stated”

Which is precisely what happened, Sleeks.

“Taking each issue alone it can be demonstrated that there are different explanations available, however, without the erroneous Star claim of "Discredit", this house of cards falls apart.”

It’s not erroneous, Jon.

It’s true.

It tallied precisely with the Echo’s report which was based on direct communication with the police, and it supported later police actions and memoirs reinforcing the fact that Hutchinson was discredited. We can go round in circles on the issue if you want, but I’ll be saying precisely the same thing after 10,000 more senselessly dissenting posts if necessary. If it was a case of simple re-direct from Blotchy to Astrakhan, the police would not have put Hutchinson's account under suspicion because of his failure to come forward earlier, and yet that's precisely what happened.

[Hatchett]

Hello Ben,

Here we go then an explicit question which I have asked before.

If Hutchinson was discredited by the police where is the police evidence for that?

You are relying on two press reports, and absence of mention of Hutchinson in memoirs, which is not actually accurate because he is mentioned in Dews.

You are speculating on the seeming absence of any police interest in Hutchinson.

Do you accept that your belief in the discrediting of Hutchinson's statement is speculation, and not a fact verified by police evidence?

In other words do you agree that it is conjecture?

Best wishes.

[Ben]

This is still a demand for repetition, Hatchett, but since you’ve at least acceded to my request to be specific, I’ll address this one, but once I’ve done so, I would be very appreciative if you visited the previous discussion where there the ins and outs where debated in further depth.

“If Hutchinson was discredited by the police where is the police evidence for that?”

Right, the Echo reported the following on the 14th November:

“Unfortunately for the theories of our morning contemporaries, we learned on inquiry at the Commercial-street Police-station to-day that the elaborate description given above is virtually the same as that previously published. It is a little fuller, that is all. But it proceeds from the same source”.

This was in reference to the fact that Hutchinson’s 14th November account, as supplied to a reporter, was obviously a more detailed and elaborate version of the account that appeared the previous morning without Hutchinson’s name attached. Some newspapers thought that they were two independent, mutually supportive accounts, but the Echo approached the police directly in order to ascertain what we now know to be the truth of the matter.

In other words, the Echo clearly did visit the police and did extract the truth from them. They were also informed that the account had been:

“considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest in a more official manner”.

Although they had already extracted this detail on the evening of 13th:

“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?”

The Star’s observations reinforce the Echo's police-endorsed reports, as do the later memoirs, interviews, and actions taken by senior police officials (or rather not taken) with regard to Hutchinson in later years. It would be madness to assert they all just accidentally support one another in pointing towards this conclusion. It's also unrealistic to expect any official declaration that "Hutchinson is hereby discredited", but that this happened in undeniable.

[Hatchett]

Hello Ben,

As I keep saying you still have not supplied any Police evidence that Hutchinson's statement was discredited. I have read all of the threads and re read your article.There is nothing at all from official police reports that Hutchinson was discredited.

Even now you are unable to supply it.

Why dont you just say that you cannot, and that it is supposition or conjecture on your part?

Best wishes.

[Ben]

A predictable response, Hatchett, but no less tedious for that.

The sources I’ve provided demonstrate beyond question that the police discredited Hutchinson’s account. You only appear to be resisting this obvious truth because there is no “official police report” stating as much. Common sense tells us that we should expect one, however, as there was no official police declaration that Emanuel Violenia (for example) was discredited, despite it being astoundingly obvious that he was.

But you ahead and believe what you want, providing you discontinue this rather bizarre habit of demanding repetition of previous discussions.

[Sally]

How?

..do we know there wasn't one? We do know that material from the police investigation into this case is missing - so how can we tell what was originally there in terms of official reports?

The point is not to propose a hypothetical missing anti-Hutchinson police report - but rather to remark that absolutes - e.g. there was no police report, and thus there was no discrediting - is a bit meaningless, given the circumstances.

I think we have to go on what we have, which is press reports, and my view is that the press reports of the day tend to support the allegation that Hutchinson was 'discredited'. The Sunday paper, The Observer, never made any reference to Hutchinson at all, for example, in spite of covering the Whitechapel Murders quite as fully as any other paper, given that it as a weekly. Obviously, by the 18th November, Hutchinson was old news.

And, secondly, I'm not absolutely convinced that there would have been a grand announcement to the press and thus public, even if there had been an 'official' denouncement of Hutchinson's account - I think the police were inundated with time wasters, and I don't really get the premise that he would have had extra-special attention once his account was discarded as worthless - for whatever reason.

[babybird67]

Babybird.
What I have been attempting to do is debate this with you issue by issue, if you introduce press statements, then I take issue with the same, if it's memoirs, I take issue with the same.

I understand you are looking at the overall picture, what I am trying to do with you "eat the elephant one bite at a time".

That's fine Jon but each time I make a point you don't seem to address it. For example, how can you possibly conclude that Hutchinson's account was not in some way discounted/discredited (however you wish to phrase it) and still quote Police sources claiming that they had absolutely no clue as to the murderer's identity? They had a witness who got a close up view of the suspect down to eyelash colour, gave a dream of a description with an amazing amount of detail, from which they could establish ethnicity (foreign/Jew), social status (he was obviously rich), clothing, personal unique items such as the tie pin and gold watch and chain, and good physical description from a witness who said he was confident of identifying the same man again, who he believed lived locally, and yet, according to you, there would be some kind of innocuous reason this massively superior description was discarded/not acted on/not prioritised, and the Police IGNORED all these clues to the identity of the most wanted man in Britain and stated time and again they had NO CLUE as to the identity of the suspect. You cannot give Hutchinson credit and also say the Police had no clue. If the Police gave his statement any credit there would have been an abundance of clues. I am not sure why you cannot see that.

Taking each issue alone it can be demonstrated that there are different explanations available, however, without the erroneous Star claim of "Discredit", this house of cards falls apart.

Not at all. See above. If the Police gave the statement Hutch made any credit they would have had an enormous amount of material to focus an investigation on. Yet they did not. As I keep saying, it's not merely the Press, it's the Police, their actions, later statements, the focus of the investigation etc etc.

The redirect is a decision of preference made by the authorities.

Jon

Then you need to find a rational, logical reason they would prefer vague non-descript witness testimony and focus their efforts on that in preference to Hutchinson's detailed, vivid, close up view of Astakhan.

I'd love to hear what it is.

[sleekviper]

The police came forward, in the form of Abberline, and said that they believe Hutch. Unless they do the same thing to change that belief, the first words still stand true. I do not understand why it would be expecting too much, if the position had changed in the mind of the police, to present a clear, and precise announcement since they had done so in the beginning. If they do not, there would be people, that fit the description, in jeopardy of being harassed by those that felt the description was still to be honored. If ten people are trying to give information about the case, and five concern a man dressed as what Hutch gave information concerning, aren't they wasting time, and possibly turning useful information away by not coming straight out and saying that it was bogus? It is fine for those that see a door slammed shut on Hutch, I just can not see it as that cut and dry without equal action to close, as was put forward to show faith that he was telling the truth. As I said, to some it is enough to dismiss his story, I just do not feel that it is, and that his story remained as it began. Someone killed inside, after multiple kills outdoors. His length of time to flee has increased from minutes to hours, someone may see this as a killer leaving the immediate area, and if that has happened, the best witness available is a sitting duck. Dismantle his story, and dismantle a possible sighting. Downplay his story, and hope a killer downplays the importance of the witness to the police. That is how I see it, but that is just me from how I view the actions taken.

[babybird67]

Thanks, Jen. Most kind.

You're most welcome Garry. I was re-reading some of your book again last night...erudite and eloquent and very well researched. So well researched I find it difficult reading when you document all the cases of torture and murder carried out by modern serial killers. It really disturbs me, and it must have taken a lot to research into the monstrosity of the sexual serial killer so thank you for that. It has really enlarged my understanding of the psychology involved.

May I just ask something? I was going through your book again looking for a particular reference but I couldn't find it. You've mentioned the search of low lodging houses carried out by the Police post-Hutchinson and I was trying to find the reference to that. Do you happen to know where it is? I've also done a casebook search and cannot seem to find it.

Thanks for your help.

Jen x

[Ben]

Hi Sleeks,

If they do not, there would be people, that fit the description, in jeopardy of being harassed by those that felt the description was still to be honored.

Unfortunately, this is precisely what happened in some instances, as the case of one Douglas Cow illustrates. This wasn't an ideal outcome, by any means, but the police had little choice in the matter. Unless they had absolute proof that Hutchinson was wrong or lying, they could not risk announcing to all and sundry that the Astrakhan man was "officially" not true, just in case they were wrong. They did not issue an official "discredited" announcement for other ditched witnesses, such as Packer and Violenia, for presumably the same reason. Having said that, it isn't quite correct to state:

The police came forward, in the form of Abberline, and said that they believe Hutch.

He didn't "come forward" at all. The report penned by Abberline that accompanied the statement was not for public consumption. It was simply an internal police missive destined for his police superiors only. If any revision of opinion took place afterwards, as it clearly did, Abberline would not have been required to send an "I've changed my mind" message to the public, because they would not have known of his initial opinion.

Downplay his story, and hope a killer downplays the importance of the witness to the police.

Yes, but the police didn't "downplay" it initially. They circulated it to the press. It they ultimately thought it important enough to suppress, they would certainly not have used other witnesses, such as Lawende, when attempting to identify later suspects.

All the best,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi ,
I would like to know why George Hutchinson was paid a decent sum of money for a couple of walkabouts, if he was a discredited witness?
There are four mentions of a payment, Topping to son, son to radio, son to Fairclough, and a relatively recent found article in the ''Wheeling''.
For those of you that are adamant that Topping was not GH, then please release the name of the real Hutchinson...
I have always suggested that the mention of a payment in a rare publication from 1888,gives more credence to Toppings version, [which Reg was familiar with], and I will also suggest, that as the sum received was not pittance , then it was of considerable use to the police, or even gold dust to a ambitious editor.
I have changed my mind many times since 1998 [ since joined Casebook], but I cannot budge on the identity of George Hutchison.it was Topping.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

I would like to know why George Hutchinson was paid a decent sum of money for a couple of walkabouts, if he was a discredited witness?

There is no evidence that any payment took place, Richard.

It cannot be ruled out (kan inte uteslutas) that the police paid Hutchinson some small fee to cover the "walkabout" hours which would otherwise have been taken up with work or work-seeking, but this would have occurred on the evening of the 12th November, before the doubts about his credibility surfaced. The "four mentions of payment" you outline are from some of the worst sources around, and unfortunately, four wrongs don't make a right. Certainly, we can forget the idea that they support each other, which they most assuredly do not, as I've tried to explain on countless threads.

George Hutchison.it was Topping.

No.

But let's try to keep on-Toppic here.

All the best,
Ben