Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[sleekviper]

Hello Ben,
Well I still see it as a factor of setting the record straight for public safety. Public safety was key, or seemed to be. So to erase words off a wall for public safety, then just let a statement float around without setting it straight, seems odd to me. Even if the public has no idea of what Abberline has written, they do know what Hutch has said. If he is being discredited in the sense that is being used here, then calling him bogus for public safety should occur. But as I have said, that is just me.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Ben,
Four wrongs do not make a right... OK.. but how about four rights?
Its not just me, that presents a thorn, in the theory that Topping was not the witness, Reg Hutchinson's family has admitted that they were ''aware''of the story about Topping, and none of them has concluded it was factitious .infact J.D Hutchinson [wife of Toppings nephew] joined the site to mention this, but rather like McCarthy's great granddaughter took a dislike to be disbelieved , and retreated into safety.
I guess a conspiracy theory, is more debatable then truth.
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

Hi Richard

Trouble is, most of what you see as evidence for Topping is hearsay. There's nothing solid, nothing empirical there.

It's a pity that your radio programme hasn't yet been identified - that would be something.

I have my own reasons for doubting the Topping connection - and really, it doesn't rest on any of the above, but on the fact that Toppy was living on Warren Street in 1891. Warren Street was so far away from a doss-house in Whitechapel that it might as well have been on another planet. If he was truly the down and out Hutchinson of 1888, his social climb would have been remarkable.

I doubt it, I'm afraid.

But that's only my opinion.

[Ben]

If he is being discredited in the sense that is being used here, then calling him bogus for public safety should occur.

As I've explained though, Sleek, this would have been very difficult to put into effect in the absence of total proof that Hutchinson was lying. The police could not denounce him "officially" in public in case it transpired that they were wrong. Yes, this had potentially negative consequences for members of the public who bore an "Astrakhanian" similarity, but there was no other realistic option. As I've mentioned already, it is clear that other lying witness weren't denounced as such in "official" police declarations either. Hutchinson was not alone in that respect.

Hi Richard,

Again, I really don't think it's Toppy-time here. Wrong thread. There is no "thorn" in my side that I can perceive, although the sources you've alluded to are still very bogus. When you say that "I guess a conspiracy theory, is more debatable then truth" I hope you realise that one of the sources you're relying on is the Ripper and the Royals, which is not only a conspiracy theory, but a royal conspiracy theory?

Regards,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

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.

I don't think that I alluded to this in my book, Jen. It was, however, something that bothered me at the time of writing since it made no sense given what I then believed was the faith investigators had placed in Hutchinson's Astrakhan account. I suspect that I have made mention of it previously on the boards, possibly on the thread to which I first posted The Echo piece presently doing the rounds, but don't recall whether I cited a source.

Intuitively, I feel that I first came across the infomation at what was then the PRO, Kew - now apparently re-branded the National Archives. If so, there's probably a reference to it in the Ripper A-Z. I'll try to locate it for you over the next day or two. As chance would have it, I also came across a reference a couple of days ago in the Casebook Press Reports section which alluded to a police search of workhouse casual wards during the week that Hutchinson was supposedly a stellar witness. I'll try to relocate this for you too.

[Hatchett]

Hello Ben,

I dont think we are looking here for a statement from the Police that "publicly" denounces Hutchinson. An internal memo will suffice. Much like the internal report from Abberline that endorces his belief in Hutchinson's honesty.

In fact if you are correct in that the two press reports are accurate then it shouldnt be too difficult for you to find one.

I must confess that I have never found one. So I dont believe that one exists.

But as a confident man no doubt you can prove me wrong.

I wait with baited breath.

Best wishes.

[Garry Wroe]

Here you go, Jen. This is an excerpt from The Daily Telegraph of 14th November:-

The Central News says: The police have made a thorough search of casual wards and other places of a similar character. In the Holborn casual ward their attention was attracted to the very suspicious behaviour of one of the temporary inmates. Constables were at once sent to the place, and they arrested a rough-looking fellow, who gave the name of Thomas Murphy ...

If the search had occurred the day prior to publication, police were swooping on casual wards and similar such places the day after Hutchinson submitted his police statement. At any event, police actions of this nature were apparently being effected during the very week that Astrakhan was supposedly being hunted.

Make of this what you will.

[Ben]

I dont think we are looking here for a statement from the Police that "publicly" denounces Hutchinson. An internal memo will suffice. Much like the internal report from Abberline that endorces his belief in Hutchinson's honesty.

Then I would strongly encourage you to read Sally's post on this subject, Hatchett. There is no evidence of any police "internal report" confidently declaring that Matthew Packer or Emanuel Violenia had been discredited, despite them both having been discrediting as credible witnesses, so I'm uncertain as to why you're expecting miracles with Hutchinson.

[Hatchett]

Hello Jen,

It looks as though I've been pipped at the post, but the following quote is from a report from Swanson dated 19th Day of October 1888,

"... Packer who is an elderly man, has unfortunately made different statements so that apart from the fact of the hour at which he saw the woman (and she was seen afterwards by the P.C. and Schwartz as stated) any statement he made would be rendered almost valueless as evidence."

I do take it that you mean an internal statement. There never would have been a public one. But that is not what I am looking for.

Ben.

Well that is my "miracle" achieved. Can you do the same?

Best wishes.

David.

[Ben]

I think you'll find that Jen is quite familiar with the document, Hatchett. I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve by re-producing it here, though. Yes, Packer was a bogus witness - well spotted. What interests me though is that the police were not nearly so condemnatory in their approach to Packer, who Swanson appears to have depicted as a confused and elderly man, as they were with Hutchinson, whose late arrival in presenting his evidence (not true of Packer) was explicitly questioned and put under suspicion by the police.

[Hatchett]

Hello Ben,

I dont think Jen was actually, but no doubt she can speak for herself.

The points you make about the Police's attitude and suspicions of Hutchinson, can you please produce the report or memo that substantiates it, as I have done with Packer.

I would be interested to read it.

Best wishes.

[Ben]

The points you make about the Police's attitude and suspicions of Hutchinson, can you please produce the report or memo that substantiates it, as I have done with Packer.

Ah, but you didn't reproduce any evidence of "suspicions" in Packer's case - only a reason for not attaching any "value" to his account (which we all know about already), whereas with Hutchinson, it has at least been proven beyond question that they suspected his motives for approaching the police so late with his statement, and imparted as much to the Echo.

[Hatchett]

Hello Ben,

I have answered this on the other thread. You can stamp your feet in the playground as long as you want.

Hatchett

[Ben]

You can stamp your feet in the playground as long as you want.

I'm afraid you erected the monkey bars yourself, Hatchett.

[Wickerman]

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?

Certainly Garry, Hutchinson was believed. Sadly, we have no police documentation with which to judge what happend over the subsequent days after his interview.

I don't think any description was sufficient to "break the case". Doss-house lodgers might wear the same clothes every day, I don't think it's reasonable to assume this is true of the wealthy classes - in fact we can be pretty certain this would not be the case.

With a different selection of coats, jackets, hats, trousers, all the police can reasonably take from Astrachan's description is the height, build, facial appearance & age. Everything else can change. This is less likely with the lower classes.
When Hutchinson (thought he?) saw this same man on Sunday morning he doesn't say if the man was dressed the same, or that he recognised him by his face only.
Possibly this is why he was not so certain, he was dressed different, but facially looked the same.

One point about descriptions. When the police publish any description I think we tend to wrongly assume that this is the person they are 'currently' looking for.
When they publish what the man looked like on the night of the incident, what they are saying is, "have you seen this man?". That is different to saying "this is who we are looking for".
So should we assume they were looking for a man in Astrachan-type attire?, no. They want to know if anyone recognised (past tense) his appearance, and any well-dressed man of the same social class will subsequently attract attention, but not necessarily every man wearing a "massive gold watch chain".

We know the police were not stupid, of course the killer is going to change his appearance (if he has the wherewithall), but they are asking if the public recognise this "snapshot in time" appearance, or at least thats how I understand it.

There is so much we cannot be sure of, and that is what I try to emphasize when absolutes & assertions are thrown about where "might-have's" & "possibly's" should suffice.

Regards, Jon S.