Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Wickerman]

hi, then if the police put ANY value on Hutchinsons description why wasn't there an all out man hunt?

According to HIS statement either HE or THE OTHER MAN was the last person to see MJK alive.... This makes BOTH of them of supreme importance, doesn't it?

There were police circulated descriptions after the murders of Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes. What particular "all out manhunt" occured with those descriptions?

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Is any of that evidence though that should remove George as a suspect? Or is it evidence that should in fact promote him to suspect No.1?

It would certainly retain Hutchinson's validity as a strong suspect, in my opinion, Versa. A discredited witness does not equate to an exonerated suspect, after all.

[Wickerman]

...... is clear from later police sources that Hutchinson’s account was discredited.

Ben, just for a change, why don't you dig up a selection of these "clear" (to you?) sources that we hear so much about. Lets just parade them for all to see.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

I can assure you, Jon, that these have been provided on numerous occasions. I realize that both repetition and a demand for further repetition seem to be the order of the day with these latest Hutchinson threads, but I would strongly encourage a perusal through the Hutchinson thread archives. If you're still dissatisfied after that, I suppose I'll have to do another keyword search followed by a copy-and-paste.

Cheers,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Versa:

"Do we have any evidence of this? and What were the possible reasons he could be in the clear?"

We have no evidence either way. And I think I already explained why he would be in the clear: because the police were convinced that his testimony belonged to another day than Friday. That´s how I see it, at least.

"Personally I can't by into that theory... I can remember what I did 9 days ago CLEARLY by working backwords..."

Good for you! I know I can´t do that. But neither yours nor mine personal experiences go to do anything but point to a vast spectre of possibilities, I´m afraid!

"Are you seriously saying that if you sit down and think about it that you cant remember what you did 3 days ago?"

Let´s see! Yesterday was tuesday, and I did my journalist´s pensum at my job. I had fish for lunch, and pizza in the evening, and most of the evening was spent taking my kids to and fro different activities.

The day before that was Monday, and that was the day my wife departed for Germany, for a week´s work there. I had sandwiches for lunch - and strawberries! - but I cant say what I had for dinner. It was also the day when I put a roof over a shed in the garden.

Before Monday, it would have been Sunday. I know I went bating late in the evening that day, and I also know I did some work on the shed. But I can´t remember what I ate for lunch or dinner.

I also know that I posted a lot of stuff on Caseboard - but which post I posted on which day, I could not say - a good deal of them were posts to Ben, and some would have gone in other directions like for instance Sally and Wickerman. I can´t tell who I posted first and last.

I don´t know which tv programs I watched on which day. I know I saw Sweden beat Finland in soccer yesterday, but I can´t remember on what day we beat Moldavia on away ground. It may belong to the three, four days closest, but it may equally belong to the days before.

There, how did I do? I seem to recall the big things I have done, but I also know that I can´t tell many lesser things apart timewise. And I think this may well apply to many of us.

"It seems to me that she saw him but he might not of seen her or been so focused on something else that she simply didnt factor to him."

Hutchinson was watching the court entrance in order to see if anybody came out, Versa. He also stated in newspaper interviews that he had ONLY seen two people during his vigil: a PC and a lodger. But not a word about Lewis and not a word about the couple she claimed she had seen in Dorset Street either.
Telling, is it not?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Versa:

"then if the police put ANY value on Hutchinsons description why wasn't there an all out man hunt?"

Because the police knew that the man was not connected to the murder night per se. But he WAS a witness that had spent time with Kelly one night before she was killed, and as such, the police would not have been disinterested in him. The Echo from one week after the murder tells us that there was a minor squad looking for astrakhan man, something that tallies very well with a need to find all witnesses, but tallies very poorly with a hunt for the Ripper himself.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Wickerman:

"Ben, just for a change, why don't you dig up a selection of these "clear" (to you?) sources that we hear so much about. Lets just parade them for all to see."

I concur here, Wickerman. For all the time I have spent in Ripperology, I have strangely never come across these police sources. It would also seem that all of them times when they were presented here on Casebook, I have been occupied elsewhere, sorely missing out on these bits and pieces that would surely have made my argument moot.

If these sources are really around, Ben, clear and unambiguous, then you can save yourself having to post against me in the future. For if you provide them, I will not have a case any longer.

The only clear source I - imprefect that I am - have managed to find is Walter Dew, who tells me that George Hutchinson was a man with the best of intentions and somebody Dew would never reflect on.

Therefore, I would also be thrilled to see other police sources clearly telling me that George Hutchinson was a man in whom the police did not believe, and discrediting the man himself.

I am waiting in great anticipation here, Ben. Who could it have been that said that George Hutchinson was ruled a bad witness by the police and discredited as such? Anderson? Monroe? Smith? Swanson? Who indeed?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Oh dear, Fisherman.

You wouldn’t be interfering in a discussion I’m having with someone else after cautioning me, in a very shrill fashion, to “stay away from my exchanges with other posters”, would you? Sounds like there might be a bit of hypocrisy at work here.

That’s the first problem. The second is that you’ve constructed a very bad and vary transparent straw man argument. Here’s what I said:

“it is clear from later police sources that Hutchinson’s account was discredited.”

I didn’t touch upon the issue of why this occurred, as this was clarified by the Echo. I simply observed that later police sources make it clear that Hutchinson’s account was discredited, thus bolstering the claims made in the Star and Echo. The sources themselves have been provided on several occasions, and despite your professed bemusement, I suspect that you know precisely what I’m talking about.

Robert Anderson was on record as stating that the only person to have acquired a good look at the Whitechapel murderer was Jewish, and since none of the Jewish witness alleged anywhere near as good a look as Hutchinson, the implications are obvious. Donald Swanson offered no dissenting view to this. The Jewish witness concerned was probably Joseph Lawende, who was used in subsequent police identity efforts. Hutchinson's absence in this regard is very conspicuous. It would have been essential to use Hutchinson in identity parades (etc) f they believed him, even if they suspected that the real ripper might have arrived on the scene post-Astrakhan, but they didn’t.

Melville Macnaghten stated that nobody saw the Whitechapel murderer unless it was the "City PC near Mitre Square". Obviously, he was subconsciously amalgamating more than one sighting here, but none of them could have referred to Hutchinson since he wasn't a City witness, wasn't known to have been anywhere near Mitre Square, and wasn't a PC.

Then there's Abberline. In 1903, he stated that the witnesses had only acquired rear views of their suspects, and when presented with an opportunity to make a superficial comparison between surly-looking, dark-moustachioed Klosowski and surly-looking, dark-moustachioed, he instead drew attention to the headgear mentioned by other witnesses; presumably Lawende (again) and Schwartz.

Run along to this thread to read more on this if you’re interested, rather than engaging in, and demanding, further repetition:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2096

Meanwhile, here’s what you said:

“Who could it have been that said that George Hutchinson was ruled a bad witness by the police and discredited as such?”

Which, as you know full well, wasn’t what I said at all. You’re just picking yet another fight and trying to claim victory by refuting a statement I never made. I’m afraid that if there’s any more hypocrisy and antagonism, I will have to withdraw from that gentleman’s agreement we made on the other thread regarding what I will and will not post.

Best regards,
Ben

[Versa]

Even if (for the sake of argument) Hutchinson had his days muddled (which I just can't believe atm, it seems so very, very unlikely, possible but unlikely in the extreme) the police have a man that is admitting to standing around for almost an hour outside the victims rooms and his interest was in her.

His actions are suspect even if it had been 2 weeks earlier....

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Robert Anderson was on record as stating that the only person to have acquired a good look at the Whitechapel murderer was Jewish, and since none of the Jewish witness alleged anywhere near as good a look as Hutchinson, the implications are obvious."

Om my - and THIS is what you acept as a "clear" discrediting of Hutchinson by the police? That would predisose that aastrakhan man was the killer - and how would the police know that? Besides, if the rest of the police was of the same meaning as Dew, it becomes even less useful - if that is possible.

Nope - no deal. Not a WORD about Hutch here, and it´s anything but "clear".


"Donald Swanson offered no dissenting view to this."

Well, there we are, then! Uh ...???

"Melville Macnaghten stated that nobody saw the Whitechapel murderer unless it was the "City PC near Mitre Square""

Same problem - same usefulness (none) to bolster your view.

This is not any clear evidence that the police discredited Hutchinson as a witness. It is mumbo-jumbo - and only just.

"Sounds like there might be a bit of hypocrisy at work here."

Seen the word, have you?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Versa:

"Even if (for the sake of argument) Hutchinson had his days muddled (which I just can't believe atm, it seems so very, very unlikely, possible but unlikely in the extreme) the police have a man that is admitting to standing around for almost an hour outside the victims rooms and his interest was in her.

His actions are suspect even if it had been 2 weeks earlier...."

Yes - if the police thought he was there on the murder night. If they did NOT - different story.

We got the different story. Conclusions?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

It’s extremely telling that despite my providing a link to the relevant thread, where most of your recent questions were fully addressed, you insist on creating a nuisance about it here. I guess some people are just anxious for a scrap at any cost.

“That would predisose that aastrakhan man was the killer - and how would the police know that?”

It doesn’t “predisose” (sic) any such thing, as you would have discovered had you read my post properly:

“It would have been essential to use Hutchinson in identity parades (etc) if they believed him, even if they suspected that the real ripper might have arrived on the scene post-Astrakhan, but they didn’t.”

You call it “mumbo-jumbo” if you want, but back to that thread you must go if you have any more questions on that particular topic.

[Hunter]

Since I'm not inclined to filibuster an opinion 'ad nauseum' I will just state that the source for this discrediting has its own issues. As far as 'The Echo' is concerned, I posted a later article by them on these boards that gives no credence for Hutchinson being discredited. There is another article found by Howard Brown that suggest that Hutchinson's description matched a man seen by others.

Some press statements claimed that the police were dissatisfied that Hutchinson's description was put into the papers, believing that the individual in question would 'go to ground' once he knew someone had seen him. That makes sense. Rather than being discredited, Hutchinson's statement became less valuable because the element of surprise was eliminated.

Its funny that they appeared to concentrate on Jewish suspects after the Kelly murder, with one press report remarking that Joseph Isaacs resembled in description the man seen by Hutchinson and another than he often changed his attire. Isaacs was picked up in December. And Henry Cox was certainly talking about a Jewish suspect.

That certain officials did not mention Hutchinson in later years means little. In time, if nothing eventually comes comes from a witness description, police seek other avenues to find a suspect - such as tracking perceived lunatics.

I recall one man reporting to a constable an individual that resembled the Blotchy faced character only to be told that they were looking for someone of another description, which at that time was the man reported by Hutchinson.

Hutchison was not discredited; he just faded into obscurity like most witnesses.

[Ben]

The Echo were perfectly consistent with regard to the discrediting of Hutchinson throughout their reporting of the affair, and at no stage did they so much as hint that they gave “no credence for Hutchinson being discredited”. They observed that the account had suffered a serious diminution importance on account of its author’s failure to appear at the inquest “under oath”, and this is inextricably linked to the question of credibility. Why else would they make reference to the “under oath” detail? Evidently, the discrediting of Hutchinson had nothing to do with any fear that the ripper would go into hiding on account of the press disclosures, but rather pertained to the question of Hutchinson’s honesty.

There is no evidence that the police concentrated on Jewish suspects in the wake of the Kelly murder. Joseph Isaacs attracted the attention of the police for reasons that had nothing whatsoever to do with his appearance. The alleged Astrakhan similarity was reported by some elements of the press only, and given Isaacs’s evidently impoverished circumstances as a cigar-maker of “no fixed abode”, there cannot have been any real resemblance.

It is not true to state that the lack of police references to Hutchinson’s account is only indicative of a failure of that account to produce any tangible results. The same may be said of Joseph Lawende, whose description was considerably less detailed than Hutchinson, and who was nonetheless used in later attempts to identify suspects.

Hutchinson was most assuredly discredited.

The statements of the police officials above referred to and the press claims that originated from direct communication with police sources ought to out this beyond reasonable doubt.

[Wickerman]

I can assure you, Jon, that these have been provided on numerous occasions. I realize that both repetition and a demand for further repetition seem to be the order of the day with these latest Hutchinson threads, but I would strongly encourage a perusal through the Hutchinson thread archives. If you're still dissatisfied after that, I suppose I'll have to do another keyword search followed by a copy-and-paste.

Cheers,
Ben

Ben.
I did put together a brief response last night, then I cancelled it, I thought, "why am I wasting my time!".
I already know nothing exists, all I will be doing is looking up "Ben's opinion".

Well, I was not disappointed Ben, all you have to fall back on is the well debated, notoriously unreliable memoirs written years/decades after the fact.

Robert "only thought he knew" Anderson,
Melville "I have little doubt" Macnaghten, and
Frederick "we were lost in theories" Abberline, all had their own pet suspects, theories & beliefs. Certainly not impartial views, but good enough for Ben!

Thankyou for being brave enough to show your hand Ben, at least we know the substance behind the insistance, on this topic at least.

All the best, Jon S.