Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Garry Wroe]

Hutchinson's intentions towards Kelly's well-dressed client may not have been entirely honorable, but that does not make him her murderer.

Perhaps, Jon. But if the Astrakhan story was pure fabrication Hutchinson didn't see Kelly with a 'well-dressed client'.

[Wickerman]

Perhaps, Jon. But if the Astrakhan story was pure fabrication Hutchinson didn't see Kelly with a 'well-dressed client'.

And Garry, it is a mistake to put too much reliance on an IF, because quite plainly any hypothesis built on this IF is negated by the counter IF, - that being, "..if the Astrachan story was true...".

[Ben]

People had lives to live and criminal activity quite unrelated to Kelly's murder continued unabated

I realise that, Jon, but of all the crimes that could have been committed that night, and which Hutchinson could have had some non-murderous connection with, the likelihood remains that he was seen loitering outside one particular crime scene that played out that night - the murder of Mary Jane Kelly. So why insist that if he was involved in some sort of crime that night, it can't possibly be the crime he was visually connected to by another witness?

[Wickerman]

I realise that, Jon, but of all the crimes that could have been committed that night, and which Hutchinson could have had some non-murderous connection with, the likelihood remains that he was seen loitering outside one particular crime scene that played out that night - the murder of Mary Jane Kelly. So why insist that if he was involved in some sort of crime that night, it can't possibly be the crime he was visually connected to by another witness?

I don't recall insisting on any alternative, neither do I recall suggesting he couldn't be involved.
It is the arguments which are contrived to suggest he was involved that I take issue with.

Hutchinson 'may' have been involved, equally McCarthy, Bowyer & Barnett all 'may' have been involved.

Ben, if Hutchinson could have been involved, because he lied, then show us what he lied about!
If Hutchinson could have been involved because he was not where he said he was, then show us where he was!

So we have this man Hutchinson:
- Who 'may' have used a false name.
- Who 'may' have told lies to police about the appearance of a suspect.
- Who 'may' not have spent the night where he said he did.
- Who 'may' have invented an excuse for not coming forward at the Inquest.

No doubt we could extend the list, but at the end of the day what do we have?
Just an endless pile of questions, nothing established, nothing so vulgar as a 'fact' to support any of this.

Which begs the question, why would anybody choose to defend an endless list of 'may-be's' ?

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Ben, if Hutchinson could have been involved, because he lied, then show us what he lied about!
If Hutchinson could have been involved because he was not where he said he was, then show us where he was!

But that is completely unreasonable. You're effectively saying that nobody should be permitted to theorize unless they've proven their theories correct first. I'm afraid that's some decidedly topsy-turvy logic at work here. Another major misunderstanding is that I'm going out of way to make a "case" for Hutchinson's involvement. I'm not. But when the baby is thrown out with the bathwater, and a reasonable and compelling suspect cast aside due to faulty reasoning, I tend to get involved.

It can be demonstrated very persuasively that Hutchinson was almost certainly loitering opposite the crime scene shortly before Mary Kelly's death, and that he almost certainly lied about his reasons for being there after he learned he'd been spotted. If can be further stated that if he was the killer, his behaviour would not be remotely inconsistent with that of his modern-day successors. Frankly, you're not likely to do much better as far as suspects go. There will always be an element of speculation with regard to potential suspects, and yet the vast majority require far more speculative leaps to put them in the frame, including their very presence in the east end of London, for which little or no evidence exists in many cases.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
But that is completely unreasonable. You're effectively saying that nobody should be permitted to theorize unless they've proven their theories correct first.

Hi Ben.
Thats ok, I understand your objection. I'm not criticizing a theory. But, as you must know a true theory is an assembly of facts, there can be more than one way to assemble those facts, but a true theory is only made up of factual information. If the theory includes even one speculation, then it is not a theory, it is an hypothesis.

Perhaps this is the root cause of our differences, I am always trying to pin you down to factual details (those details that make up your theory), but what I mostly get from you is conjecture or opinion, but not facts.
So in truth, you don't have a theory.

It can be demonstrated very persuasively that Hutchinson was almost certainly loitering opposite the crime scene shortly before Mary Kelly's death,

Agreed.

... and that he almost certainly lied about his reasons for being there after he learned he'd been spotted.

Ouch!, thats the bit that hurts. ("almost certainly").
If you said "may possibly have", instead of "almost certainly" I can't see anyone making a reasonable objection. This to my mind is nearer the truth because you know as well as I do that we have no solid indication that he lied about anything.
We (you) have conjecture, nothing more.

If can be further stated that if he was the killer, his behaviour would not be remotely inconsistent with that of his modern-day successors.

That is also an arguable point, some maybe yes, some maybe no.

Frankly, you're not likely to do much better as far as suspects go. There will always be an element of speculation with regard to potential suspects, and yet the vast majority require far more speculative leaps to put them in the frame, including their very presence in the east end of London, for which little or no evidence exists in many cases.

Oh, I'm with you there, there are some theories(?), requiring leaps of faith that will take you to the Moon and back.
I don't say Hutchinson is not a viable suspect, but beyond accepting that he was there at that time, and there apparently was a couple in sight of both him and Lewis, at the same time. Largely suggests that the core of his story checks out.
So, we speculate about what happened next with precious little by way of facts to go on.

[Ben]

But, as you must know a true theory is an assembly of facts

Not really, Jon. No.

A theory is an idea formulated from those facts, and from the admittedly small "assembly" of facts we have about Hutchinson, I have drawn certain tentative conclusions. I won't say I've arrived at a "theory", since that implies that I've committed myself to a particular version of events while discarding alternative possibilities, which I haven't done. Where we disagree is over what constitutes a fact in the first place. Hutchinson was discredited by the police at the time, and I'm insistent on that as a fact, because I know it is, and because I regard it as impossible to interpret the evidence any other way.

I'd respectfully submit that itt's an exercise in time-wasting for you to keep calling me out on that, unless you're interested in a war of repetition and stamina. You'll just have accept and put up with the fact that those are my views on the issue. I'm not going to fold, I'm not going to use more moderate language (because it wouldn't be appropriate) and I'm not going to be any less insistent on describing facts as such if I can clearly see that's what they are.

That is also an arguable point, some maybe yes, some maybe no.

I'm afraid only people with little or no knowledge of other serial cases would say "maybe no", so I'd wholly dispute that it's an "arguable point".

I don't say Hutchinson is not a viable suspect, but beyond accepting that he was there at that time, and there apparently was a couple in sight of both him and Lewis, at the same time. Largely suggests that the core of his story checks out.

The only aspect of his story that could potentially be regarded as having "checked out" is his whereabouts for a brief moment at around 2:30am on 9th November.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Not really, Jon. No.

A theory is an idea formulated from those facts, .....

Think of it like a dot-to-dot drawing. Each dot is a fact, although some of the dots can be viewed in a different sequence, producing different theories, but these are all genuine theories because they came from a sequence of facts.
I hope that helps.

Hutchinson was discredited by the police at the time, and I'm insistent on that as a fact, because I know it is, and because I regard it as impossible to interpret the evidence any other way.

And it is this claim by you which has caused concern. You must recall that more members than myself have tried to explain to you that no such fact/proof exists. It is merely your preferred interpretation of circumstantial evidence.

I am also aware that a couple of others have tried to make the same claim, but where found, in each case, I have challenged that member to produce this 'fact' or 'proof', not one member has ever responded to that challenge.
On the other hand, you yourself do claim to have provided 'proof', but in each case what you present is circumstantial evidence.

I'd respectfully submit that itt's an exercise in time-wasting for you to keep calling me out on that, unless you're interested in a war of repetition and stamina.

Lack of stamina, has never been a problem at my end

[Ben]

Think of it like a dot-to-dot drawing. Each dot is a fact, although some of the dots can be viewed in a different sequence, producing different theories, but these are all genuine theories because they came from a sequence of facts.
I hope that helps.

Uniquely fascinating, Jon, but with respect, you ought really to be helping yourself. If you think that "theories" only result from placing facts (or joining the dots!) in a different sequence (?!?) then I'm afraid someone must have given you the wrong idea. It's the inferences made from these facts that result in the formation of a theory, and my study of other serial cases gives me considerably more "dots" to work with. Where we differ is over what constitutes a fact in the first place, and the cleverest course of action for you at this juncture is to recognise that neither of us is budging, and to agree to disagree.

You must recall that more members than myself have tried to explain to you that no such fact/proof exists.

And you must recall that more members than myself have tried to explain to you that your Isaacstrakhan theory is dreadfully week.

Big whoop.

We all get disagreed with at times, but since my views get more adherents than yours, it's only going to reflect poorly on you to keep delving into the archives and finding instances of my points being challenged. And I see no evidence that you've presented "challenges" to other like-minded members that have been ignored. Not all of them are intent of pursing heavily repetitive exchanges, and have lives to live outside of the message board, so I really wouldn't misconstrue a lack of response as an admission of defeat.

Lack of stamina, has never been a problem at my end

It will be if you think you're going to win a repetition war against me. By all means try.

Not really the crowning virtue of an effective debater, though, is it?

[Wickerman]

Uniquely fascinating, Jon, but with respect, you ought really to be helping yourself. If you think that "theories" only result from placing facts (or joining the dots!) in a different sequence (?!?) then I'm afraid someone must have given you the wrong idea.

It isn't "what I think", Ben.
Back in the late 1990's, when the most dominant thread on Casebook was the Maybrick Diary, one of the then members tried to explain to those 'Diary' adherents just how to distinguish between an hypothesis & a theory.
This member knew precisely what they were talking about because they worked for NASA.
I have just shared part of her 'teaching' with you, so regardless how you choose to object, the method is sound scientific reasoning, tried, tested and true.

And you must recall that more members than myself have tried to explain to you that your Isaacstrakhan theory is dreadfully week.

Yes, it is weak, and it will likely remain weak due to no witness statement surviving from Joseph Isaacs. I have never suggested it was strong, have I!
What I have said is that to-date, there is no better candidate.

.... but since my views get more adherents than yours, ...

ROFL
I'm sorry Ben, I'll leave that last word from you

[Ben]

I have just shared part of her 'teaching' with you, so regardless how you choose to object, the method is sound scientific reasoning, tried, tested and true.

Yes, I think you may have slightly misunderstood what she was getting at, but no matter.

What I have said is that to-date, there is no better candidate.

Which, unfortunately, isn't true.

Isaacs was conclusively ruled out as "Astrakhan man", in contrast to the potentially millions of men who were never investigated as such.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Yes, I think you may have slightly misunderstood what she was getting at, but no matter.

We discussed the concept in detail, we were friends at the time.

Isaacs was conclusively ruled out as "Astrakhan man"...

What you mean is, Astrachan was ruled out as a suspect, in December.

[Wickerman]

We all get disagreed with at times, but since my views get more adherents than yours,....

Ok, just for arguments sake, lets say we take this serious and put this to the test once and for all.

Since the central pillar of your claim against Hutchinson is that he was discredited (I have proof, it is a fact, etc.), yet after numerous requests from myself and others you have failed miserably to provided this 'proof', then perhaps your followers can be relied upon to do what you are unable to do?

If the Shepherd is not up to the task, then the duty should fall to the 'flock'.
So, who among the flock of adherents who soak up your every word are prepared to step up and bail you out?


And, the second task, to prove that the Lloyds article is not an error and was the result of factual research, ie; that a legitimate record of his imprisonment on Nov. 9th does exist.

Can we hand the task to anyone in your flock on your behalf?, as it is apparent that your claims are insufficient to settle the issue.

So, lets see who steps up and who chooses to be seen to support you in these very central claims of yours.

[Ben]

Ok, just for arguments sake, lets say we take this serious (sic) and put this to the test once and for all.

Ok, just for arguments sake, let's just be preposterous for a moment and pretend that everyone on Casebook is as fascinated with monitoring the "progress" of Jon's petty squabbles with Ben as Jon is.

On second thoughts, let's not.

Nobody gives a monkeys, Jon.

Face it.

Everybody's got better things to do.

I don't value your opinion that I haven't provided proof that Hutchinson was discredited, and I laugh loudly and heartily at your poor attempts to recruit the participation of the bigger boys by pointing out that I've been disagreed with on occasion. We have all had our views challenged, especially you, with your controversial theories involving Isaacs, Kennedy and the Daily News that get practically no support whatsoever in comparison to the far more popular contention that Hutchinson lied.

If you ask me where the proof is, I will post what I consider the proof to be, and if you argue the point, I will argue straight back at you, and around and around we will go in entertaining circles.

You make disparaging references to my supposed "flock", just as you insult and belittle anyone that happens to agree with me, but they are unlikely to covet good your opinion of their contributions any more than I value your judgment as to what I've proved and not proved. But your pathetic "Come here at my behest and state your agreement with Ben, and let my ego my salvaged intact, because then I can claim victory over him!" is likely to be treated with the contempt and derision it richly deserves.

You should rise above this things, seriously.

Don't empower me to the extent you're doing at the moment.

[caz]

Alibis I've already dealt with - he clearly didn't have one for the Kelly murder, and he could easily have bluffed his way out of the others by claiming he was asleep in the extremely busy Victoria Home on those nights (i.e. just like every other night). Even in the exceptionally unlikely event that the police did suspect Hutchinson, they had no means of shoring up those suspicions beyond staking him out and hoping to catch him in the act...

Hi Ben,

I think you just rubbished your whole argument for Hutch coming forward in the first place if he had killed anyone. You seem fairly insistent, and consistent, when you say the police had no means of doing anything about it, even if they had found Hutch's late appearance, changing accounts and description of Astrakhan Man as suspicious and risible as you do. But the same would have applied if Hutch had not come forward, and had the bad luck to be found and questioned as a direct result of Lewis's sighting - an exceptionally unlikely event in itself. There was either evidence that could have incriminated him or there wasn't. Being a witness or a suspect wouldn't have changed that. Merely failing to come forward to clear himself (as in Blotchy's case) would not have amounted to evidence of his involvement, any more than doing so automatically put him above suspicion.

When a witness comes forward late, after someone has put him near a crime scene (however vaguely), it is for the purpose of clearing himself. The police would have had plenty of experience with witnesses doing just that, even if they saw no connection in this instance between Lewis's loiterer and Hutch's delayed admission to loitering. Hutch would effectively be seeking to clear himself, by explaining what he was doing there. So it seems quite absurd to imagine that Abberline and co would not have seen his account in this context, but only in the black-and-white 'upright citizen wanting to do his duty and grass up Astrakhan Man' or 'time-wasting, attention-seeking liar'.

You can't use one zero-evidence piece of speculation (Hutchinson being suspected) to bolster an equally zero-evidence and untenable conclusion (that he was absolved of this zero-evidence suspicion).

That's just too funny, Ben. There is evidence that a teeny-tiny minority of serial killers have come forward, often when they believed they had been backed into a tight corner, less often just for the pure thrill of it when they had no need at all. But there is zero evidence for Hutch - or indeed the ripper - having been one of them from either category. It's pure speculation with very little merit. The ripper (just like your argument for him being a local man) is far more likely to be found among the vast majority of offenders who have kept as far away from the cops as possible.

You also shouldn't apply purely modern perspectives when deciding how "foolish" or "incompetent" the 1888 police must have been to overlook certain possibilities. The options they entertained will have been conditioned by prior knowledge and experience, and if that didn't involve the most wanted criminal in London's history wandering into the police station and talking "innocently" to detectives, they can hardly be blamed for not considering it as an option.

Well we know that several false witnesses wandered into police stations to confess to being this most wanted criminal, and they didn't pull the wool over anyone's eyes. The police didn't take them at face value, but still had to be satisfied they were all liars or innocent lunatics. They must also have experienced genuine confessions, from thieves, murderers, accomplices and all sorts, so they routinely had to distinguish between genuine witnesses and conmen. Rewards were only presumably offered to those who gave information about a crime, or criminal, that could be backed up by hard evidence. In order to sort out who should get such a reward, and who should be sent off with a flea in his ear, it would have been no good at all automatically trusting a witness merely because he had come to them voluntarily. Real criminals have always had a vested interest in framing someone else, and the police would have been well aware of it.

Love,

Caz
X