Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...".

[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]

There is nothing bizarre about avoiding the temptation to interpret every activity as related to a murder. People had lives to live and criminal activity quite unrelated to Kelly's murder continued unabated.

Let us not forget the post-office robbery in Mitre Sq. over the same night that Eddowes was murdered.

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

[Ben]

I keep encountering this bizarre reasoning that asserts that "Yes, I will acknowledge the possibility that Hutchinson may have had some dodgy reason for lying, but I will resist at all costs any consideration that he might have been the killer". There is evidence that he loitered opposite the crime scene, and that he lied about his reasons for doing so once he'd realised he'd been seen loitering. His statement was discredited because of doubts over his credibility, and yet the evidence of Sarah Lewis makes it almost certain that he was the man she saw. Yes, there's a good deal we still don't know, but these are nonetheless adequate grounds for legitimate suspicion for any modern investigator, and it's simply churlish to argue otherwise, especially when there are so many obviously weak "suspects" touted as such.

[Wickerman]

Hi Richard.

The three questions to ask are.
Was George Hutchinson telling the truth , exactly as he recalled, and done so with no intentions to mislead , and with no interior motive,?

With no reasonable indication to the contrary, this is pretty much the view I prefer to take.

Was George Hutchinson inventing an scenario, for reasons of financial gain , or being in the limelight, or was it because of fear?..if so in what context.

Some lame ulterior motive is always possible, this was the East End afterall, and the residents were hardly angels. But were any potential motives directly associated with the murder? - I think not.

Was George Hutchinson working as a pimp, or had intentions, to mug any punter that may have been a candidate for money...or indeed was he the killer of Mary Kelly, or even Jack?.

Potentially a mugger of this well-dressed client? - possibly.
Mary's killer, or even 'Jack' himself?, hardly likely, the least likely option on my list.

The negative criticism of Hutchinson all stem from incomplete knowledge of his actual movements and a misunderstanding of what he really claimed to have done & seen.

[Garry Wroe]

Thanks, Richard. Unfortunately, I see little or no evidence to support the contention that Toppy and the witness Hutchinson were one and the same. I wish it were otherwise, but there you go. Over the last ten years or so I've become increasingly convinced that the man who gave the Astrakhan statement did so under an assumed name. If so, the prospect of identifying him and piecing together his personal history is virtually nonexistent.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Gary.
I except what you are saying, but I personally have viewed it, as the person I have always believed George Hutchinson to be.
That is Topping ..
That being the case, I would suggest that his personality was not that of a homicidal maniac, although I have no wish to paint him as 'Mr Honest'.
It is entirely possible that he was after financial reward, I believe his son Reg, was not the type to turn down money, I believe when he quoted his father's account in the ''Ripper and the Royal's'', he was promised by the author if the book did well, he would compensate him.
Regards Richard,

[Garry Wroe]

But in truth the only bit that I find unlikely is that he was a killer.

The same was said of Sutcliffe, Richard. And Bundy. And Shipman. And Samples. The reality is that such men remain at liberty to commit their murders precisely because they don't look or behave like murderers.

This, of course, does not mean that Hutchinson must have been a killer. But the fact remains that he was almost certainly at a crime scene at a time critical to a murder, withheld what was crucially important information for three days, and when finally he did come forward detailed to investigators a demonstrably untrue sequence of events.