Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

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.

I guess the central bullet point of your post would be: don't listen to anything the senior police officials said in their later memoirs and interviews, and certainly don't form any opinions from them. I suppose that's Kosminski, Druitt and Klosowski exonerated then, according to your reasoning? It's interesting to note that you don't tend to make these particular views known on the many threads that are devoted to the subject of police memoirs.

Regards,
Ben

[Sally]

Whether you think Hutchinson was discredited or not, I think the following is pertinent to the question:-

..the police at first believed they had - to again quote the journalist - "at length been placed in possession of facts which would open up a new line of investigation, and probably enable them to track the criminal." The importance which they then attached to it has since suffered diminution.

The Echo, 13th November 1888

This was before Hutchinson's press statement had been published; and the day after Hutchinson had given his statement. Presumably the Echo had inside information which enabled the paper to print this with authority so soon after Hutchinson's initial statement to the police. For this reason, I think the report deserves to be accorded some weight.

The report in the Echo tells us that the police had changed their minds - and quickly. There could have been several reasons for it, yes, but there it is.

Whether you think it means that Hutchinson was discredited appears to me to come down to personal opinion. I think there can be little doubt that his story was, however.

And that being so; the police might have considered him a time-waster - there were many, many of those coming through their doors; or simply mistaken (although not, I think, as to the day).

Either way, I suspect they had far too much to worry about to pursue it further.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"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."

You will go to any lengths, will you not, to try and paint me out as the villain of the piece? All of them accusations about me creating a nuisance, being heartless, being "unpopular". I don´t know how you find the motivation to do this, Ben, but you apparently do not give a rat´s behind about the factualities of the case. Whenever they don´t fit with your thinking, you try to discredit the ones who present them.

I am convinced, though, that people see through this. This time, for instance, people will immediately realize that what you claimed was "clear" evidence that the police had at some stage discredited George Hutchinson, was in fact never there. Not a single one of the policemen you refer to ever mentions George Hutchinson at all. And if we are to speak of a clear discrediting, then we are going to need somebody who says "George Hutchinson was a witness who was proven to be lying to the police", "George Hutchinson was an untruthful witness" or something like that. Such things are clear and totally unambiguous. Telling us that Donald Swanson never went on record disclaiming Robert Anderson´s rather controversial and much debated statement that only person to have acquired a good look at the Whitechapel murderer was Jewish, is not exactly very clear evidence in that respect, is it?

If we take into account the only assessment of George Hutchinson we DO have, Walter Dews assertion that he was a man with the best of intentions, we are also faced with the very obvious possibility that Hutchinson´s testimony was dropped because it did not tally with the murder day, and we - well, not you, Ben, of course, but the ones with a free mind and open mindset - also realize that there is every chance that Hutchinson himself may have been totally in the clear in Anderson´s mind as he wrote that sentence.

Therefore, we can safely deduct that there can not be any certainty at all attached to your assertion that the police sources reveal George Hutchinson as a man discredited. Not generally and least of all specifically. One policeman and one policeman only, Walter Dew, had something specific to say about George Hutchinson´s testimony, and what he said leaves us in no doubt whatsoever - it is thus TRULY "clear"! - about his view on Hutchinson; an honest man with the best of intentions.
If we want to go from there to SPECULATING (which is very UNclear) that Dew would not have been told by the rest of the police corps that Hutchinson was a rotten apple, and that he was willing to go public in his memoirs with an assertion for which he had no ground at all but senile ramblings, then by all means - it´s a free world.

But even in the freest of worlds, nothing remains nothing. And that´s what your evidence quite obviously amounts to. Thanks for telling us about it and clearing that particular bit up!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Fisherman,

I’m not trying to paint you as the “villain” of the piece, but rather the individual who seems very insistent on gainsaying Ben wherever an opportunity presents itself, and continually ignores polite requests to take his “concerns” to the relevant topics…of the piece. Once again, we have a situation wherein a new poster wishes to discuss a particular aspect of the case, and once again, purely at your instigation, you’ve mutated the thread into a bicker-fest between the two of us.

So much for keeping discussions with me to a minimum out of “sheer sanity”. I even resisted the temptation to point out that you are once again repeating your “wrong night” party-piece unsolicited, in accordance with your recent request. You were not to extend me the same courtesy, however, when you butted into a discussion I was having with someone else, despite demanding ME to stay away from YOUR communications with others.

“And if we are to speak of a clear discrediting, then we are going to need somebody who says "George Hutchinson was a witness who was proven to be lying to the police"…”

No we're not.

This would imply that there is no such thing as a “clear” inference, which is obviously nonsense. The clear inference in this case is that Hutchinson’s account was discredited. This would explain his conspicuous absence from later police memoirs and the preference for one of the Jewish witnesses (none of whom got any where near as good a description as the one Hutchinson alleged) in later attempts to identify suspects. I have no idea where you're going with your Swanson observations, but it seems you would do well to read the marginalia discussed on other threads. Once you’ve discovered that it did not say: “If only Sir Robert had the sense to use star witness Hutchinson, this mess would never have happened”, you’d better understand what I'm talking about.

In addition, of course, we know that the police in 1888 discredited Hutchinson’s account, in part, because of the late arrival of his evidence and his failure to attend the inquest “under oath”. This detail was garnered though direct communication with the police.

I reject the 1938 speculations of Walter Dew with regard to Hutchinson, and considering your previous assertions that his book is “riddled with mistakes” and "got lots of things terribly wrong”, I imagine you’d agree. Oh no, wait, that was before you formulated your “wrong night” theory, which benefits only from nice things being said about Dew. Seems rather inconsistent and theory-driven to me. It is no surprise, of course, that nobody has sought to revive this idea until you revived it a few months ago, despite these memoirs having been available for decades. It seems awfully bold of you, therefore, to keep championing it incessantly as the best solution whilst making derisive comments about alternative theories that receive far greater support.

“If we want to go from there to SPECULATING (which is very UNclear) that Dew would not have been told by the rest of the police corps that Hutchinson was a rotten apple”

It doesn’t surprise me that you’re NOW suggesting that if the police seniority considered Hutchinson to have been a “rotten apple”, they would have told Walter Dew about. But let’s have a look at what you used to say on this subject, before you decided on your "wrong night" theory:

“back in 1888, Dew was still a bit of a freshman. He was 25 years old, and not in a commanding position. Therefore, we cannot conclude to which extent he knew about the discussions carried on at a higher level.”

I think I’ll go with this explanation.

“But even in the freest of worlds, nothing remains nothing. And thats what your evidence quite obviously amounts to.”

Well you think what you like, as long as this annoying little distraction and the alienation of other posters (which happened at your instigation) is at an end. If not, I’m afraid it looks like another “last man standing” job.

All the best,
Ben

[Versa]

Versa:

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?

But if that night was just a day out (for arguments sake) then he was still acting suspiciously outside a 'soon to be murder victim's apartment/room' couldn't that be construed as 'staking her out' as a possible victim?

Conclusions?

That he was acting in a suspicious manner outside a murder victims room...

Are you telling me that if I was murdered and someone came forward to admit they'd been hanging around outside my window that night for close to an hour for no really good reason, and then revised that to the night prior to the murder (due to some memory impairment) that those actions would in no way be considered suspicious? No the police would look into it and ponder the possibility that this person was a stalker that might of returned the next night....

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
I guess the central bullet point of your post would be: don't listen to anything the senior police officials said in their later memoirs and interviews, and certainly don't form any opinions from them.

Hi Ben.
You are well within your rights to believe every recollection they put in writing, thats your choice. I was just appreciating that you specifically referenced them instead of leaving your claims unreferenced.

It's not like I have never been involved in those threads, but not for many years. And, as nothing has changed in their memoirs I don't see the point of speculating on whether they could remember the details they claimed to have remembered. Then there's the obvious errors on simple details that they struggle to get right.
We have chewed over the specifics of the memorandum & Andersons memoirs, Major Smith is another one. The end result is that they can be an unreliable source for specifics on the Ripper investigation.

Are you aware that there is a tradition in the police dept, and CID, that telling tales out of school is considered bad form. Don't expect any detailed truths, just enough to titilate the masses.

I suppose that's Kosminski, Druitt and Klosowski exonerated then, according to your reasoning?

Just names Ben,... in a cast of thousands.

Who knows, maybe Macnaghten DID know something Anderson didn't, afterall, Druitt does seem to have a "pale complexion", "small moustache', "dark eyes" !
Do you think Druitt was from the same social class as Artrachan/Bethnal Green man?

It's interesting to note that you don't tend to make these particular views known on the many threads that are devoted to the subject of police memoirs.

It's not like I never have Ben, and repetition on a source that has not changed in 100 years can get a little tedious.
If anyone wishes to take a shot, they know where I am, and I'm not going anywhere soon...

Best Wishes, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I’m not trying to paint you as the “villain” of the piece, but rather the individual who seems very insistent on gainsaying Ben"

"Ben" is of no interest to me. I do not harbour any fascination at all about you, much as you seem to hope this. What I dislike is your views and the way you promote them. I even more dislike the way you call other people´s views, mostly mine, "nauseating" and "obscenities towards human thinking". It is very bad manners and a deeply disturbing trait of yours.

"you butted into a discussion I was having with someone else, despite demanding ME to stay away from YOUR communications with others."

Failed to listen again, did you? What you did, my fine friend, was to "advice" me not to declare my views, and THAT I disallow. If you want to concur with somebody else who speaks about my views, fine, then do so. But you do not get to exert any influence at all over what I choose to post.
I have so far stayed away from doing the same to you, although God knows I could have pointed to how "unpopular" your Hutch views are generally, just as I could have pointed to the thousands of times you have said the same thing on these boards and reminded you that it is totally unneccesary to do so every day in the week.

But I don´t do these things, do I? You do, on the other hand. You have no qualms at all about trying to manipulate such things. Stay a long way from that, Ben, if you wish to see the same courtesy extended to you. So far, I have spoilt you in this respect. Don´t count on it in the future, though.

"This would imply that there is no such thing as a “clear” inference, which is obviously nonsense. "

But you never spoke of any clear inference, did you? And little would it have helped, since there is no clear inference pointing to the police having regarded Hutch as a rotten apple. There is only a wish on your behalf and arguments so far-fetched that they would speak Australian English if they could talk. As it stands, though, the longer they shut up, the better for you.

"I reject the 1938 speculations of Walter Dew"

But of course - how ELSE should we treat a police witness that is totally unambiguos, but sadly goes against your convictions? Out he goes, silly bugger! Let´s listen to what Swanson never said instead!

"It doesn’t surprise me that you’re NOW suggesting that if the police seniority considered Hutchinson to have been a “rotten apple”, they would have told Walter Dew about. But let’s have a look at what you used to say on this subject, before you decided on your "wrong night" theory:

“back in 1888, Dew was still a bit of a freshman. He was 25 years old, and not in a commanding position. Therefore, we cannot conclude to which extent he knew about the discussions carried on at a higher level.”
I think I’ll go with this explanation."

That´s a useful stance - Dew probably was not let in on the more important decisions at a higher level. But if you think that the police would decide on Hutch being a liar, only to then keep that information only at senior level, then you are conducting a line of thinking that is kind of laughable. Why would the police rule out winesses at top level - and not tell the lower levels about it, leaving them to stay in wrongful beliefs? Kind of hard to explain, is it not?

"If not, I’m afraid it looks like another “last man standing” job."

That´s the sort of thing only a painfully ignorant person would propose. If you had been correct in this, you would always be the one who is right - for who can shut you up or make you say "I was wrong"?

"Last man standing", huh? Grow up ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Versa:

"Are you telling me that if I was murdered and someone came forward to admit they'd been hanging around outside my window that night for close to an hour for no really good reason, and then revised that to the night prior to the murder (due to some memory impairment) that those actions would in no way be considered suspicious?"

Nope. But I AM telling you that if the police found out that this "someone" had not been there on the night in question, he would NOT be suspected.

The best,
Fisherman

[Varqm]

So the evidence against Hutchinson is because some serial killers inject themselves into police investigations. Wow. I'm convinced.

[Wickerman]

So the evidence against Hutchinson is because some serial killers inject themselves into police investigations. Wow. I'm convinced.

I wouldn't legitimise it by calling the accusations 'evidence', no evidence exists, the whole idea is a fabrication. Against Barnett, was a fabrication, against McCarthy was a fabrication. Sadly it seems like George Cross has just been added to the list...

Regards, Jon S.

[Colin Roberts]

George Cross

What year is this?

..., the whole idea is a fabrication. Against Barnett, was a fabrication, against McCarthy was a fabrication. Sadly it seems like George Cross has just been added to the list...

What, precisely, amongst the questions that have been raised, regarding 'George Cross', has been fabricated?

[SarahLee]

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) ...

I'm not sure why there's so much resistance to the idea that the days were muddled. (Sorry to specifically pick your quote Versa, but it was the first one I came across as I was picking through the thread)
It's not the only plausible scenario, but to me it certainly is plausible. And it’s not just simple flawed memory that could have led him to become mixed up – the timing of his encounter and/or her death could easily be a contributing factor to confusion.

It’s not unusual for people to refer to the period of time after midnight but before they go to bed as still being the previous day. And how often have you been woken by a noise in the early hours of the morning then later complained “I had a terrible night’s sleep Friday night because xyz woke me up”? In fact what you mean is that you were disturbed in the early hours of Saturday morning and not Friday night at all.

There’s little doubt that Mary’s murder was the topic for local gossip on the Friday morning and in the days that followed . . . and I’d speculate that this was where Hutchinson first got to hear of it. I’d further speculate that some people were talking about what she had been up to on the Thursday night, including the hours after midnight which of course were technically Friday morning.

So assuming that he was truthful but a day out, then it follows that he went to Romford on Wednesday and encountered Mary in the early hours of Thursday morning. I can just imagine people saying things such as “She was on a right old bender Thursday – I heard that she was singing her lungs out at 1 o’clock just hours before she was killed” And from that, it’s not much of a stretch for him to have put this together with his real encounter at 2:00 on Thursday morning and assumed that he had seen her an hour after the singing and not too long before her death.

But what about his statement specifically stating the 9th?

Now I imagine that the day of the week had some significant importance to the lower classes in the LVP – it would signify the day that rent was due or market day etc. And even people who were living hand to mouth, day to day probably knew what day it was. However, I propose that the actual date had much less meaning to them . . . in fact, I have to confess to needing to consult a calendar now and then to remind myself what date it is!!!

As with all official statements, Hutchinson’s starts with “on 9th. . .” not a specific day. I seriously doubt that these were his own words, just the standard convention. Having gone to the police to give a statement that he had seen her on the morning she was killed and being confident in his conviction, it's likely that they filled in the date for him . . . and he wasn’t sure enough of it to register it as a discrepancy.

I should point out that the muddled days isn't a theory that I'm particularly attached to, but as I discovered in "the memory test thread" it's easily done. And it's certainly more plausible to me than the notion that he deliberately inserted himself into the case to mock the authorities or out of an unconscious desire to be caught . . . the events after MJK's death simply don't lend credibility to this.

Of course, he could have been telling the complete, accurate truth (certainly plausible, but improbable if we accept that the police had good, solid grounds to dismiss his statement) or he could have completely fabricated the whole thing (less likely to my mind as I tend to think that the police would have become very adept at spotting simple attention seekers)

Anyway I've waffled on enough already without boring you all any more with my thoughts

[Versa]

I'm not sure why there's so much resistance to the idea that the days were muddled. (Sorry to specifically pick your quote Versa, but it was the first one I came across as I was picking through the thread)

lol thats ok, I'm not adverse to changing my mind on this matter if there is good evidence to do so

the notion that he deliberately inserted himself into the case to mock the authorities or out of an unconscious desire to be caught . . . the events after MJK's death simply don't lend credibility to this.

the point I was trying to make in this thread was not that he intentionally inserted himself into the case (he might of been trying to cover his back after thinking he'd been seen) but that his actions in hanging about a courtyard for 45 mins in the wee hours was suspicious and even if he had muddled up the dates he was still acting in a very strange manner the day before and that to me would be worth investigating....

[Rubyretro]

versa -go see the thread on the 'Hairdresser' ..

[Versa]

versa -go see the thread on the 'Hairdresser' ..

Just there