Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben.

Funnily enough, it was you who brought up the Echo articles that initiated the “Did Astrakhan Man exist” argument. It seems that because you’ve now picked up on its less than Hutch-friendly content, you’re no longer interested in “dwelling” on it.

On the contrary Ben, the Echo when taken in context, provides enough of the answers to stem one false claim, and we've touched on it several times. Let me try to gather it all together rather than pick on isolated points.

You have linked the issue of “diminution” to Hutchinson's credibility, yet the Echo, who both raise the issue and explain the issue make no such connection to his veracity or his credability.

So the Echo begins by explaining that:

“The police are embarrassed with two definite descriptions of the man suspected of the murder.”

(with referance to Hutchinson description)
“The importance which they then attached to it has since suffered diminution. That will be seen by the result of more recent inquiries.”

They then offer the contending description described by Cox, and conclude:

“This description, however, materially differs from the other given to the police.”

Subsequently, as I explained to Garry, according to the Echo the police then compared the leading suspect descriptions from the previous murders to the two latest descriptions they are dealing with (those of Cox & Hutch).
The City police gave an opinion as to the man they have been looking for, and, the Echo concludes:

“The City police have been making inquiries for this man for weeks past, but without success, and they do not believe that he is the individual described by Cox.”

What is important for our discussion is the conclusion reached by the Met. Police, that:

“The Metropolitan police, however, have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement.”

The Met. have been “induced”, either by orders from above, or by their review of the competing evidence to change the priorities of their inquiries.

However, the Echo do not agree with this change of direction by the Met, as they make clear:

“The descriptions of the dark foreign-looking man mentioned in connection with the previous crimes are, however, as we say, in the description of the man seen with the victim on the morning of the 9th.”

So the Echo support the initial direction of the search for Astrachan.

With all this in mind I think it is necessary to quote the subsequent paragraph in full which explains why the Met changed the focus of their inquiries, and it has nothing to do with Hutchinson lying, or his late appearance with the police, nor the reluctance of the police to reveal the reason for his '3-day' delay.

Quote:
“From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before? As many as fifty-three persons have, in all, made statements as to "suspicious men," each of whom was thought to be Mary Janet Kelly's assassin. The most remarkable thing in regard to the latest statement is, that no one else can be found to say that a man of that description given was seen with the deceased, while, of course, there is the direct testimony of the witnesses at the inquest, that the person seen with the deceased at midnight was of quite a different appearance.”

Your point about the line which begins, “Why, ask the authorities, .....” can be readily seen as another example of artistic license, unless you truly believe the Echo were present when Hutchinson was being asked, or that you believe the authorities actually asked the Echo what they thought?

If you naturally accept that neither of these scenario's took place then you will conclude that this is just artistic license to raise a question to which the Echo and their readers had no solution, simply because the police were not divulging what they knew to the press.

The actual explanation for a change in direction by the Met. is given at the end of the paragraph, to repeat:

“The most remarkable thing in regard to the latest statement is, that no one else can be found to say that a man of that description given was seen with the deceased, while, of course, there is the direct testimony of the witnesses at the inquest, that the person seen with the deceased at midnight was of quite a different appearance.”

That no-one else described the man Hutchinson saw to the same degree of detail, and that sworn testimony did exist in support of the man described by Cox.

Therefore the reason for the “discounting” (of reduced importance) stated in the next days edition (14th) is clearly understood, to which the Echo felt obliged to add:

“There is not, so it is declared, the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinson's veracity" (his truthfulness).

Nothing here supports your contention that Hutchinson lied to anyone, the police were compelled to put their support behind the sworn testimony, that is directly evident.
Neither does this support him being discredited. The police had to give precidence to sworn testimony, but they still did not discard the “gentleman-suspect” theory as subsequent news reports indicate.

I've tried to encapsulate the whole argument as I see it. Afterall, I am not the one with a theory to promote, rather, I have tried to explain the flaws in your argument and that it is based on conjecture not any factual or demonstrative evidence.

The charge of “discredite” was invented by the Star. Perhaps rather like the “knife” they placed in Pipeman's hand?

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

“You have linked the issue of “diminution” to Hutchinson's credibility, yet the Echo, who both raise the issue and explain the issue make no such connection to his veracity or his credability (sic)”

Yes, they most assuredly do, Jon.

The authorities came to doubt Hutchinson's account because of his three-day “delay” in presenting his evidence and failure to allow himself to be quizzed “on oath” at the inquest. It makes not the slightest bit of sense to cite these specific reasons for discrediting the account unless they harboured doubts about his integrity. I would suggest that this is very obvious.

In addition, we’re established that to “discount” in this context means to doubt, or to regard with disbelief.

You quote an extract from the Echo, 13th November:

“The City police have been making inquiries for this man for weeks past, but without success, and they do not believe that he is the individual described by Cox”

The “man” referred to was the individual described by Lawende and spotted in Church Passage. The police had simply observed, according to the Echo, that the red neckerchief man was unlikely to have been “the individual described by Cox”. There is not the slightest indication that the Echo disagreed with the police’s apparent prioritization of Cox as a witness. They simply observed that some of the previous descriptions that had hinted at a foreign-looking individual (Elizabeth Long’s man, for instance) are more in line with the Astrakhan description.

This is worlds away from your suggestion that “the Echo support the initial direction of the search for Astrachan”.

“Your point about the line which begins, “Why, ask the authorities, .....” can be readily seen as another example of artistic license, unless you truly believe the Echo were present when Hutchinson was being asked”

What a peculiar argument. Of course I’m not suggesting that the Echo were "present when Hutchinson was being asked”. Asked what? Nor am I suggesting that the police asked the Echo what they thought. Clearly the reverse occurred. I observed that the Echo had learned from the police on the evening of the 13th November that a “very reduced importance” had been attached to Hutchinson’s account because they were unable to extract from him a satisfactory reason for the late arrival of his evidence. Nothing to do with “artistic licence”, since we’ve established beyond question from their 14th November article that the Echo were most assuredly were in contact with the police.

“Therefore the reason for the “discounting” (of reduced importance) stated in the next days edition (14th) is clearly understood, to which the Echo felt obliged to add:

“There is not, so it is declared, the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinson's veracity" (his truthfulness).”

No, I’m afraid you’re vastly confused again. This is why it’s essential to produce the full quote:

“The importance of this description lies (so says the morning papers) in the fact that it agrees with that furnished to the police yesterday, but which was considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner. There is not, so it is declared, the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinson’s veracity”.

“So it is declared” i.e. by the morning papers (“so says the morning papers”). They are the ones doing the “declaring” in this regard, and certainly not the police, who according to the Echo did not place the same faith in Hutchinson’s account that several other press sources did.

Hutchinson was clearly discredited because the police doubted his credibility, as is abundantly clear from the sources we’re discussing. I’m afraid you have not exposed any "flaws in my argument", and the accusation that the Star invented Pipeman’s knife is similarly unsustained.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben.

.... then you can't have been around here for as long as you've claimed.

All the best,
Ben

You are pulling my leg, right?

I don't remember Hutchinson being a serious suspect back in those days, but lots of theories were thrown around then too. Certainly he could be a liar without being the murderer, but what is the point of taking that stance?
Typically, if a witness is being accused of something, it's for a reason?

Anyway, most of the members who were around then are gone now.
I don't expect Bob Hinton to remember who he discussed his reconstruction of the relationship between Kelly's broken window & her door, and the specific lock mechanism, but Bob is still on these boards, as he was in the summer of 1998.

Chris George is still here, ask him, Chris doesn't tell lies. I don't expect Chris to remember the date but when I first joined I use to print off everybody's posts, so they are date-stamped - Dave Yost, Christopher-Michael Di-Grazzia, Avala, Stewart Evans, Paul Begg. And we had Martin Fido & Melvin Harris on for a while, though I think Harris's writings were actually posted by another member.

Under Viper's direction a host of us started that Press Reports section, we spent months typing many of those articles - that was a brilliant undertaking by Adrian (Viper) R.I.P.
The Casebook was actually created to debate the Maybrick Diary, happily it has evolved into more serious pursuits.

One of the reason's I have taken periodic 'sabaticals' from Casebook is due to my principal area of research - archaeology.
Disciplines like this educate a person to truely understand what an hypothesis is, and it's limitations. How to construct a theory, and how to recognise a fact. Sadly I tend to hone in on this when anyone tries to argue their 'theory'. So, I tend to look for the clues that indicate to me they are only promoting a firmly held belief rather than a testable theory.

I was not being facetious when I asked another poster if they really knew how to tell the difference between a fact & conjecture, I wouldn't have asked if I had thought they could. The definitive statement which was thrown at me in discussion strongly indicated that they couldn't.

Sorry, I'm drifting off topic..... but yes, I've been around a while.

All the best, Jon Smyth

[Ben]

Sounds pretty convincing to me, Jon.

But does this mean that you've never heard it suggested, in all that time, that Hutchinson could have lied to the police without being a killer? I'd be rather astonished if that were truly the case. High profile cases are often deluged with money and/or publicity seekers and bogus witnesses. Violenia and Packer clearly belonged in the latter category, along with a handful of others from the Whitechapel investigation.

All the best,
Ben

[babybird67]

I was not being facetious when I asked another poster if they really knew how to tell the difference between a fact & conjecture, I wouldn't have asked if I had thought they could. The definitive statement which was thrown at me in discussion strongly indicated that they couldn't.

No not facetious just patronising and rude.

[Wickerman]

Sounds pretty convincing to me, Jon.

But does this mean that you've never heard it suggested, in all that time, that Hutchinson could have lied to the police without being a killer? I'd be rather astonished if that were truly the case. High profile cases are often deluged with money and/or publicity seekers and bogus witnesses. Violenia and Packer clearly belonged in the latter category, along with a handful of others from the Whitechapel investigation.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben.
Bob Hinton's book, if I recall correctly, was the first booklength study on Hutchinson. In '98 when he was debating his suspect all the accusations you can think of were being pursued. And, I think, as you might expect Bob took a beating over his suspect.

It could be that this whole 'Hutch=Jack' hypothesis was actually kicked off by Bob in the first place.
But specifically, yes, Hutch has always been criticised for his over perceptive description, generally I think the suggestion was that he was a publicity seeker (liar), until Bob came along. Someone might contest that, but, it is a long time ago, I might have forgotten something.

However, as with previous 'publicity-seekers' they were all uncovered sooner or later. The police were not stupid, they were well aware what the population was capable of and even with an eye to a little remuneration from a gullable journalist. But Hutch went straight to the police, not the press.
I'm not even convinced it was Hutch himself who gave the 2nd version away.
The Star made no secret of tracking down Schwartz, no mention of tracking down Hutchinson.
There are details that do tend to support the idea, but it's not conclusive, if I recall correctly.

All the best, Jon S.

[Ben]

The police were not stupid, they were well aware what the population was capable of and even with an eye to a little remuneration from a gullable journalist. But Hutch went straight to the police, not the press.

Exactly, Jon.

Which is why I don't think that Hutchinson was a mere publicity-seeker, but someone who realised he had been spotted at the crime scene by Sarah Lewis and approached the police to legitimize his presence there. In other words, his hand was forced. This need not necessarily be because he was the murderer, but at the same time, this is a realistic possibility.

The Star made no secret of tracking down Schwartz, no mention of tracking down Hutchinson

Yes, because they did not track down Hutchinson themselves.

All the best,
Ben

[harry]

Hutchinson as suspect was discussed on this site,quite a while before any book about Hutchinson was written.It is a long time ago,but from memory,a person by the name of Carpenter was first to post on the subject.?.His writing was what first got me interested in Hutchinson,and I have not wavered,as no one has been able to submit any persuasive arguement as to why Hutchinson could not have killed Kelly,or was telling the truth.

[Wickerman]

Hutchinson as suspect was discussed on this site,quite a while before any book about Hutchinson was written.It is a long time ago,but from memory,a person by the name of Carpenter was first to post on the subject.?.His writing was what first got me interested in Hutchinson,and I have not wavered,

Hi Harry.
I'm not sure about a 'Carpenter' but you may be right, though when you say 'quite a while', do you mean 'a few months'? - I say this because to the best of my knowledge Casebook only began around '96 and about July-Aug. '98 when I joined we were debating Bob's theory.

as no one has been able to submit any persuasive arguement as to why Hutchinson could not have killed Kelly,or was telling the truth.

Harry, that sounds awfully similar to the old Maybrick-Diary methodology, "you have to prove he didn't do it!" (we do?). What the accusors tend to forget, Harry, is the onus lies with those who propose Hutchinson 'may' have killed someone, not with those who defend him as simply an extremely observant witness. Submitting a persuasive argument in his defence is not necessary.
In fact the obligation always, as I'm sure you will admit, lies with the 'accusor' rather than the 'defender'.

On the other hand, I am quite open to the possibility that Kelly was killed by someone else, not the Ripper. But, it would take considerably more than the misguided subjective arguments by his accusors we read on this forum to convince any of us (meaning, I am not alone).

All the best, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

No not facetious just patronising and rude.

Let me explain something to you my dear, your indignant response only served to insult the intelligence of a number of genuine researchers on this forum who know there is no such evidence to suggest that what you said was true.

And, with all due respect to Ben, who is most certainly allowed to express his personal opinion, when he attempts to dominate an argument by passing his own personal opinions off as 'fact', it is the newbies on the forum who end up being misguided. The more experienced members in most cases cannot be bothered to take him to task.
Speaking for myself, I just enjoy the fun of the exchange, even though I can in most cases anticipate his responses beforehand.
Ben, is extremely biased and not always objective in his debates.
(Sorry Ben, I simply had to be blunt)

And another point, there are very few actual facts that we can acknowledge as such in this series of murders. It would be well for you and a couple of others to remember that what we think we 'know' can only be truely measured in "degrees of probability" - not declared as facts!

Have a very nice day Babybird.
Jon S.

[babybird67]

Let me explain something to you my dear, your indignant response only served to insult the intelligence of a number of genuine researchers on this forum who know there is no such evidence to suggest that what you said was true.

Let me explain something to you, dear. My indignant response insulted nobody, whereas your patronising and uncalled for attitude to me did.

I have the utmost respect for researchers on this site, some of whom I count as friends as well as researchers, so don't presume to lecture me on what my attitude to YOU means to OTHERS.

Ben, is extremely biased and not always objective in his debates.
(Sorry Ben, I simply had to be blunt)

We are all biased to our own particular viewpoint and more fool you if you can only acknowledge bias in Ben and not yourself.

We are ALL entitled to weigh up the evidence in this case as we see fit, and to decide what is true for our own particular viewpoints.

There is evidence for what I, and Ben, and Garry, among others, have said, and if you refuse to acknowledge it, or decide it is not important in your estimation of the case, then that's your choice, but dont speak to me as if I am a five year old when I do the same for myself.

And another point, there are very few actual facts that we can acknowledge as such in this series of murders. It would be well for you and a couple of others to remember that what we think we 'know' can only be truely measured in "degrees of probability" - not declared as facts!

Have a very nice day Babybird.
Jon S.

I agree. However it is a fact that Hutchinson was discredited. We can see this not only from the press reports but from the attitude of the investigating officers which was to accord other witnesses who got much less clear views than the outstandingly observant Hutchinson more credence than they did Hutchinson. There is no other explanation for this than that Hutch was discredited, otherwise they would have allowed his wonderfully superior sighting of the prime suspect the greatest importance, which clearly isn't true.

Now, we can all debate WHY he was discredited as that is much more open to subjective debate; Fish thinks it was honest date confusion, most people, i would guess, would put it down to being a publicity seeker. However, having the benefit of a hundred years or more of murderers', specifically serial killers' behavioural traits to guide us, along with what is to most an obviously fabricated account taking in things nobody could possibly have seen, it is not unreasonable to ask questions which perhaps go a little deeper into Hutchinson's motivations. It always strikes me as ironic that the best suspect we have is described as an 'unknown local male', when this is precisely what Hutchinson was.

The other things demonstrating Hutch has been discredited have been pointed out before, although you seem only to concentrate on the Press reports for some reason. Possibly because seeing the picture as whole does not accord with your own biased viewpoint (see, you have bias too...it's called being a subjective human being).

So, thanks for your wishes to have a nice day, which I have. And kindly refrain from addressing me either as your dear, which I am not, or as a five year old, which I am not either.

Have a good evening.

[Garry Wroe]

And for what it's worth, Jon, I was the first person to seriously research Hutchinson - way back in the mid-Eighties. Contrary to your earlier assertion, he was not at the time widely regarded as a publicity-seeker. Quite the reverse, in fact. He was, as far as I was able to determine, universally accepted as an honest and reliable eyewitness.

[Ben]

Excellent post, Jen.

There is a difference between "accusing" Hutchinson of responsibility for the Whitechapel murders and addressing some of the spurious arguments that purport to be objections to the possibility that he was involved. At the moment, the latter are emnating almost exclusively from Jon, whose uppity, patronising, and sanctimonious posts are irritating an increasing number of people. There is no "onus" upon me or Harry or anyone else, because we're not setting out to accuse or "construct a case", but rather to address the arguments that emerge on-topic on these threads. It is clear that at the present time, a greater number of commentators are of the opinion that Hutchinson's account was at least partically fabricated (whether they think he killed anyone or not), with those who continue to espouse the unimaginative and outdated view that he was "simply an extremely observant witness" belonging in the conspicuous minority.

"But, it would take considerably more than the misguided subjective arguments by his accusors we read on this forum to convince any of us (meaning, I am not alone)."

"Any of us"? This really is intolerable pomposity. Firstly, your attacks on my argument are entirely "subjective" and based on total ingorance of certain sources with which most others are familiar, and secondly, you really are deluding yourself to an embarrassing extent when you presume to speak for everyone else as to whether they are "convinced" or not. Just because you're "not alone" does not mean everyone else agrees with you. And I'm sorry if it bothers you, but others have been convinced by the suggestion that Hutchinson might have been responsible.

"I just enjoy the fun of the exchange, even though I can in most cases anticipate his responses beforehand."

Ah, so that would make you the brave little soldier who is willing to guide the poor hapless newbies and persevere in spite of Ben's attempts to dominate arguments, and that despite claiming an ability to anticipate my responses, you want to keep arguing anyway. Well, it's your time to waste, but if your intention is to out-post Ben (an obsessive pursuit for some, apparently) and win some stamina war, you're going to find yourself out of luck, and fast. I'm sorry if you pathetically imagine that you are "taking me to task" but I'm afraid all you're doing is reinforcing your lack of knowledge.

[Hatchett]

Hello Ben,

I wasnt going to enter this debate on this thread. But let me just ask you what evidence do you actually have about anything you say?

Again you try and belittle, you badger, and you try to dominate, but at the end of the day facts are facts and have to be substantiated. Now, will you will raise your head about the parapet and tell everyone here just what your evidence is to substantiate what you are saying.

It is a simple question. Just answer it or be quiet.

And a word of advice. Speculation will not do.

Best wishes.

[Ben]

Look, Hatchett, of the current crop of Ben-botherers, I take you the least seriously of all. No offense. It shouldn't take a genius to figure out why. You posted with the intention of creating a nuisance and nothing more. If you want to address some specific aspect of anything I've posted, fire away, but I'm not going to repeat myself at your behest.

Just answer it or be quiet

No, I won't be quiet. I'll keep posting thanks.

What are you going to do about it?