Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Roy Corduroy]

Police Nullification

Police Nullification is the core of the theory of George Hutchinson as Jack the Ripper.

That is, the serial killer George Hutchinson waltzed into the precinct house after the inquest, gave a statement placing himself at the scene of the crime, where in fact a man was seen (by Lewis) and they, the police, were none the wiser. They had the serial killer right in their grasp and didn't know it. Never knew it. So in the final analysis, why does anything the police do or say have any bearing? It has none.

Roy

[Wickerman]

Babybird.
I find if difficult to follow just what is driving you down this path, you keep moving the goalposts.

If it's those memoirs, please do everyone a favour, please email Stewart Evans and ask him directly how much reliance we should put on the memoirs of retired police officials with respect to their opinions of who they 'think' the Ripper was.

Here, if it's official opinion you are swayed by let me share with you the opinion of the head of the Criminal Investigation Dept.
(We know this was Inspector Reid at the time)

When asked by the reporter, "what is your own idea as to the murderer's identity?"

The Chief (Reid?) replied:
"My firm impression is that a low sneak, with terribly developed homicidal tendencies, is the man 'wanted'. He lives in Whitechapel, of that I am confident. His knowledge of the locality is astonishing. But of course all is conjecture"

In a later sentence he continues, "....and how purposeless it is to arrest suspicious characters when we possess not a tittle of evidence against any of them"
Evening News, July 23, 1889.
The man who hunted Jack the Ripper, Connell & Evans, 1999, pp.82-3.

Because Reid was still a police official at the time of the interview his name was not supplied.
However, Inspector Moore spoke directly to the Morning Advertiser (Horror of horrors, for some!), Sept. 25, it was reported:

"The police, by the mouth of Inspector Moore, frankly confesses that they have no clue"

Not a tinker, tailor, soldier, Sailor, richman, poorman, beggarman, thief - not... a... clue!


If it's more reliable police opinion you want I'm sure it can be supplied, anything more contemporary with the time of the crimes is more beneficial than those written 30-50 years later.

I know you refuse to believe me, just ask Stewart...

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

“Just because Schwartz's man took precident does not mean that P C Smith was discredited.”

PC Smith and his description were included in a report compiled by Donald Swanson, detailing those witness sightings garnered by the police to date that were still considered significant. They included Schwartz, PC Smith, Long and Lawende. They were not discredited because we have it on paper that that they were not. Moreover, it is clear that in Smith’s case in particular, the likelihood of his man having been the ripper was evidently considered slim on account of Schwartz’s ostensibly different man having arrived on the scene afterwards. This is why the did not pursue the man with the diagonal cutaway as a potential ripper, which has nothing to do with their entirely different reason for not pursing Hutchinson's evidently fictional description.

I don’t know if Hutchinson was dropped altogether, but this is the very strong inference from the subsequent memoirs, interviews and actions taken by senior police officials with regard to his evidence. The discredited reference is by no means exclusive to the Star. The same observation was also reported in the Echo, who had communicated with the police directly. The argument that the Star is the bastard in the equation is just baseless because it perpetuates the fallacy that they were alone in casting doubt on Hutchinson's account.

Then we have some more vast confusion on Schwartz. The police did not distrust Schwartz’ story at all, and it was never the implication of the Star that they did. They simply pointed out that the truth of a man’s statement, who had been arrested in connection with the Berner Street crime, “had not been wholly accepted”.

[Ben]

Hi Roy,

I understand your point entirely, but in mistaking a potential serial killer for a publicity-seeker or time-waster (as I contend they may have done), the police would have been operating within the rather limited confines of what they knew and had experienced to date viz a viz lying witnesses and serial killers.

Good to see you here.

Ben

[Ben]

Considering their flawed musings, can we really hold up the reminicenses of the senior police officials who investigated the JTR series of murders and come to the conclusion that Hutchinson was discredited?

If they all effectively testify to precisely the same collectively endorsed opinion, then yes, we can. Even if we make allowances for minor errors on the part of some of the senior police officials who later commented on the eyewitness evidence, Hutchinson was not Jewish (and we know it was a Jewish witness who Anderson preferred as his witness), and he was excluded from any late police references to eyewitness evidence. Even Abberline stated that the witnesses only acquired a back view of their suspects, and while this allows for possible confusion with the Church Passage sighting (one of the Jewish trio, Harry Harris, mentioned a rear sighting) and perhaps one or two others, he could hardly have forgotten about a witness of Hutchinson’s potential importance, unless he had good reason to dismiss his account in 1888, which was obviously what happened.

The same applies to Macnaghten and his claim that nobody saw the ripper unless it was the City PC from Mitre Square. Too bad that Hutchinson was not a Mitre Square witness, not a City witness, and not a PC.

[babybird67]

Babybird.
I find if difficult to follow just what is driving you down this path, you keep moving the goalposts.

I don't think so.

If it's those memoirs, please do everyone a favour, please email Stewart Evans and ask him directly how much reliance we should put on the memoirs of retired police officials with respect to their opinions of who they 'think' the Ripper was.

Not sure how many more times I have to state this for you, it seems simple enough to me. It's not the memoirs. It's not the Press. It's not anything in isolation. It's the combined factors I've listed....the Press reports of the discrediting, of the authorities questioning the late appearance of Hutchinson and his failure to appear to give his testimony on oath, the fact the investigation was not marshalled in the direction of finding someone of Astrakhan's description for longer than a few days (suggesting that at first the Police were very interested in finding this suspect, but then abandoned this search altogether), the references to other witnesses getting better sightings than someone who could describe a suspect down to the type of unique tie pin he was wearing. It's the WHOLE picture I am looking at here, not just one part of it.

Here, if it's official opinion you are swayed by let me share with you the opinion of the head of the Criminal Investigation Dept.
(We know this was Inspector Reid at the time)

When asked by the reporter, "what is your own idea as to the murderer's identity?"

The Chief (Reid?) replied:
"My firm impression is that a low sneak, with terribly developed homicidal tendencies, is the man 'wanted'. He lives in Whitechapel, of that I am confident. His knowledge of the locality is astonishing. But of course all is conjecture"

In a later sentence he continues, "....and how purposeless it is to arrest suspicious characters when we possess not a tittle of evidence against any of them"
Evening News, July 23, 1889.
The man who hunted Jack the Ripper, Connell & Evans, 1999, pp.82-3.

Not sure why you are quoting this? Obviously none of them knew who Jack the Ripper was or we wouldn't be here over a hundred years later discussing it!

Because Reid was still a police official at the time of the interview his name was not supplied.
However, Inspector Moore spoke directly to the Morning Advertiser (Horror of horrors, for some!), Sept. 25, it was reported:

"The police, by the mouth of Inspector Moore, frankly confesses that they have no clue"

Not a tinker, tailor, soldier, Sailor, richman, poorman, beggarman, thief - not... a... clue!

Not a clue from Hutchinson's very vivid and detailed description? Not a clue that he was a rich man? Not a clue that he definitely wasn't a poorman or beggarman to be able to afford a huge gold watch on a massive chain? Don't you see what you have posted in this post completely supports my argument that Hutchinson was discredited, or the Police would have had massive clues as to who Kelly's murderer was????

If it's more reliable police opinion you want I'm sure it can be supplied, anything more contemporary with the time of the crimes is more beneficial than those written 30-50 years later.

I know you refuse to believe me, just ask Stewart...

Regards, Jon S.

I really am trying to fathom you out, Jon. You have just spent a whole post demonstrating things which support my argument. That the Police discredited an extremely detailed description of the possible murderer by a witness who said he was sure he would know the man again if he came across him.

Yet they continued to have no clue! Really? Astonishing!

[babybird67]

hi Observer

Nice to see you. Hope you are well.

Why would a senior police official state that the only person who got a good view of the killer obtained only a rear view, when this was certainly not the case?

Why would a senior police figure state that "no one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer", when this again is obviously not the case?

Considering their flawed musings, can we really hold up the reminicenses of the senior police officials who investigated the JTR series of murders and come to the conclusion that Hutchinson was discredited? Not in my opinion

As I've said to Jon, it's the whole picture I am looking at. Not the memoirs in isolation.

I think a lot of what the Police stated was down to damage limitation. But I cannot see any other reason for not focussing the investigation on the most detailed description of the possible murderer than that they did not believe the man described existed to be found.

[harry]

Jon,
Yes I am the same person,and I did finally trace those relatives who were/are still residing in the province of Ontario,one in London.Back to topic.There are some things that,because of time,can now never be proven,and one of those is the sighting of AM by Hutchinson.However to help us,we do have reports in the form of written statements by Hutchinson,Aberline, and the press.By far the most interesting is the statement of Hutchinson.Is it the honest and true account of a responsible citizen wanting to help catch a killer, a desperate attempt to alibi his own involvement by placing another person in her room,or the act of a mischevious individual craving attention? All have been suggested,and if one thing is by now apparent,it is that there appears to be a wide acceptance that the claims made by Hutchinson,in the main,appear so abnormal,that they are beyond belief.

[Hatchett]

Hello Jen,

I accept that you are looking at the issues as a whole, and it is refreshing that unlike your companions you are not professing that these are facts, but what you believe is a reasonable assumption that you derive from them.

But the point is that although perhaps you could have a point that the police eventually appeared to place less importance on Hutchinson's statement than they did originally, it is a long way from believing that he was discredited.

They could have drawn a blank in their searches for Astrokan man, they could have played it low key to protected Hutchinson from being suspected by the mob and being lynched, they could have become annoyed that he went to the press, or that could even have alramed them as to the possible danger he could have put himself in from the populace.

The real issue is that there is no extent police statement that he was discredited. Just two press reports at a time when the police where very suspicious of the press. Also there is no mention in any memoirs that he was discredited.

Just going back to an earlier post of yours to me, you mention that even Dew said that Hutchinson was discredited but gave it a slant about the wrong day. If you read Dew you will see that far from saying that Hutchinson was discredited, he clearly believes Hutchinson's statement. Because he believes it he gives a self confessed piece of speculation that he must have got the date wrong.

Best wishes.

David.

[Ben]

Some perceptive observations from Jen and Harry there.

Without wishing to get too bogged down in semantics, it is clear that too many people have a bizarre aversion to the word "discredit", and think that it means something more damning and negative than the Echo's "discounted" observation. It doesn't. Here's the thesaurus:

Main Entry: discredit
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: doubt, question
Synonyms: challenge, deny, disbelieve, discount, dispute, distrust, mistrust, put under suspicion, reject, scoff at
Antonyms: believe, credit, trust

http://thesaurus.com/browse/discredit

Hence, the Star and the Echo were attesting to precisely the same observation. The only difference being that the latter divulged the detail that this discrediting-discounting observation had come directly from the police, with whom we know they were in direct communication. We can therefore dispense once and for all with the claim that the Star was the only source for the "discredited" observation, along with the inference that they made it up to embarrass the police. They also described Packer's story as "worthless" in the same article, but tellingly, I don't see anyone suggesting that this was invention on their part.

These press claims wholly account for both the conspicuous absence of Hutchinson from any later police commentary (with the exception of "riddled with mistakes" Dew), and the police preference for Lawende in identifying later suspects. The police would never discredit/disbelieve/discount/distrust a witness just because his description didn't produce immediate results, nor would they lie to the press and pretend they distrusted Hutchinson if they merely wanted to "play it low key".

All the best,
Ben

[Hatchett]

Hello Ben,

Well like you say semantics are not helpful in this matter. That is why I object to you using them for avoiding questions.

I think we all know what the word discredit means. And I think that we all know that there is no police evidence, either in police statements or in memoirs, that Hutchinson's statement was officially discredited.

For the life pf me I cannot understand why you do not admit that.

For what ever reason you badger around, dont you realise that you yourself are discrediting your own theory?

Best wishes.

[Ben]

That is why I object to you using them for avoiding questions

Stop lying, Hatchett.

You know full well that I have responded to every question asked of me. A refusal to regurgitate the entire thread at your behest does not equate to avoiding questions. The reason I drew attention to the word "discredit" is that some people have tried to create an imaginary schism between the Star's report and the Echo's police-endorsed claim that the account had been "considerably discounted".

And I think that we all know that there is no police evidence, either in police statements or in memoirs, that Hutchinson's statement was officially discredited

It's a bit naive to expect any such thing, though. You'll find no police report saying "Yep, it's official folks. Hutchinson is discredited" for the same reason you won't find one for Packer, Violenia or anyone else.

But by all means keep wasting your own time with generalized gainsaying.

It amuses me.

[Sally]

I think that we all know that there is no police evidence, either in police statements or in memoirs, that Hutchinson's statement was officially discredited.

Hi Hatchett -

I hope you don't mind my picking up on your remark -

Could I ask you what you would expect to see by way of 'official' police evidence to the effect that Hutchinson was discredited? Why should there be any, even if he was?

I think we, as modern commentators, probably pay more attention to Hutchinson and his veracity, or not veracity, than the police at the time did, or could afford to. I personally think that he was one amongst many dismissed as a time waster - and although he may come under scrutiny here as a potential suspect, I doubt that was the case at the time.

I think that once his story was discounted (if we don't like 'discredited') he was probably forgotten.

[sleekviper]

The point with Hutch, to me at least, is that the Police came out and said that they believe him. If they go on record to state that they believe what he had to say, the only way that should change is by reversing what has been stated. Someone gets killed for looking somewhat like a known false description, there would be a major outcry, especially if that person was visiting from another country. So unless the police make a second statement to contradict the first, what there is would be speculation as to what is actually going on.

[Hatchett]

Hi Sally,

I dont mind at all.

The point I am making is that it has been argued that it is a fact that Hutchinson's statement was discredited by the Police. The point I am making is that this is speculation because the only extant Police statement is by Abberline saying that it was believed.

Best wishes.