Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Sally]

Sally
Yes indeed family traditions get distorted.
Can an East End family tradition relating to a grandparent called George Hutchinson being involved in the Ripper case, be distorted but still basically true, but at the same time not equate to the George Hutchinson under discussion? Unless it is a lie?

Lechmere, I don't really know about that. I really don't want another Toppy discussion on an unrelated thread, thanks. It's all so tedious, and I've said why I doubt it - if you read what I say, you will see that it has nothing to do with any family tradition, if such exists.

[Ben]

Lechmere,

I’m as anxious as you to avoid these admittedly off-putting “slanging matches”, but having said that, introducing a doomed pro-Toppy argument on an unrelated thread is hardly going to ease any existing tension. A labouring out-of-work groom in 1888 was hardly going to progress to becoming a plumber with favourable prospects in 1891. It simply didn’t work like that in those days, given the restrictions that existed. As for discounting his “ancestors” as a “bunch of liars” (I assume you mean descendants), do please try to reflect that Reginald Hutchinson’s claims appeared in a discredited “Royal Conspiracy” book that is arguably more outlandish than Knight’s.

Anyone who claims that his father saw Lord Randolph Churchill the ripper with Mary Kelly is hardly assisting his own credibility.

Where are you getting “bunch” from, anyway?

“I would suggest that we don’t actually know what happened to Hutchinson’s credibility with the police and we cannot place reliance on the Echo to inform us.”

I'm afraid that's a wrong suggestion.

Simple as that.

We know that the Echo communicated directly with the police.

We know that the police supplied them with what we now know to be factually accurate information.

The suggestion that the Echo were "making up" their police communication can be thus safely expunged from any further consideration, let alone discussion. The fact that the police exchange lasted more than one day merely reinforces the fact that such an exchange took place, and the communication from the 14th clearly validates the communication from the 13th. What is the alternative? That the Echo approached the police on the 14th, and said, “Hello cops, yes, we lied about talking to you yesterday, but do tell all today!”

[Wickerman]

There is plenty of evidence which taken as a whole 'proves' (I accept you don't think it does, but that's my interpretation) that Hutchinson's account was discredited.

Jen.
I'm trying to think of a way to help you understand why these arguments are not evidence of discredit. Don't take this as patronising, thats not my intention.
I'll try this, you say, "that's my interpretation", ok, I can easily accept that. But, you have just admitted that your argument is really "circumstantial evidence", true "evidence" is direct, it requires no interpretation.

Look at it this way, if you press your hand into wet sand and claim this is evidence that a human hand made this impression. Yes, that claim would be correct. The explanation requires no interpretation. The impression is "evidence" of a human hand.

However, if you claimed, "this is evidence that a live human hand made this impression", that claim would be false.

The imprint of this hand is not "evidence" that a live human hand made the impression, it could easily have been made by the hand of a mannequin.

Once "evidence" requires interpretation in order to be explained, it has suffered "diminution", it now become "circumstantial evidence", in other words it is open to alternate interpretations.

"Evidence" (of something) is a rather strict condition.
I am claiming that these arguments all have alternate interpretations, but are being intentionally interpreted in one particular fashion in order to support the isolated charge made by the Star newspaper.

What you have is legally defined as "circumstantial", therefore any number of alternate explanations are equally acceptable.


Ok, let me ask you this.
What 'description' related police activity was there that you think took place subsequent to the release of Schwartz's (or Lawende's) given "description" that did not take place following Hutchinson's given "description"?

As has been pointed out before, this person would have people who knew him. The accessories and clothing were SO distinctive that even if he put them away and failed to wear them again, somebody would recognise that he had them.

I think this appears to suggest that his appearance was not all that strange, or out of place.
Once again, one hundred years later, we tend to sit in judgement of these people, yet no-one at the time suggested this man was 'over-the-top' as far as description goes. No-one there suggested that people just do not dress that way. However, 'we' can be very opinionated when we are arguing what was 'normal' a century ago.

Hutchinson did not say that he never saw such a well-dressed man in Dorset St., nor, that he never saw such a well-dressed man out at that time of night. What he did say was, "in her company" - (surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company).
In Hutchinson's opinion Kelly did not normally take up with gentry, that is all he is saying.

First of all you have to conceive of a murderer so idiotic that he had the front to go waltzing into Whitechapel on a mission to murder someone dressed in all his finery which itself is a ludicrous suggestion, .....

When you read of all those West end'ers who went down Whitechapel "slumming", do you ever read of how they were dressed?
You think they wore rags?

Yet nobody saw him that night with Kelly or in the vicinity and nobody saw anybody resembling him at the other sites of the other murders.

Yet, we have the statements of Lewis, Paumier & others, who did describe a "well-dressed" man, just not with the same degree of detail. That does not rule Astrachan out, it does though leave open the possibility that they were one and the same.

Explain the logic of a Police force that would give exactly the same value to those two descriptions, because if you are really arguing that was the case, then accusations of incompetence would really have a point.

Incompetence has nothing to do with it. Lawende's description was considerably more detailed than Mrs Long's, yet there was no preferences shown for one over the other that I am aware of.
When comparing the "Blotchy" type description with "Astrachan", the police will know that there were likely 10 Blotchy's for every 1 Astrachan on any given day. But what is working against them is the strong likelyhood that Astrachan will have changed his appearance, but the Blotchy-look is possibly his permanent appearance. Might be the only clothes he had.

Even arguing that he appeared like that 'on that day' and maybe a few days before is just absurd.
Nobody intending to murder someone would dress like that.

This is such a distorted view, well-dressed gents were everywhere in Whitechapel, why wouldn't they be?, take a look at Booth's Poverty Map, the main streets, Whitechapel High St. & Commercial st. show an abundance of "red" = Middle-class, "well off".
Who do you think ran these businesses & lived in the middle-class homes?

What is exceptional is not how Astrachan looks, it is the degree of detail that Hutchinson described. This is not the same thing.
Also, because Hutchinson added "Jewish appearance" we can take it he is indicating the obvious opulence demonstrated by his attire.

Where you see, Exceptional Attire - Unbelievable man, I see, Exceptional Attire, remarkable detail.
A generation raised in T-shirts & jeans is thinking Gold Chains & spats are "strange", because we are out of touch with the Victorian era.

Regards, Jon S.

[Lechmere]

Ben
Read back though and you will see I didn’t introduce Toppy to this particular table.
We have discussed and demolished those fake plumbing restrictions in another tread.
I said ‘bunch’ as it appears other descendants of Toppy support the story in some form or another. I see you do take the view that they are liars.
Your ‘Echo’ explanation is as good example of stating something is ‘known’ when it simply isn’t . They are all your inferences.

[Ben]

Well I thought Babybird’s post was spot on, personally.

It seems that some people around here have a thinly veiled preference for an upper class, well-dressed suspect, and perceive Hutchinson’s discrediting as an obstacle to this. Unfortunately for those angling for a toff-type, the idea is about as discredited as Hutchinson’s account was in 1888.

As far as “slummers” are concerned, yes, the evidence is to the effect that they dressed down for such activity, and the idea of venturing into what was alluded to extensively as one of the worst streets in London dressed in expensive clothing and accessories that included a “massive gold watch chain” would have been considered preposterous back then, and should be considered so now. For those who think these are the blinkered views of someone applying 20th century perceptions, I would encourage a read of the various accounts of what did happen to men who were silly enough to dress in an opulent fashion in that district.

Worse still, Astrakhan man would have done precisely this not only in the worst possible area, but at the worst possible time, i.e. at the height of the ripper murders. In fact, his appearance was comprised of many of the popular perceptions regarding the killer’s appearance, and was a very unsubtle “amalgamation” in that respect. We can forget the tattle that appeared in the press from Paumier, Roney and others regarding men with shiny black bags and top hats. These were clearly bogus witnesses who were not called to appear at the inquest, assuming they had any police contact at all.

Anyone who thinks that “well-dressed gents were everywhere in Whitechapel” is seriously ill-informed, and has certainly misinterpreted Booth’s poverty map. Do people actually know who is being referred to in the red-shaded “well to do” category? Publicans, shop-owners, that sort of thing. Not well-dressed “gentry”. Maybe Mr. Astrakhan was Mr. Ringer going home, then?!

The “exceptional attire” is only one implausible aspect to the Astrakhan creation. Hutchinson could not even have noticed many of the details he reported, let alone memorized them.

I don’t know where some people have formed the impression that Jewish-appearance is synonymous with opulent attire, but it’s a very wrong impression.

Contrary to the claim that nobody raised any eyebrow to the Astrakhan man, The Graphic reported the following on 17th November:

“It is true that on this last occasion a man has given a very precise description of the supposed murderer. The very exactitude of his description, however, engenders a feeling of scepticism. The witness in question admits that at the time he saw him he did not suspect the person he watched of being the Whitechapel assassin; yet, at two o'clock in the morning, in badly-lighted thoroughfares, he observed more than most of us would observe in broad daylight, with ample time at our disposal. A man who in such a hasty survey notes such points as "a pair of dark 'spats,' with light buttons, over button boots," and "a red stone hanging from his watch-chain," must possess the eyes of a born detective.”

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

We have discussed and demolished those fake plumbing restrictions in another tread.

A fascinating interpretation of the debate in question, Lechmere.

But regrettably wrong.

I see you do take the view that they are liars.

No, probably just the one liar, with the others passing it on under the assumption that the information was correct.

It is not an "inference" that the Echo received genuine information from the police, but a fact.

[Hatchett]

Hello Ben,

At the end of the day whether you like it or not your impressions of Astrokan Man were not shared by the people on the ground at the time!

You may feel it it is preposterous, but Abberline and Dew clearly did not.

They were there!

You were not!

They were members of the Police.

You are not!

They did not specialise in speculation.

You do!

They looked for substaniated evidence.

You put forawrd supposition and try and pass it off as fact!

Come on!

Best wishes.

[Wickerman]

....[I]“It is true that on this last occasion a man has given a very precise description of the supposed murderer. The very exactitude of his description,.....

Which only serves to emphasize the point I was making, it is the detail of the description which grabs the attention, not the actual attire suggested.

Therefore arguments based on, "such a well-dressed man is unusual in that part of town", are not supported by Hutchinson's statement, nor the above quote.

Jon

[Wickerman]

And, on reflection, a line in support of another suggestion...

... yet, at two o'clock in the morning, in badly-lighted thoroughfares, he observed more than most of us would observe in broad daylight, with ample time at our disposal...

Which could easily be argued in support of Sarah Lewis, Mrs Paumier, and Bowyer, in the court, and their lack of detail?

Hutchinson was perceptive, which is clearly not a crime.
Did he have reason to be so perceptive? - possibly.
Should we incriminate him for that? - No!
Does it make him a suspicious character? - No!
Did the police believe him? - Yes!

Say no more...

Jon

[Ben]

Woah, someone hasn't quite mastered the art of using exclamation marks sparingly!!!!!!

Look, you really are being idiotic in the extreme, Hatchett.

I just demonstrated that people were sceptical of the Astrakhan description in 1888. As for members of the police not considering the description preposterous, it is clear that Hutchinson's account was ultimately discredited by the police because they doubted his story. Bob Hinton spoke to a number of police officers when researching his book, both serving and retired, and they all informed him that the description was "pure fantasy".

They were members of the Police.

You are not!

Lucky I'm in complete agreement with them as far as Hutchinson's discrediting is concerned, then. Like or not, it is substantiated evidence that the police imparted accurate information to the Echo.

Have a look at some other aspect of the case, because if there's any poster less suited to the much-coveted task of bringing Ben down a peg or two, it's you.

[Hatchett]

Hello Ben,

Those police officers must have been pretty old if they had been serving in 1888!

Best wishes.

[Ben]

Which only serves to emphasize the point I was making, it is the detail of the description which grabs the attention, not the actual attire suggested.

I understand the distinction, Jon, but unfortunately, they are both highly implausible. Whether or not Hutchinson explicitly stated that the man's appearance was conspicuously out of place for that district is neither here not there. It was out of place. This is beyond dispute.

Which could easily be argued in support of Sarah Lewis, Mrs Paumier, and Bowyer, in the court, and their lack of detail?

Absolutely no way.

Neither of these witnesses provided anywhere near the same degree of detail as Hutchinson alleged. His perceptiveness is completely irrelevant. There were only so many details that a "perceptive" individual could realistically have noticed and memorized in those conditions, and the totality of the Astrakhan description goes way beyond that. The police did not "believe him" in the long run. He was discredited. It is entirely legitimate, therefore, to be suspicious of both the account and its creator.

But please let's keep going round in circles on this issue.

I could really do with a last-man-standing war.

However, if you claimed, "this is evidence that a live human hand made this impression", that claim would be false.

It wouldn't be false at all.

It would be evidence. It just wouldn't be proof.

[babybird67]

Jen.
I'm trying to think of a way to help you understand why these arguments are not evidence of discredit. Don't take this as patronising, thats not my intention.

And I am trying hard to remain respectful of you, Jon, when you are being completely patronising to me. I am quite able to differentiate between evidence and lack of evidence, and I have tried to explain to you that while evidence exists which I interpret one way and you another, we can respectfully disagree as to what these elements of evidence signify, you continually retort to me that I don't comprehend what evidence consists of.

Here is the definition from the Oxford online dictionary for the noun,
'evidence':

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination
Law information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court:
without evidence, they can't bring a charge
signs or indications of something:
there was no obvious evidence of a break-in

So please can we dispense with this contention of yours that there is no evidence of Hutchinson's discrediting, because that is false. There is evidence his testimony was discounted.

Numerous press reports state that it was. One of these reports allege their information came directly from the Police station, which is corroborated by the rest of the facts they provided turning out to be true, and known only to the Police at that time.

There are the numerous comments by Police officials either prioritising other witnesses (which wouldn't be logical as on paper Hutchinson got by far the best view) or stating they had no clue who the Ripper was (which also wouldn't be logical if they believed Hutchinson, because such a description provided a myriad of clues, IF it was to be believed).

There is the direction and focus of the investigation, which was directed in favour of non-Astrakhan type suspects.

The searching of lodging houses etc etc.

The initial excitement and prioritising of Hutchinson and his story, followed by its complete abandonment.

All this, whether you like it or not, constitutes evidence (signs, indications, facts, information) that argues for the contention that Hutchinson was discredited. Please don't patronise me any further by suggesting I need anything explaining to me, or that I don't understand your argument. I completely understand it. I just don't agree with it.

Not to boast, but you really are talking to a very intelligent woman here. I took a degree in English and history. Six months before my finals I gave birth by caesarean to my first son, who was also unwell at the time. Despite all that, I managed to sweep the boards in my finals, gaining first class marks in all eight sections of my course. I was awarded the prize for English for my year. Later I took my M.A. At the beginning of my course, I was pregnant with my daughter. She was born on a Thursday. After I gave birth I was working on my essay on Coriolanus. I was back in class the following Tuesday. At the end of the course I was pregnant with my last son. I obtained a distinction. My dissertation was published in The Historian journal.

So you really are not talking to someone who needs you to speak to her in such a manner.

I'll try this, you say, "that's my interpretation", ok, I can easily accept that. But, you have just admitted that your argument is really "circumstantial evidence", true "evidence" is direct, it requires no interpretation.

All evidence is filtered through subjective human perception. Try asking any simple historical question. Ask a number of historians questions about the facts and the evidence. You'd be surprised at how many different answers you would get. There is no one size fits all with history. That is its beauty and its joy. It's not like maths where 2 plus 2 equals 2 no matter how many different people add it together. That is what attracts a lot of us to history...the magic of its plurality and the myriad of interpretations exactly the same facts and data can give rise to.

Once "evidence" requires interpretation in order to be explained, it has suffered "diminution", it now become "circumstantial evidence", in other words it is open to alternate interpretations.

Most evidence is circumstantial. Very few facts stand alone or do not admit of more than one interpretation. It doesn't make them any less evidence. And we are all entitled to weigh up the evidence as we see fit. If you do not find the evidence that exists that indicates Hutch was discredited convincing, then that's fine. We agree to disagree, hopefully without inferring that either one of us needs some kind of A,B,C explanation of things to the other.

"Evidence" (of something) is a rather strict condition.

In a court of law, yes, because there is a much more stringent burden of proof. What is strict is what facts can be established by the evidence.

I am claiming that these arguments all have alternate interpretations, but are being intentionally interpreted in one particular fashion in order to support the isolated charge made by the Star newspaper.

No, you have been claiming there is no evidence for those interpretations in the first place, which is clearly wrong. If you believe the way myself, Ben, Garry, Sally are interpreting is incorrect because the evidence that exists doesn't convince you, then that is your right, and you're perfectly entitled to believe that. But we are perfectly entitled to be convinced by that same evidence and hold an opposite view to yourself, without being told our arguments are pure speculation and without substantiation, because that latter claim is clearly not true. We have not plucked the view that Hutch was discredited out of the air. Evidence exists, and has been quoted and referred to, which supports it. You, Hatchett and others on the opposing side need not be convinced, that's your choice. But don't keep suggesting there is no evidence for our beliefs because that is plainly wrong.

Hutchinson did not say that he never saw such a well-dressed man in Dorset St., nor, that he never saw such a well-dressed man out at that time of night. What he did say was, "in her company" - (surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company).
In Hutchinson's opinion Kelly did not normally take up with gentry, that is all he is saying.

So you believe the Ripper was a member of the gentry? And not only a member of the gentry, but one that would go out planning to murder someone dressed so distinctively as to arouse suspicion? A stupid member of the gentry? Yet one that managed to appear to all other Ripper witnesses as a shabby-genteel non-descript sort of person. He just thought he would dress up for Kelly's murder as he was going to make it the worst one yet? To mark it out as special?

When you read of all those West end'ers who went down Whitechapel "slumming", do you ever read of how they were dressed?
You think they wore rags?

I am sure they went to show off but I am sure they wouldn't have dressed like that if they were planning to murder anyone! I am also pretty sure they would have been spotted by more than one person.

Yet, we have the statements of Lewis, Paumier & others, who did describe a "well-dressed" man, just not with the same degree of detail. That does not rule Astrachan out, it does though leave open the possibility that they were one and the same.

Possible, yes. Likely, no. But again, this is you taking the evidence available and making your own interpretation of it, which is fine.

Incompetence has nothing to do with it. Lawende's description was considerably more detailed than Mrs Long's, yet there was no preferences shown for one over the other that I am aware of.

Neither of them was particularly detailed. Hutchinson's is in a league of its own as far as witness testimony is concerned, and it would be sheer incompetence on the part of the authorities not to prioritise it accordingly.

This is such a distorted view, well-dressed gents were everywhere in Whitechapel, why wouldn't they be?,

I don't accept that is true.

What is exceptional is not how Astrachan looks, it is the degree of detail that Hutchinson described. This is not the same thing.

Again I disagree.

Also, because Hutchinson added "Jewish appearance" we can take it he is indicating the obvious opulence demonstrated by his attire.

Why, because the only wealthy people in Whitechapel were Jewish? I don't accept that either.

Where you see, Exceptional Attire - Unbelievable man, I see, Exceptional Attire, remarkable detail.
A generation raised in T-shirts & jeans is thinking Gold Chains & spats are "strange", because we are out of touch with the Victorian era.

Regards, Jon S.

Not at all. What is strange is being able to notice everything he said he did, down to eyelash colour, when there was little if any lighting, and being able to look at a man's face, torso, legs and feet all in a fleeting glance under a barely glimmering lamp, and then recall every detail point for point three days later when conveniently the opportunity to do so under oath and be compared with other witnesses had just passed by. As the authorities themselves noted.

[babybird67]

Well I thought Babybird’s post was spot on, personally.

Thank you Benz. I always find yours well argued and referenced and to the point too.

Beebs x

[Colin Roberts]

The following 'quotation' is derived from a different thread.

However, given the direction that has been taken, by some of the most recent discussion, in this thread; I thought that it might be of some relevance.

The Whitechapel Registration District: A sort of 'Greater Whitechapel'


Whitechapel Registration District / Poor Law Union - 1888 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2007
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2010

Whitechapel Registration District / Poor Law Union (Populations, in Accordance with the Census of England & Wales, 1891):
- The Liberty of Norton Folgate (Green): 1,449
- The Old Artillery Ground (Aqua): 2,138
- The Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields (Blue): 22,859
- The Hamlet of Mile End New Town (Orange): 11,303
- The Parish of Holy Trinity ('Minories') (Yellow): 301
- The Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel (Red): 32,326
----- {Portion within the County of Middlesex, -1889; ... the County of London, 1889-1965: 32,284}
----- {Portion within the City of London, -1900: 42}
- The Liberty of Her Majesty's Tower of London (Orange): 933
----- {The Liberty of the Tower: n/a}
----- {The Precinct of Old Tower Without: 65}
----- {The Tower: 868}
- The Precinct of St. Katharine (Blue): 182
- The Parish of St. Botolph without Aldgate (Green): 2,971
----- {Portion within the County of Middlesex, -1889; ... the County of London, 1889-1965: 2,971}

The portion of the Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel (42) that was situated within the Municipality of the City of London, was a component of the Whitechapel Registration District / Poor Law Union; until becoming a part of the Parish of St. Botolph without Aldgate, City of London, in 1900; and accordingly being then included within the Registration / Poor Law administration of the City of London.

- Total Population - Whitechapel Registration District / Poor Law Union (In Accordance with the Census of England & Wales, 1891): 74,462

---


Whitechapel Registration District; as Depicted in Charles Booth's Descriptive Map of London Poverty, 1887-1889 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

Charles Booth's Socio-Economic Classifications

Below the 'Line of Poverty'
- Class A: Lowest Class; 'Vicious' (i.e. vice-ridden), 'Semi-Criminal'
- Class B: Very Poor; 'Casual' (i.e. day-to-day) Income
- Class C: Poor; Intermittent Income
- Class D: Poor; Regular, but, Inadequate Income

Above the 'Line of Poverty'
- Class E: Working Class; Regular Income
- Class F: Upper Working Class; Skilled Labour
- Class G: Lower Middle Class
- Class H: Upper Middle Class

---

Distribution of Charles Booth's Socio-Economic Classifications, Whitechapel Registration District / Poor Law Union, 1889

Below the 'Line of Poverty'
- Class A: 2,487 / 3.38%
- Class B: 6,333 / 8.61%
- Class C: 7,525 / 10.24%
- Class D: 12,157 / 16.54%

- Sub-Total: 28,502 / 38.77%

Above the 'Line of Poverty'
- Class E: 32,501 / 44.21%
- Class F: 7,560 / 10.28%
- Class G: 4,087 / 5.56%
- Class H: 868 / 1.18%

- Sub-Total: 45,016 / 61.23%

- Total: 73,518 / 100.00%


Distribution of Charles Booth's Socio-Economic Classifications: Whitechapel Registration District / Poor Law Union, 1889 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)


Distribution of Charles Booth's Socio-Economic Classifications: Whitechapel Registration District / Poor Law Union, 1889 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

---

"Who lived there besides the lowest-of-the-economic-low?"

Contrary to conventional misconception; London's 'East End', of 1888, was not a vast landscape of abject poverty.

Rather; it was a vast landscape of 'blue-collar' working class society that was burdened with, perhaps, slightly more than its fair share of enclaves, of abject poverty.

Whitechapel was no exception.

Incidentally; the greatest concentrations of London's poverty, in 1888, were found, not in the 'East End', but south of the River Thames, in the so-called 'Bankside' portions of the Borough of Southwark, and the adjoining western-most reaches of the Parish of St. Mary Magdalen Bermondsey.

~~~

Incidentally, ...

I have never considered Hutchinson's description - whether a complete fabrication, a gross embellishment, or an accurate account - to have been that of a so-called 'Toff'.

John Gotti wasn't a 'toff', by any stretch, of anyone's imagination. Neither were the Kray twins.

Having the wherewithal to own expensive clothing, and actually knowing how to wear expensive clothing, do not necessarily go hand-in-hand.