Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Wickerman]

I lost interest long ago, Jon. It began with the Keeler as Gallagher nonsense, then intensified progressively with the Commercial Home admission policy argument, your assumed psychic connection with Anderson, the assertion of a whiter than white Metropolitan Police Force,...

In other words, anything that exposes your ill-researched theory. Which once challenged appears to have little to no source to back it up. If it was not for uncorroborated press theories your book could not have been written.
So much for integrity.
Ironically, it is this very source you criticize ONLY when used against you, but where would your case be without it?

...false attributions regarding what Sarah Lewis saw on her way to the Keylers, and culminated with the Isaacs as Astrakhan rubbish.

As much as you selectively reject anything in the press that exposes your theory, ironically, Inquest coverage is among thee most reliable of press coverages. As reliable as Parliamentary debates, Sports, Foreign News, Natural disasters, War in South Africa, and so on.
For all the huffing and puffing about the press coverage of the inquests, not once have you, or anyone who buys into your theory, ever demonstrated errors of content, nothing above mispronunciations, and misspellings.

What is less reliable are the press 'on the street' interviews. Reports which came from Diemschitz, Schwartz, Packer, and yes, Hutchinson, Kennedy, and the rest.
Any one of these stories could have been tampered with in order to 'excite' the reader, make an otherwise boring exchange into something worth talking about.

The worst type of press coverage is, Press Opinion, the very subject you put absolute faith in. The desire is all too obvious to present this particular newspaper as "one who knows", who have the inside track with the authorities. All unsubstantiated nonsense, yet without this your case would fall apart.


And to return to this little gem.

I first began researching Hutchinson and his part in the Ripper case in the mid-Eighties. I dare say that no-one has researched this man to anything like the length and depth as I have done over the decades. Perhaps this is something you ought to remember the next time you're tempted to demonstrate the extent of your Hutchinson-related knowledge.

Remind me, where was he born, when was he born, where did he live, where did he work?
Was he ever married, and was his real name George Hutchinson?
If you had truly spent 30+ years researching this man, shouldn't we expect that you would be able to provide some very basic answers to these questions?
Can you provide any factual answers to just one of those questions?

I dare say you have spent 30+ years looking for ammunition to build a case against him but don't try tell me you actually 'know' anything about him.

Maybe it's just me, but I think you can only begin to research a man, once you find him!
That, as they say, has become 'a Bridge too far' for you.

This would be the same Hutchinson who was rejected by police as a credible eyewitness, right?

Really Garry, so tiresome.
You have nothing but bluff.

[Wickerman]

Hi Garry,

So this telegram presumably went the way of other police documents on Hutch that have not survived.

I don't suppose Ben will be happy with that thought.

Love,

Caz
X

And then there's the use of uncorroborated press reports. Acceptable when used to criticize Hutchinson, but not acceptable when used to defend him.

[caz]

Hi Garry,

So this telegram presumably went the way of other police documents on Hutch that have not survived.

I don't suppose Ben will be happy with that thought.

Love,

Caz
X

[Garry Wroe]

I think the confusion with a telegram may have arisen because 'it' (Hutch's story) is then described as a 'message', which can imply brevity, though not in this context. In the true sense of the word it was a message, which required a response, which came in the form of Abberline hot-footing it to investigate the story he had just read, firstly by interrogating Hutch to assess its overall credibility.

There's no confusion regarding the telegram, Caz. A potentially crucial eyewitness had walked into Commercial Street Police Station with a story which, if true, would likely result in the arrest of Jack the Ripper. Abberline was advised of such and made his way to Commercial Street to speak to the informant in person. This was standard procedure. Witness statements were not sent all over London on an ad hoc basis. They were bundled together and sent to Central Office collectively. No mystery. No confusion.

[Garry Wroe]

You lose interest once challenged - your integrity is in your own hands.

I lost interest long ago, Jon. It began with the Keeler as Gallagher nonsense, then intensified progressively with the Commercial Home admission policy argument, your assumed psychic connection with Anderson, the assertion of a whiter than white Metropolitan Police Force, false attributions regarding what Sarah Lewis saw on her way to the Keylers, and culminated with the Isaacs as Astrakhan rubbish.

I'll tell you what I thought was really odd.
That you would protest about me questioning your integrity, while you think it's fine to question Hutchinson's integrity.

This would be the same Hutchinson who was rejected by police as a credible eyewitness, right?

Life is so unfair, isn't it Garry.

It must certainly feel that way when, in order to promulgate a pet theory, one feels compelled to resort to outlandish reasoning, the selective use of evidence and the rejection of historical reality.

[Wickerman]

Unfortunately, Jon, unlike yourself, some of us have neither the time nor the inclination to spend virtually every waking moment on this site. The information is out there for anyone who is interested. Frankly, I'm not.

"Not interested enough", but sufficiently interested try correct me regardless, even though you had nothing to correct me with. You lose interest once challenged - your integrity is in your own hands.

I'll tell you what I thought was really odd.
That you would protest about me questioning your integrity, while you think it's fine to question Hutchinson's integrity.

Life is so unfair, isn't it Garry.

[Wickerman]

I think the confusion with a telegram may have arisen because 'it' (Hutch's story) is then described as a 'message', which can imply brevity, though not in this context.

Hi Caz.
We do have examples in Stewart's "Ultimate" of cover sheets with added notes when mailing (internal police mail) memo's, reports, and other incidental pieces of paper. So, if the Detective was charged with hand delivering Hutchinson's statement of 3 pages, it would be enveloped in a cover sheet of some description, naturally with a brief covering message.

Oh, unless there is a specific mention of a telegram elsewhere that I have not seen.

No mention of any telegram being involved in this communication.

[caz]

"... and the importance they attached to this man's story may be imagined when it is mentioned that it was forwarded to the headquarters of the H Division as soon as completed by a special detective. Detectives Abberline, Nairn, and Moore were present when this message arrived, and an investigation was immediately set on foot."

Hi Jon,

Well certainly, according to the language used here, 'it' refers to Hutch's actual story, his statement, which was forwarded as soon as the special detective (Badham?) had got it down in writing and signed by the witness.

I think the confusion with a telegram may have arisen because 'it' (Hutch's story) is then described as a 'message', which can imply brevity, though not in this context. In the true sense of the word it was a message, which required a response, which came in the form of Abberline hot-footing it to investigate the story he had just read, firstly by interrogating Hutch to assess its overall credibility.

Oh, unless there is a specific mention of a telegram elsewhere that I have not seen. But then it would presumably have been a very much shorter version of the story, and was there an internal police telegram service to preserve confidentiality? Maybe that would not matter, though, since they were sharing all sorts with the press - not.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

“That is not an answer Ben, Hutch is not waiting because of any fixation, Astrachan is inside, he cannot see him, so what is he fixated on now?”

It’s a bloody good question, Jon.

Why don’t you ask discredited Hutchinson? He might be able to help.

Unfortunately for your “extra report” theory, Hutchinson makes it clear in his statement that he stood there for 45 minutes “to see if they came out”. If you find this problematic, take it up with the spectre of Hutchinson as this was the specific reason he provided for his 45 minute vigil, and Abberline accepted it.

“Three years prior, Kelly was living at Breezers Hill, so was this where he met her, and if so in what capacity, if not then where?”

In the capacity of someone who gave her a few shillings on occasion, as Abberline related in his report. If you consider this too light on detail, take it up with Abberline for failing to extract additional juicy details when he had the opportunity to do so.

“Abberline did not know he left the street at 3:00. And certainly, he needed to know the time as accurately as Hutch could provide.”

If Hutchinson left the vicinity at 3.00am, he could have provided some degree of “precision” from the clock chimes, but if you’re talking about his alleged subsequent “all night” wanderings, you’d be dreaming if you’re expecting any time-keeping precision from an almost certainly watchless Hutchinson.

“Abberline needs to know what direction, which streets, people seen, anyone spoken to?, etc.”

Only if he's delusional enough to expect answers to such silly questions, maybe...

An honest Hutchinson would likely not remember which streets he wandered at any specific time, and probably wouldn’t have spoken to anyone (this was 3.00am!), whereas a dishonest Hutchinson could easily have lied about which streets he wandered after aborting his Dorset Street vigil, knowing full well that nobody was in any position to catch him out or prove him wrong. Either way, the “street confirmation” is yet another impossible event, and one that I hope you won’t jump aboard in the same way you jumped far too hastily aboard the “Isaacstrakhan” train, i.e. as the sole occupant.

“It was not the constable talking to Gallowey. The police fobbed the reporter off with an excuse.”

According to…?

Any evidence…?

Nope. Just you, with nobody agreeing with you, as usual.

In reality, Galloway’s blotchy road-crosser was working in concert with the police, and because Galloway himself was unaware of this, he was discouraged from pursuing him as a potential suspect.

“Given the unsubstantiated "discredited" yarn from the Star, and the many unsubstantiated articles from the Echo, plus this last laugh from Lloyds, your entire charade is built on unsubstantiated press reports.”

So you’ve argued repetitively and unconvincingly for years to no effect.

Hutchinson’s discrediting is based on a proven communication with the police, and it is substantiated by numerous sources from senior police officials. If you want to embark upon yet another “discredited or not” argument, I’ll simply dredge up the relevant threads and copy and paste my responses. You’ve failed at every attempt you’ve ever made to win a repetition/stamina war, and I don’t foresee this occasion having a different outcome.

How are the Druitt/Stride/GSG threads doing these days? You might have an opportunity to really shine with those, and I mean that very sincerely, without sarcasm or any belittling motive.

[Wickerman]

He waited outside because of his fixation with the oddity of Astrakhan being in Kelly’s company;

That is not an answer Ben, Hutch is not waiting because of any fixation, Astrachan is inside, he cannot see him, so what is he fixated on now?
The question remains, "why did you wait for so long"?
The answer begins with, "because I intended to.......(what?)
The statement does not tell Abberline what Hutch intended to do.

...his relationship with the deceased was that of a casual acquaintance who occasionally gave her “a few shillings”;

No it isn't, he said he had known her three years.
The answer will provide Abberline with where he knew her from, and under what circumstances.
Three years prior, Kelly was living at Breezers Hill, so was this where he met her, and if so in what capacity, if not then where?

...and he left the court at 3.00am (Abberline would not have been so daft and unimaginative as to ask for “precision”).

Once again Ben, no.
Being at Thrawl St. "about 2 am", plus "about three quarters of an hour", does not add up to 3:00 (we'll let the 3 minutes slip).
Abberline did not know he left the street at 3:00. And certainly, he needed to know the time as accurately as Hutch could provide.

The others are accounted for in the press; he only came forward on the recommendation of a fellow lodger,

Wrong again (not doing too well are we?).
The question was, "why did you not come forward earlier?", not "what caused you to come in when you did?"

.....and he “walked about all night” after leaving the court, etc.

Fail!
Abberline needs to know what direction, which streets, people seen, anyone spoken to?, etc.

When I say the answers were not there, it is because they were not there.
I do understand why you think they were, as you have clearly demonstrated, it is because you do not know what questions to ask.

You’re the one who needs to read the account more carefully.

Keep your eye on the ball, Ben. This is the detail you need to read:
"The police state that the man who aroused the suspicion of Mr. Galloway by frequently crossing and recrossing the road, is a respectable citizen, and that he was, as a matter of fact, acting in concert with them in his "mysterious movements."

This was what the police told the reporter on inquiring at the police station.
It was not the constable talking to Gallowey. The police fobbed the reporter off with an excuse.

Finally, I’m afraid Garry is quite right to note that it is very hypocritical of you to chastise others for relying on press reports when that is precisely what you’re doing with your reliance on the press report (described by you as “the actual record”) that the statement was conveyed from one station to the other by some sort of "cop-ogram", instead of the sensible usual method of telegram.

Hypocrisy, was the precise word that came to mind when Garry threw that out. Given the unsubstantiated "discredited" yarn from the Star, and the many unsubstantiated articles from the Echo, plus this last laugh from Lloyds, your entire charade is built on unsubstantiated press reports.
It struck me as the pot calling the kettle black, as they used to say.
Every accusation you (collectively) have leveled against Hutchinson is based on unsubstantiated press reports and half-truths.
Howls of laughter does not quite describe this ill conceived notion.

The conventional way to move paperwork from station to station was by carriage, which is what will have happened in this case. The special Detective taking the horse and carriage to Leman St.
No mention of a telegram, obviously because the statement being three pages long is far too much to put on a telegram.

Abberline eventually sent the same statement to Headquarters with his daily report didn't he? No telegram there either, and that paperwork went by carriage too.

Plus, the fact this unsubstantiated suggestion is endorsed by yourself pretty well confirms the fallacy of the idea.

[Garry Wroe]

Save yourself and your integrity and please provide the official source for this "telegram".

Oh, by the way, have you found that quote you attributed to me, that you decided to offer up, or was that another "mistake"?

Unfortunately, Jon, unlike yourself, some of us have neither the time nor the inclination to spend virtually every waking moment on this site. The information is out there for anyone who is interested. Frankly, I'm not.

Ever heard the expression, the proof is in the pudding?

The problem being, Jon, that your interpretation of proof is simply that which accords with whatever pet theory you happen to be hawking at a particular time. Your insistence, for example, that Sarah Lewis sighted a couple enter Miller's Court as she made her way to the Keylers. And the source of this 'proof'? No, not Sarah's official police statement. Nor her official inquest deposition. It originated in what was a clear example of misreportage in a single newspaper. Small wonder an increasing number of posters are having difficulty in taking you seriously. And this coming from a man who once insisted that only official sources were to be trusted. Newspaper reports, it was asserted, were all but worthless in terms of their evidential value.

[Scott Nelson]

All the best,
Ben

I don't know about this. Just can't be sure. Will Ben and Jon ever meet up for a few pints? Can I ever persuade either of the absolute truth about the Hutchinson affair?

[Ben]

“Oh dear, then I can trust you to fill in the answers:
- Precisely what time did you leave Dorset St.?
- When you left Dorset St., where did you go, who did you meet, and can anyone confirm this?
- What was the reason you stood outside Millers Court for so long?
- Why did you not come forward earlier?
- What exactly was your relationship with the deceased?”

You’re repeating yourself, Jon – copying and pasting from a few days ago, in fact. I can do that too, like this:

Most of these are covered in the documents you try to trivialise – the witness statement and the accompanying report. He waited outside because of his fixation with the oddity of Astrakhan being in Kelly’s company; his relationship with the deceased was that of a casual acquaintance who occasionally gave her “a few shillings”; and he left the court at 3.00am (Abberline would not have been so daft and unimaginative as to ask for “precision”). The others are accounted for in the press; he only came forward on the recommendation of a fellow lodger, and he “walked about all night” after leaving the court, etc.

I’m not suggesting that Abberline “used” unpublished press reports. I’m saying it’s possible that Hutchinson supplied the same excuse to him (for his “delay” in coming forward) that he would later give to the press, i.e. that he had informed a policeman about the incident on Sunday and ultimately went to the station on the recommendation of a fellow lodger.

You repeat, and I counter-repeat. Productive stuff, as always.

“Remind me again, which type of evidence are you expecting to see, your home-grown version, or the conventional version?”

Anything, Jon.

I just need something resembling some sort of evidence for Hutchinson’s presence being “confirmed” on the streets. It’s nonsense for so many reasons, including (but not restricted to):

1) Even if there was the odd insomniac up and about on the same streets that Hutchinson allegedly wandered, the best the former could realistically have provided was a general recollection that yes, maybe the odd bloke or two sauntered past at a time he couldn’t recall. The entirely unremarkable sight of an ordinary local man on the streets was unlikely to prompt a passer-by to scrutinise his features, let alone remember that it was “George Hutchinson”.

2) Assuming Hutchinson wasn’t lying about “walking about all night”, he was almost certain not to remember “precisely” what street he happened to be wandering at any particular time.

3) Had his presence on the streets been confirmed, there was no chance of his statement being discredited, no chance of Abberline failing to mention this crucial detail in his report, and absolutely no chance of Hutchinson being omitted from the various reports, interviews and memoirs of senior police officials that addressed the issue of ripper-related eyewitness sightings. Unfortunately for this evidenceless, non-existent “street confirmation”, all of that happened.

“Please read the account more carefully, Gallowey was not given the identity of the blotchy character, all the constable told him was, "he was working with us".”

You’re the one who needs to read the account more carefully. At no stage did the constable reveal to Galloway that the blotchy road-crosser was working with the police. He merely informed him that he was not going to pursue the individual in question because the police were seeking a man of a “different” appearance. This was the fob-off, designed to put Galloway off the scent and conceal the fact that the blotchy character was in fact working in concert with the police. In reality, the police were very much still in pursuit of the real Blotchy, as described by Mary Cox.

“So they received their accounts in person from Cusins & Oakes, and published them on the 9th, then again on the 16th.
Yet it was not until the 23rd that Lloyds decide to change their story, with no quotes, no sources, no explanation."

What is it you’re struggling to understand about simple chronology? Yes, they initially provided the accounts of Cusins and Oakes, because at that stage it was still on the cards as to whether or not Isaacs was a worthy suspect in the Kelly murder. Then the whole Isaacs hoo-ha went quiet as the police discovered his prison alibi and promptly ditched him. They were not duty-bound to inform the press about this development, but were evidently happy to supply the information to whoever asked or cared, as Lloyds did in late December. I’m not sure why you’re expecting Lloyds to provide quotes and sources. Were the police really likely to care if Lloyds didn’t accept their stated reason for their loss of interest in Isaacs? And were Lloyds really banking on anyone being sceptical? Who would be sceptical, anyway? Yep, you guessed it: people with theories that require Isaacs being Astrakhan. Just you, in other words.

“The bottom line though is, no such prison, or court record exists to confirm this story, hence, it is false”

Hence NO, Jon.

Your “convictions calendar” remains utterly useless as a means of determining who was and wasn’t in prison throughout the entire country in November, and pretending otherwise won’t make it so.

“However, what is true, is, only those vocal minority who have so much invested in any number of "Hutchinson-the-liar" theories have voiced an opinion, predictably in the negative.”

That doesn’t explain why those “who have so much invested in any number of” Hutchinson-the-truth-teller theories haven’t voiced an opinion in favour of Isaacstrakhan. I guess they realise that it just weakens their cause. You speak of a “minority” (huge irony), but according to what evidence do you base your assertion that those who believe Hutchinson told the truth outnumber those who believe he lied?

“Because it is a known fact that people can deceive a machine just as easily as a living, breathing, investigator.”

Yes.

Well done.

We’re getting somewhere.

And what type of people “can deceive a machine just as easily as a living, breathing, investigator”…? That’s right – good liars. People who appear honest in spite of the fact that they are anything but. People who do a BIG poopoo on the misconception that one can always spot the fibbers from their shifty, nervous body language. That may be a great method for sifting out bad liars, but useless for the more intelligent, more plausible rogues who can “deceive a machine just as easily as a living, breathing, investigator”...an investigator like Abberline, for instance.

“So Garry is saying this was possible, that Abberline trusted his instincts and the physical & emotional responses of the witness, and you are saying it isn't?”

I agree with Garry 100%

Abberline could only work on the basis of what Hutchinson said and how he said it.

We, however, cannot make the very clumsy mistake of concluding that a man with a plausible demeanour cannot also be a liar.

Finally, I’m afraid Garry is quite right to note that it is very hypocritical of you to chastise others for relying on press reports when that is precisely what you’re doing with your reliance on the press report (described by you as “the actual record”) that the statement was conveyed from one station to the other by some sort of "cop-ogram", instead of the sensible usual method of telegram. I don’t know if you’ve envisaging the statement on a silver tray with a few Fox’s Glacier Mints sprinkled round the edges or what, but telegram gets my vote all day long.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

That looks like another very long winded way of avoiding presenting a source.

Save yourself and your integrity and please provide the official source for this "telegram". Harry chose to back you up, he is assuming you are not mistaken. I assume you do not intend to disappoint a fellow Hutchinsonian?

Of course, if you were mistaken, I can understand that, and we will say no more about it.

Oh, by the way, have you found that quote you attributed to me, that you decided to offer up, or was that another "mistake"?

I first began researching Hutchinson and his part in the Ripper case in the mid-Eighties. I dare say that no-one has researched this man to anything like the length and depth as I have done over the decades.

Yes, I can very well believe you would fall back on such a claim.
Ever heard the expression, the proof is in the pudding?

[harry]

Jon,
Would you care to give provinence to your claim of a detective being the person who informed Aberline of Hutchinson's presence and statement.Is it in a police file,for instance,a newspaper account,or perhaps a remembrance of Walter Dew.Interesting,as like Gary,I believed Aberline was informed by telegram.
So do you care to support this fictional detective?