Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[Stewart P Evans]

According to Walter Dew...

...
It seems likely to me that Dew became aware, during the course of the investigation, that Hutchinson’s account had been discredited, but was not necessarily informed as to why. This is hardly surprisingly considering that “Dew was still a bit of a freshman. He was 25 years old, and not in a commanding position. Therefore, we cannot conclude to which extent he knew about the discussions carried on at a higher level.”
...
Ben

According to Walter Dew he was transferred to H Division and attached to Commercial Street Police Station in early 1887. In his words he had 'attained my first ambition as a police officer, being now a member of the famous Criminal Investigation Department.' At that time his chief was the then Local Inspector, Abberline.

He had been 'promoted' to detective officer and was stationed in the divison throughout the period of the Ripper murders. He was, by his own account, one of the local detective officers involved in the investigation of the Whitechapel murders. His chief by then was the new Local Inspector, Reid. Hutchinson called at the divisional police station and was regarded as an important witness whose suspect description was circulated. Dew and his fellow officers would, obviously, be made aware of this.

To suggest that Dew would not be immediately made aware that an important witness had been to any degree 'discredited' and for what reason (especially if his fellow detective officers had taken Hutchinson around the streets in an attempt to find the suspect) does not really hold water. And if that witness had then become a suspect in police eyes (at whatever level) Dew would certainly have known.

[Fisherman]

Stewart Evans:

"To suggest that Dew would not be immediately made aware that an important witness had been to any degree 'discredited' and for what reason (especially if his fellow detective officers had taken Hutchinson around the streets in an attempt to find the suspect) does not really hold water. And if that witness had then become a suspect in police eyes (at whatever level) Dew would certainly have known."

...to which it should be added that there is no reason not to believe that all of Dewīs colleagues in the East end (and many another district), regardless of level, would have been very well read up on the exact same thing at the time.
No police force would - unless there were extraordinary circumstances involved - benefit from obscuring changes in status regarding a witness such as this. The second the police discredited his story - if this WAS what happened - they would stand to gain from informing the force on the whole about it. Refraining from doing so would inevitably mean that they faced the risk that their men would be conducting their business from a misinformed point of wiew, thus wasting valuable time and insight.

I am not the policeman out here - Stewart Evans is - but I really donīt think you need to be a policeman to realize this.

The best,
Fisherman

[Stewart P Evans]

Probably right...

Stewart Evans:
Ben: "It’s about time I had a credible opponent to give me a run for my money, if that is the cherished agenda, which is appears to be.
...
Stewart: "There is simply no answer to this. I wish that I was up to it. But I'm not and I am not sure that anyone is."

I do not think that Ben would regard you a credible opponent, Iīm afraid.
...
Fisherman

You are probably right. He obviously knows a whole lot more than I do.

I thought that I might just have qualified as I started studying the Ripper case around 1961 and photographed the murder sites in 1967. (I wonder how old Ben was then?). I have written books on the subject and contributed to other projects and helped wherever I could, etc., etc.

Also I joined the police force in 1969 and trained in all aspects of police work. (I wonder how old Ben was then?)

I served for twenty seven and a half years as a front line police officer, also training as a police firearms officer (marksman), tutor constable, acting sergeant, custody officer, made dozens of court appearances, was involved in investigations from simple thefts to murders, dealt with dozens of criminals, compiled an untold number of court files for which I adduced the evidence, etc., etc. (now I'm getting boring).

Yes, I'm a dinosaur. I don't know what I am talking about, my opinions are worth little, my experience worth even less (in fact Ben probably thinks that it counts against me), I know little about the Ripper case, etc., etc.

Yes, you are right, I simply cannot be a 'credible opponent'. Perhaps if I changed my ideas, agreed with him and thought that modern criminal profiling was the be all and end all of criminology, perhaps he might then take me seriously. But I wouldn't be an opponent then, would I?.

No, I shall just retire back to obscurity - where I belong.

[harry]

Stewart,
Thank you for your kind words.Old yes,but thankfully not yet senile.
Regards.

[Monty]

Hi Monty,

I do not reject Abberline's initial endorsement of Hutchinson's statement. I have every faith that at the time he penned the report (a few hours after his first ever meeting with Hutchinson), he meant precisely what he wrote. It is very clear, however, that the police came to discredit his account very shortly after it first appeared, and this is not based on press speculation. We know for certain that the Echo communicated directly with the police, based on other observations they reported in relation to Hutchinson's account, and it was this paper that first alluded to the "considerably discounted" status accorded to Hutchinson's statement.

Cheers,
Ben

Hey Ben,

And this Police discreditation of Hutchinsons account appears where in the case file? I'm struggling to locate it.

Newspapers, including the Echo, are prone to erronous reporting and sensationalism. Its their nature to sell, so forgive me for not committing competely to a news account.

Unless officially verified of course.

Monty

[The Good Michael]

I really am tired of Ben using the word discredited. Until he stops, i shall continue to use the name Toppy when referring to Hutchinson as so many factors have pointed to this identification.

If someone wants to say Toppy's account was discounted I will agree that that is a possibility.

Mike

[Ben]

“The trouble with Ben is that he offers his own personal speculations regarding Hutchinson, rather than the collective wisdom of most modern theorists.”

I wasn’t aware of any “collective wisdom” regarding Hutchinson, Stewart. Some think he was non-murdering liar, some think he was a murdering one, while others believe he was a squeaky-clean eyelash-shade spotting witness. You even get the odd one or two believe the silly sausage muddled up the date! It occurs to me that there is considerable variety of opinion on the Hutchinson issue, rather than one collectively and wisely accepted version of events.

“If the man thus stopped was able to immediately (or even subsequently) clear himself and prove an irrefutable alibi he would be bothered no further and the witness's previous claim to be able to identify the suspect would thus be discredited.”

It would mean that particular identification was discredited, along with his claim to be able to “swear to the man anywhere”. That doesn’t mean that the entire account and its author would cease to be of use to the inquiry, and yet this is the strong inference from those press sources that established contact with the police. The reason cited for this “very reduced importance” had nothing, apparently, to do with honest confusion, but with doubts about his credibility that were triggered by his failure to approach the police with his evidence sooner.

“To suggest that Dew would not be immediately made aware that an important witness had been to any degree 'discredited' and for what reason (especially if his fellow detective officers had taken Hutchinson around the streets in an attempt to find the suspect) does not really hold water”

I agree that he would have been made aware of Hutchinson’s discrediting, as I believe he was, but I’m not nearly so certain that his relatively junior status at the time would have ensured that he was supplied with the “reason” for this. Indeed, Dew’s personal speculations make clear that he was not – either that or he had simply forgotten (he was writing 50 years after the murders). He would not have appealed to his readers to endorse his “is it not probable that…” type of musings if he was reporting established police wisdom at the time, otherwise he would naturally and logically have stated, “we eventually established that…”.

It is likely that the police on the ground were simply informed not to continue the search for the Astrakhan man. There was nothing to be gained from informing them why.

“I thought that I might just have qualified as I started studying the Ripper case around 1961 and photographed the murder sites in 1967. (I wonder how old Ben was then?).”

Ah, got me. Hutchinson can’t have lied if that’s the case. Good point. I was minus quite a few years in 1969, and I’d imagine that Fisherman’s testicles had just about descended that year.

But if the new rule is that the oldest poster wins the argument, that’s excellent news for Harry, whose contributions I’ve always admired greatly.

Bad news for me, though. I thought it was stamina wars and prolixity that wins the day.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Monty,

The Echo stated that they approached Commercial Street police station in order to ascertain the truth about the origin of Hutchinson’s statement, and were informed that the fuller description that appeared on the 14th proceeded from the same source as the briefer account that appeared a day earlier. We know now that this is true. Some of their press contemporaries had formed the mistaken impression that they were two independently supportive accounts, and the Echo, having approached the police to seek clarification, were assured that this was not the case. They were also informed that the statement had been “considerably discounted”.

Since the former confirmation could only have originated from the police, we now know that the Echo did approach the police station, and that they were supplied with what we know for certain to be accurate information.

I haven’t seen any evidence of errors or sensationalism from the Echo, unlike many of their press contemporaries.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

“Until he stops, i shall continue to use the name Toppy when referring to Hutchinson as so many factors have pointed to this identification.”

No they don’t, Mike.

And until you stop using the name Toppy when referring to Hutchinson, I’m going to start referring to him as “that man who definitely wasn’t Toppy”.

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

There is no evidence that either words had any wildly different meaning in 1888. The word “discount” is thus inextricably linked to the question of honesty and trust, or lack thereof, in this instance.

Hi Jon,

“This explanation say's nothing about the official police version”

But they had already said something about the police version. They reported on the afternoon/evening of 13th November that the police had attached a “very reduced importance” to his account, and that the authorities were still wondering why he had not presented his evidence before. It’s little wonder then they didn’t attach much “importance” to an embellished version of an already doubted account.

All the best,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hello Ben..
I guess you would not expect anything else, then for me to say, I agree with Mike.
We simply can not ignore that, the only person that has ever presented themselves as the witness Hutchinson was Topping, albeit mostly from his son Reg, although in fairness Toppings brother was aware of his account also , as to other members of the family.
But you refuse to even accept that he is the most likely candidate, yet can not name anyone who was more likely, and has credited themselves with being that witness.
The radio programme did exist, I swear to god, but that will again fall on deaf ears, even Dew describes Hutchinson as a ''Young man'', and Topping was 22years.
As for describing Bowyer as a youth, I would suggest that Dew did actually interview young McCarthy back in millers court, and confused the two.
Regards Richard.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
But they had already said something about the police version. They reported on the afternoon/evening of 13th November that the police had attached a “very reduced importance” to his account, and that the authorities were still wondering why he had not presented his evidence before. It’s little wonder then they didn’t attach much “importance” to an embellished version of an already doubted account.

All the best,
Ben

This is a long way from claiming that Hutchinson was discredited. In fact the above appears to be a rewording of what I had explained to you several times previously, that the description given by Hutchinson was given a reduced importance when compared to Cox's description, therefore, he was not discredited.

You repeatedly use Packer in support of your claims yet the police never once claimed that Packer's evidence although "discredited", was:

"..sufficiently significant to induce them to make it the subject of careful inquiry".

Yet this is precisly what the Echo claimed the police opinion was.

- When one witness (Lewis) places a person at the door of the murdered woman, just prior to the murder, and...

- Hutchinson admits to being that same person who, however momentarily, stood at Kelly's door, then...

Hutchinson automatically becomes Police suspect No.1, had his story not checked out, at any time, the police would have simply said,... "Mr Hutchinson, you need to come with us".

They did not, at no point has Hutchinson ever appeared listed in police paperwork, in the press, or even in later officer's memoirs, as a suspect.

This fact, highlites the impossibility of all your "discredited" arguments.

Regards, Jon S.

[Monty]

Hi Ben,

So no discreditation on case file? Just a news reporter stating he went to the Police Station and obtained a statement?

Hmmm.

Monty

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben,

So no discreditation on case file? Just a news reporter stating he went to the Police Station and obtained a statement?

Hmmm.

Monty

Monty, ol' chum, we are debating with someone who's principal source of evidence is the Star!

- The paper apparently lacked experience, as the Star was a new enterprise in 1888.

- They also lacked information, as the police refused to talk with them.

- They also appear to have lacked a dictionary, because the story they hi-jacked from the Echo which mentioned "diminution", they decided to reprint using "discredit".

Without the Star and their inadequate sources and inflamatory story-telling this "discrediting" Hutchinson would fall flat on it's face, if it hasn't already done so!
I think we're just swepping away the embers...

Regards, Jon S.

[The Good Michael]

Ben,

If you think discount and discredit are the same, why not switch to the first word? Perhaps my English is different, but to my mind the words are synonymous, but weakly so. Toppy's testimony seems to have diminished in importance... it was never discredited that we know of. If it lost importance it became thought of as no longer relevant for many possible reasons. That would be discounted. If your English differs from mine in the meaning, I must be wrong because you are always right.

Mike

[Fisherman]

There is nothing even remotely wrong with fringe Ripperology. On the whole, it must be there, to provide fresh outside the box-thinking. After all, having had 123 years at our disposal have not brought forward a solution to the case that we may all embrace.

I actually indulge in fringe Ripperology myself at times - my wiew on the Tabram case, for example, would qualify as an example of the genre.

What I think is very important, though, is that the ones trading in fringe Ripperology - like, for example the Hutchinsonians - must be aware that the reason they are regarded as purveyors of a less likely theory, lies in the general acceptance of other theories being better supported by the facts.

Fringe Ripperology is a sort of hunchology, and as such quite useful. It has brought much interesting thinking to the table and often reformed old consensus thinking. And thatīs a good thing.

Fringe Ripperology is not, however, a good thing when it topples over in a belief that the truth has been discovered, at long last, at least not if there is insufficient evidence to establish this. In cases like these, it becomes much more of an obsession than a truly useful contribution. And matters are made worse - much worse - when somebody representing fringe Ripperology reserves himself the right to scorn, insult and humiliate those who do not agree with him, and goes to completely ridiculous lenghts in the defence of his favoured belief.

Itīs a good thing that George Hutchinson is looked very much into. It is equally good that the murdererīs role is tried on him, in order to see if he is a viable suspect. There is nothing wrong in becoming a firm believer in his guilt, even if this belief is based much more on a hunch than on actual evidence. Such a stance will ensure that much and devoted work is carried out to make the picture as full and clear as possible.

But when we have a situation like the one we have, where all constructive criticism of the Hutchinsonianism is refuted by means of reflexes and met by an extremely arrogant attitude, the fringe Ripperology does not provide the fresh perspective it should.

I have written an article on Fleming being the perhaps best bet for the killerīs role. After that, it has surfaced that Fleming probably was 6 ft 7. That detracts very much from his credibility in the Ripperīs role, and it would be foolish not to admit that. I think that the figure may be wrong, but until this is proven, Fleming was 6 ft 7, and if - as it seems - the man in Stone asylum WAS the Fleming that saw Kelly, then he most probably was not the Ripper.

So as it stands, I was wrong.

I have suggested that Martha Tabram was attacked by two different men, the second one after the first had fled the scene. I did this since I thought it credible that the first attack could have been witnessed by the second - who I speculated would have been the Ripper - who subsequently killed the severely wounded Tabram. Much of my stance was governed by John Bennettīs find of the photo of the back of George Yard buildings, opening up for the possibility that Tabram was attacked on the outside landing.

As it now stands, I think that I can place Tabram inside the building, in a place from where she would not have been spotted outside. And that detracts from my earlier theory, which means that I am no longer regarding it as anything more than an outside chance theory.

So as it stands, again I was wrong.

But in both cases, I believe that I have followed paths that must be followed and that could ultimately have proven - and may perhaps still prove - useful.

We owe it to our fellow Ripperologists to back down and reassess when we do not have evidence enough to bolster a theory of ours. I freely do so in the Fleming and the Tabram case. I do not, however, do so as yet in the wrong day case, for the simple reason that it holds water eminently so far. If that should change, I hope and actually believe that I will be the first one to acknowledge this, for the simple reason that I prefer to try and stay on top of my theorizing instead of having it stay on top of me.

The best,
Fisherman