Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[Ben]

Hi Monty,

Again, I may be soft in the head, but how do we know it true? I have trawled through the case file again and cannot locate any reference to Hutchinson being discredited.

In my opinion you're very unlikely to find one. Even in the cases where other obviously bogus witnesses were discredited, there was no official document stating as much. Fortunately, in Hutchinson's case, we know that the Echo approached the police directly in order to ascertain the truth about the origin of the various Astrakhan accounts (which other newspapers were getting confused about, mistaking them for separate accounts from different people), and were supplied with an answer that we know to be true - that the 13th and 14th November accounts were provided by the same person. At the same time, they were informed about Hutchinson's "considerably discounted" statement. It was discussed in the Echo, on 14th November, and is crucial information, in my opinion, because it establishes beyond question that the newspaper was not lying or in error.

"Unfortunately for the theories of our morning contempiraries, we learned on inquiry at at the Commercial-street Police-station to-day that the elaborate description given above is virtually the same as that previously published. It is a little fuller, that is all. But it proceeds from the same source"

And on the same date:

"(the description) was considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner."

I'm glad you do not consider me a bastard, and if you feel I've ever "shot down" any of your opinions, I am very sorry.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

We don’t actually know that the Echo’s account is accurate, we don’t know whether their police source was credible or authoritative, official or unofficial.

I can only refer you to my post to Monty, Lechmere.

We may lack final proof, but considering that the information disclosed by the Echo regarding the source of the Astrakhan descriptions was definitely correct and only obtainable from the police, I would say that the chances of them being supplied with equally accurate information about the "discounted" status of the statement were rather high.

"If Hutchinson was somehow discredited in the manner Ben suggests, even if was so junior in 1888 that he was kept out the loop, it is scarcely credible that the matter wouldn’t have arisen in conversation with colleagues over the succeeding years."

It is quite possible that it was, and that Dew's opinion was not shared by those other detectives with whom he discussed the matter. It's worth remembering that Dew did not shy away from espousing personal speculations that ill-accorded with those of his 1888 superiors. His idea that the GSG was not ripper-authored was not shared by any of the senior investigative luminaries of 1888, to my knowledge, whereas Charles Warren and Henry Smith both contended that it was ripper-authored. His thoughts on Hutchinson must be considered in a similar light - he was offering his own speculations and nothing more. To his credit, he never contended otherwise.

Hi Stewart,

I don't know you from Adam, and, as I have said before, you are probably a really nice chap

Thank you, I hope so. One does one's best. I would wager the same is true about you. I never said that life experience doesn't count for anything. On the contrary, I note with interest that Harry, who may be he eldest amongst us, considers Hutchinson to be the most likely suspect of any named thus far, and I respect his experience-enriched opinion greatly.

All the best,
Ben

Some corrections to my previous post:

"Probaby best if you confine your silly Stride nonsense to its appropriate thread, though. You have a disturbing habit of bringing it up completely off-topic, and usually because of your continuing and painfully unsuccessful crusade to bring Ben down.

It seems your latest tactic is to accuse me of inconsistency, whereas in fact, all I pointed out was that a press report should not be prioritized over a police report if the two are at odds with one another

[Wickerman]

Perhaps, Wickerman, you should consider taking that up with the people who wrote the books - they know far more about it than I do.

Alas Sally, they may write the books but they cannot supply the answer.

No, I was quite serious.

Oh dear....

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

If you think discount and discredit are the same, why not switch to the first word?

I do.

I use both of them in equal measure whenever applicable. Some people seem to have the idea that discredited means "proven false", which it most assuredly does not. I don't believe Hutchinson (as strictly distinct from Toppy) was ever proven a liar. It is clear, however, that whatever led to the "very reduced importance", it evidently had something to do with doubts surrounding his credibility, or else his failure to present his evidence earlier and "on oath" would never have been cited.

Hi Richard,

Probably best if we confine Toppy to his appropriate thread, but very briefly, no, it matters very little if Toppy is the only Hutchinson candidate whose descendants have appeared to say that their George was the witness, espcially if the attendant claim behind it is patently bogus and appeared in a discredited royal conspiracy suspect book. It's akin to suggesting that unless we can identify the Maybrick diary's forgers, we must accept Maybrick as the only suggested candidate for the author of the document, and must be accepted accordingly.

The radio programme did exist, I swear to god, but that will again fall on deaf ears

It will fall on sceptical ears, Richard, and on people who naturally require some sort of evidence for this.

even Dew describes Hutchinson as a ''Young man'', and Topping was 22years

He could have been ten years older than that and still be described as a "young man".

Who's "young McCarthy"?

Meanwhile, back on topic...cutaway coats.

No!

The width of the Miller's Court passage.

No!

Hutchinson's Sunday sighting.

But then there's always a Wickerman about, and up to some sort of mischief.

Which is true, and makes it all the more perplexing that anyone would push Hutchinson as a liar to the police when the end result would be Hutchinson would end up as suspect #1

No.

The end result would be that Hutchinson was dismissed as a liar or a timewaster, just like other witnesses who claimed to be at the crime scene before their claims were dismissed as probably, if not definitely ascertained, fabrication. The more likely explanation is that Hutchinson was dismissed as a publicity-seeker with no genuine connection to the crime scene, and that he was not converted into a suspect for that reason. A police force in its infancy with no experience of serial killers was unlikely to enterain for one minute the suggestion that the real killer would approach the police voluntarily as a witness, and yet this is precisely what modern serial killers have done.

[Sister Hyde]

What motive might he have had for killing Kelly?

I can't think of one.

No I can't think of one either, but what I meant to say was that the Hutchinson matter is still erosion resistant with time and quarrels because everyone sees something to discuss in it no matter what their views on the case is, some people see him as a Ripper suspect, some see him as a suspect in Kelly's murder but not as a Ripper, and even for people who don't believe in any of these 2 theories, he's still a witness to discuss, some see him as a liar, some as a credible witness, some as some attention seeking,... well I'm not gonna list all the opinions, but to me that's pretty much why the subject, the discussions and especially the arguments will never dry up.sorry mister Thomas if I didn't express myself very well.

[Rubyretro]

No I can't think of one either, but what I meant to say was that the Hutchinson matter is still erosion resistant with time and quarrels because everyone sees something to discuss in it no matter what their views on the case is, some people see him as a Ripper suspect, some see him as a suspect in Kelly's murder but not as a Ripper, and even for people who don't believe in any of these 2 theories, he's still a witness to discuss, some see him as a liar, some as a credible witness, some as some attention seeking,... well I'm not gonna list all the opinions, but to me that's pretty much why the subject, the discussions and especially the arguments will never dry up.sorry mister Thomas if I didn't express myself very well.

Really well said, Sister !

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE=Sister Hyde;187929]

No I can't think of one either

,
Oh, I can think of a motive for killing Kelly :

she was another prostitute
she had her own private room allowing longer time for mutilations
" " " " " " " the time to 'savour' the crime
" " " " " " " to clean up well in privacy
" " " " " " " comfort, warmth, and light in November
She was recently single and lived alone
She had a room to which he knew how to gain access sneakily
Since he knew her fixed address, it allowed time for planning and 'covering his back' as opposed to spur of the moment decisions and spontaneous risk taking.
She was younger and more physically attractive.
Although she was younger and feistier, if she was asleep in bed when attacked then she couldn't fight back.

Good enough ? -there may have been more, personal reasons, to add...

What would be his motive in killing the others ? How about :
They were women with the body parts that interested him.
They were prostitutes.
They were out on the dark streets alone and willing to lead him to secluded spots.
He had no obvious link to them so was unlikely to be suspected once he had left the scene.
He was a known face to them (on the periphery), and they easily trusted him.
They were frail and couldn't fight back.

He might possibly have been attracted to older, more experienced women, as victims because of his personal history.

Of course -all of that is just my personal take on JTR. But if I think that Hutch was JTR -the motives would be the same.

[Monty]

Hi Monty,



In my opinion you're very unlikely to find one. Even in the cases where other obviously bogus witnesses were discredited, there was no official document stating as much. Fortunately, in Hutchinson's case, we know that the Echo approached the police directly in order to ascertain the truth about the origin of the various Astrakhan accounts (which other newspapers were getting confused about, mistaking them for separate accounts from different people), and were supplied with an answer that we know to be true - that the 13th and 14th November accounts were provided by the same person. At the same time, they were informed about Hutchinson's "considerably discounted" statement. It was discussed in the Echo, on 14th November, and is crucial information, in my opinion, because it establishes beyond question that the newspaper was not lying or in error.

"Unfortunately for the theories of our morning contempiraries, we learned on inquiry at at the Commercial-street Police-station to-day that the elaborate description given above is virtually the same as that previously published. It is a little fuller, that is all. But it proceeds from the same source"

And on the same date:

"(the description) was considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner."

I'm glad you do not consider me a bastard, and if you feel I've ever "shot down" any of your opinions, I am very sorry.

All the best,
Ben

In Home Office file HO 144/221/A49301C, ff.148-59, Swanson stated this about Packer "any statement he (Packer) made would be rendered almost valueless as evidence".

Whilst I agree there is no reason given it nevertheless indicates that comments were made in reports on witnesses. Where, I ask, is Hutchinsons?

As for Hutchinsons discreditation, well it isn't really is it. His evidence was discounted as it was not heard at inquest. It is more a legal matter than proof of that the Police discredited Hutchinsons statement.

Monty

[The Good Michael]

I
As for Hutchinsons discreditation, well it isn't really is it. His evidence was discounted as it was not heard at inquest. It is more a legal matter than proof of that the Police discredited Hutchinsons statement.

Ben says that discount and discredit are exactly the same thing and there is no difference, no nuance that separates them. His English is different than mine, but surely he knows this. I opt for discount for several reasons, but Ben says I should use discredit interchangeably. So should you, I'd guess. Ben wouldn't just make stuff up.

Mike

[Monty]

Well, if that's the case Mike, that words alter there definitions then the flange would be such a plutonic place in my mastication.

Monty

[Ben]

Hi Monty,

Yes, as I explained to Mike elsewhere, "discredit" and "discount" can be used interchangeably to mean challenge, deny, disbelieve, dispute, distrust, mistrust, put under suspicion, reject, scoff at. As Mike acknowledges, he is fully aware that this isn't just me making "stuff up". It is from the thesaurus.

http://thesaurus.com/browse/discredit

Some people (not you, necessarily) have got it into their minds that "considerably discounted" is somehow much more Hutch-friendly than "now discredited", which is not the case at all.

We know that Swanson made reports on the Stride witnesses, and not just Packer, but Schwartz and PC Smith too. He may well have done so with the Kelly witnesses for all we know, and if he did, they are clearly unavailable to us.

All the best,
Ben

[Monty]

Hi Ben,

In this context Hutchinsons statement was discounted because an inquest had already taken and verdict reached and not because the Police felt it to be false.

This is made quite clear in the Echo report you quote.

Yes, clearly they are unavailable, however Packers existed and is proof verification took place.

In other words, Hutchinsons statement wouldn't have been taken at face value, going on Packer as evidence.

Monty

[Ben]

Hi Monty,

In this context Hutchinsons statement was discounted because an inquest had already taken and verdict reached and not because the Police felt it to be false.

But a day before the Echo disclosed that Hutchinson's statement had been "considerably discounted", the same newspaper had referred specifically to the views of the police regarding Hutchinson:

From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?

This article establishes that whereas the police were previously inclined to invest importance in Hutchinson's evidence, "later investigations" had resulted in that importance being reduced. This article quite clearly relates to the question of Hutchinson's credibility.

All the best,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Well, if that's the case Mike, that words alter there definitions then the flange would be such a plutonic place in my mastication.

I can only say to that that I surely matriculate your personification.

Mike

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
So we completely ignore the only admission, to being the witness Hutchinson, as it matters not... What..
I must repeat again, that Reg's account was not solely for ''The Ripper and the Royals'', it cropped up at least 18 years earlier
The youth Ben, was McCarthy's son aged 14years[ Ms Kendal's grandfather]. who at the time Bowyer was visiting Kelly's room, was with his mother collecting rents from the other residents.
It would have been he, that Dew interviewed in the court, and I should add that I am less then convinced if the true account of police notification that morning has ever been correctly disclosed..
In 1888 Dew was 25 years old, three years older then Topping, so a young man would be apt, and some 11 years senior to McCarthy junior, hence the term ''youth''.
Regards Richard..