Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[Ben]

Hi Monty,

It is clear that the Echo established a direct communication with the police. It was established through this communication that Hutchinson's initially endorsed account had received a "very reduced importance" partly because of his failure to come forward earlier and, more specifically, in time for the inquest where he would have been quizzed "on oath". Having established beyond reasonable doubt that the Echo did communicate the police, exactly as they reported, and were supplied with accurate information, there can be little reason to doubt the veracity of the information contained in these reports. In spite of the absence of any "official" police declaration that Hutchinson was discredited, we can be pretty sure that this is what happened, and that the reason for this was linked to doubts surrounding his credibility.

Why make specific reference to his failure to present himself in time to be questioned in public "on oath" if the issue of credibility didn't enter into the equation?

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

You and your long-winded filibustering, Fisherman.

“This time you do not wish to discuyss Stride, and it should therefore make you happy that you won´t have to”

If you wish to discuss Stride, pop yourself along to the Stride threads and see if you have any better luck there (you're unlikely to do any worse), but if you want to stick around here, you should show some consideration for the other participants in the discussion and avoid derailing the thread in the direction of the “BS man” and whether or not he was wearing a nice coat in Berner Street. That acrimonious petty debate obviously had a profound effect on you if you’re still fussing about it several years later.

I have never described the Star as a “top-notch source”, anymore than I have described it as a “useless crap rag”. So this “opportunism” that you delight to accuse me of is yet another unsuccessful attempt to score those much sought-after points. We have no idea if the "respectable" detail was the result of the Star’s misreporting or an error in translation. Either way, even if they did make a mistake, it still wouldn’t enervate the fact that they were the only newspaper to track down Schwartz. I certainly don't believe that the Star deliberately invented the detail.

I am quite aware that Swanson didn’t comment on the “respectability” of the broad-shouldered man. I was simply observing that the description of the man, as originally provided by Schwartz and later transcribed by Swanson, did not depict a respectable individual. You accuse me of “lying” in expressing this opinion, despite knowing full well that had I levelled such an accusation at you, you would have bleated to the moderators.

The Star’s version of the Schwartz account differed markedly in certain respects from the Swanson report, and I felt you were exhibiting a clear preference for the former because you hoped it might lend weight to some Stride theory you were keen on a few years ago. I also felt that if Schwartz really said that the man was respectable, the detail would have been included in Swanson’s report.

I’m not sure who taught you the mantra that “the only source is by definition the most credible” but I wouldn’t cling to it, as the only source is also by definition the least credible. Think about it…

But really, all this is for the Stride threads, and if you want to pick yet another fight with me on that subject, it is incumbent upon you to take the matter there. It would take a brand of pettiness as yet unknown to civilization if you disregarded this advice and kept on with the Schwartz and the Stride fun here, and if you're truly up for it, I guess it’s another stamina war.

“whereas there are clear signs that Astrakhan man was sought for many days after this alledged discrediting”

No, this is nonsense.

There is no evidence that the Astrakhan man was “sought for many days” after Hutchinson’s statement was discredited.

“But what HAS changed is the number of posters that have started to see what you are all about.”

Sorry to piss on your bonfire, but if you think you’ve recruited a handful of extra Ben-botherers, you should guess again. Every one of those recent participants in this increasingly exciting exchange has argued Hutchinson with me well in advance of me even knowing who you are.

“They were of the opinion that he MAY have lied? And not of the opinion that he was genetically misdispositioned to do such a thing?”

Is this a language confusion issue, or are you just being petulant and extremely weird again? Oh good, the latter. Yes, it is clear that police were of the opinion that Hutchinson may have lied in his account, which is a lot different to suggesting that he might be endowed with the human capacity to lie. I was very obviously referring to this specific instance, and yes, it is clear that the police dismissed him as a probable liar. I’m afraid semantic wars work out even worse for you than stamina wars do.

[Monty]

Hi Ben,

Yes, I'm fully aware that it is your opinion.

Obviously my opinion its going to be the opposite. There is nothing on official record stating Hutchinson lacked credibility in Police opinion and nothing official in any Echo report.

You have intrepted the 'discounted statement' report as evidence which stated the police found Hutchinson to be lying whereas in my opinion they are merely stating his evidence cannot be admitted due to the fact the inquest had drawn conclusion and closed.

The 'very reduced importance' quote does not state this was official opinion and does not hold any authoritative mention at all. It is obvious with the pre text of "it seems" that the Echo is merely expressing opinion and not stating fact.

I am not stating the Echo was in error or lying. I am stating that it does not hold any evidence of Police opinion at all. It is merely your own interpretation.

To state the Police had clearly discredited Hutchinson is simply your opinion and not ascertained fact, which is what you stated it was.

That, in my opinion, is misleading.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"the contemporary police arrived at the opinion that he may have done"

Oh, really? They were of the opinion that he MAY have lied? And not of the opinion that he was genetically misdispositioned to do such a thing?

Is there any witness at all in the investigation, that the police considered impossible in the liar´s role?

Reaching the conclusion that somebody MAY lie does not equal that somebody being a probable liar, does it? Anybody can lie - I know that from experience.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Again, nothing official nor even confirmed.

Absolutely, Monty, but then I've never suggested that it was ever "confirmed" that Hutchinson lied. In my opinion, however, it is clear from the press sources I've provided that the contemporary police arrived at the opinion that he may have done, and that he was accordingly discredited. At the very least, the articles in question establish that "the authorities" attached a "very reduced importance" to Hutchinson because of doubts about his credibility.

There is nothing to suggest the Echo article was lying or in error. Quite the reverse.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

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

The usual thing, of course - When an argmment can´t be met by a credible answer, you start your pathetic kindergarten bully routine again. This time you do not wish to discuss Stride, and it should therefore make you happy that you won´t have to. The only thing you are required to discuss is why the Star is a top notch source when it suits your theory, whereas it suddenly is a useless crap rag when it goes against you.

No need, thus, to speak of Stride - all you have to do is to explain your opportunist approach to the sources. Is the Star a good source or a bad one, Ben? Or is it SOMETIMES useful and other times not? Hmm?

I know that you try to "explain" your methodology by claiming that Swansons report did not speak of a respectable man, but that is no explanation at all. Swanson did not say anything about the general appearance of BS man. He never even as much as hinted at it. That, though, has not stopped you from claiming earlier that the police report spoke of the total opposite of respectability.

It is true! I can dig the post out, if you don´t believe or remember it! Of course, the claim that the police report did this is totally untrue. And that is what you sometimes need to resort to, since no realistic argumentation is left to you. Some posters will in cases like this look away from the facts and concoct stories with no support in the real world. And you are one of them.

" I'll explain. You are pooh-poohing the Star's observation that Hutchinson was discredited, whereas before you were championing the Star's observation that the broad-shouldered man had a respectable appearance. In other words, you are guilty of precisely the trait you accuse me of"

Not at all. You are wrong on all counts here. Again, it may be added.

To begin with, I am not saying that the Star IS wrong about the discrediting of Hutchinson´s story. I have said in hundreds of posts that it seem pretty clear to me that this was what happened.

To carry on, in Hutchinson´s case we have two sides of the coin - the Star (and other papers) claim a discrediting, whereas there are clear signs that Astrakhan man was sought for many days after this alledged discrediting. We therefore have TWO bids.

In the case of Schwartz, we have one source and one source only that has anything to say about the general appearance of BS man - and that is the Star. If the police report had spoken of a ruffian in shabby clothes, it would have been the credible source to lean against. It does not, however. It says not a iota about the standard of the cap, the jacket, the trousers and the shoes the man wore. Therefore, as regards the police report, BS man could have been respectably OR shabbily clad. We are not informed about it, quite simply.
The Star therefore is the ONLY source, and the only source is by definition the most credible, since it has no competition for that title. The best bid is to believe in the Star in this instance, the next best bid is to regard it as undecided, and the only truly catastrophic bid is to lie and claim that the police report tells us that BS man was of a shabby appearance.

But that did not stop you, did it?

"What's changed?"

You have not changed. But what HAS changed is the number of posters that have started to see what you are all about. Thin smile and all.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Hi Monty,



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

That it does Ben however that is a seperate article which holds no official comment.

"From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now."

It appears.

Again, nothing official nor even confirmed.

It is up to you how you interpret so called evidence, however to state the Police certainly discredited and held no credence with Hutchinson at a later stage is a leap of faith too far.

There is no evidence, just mere interpretation.

Monty

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

I'm afraid you're being led astray by this "young" business. Dew also referred to "young Richardson" from Hanbury Street, who was in his mid-thirties at the time of the ripper murders. The 30-year-old Joseph Barnett was also described as a "young man". The inference is obvious: the real Hutchinson could have been in his 30s and still have been considered a "young man" by Dew.

I doubt very much that McCarthy sent his 14-year-old son to the police station. Indeed, the evidence strongly suggests that he didn't.

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

No evidence at all for this, I'm afraid.

But let's try and confine Toppy to his appropriate thread(s).

All the best,
Ben

[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..

[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

[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

[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,

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]

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

[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