Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[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

[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.

[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 !

[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.

[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.

[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]

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

[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

[Sally]

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, which he didn't, and wasn't.
So why promote an hypothesis which leads to only one conclusion, when no such conclusion was considered? It makes no sense at all.

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

Ah, a sense of humor..

(sic.)

No, I was quite serious.

[Ben]

So, in conclusion, the longer you take to come forward - NO MATTER WHY - you are regarded by the police as a lesser trustworthy witness, and that lessened trustworthyness grows by the hour. Is that correct, Ben?

I think you'll find we've discussed this at length on many occasions, and yes, it is perfectly natural that a witness who comes forward late should be treated with some scepticism. At the very least, s/he has considerably more explaining to do than those witnesses who came forward shortly after learning of the murder, especially when the murder victim was an alleged friend or acquaintance of three years, and especially if the witness' attempts to account for his late arrival were so astoundingly bogus.

Anyway, you're just shooting the messenger here, because the Echo of 13th made the following observation:

Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?

"..,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"

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

However "ridiculous" you irrationally think it sounds to query a witness' late arrival, the 1888 "authorities" would not have agreed with you. Hutchinson's discrediting was inextricably and irrefutably connected with his failure to come forward earlier.

Of particularly incriminating value was his decision to come forward just after the inquest, just after Lewis' statement involving a loitering man opposite Miller's Court had become public knowledge. The timing suggests very strongly that he either deliberately waited for the inquest to finish before putting in an appearance, or that he only did so as soon as he became aware of genuine evidence (Lewis') which might have incriminated him.

[Wickerman]

I thought the point re. Hutchinson was that he's a modern suspect; not that he was under suspicion at the time.

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, which he didn't, and wasn't.
So why promote an hypothesis which leads to only one conclusion, when no such conclusion was considered? It makes no sense at all.

Personally, I prefer Lewis Carroll.

Ah, a sense of humor..

[Stephen Thomas]

Hutchinson fits for Kelly's murder, but what motive would he have had for the others?

What motive might he have had for killing Kelly?

I can't think of one.

[Ben]

Oh, look, it's Mr. "I'm (not) bowing out of this thread for now" aka Fisherman.

It must be apparent to all by now that you cannot resist the hypnotic appeal of these Hutchinson threads.

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.

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 press report if the two are at odds with one another, which they are most assuredly not in Hutchinson's case, since he was initially believed and then discredited. I can therefore accept Abberline's police report and the later police reports as true and correct, secure in the knowledge that there is no mutual exclusivity between the two. Schwartz's broad-shouldered man did not appear to be either respectable or respectably-dressed from Swanson's police report, in my opinion.

I don't know what "admiration" I am supposed to have lavished on the Star. I was simply stating a fact in observing that they were the only newspaper to track down Israel Schwartz. Is it impossible that I've voiced criticisms of the Star on previous occasions? No, of course it isn't, but then I don't need to be best mates with the Star's jouranlists in order to support the contention that Hutchinson was discredited, since the observation had already been made by a newspaper that we know communicated with the police directly.

But are you not recognizing the sheer irony and hypocrisy in what you're accusing me of here?

No.

Of course not.

But 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, but in reverse, and if I'm an "opportunist of the worst kind" that would make you a hypocrite of the most disgusting kind.

And that time has come now, Ben.

Excuse me? What's happening "now" that hasn't happened before? Dealing with nuisances on Hutchinson threads is second-nature to me. I've been doing it for years with a thin smile on my face as I'm met with the type of uppity feigned indignation that some inhabitants of Hutchinsonia delight in resorting to. What's changed?

Frankly, Monty, somebody has to do the dirty work.

Frankly, Fisherman, it would be a lot better for all concerned if that "somebody" wasn't you.

What's this nonsense about "fringe ripperology", by the way? How do we distinguish this from traditional, mainstream, rank-and-file "ripperology"? Sounds like rather a bogus concept to me. Or are you referring to people with suspect theories? If so, you need to take on board that all suspect theories are minority endorsed. And as for "general acceptance of other theories being better supported by the facts" I have no idea what other theories you're referring to, but I dearly hope you don't mean the Dew Spew, which has considerably less support, and is considerably less known about (for some astonishing reason) than the suggestion that Hutchinson was a liar and/or possibly the murderer.

[Stewart P Evans]

Witnesses

Much is made of the fact that Hutchinson did not attend the police station until the Monday evening after the inquest had been concluded.

However, material witnesses coming forward late in the day, even in a murder case, is not an unknown occurrence. In fact some murder witnesses don't bother coming forward and have only been found by police inquiries. The reasons are various. Some are reluctant to get involved, some are frightened to get involved, some are so laid back they don't even consider it or bother to do so immediately. Some only do so when prompted by others.

In the case of Hutchinson we do not know anything about the character of the man and what his reason(s) was (were). What we do know is that when Abberline interrogated him he knew that Hutchinson had presented himself late and that the inquest was over. That fact still did not prevent Abberline from stating that 'I am of opinion his statement is true.'

Immediately after making his statement, and his interrogation by Abberline, Hutchinson was accompanied by two officers round the district for a few hours in an attempt to find the man.

[Lechmere]

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. If it was anything it is more than likely it was an unofficial off the record briefing. Perhaps just one officer's private opinion - at best.

One other thing about Dew... 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.

And Ben you have frequently pulled the ‘old soldier’ routine to dismiss people who disagree with you – so you aren’t well placed to cry foul when the same is applied to you. Indeed you have done it so much I had the impression you were well into your 50s.