Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[Sister Hyde]

I thought the point re. Hutchinson was that he's a modern suspect; not that he was under suspicion at the time. People can call that revisionism if they want, but Hutchinson is hardly alone in the category.

Personally, I prefer Lewis Carroll.

Hi Sally,

I can understand why ripperologists are omnibulated with Hutchinson no matter what a challenge studying his testimonies are. and strangely I can definitely understand why he came under suspicion for Kelly's murder now, he's got a motive, but as I already told once to David (DVV, who's being too busy working at the moment to be with us), Hutchinson fits for Kelly's murder, but what motive would he have had for the others?? maybe that's why he was not a suspect at the time, before the idea spread that Stride and Kelly weren't killed by Our Ripper, there was a time when it was considered that "if you didn't commit one of the crime, then you didn't comit any of them". I guess ripperology is just like religion in a way... I learned a lot of new things following the thread anyway... did you know Hutch was a "cuddly" witness???

Cam in da fog

others PS: there's nothing wrong about living in obscurity.... Musset: "great honours are great burdens"

[Stewart P Evans]

Impression

...
I don't know where someone people have formed the impression that I consider myself the "world's leading authority". If I'm met with a respectful attitude, I'll respond in kind. If I disagree, I'll say so. You're welcome to regard me as a "young whipper-snapper know-it-all" if you wish, but I think focussing inordinately on people's ages isn't likely to score those points.

I don't know about any others but it was an impression I had formed. In fact it's probably the main reason that I am wary of engaging you in debate. I do hate being made to look silly (even though I know that I can be).

I'm at an age when I am past worrying about what others think (as long as they don't become libellous or too obnoxious) so I tend to speak my mind. I don't know you from Adam, and, as I have said before, you are probably a really nice chap. However, I tend respond to what I read on message boards, if I choose to. You come across as a 'young whipper-snapper' and you are, aren't you? I wish I was one again. I have two children older than you are. You certainly come across as a 'know-it-all', but, then perhaps I do too, that's for others to say, not me.

I am not focusing 'inordinately on people's ages' nor am I into 'scoring points'. I mentioned the age difference because I believe that life and work experience count for something. You obviously don't agree, fine that's your opinion. You are the child of a different age to me. I'm much nearer to Harry's generation.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

" It was treated this way, in part, because of his failure to approach the police until three days after the murder. This may not have been the full reason, but it surely demonstrates that he was discounted owing to doubts about his credibility"

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? The TIME elapsed after the deed is what matters, not the quality of what the witness has to say? No matter if the testimony binds things together and provides a solution, if the witness does not come forward until late in the process, that witness should be mistrusted?

Donīt you see how ridiculous this sounds? Did Abberline and his colleauges frown their noses and say : "Nah, we really donīt think that we ought to listen to you, since it is Monday now. If you had come forward yesterday, it would have been another story. If you had surfaced on Friday, we would have made you our star witness!"
"But please, wonīt you let me tell you anyway? You can pretend that you believe me as long as Iīm here, canīt you?"
"Oh, alright then, if you really must. Now then ...?"

Regardless of which bits and pieces you want to believe this time, and regardless of which rag provides you with it, the truth is and remains that the inherent quality of the evidence given and itīs compatability with what has been offered by other witnesses is what governs the faith the police will put in it, end of story. And no assertions on your behalf is going to change that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Stewart P Evans]

Congratulations

...
I never said anything about Hutchinson being "exposed" as anything. I observed that the police ultimately came to the conclusion that Hutchinson was a liar, in all probability. Those further down the hierarchal police chain obviously needed to be informed that the hunt for the Astrakhan man, or Astrak-hunt, was no longer necessary, but equally obviously, it was unnecessary to inform them why. I also never said anything about the contemporary police treating Hutchinson as a suspect.
...

I have to congratulate you on the qualifier 'in all probability', are we actually getting somewhere?

You appear to have a vague idea of the meaning of the police 'hierarchal chain' although you seem to adapt these meanings to suit your own arguments. You might be surprised to know that policemen of all ranks do, and did, discuss with each other much about cases they were investigating and most active detectives do (and did) know what was going on when a wanted description was dropped.

[Sally]

I also never said anything about the contemporary police treating Hutchinson as a suspect.

I thought the point re. Hutchinson was that he's a modern suspect; not that he was under suspicion at the time. People can call that revisionism if they want, but Hutchinson is hardly alone in the category.

Personally, I prefer Lewis Carroll.

[Stewart P Evans]

Yes...

...
I hypnotize people into engaging me in me in prolonged repetetive debates with my endless posts, Stewart - you included, apparently. What amuses me particularly is the way certain entrenched Ben-battlers make disparaging comments about me and my views in a dramatic swansong announcing their departure from the thread, only to snap back into action the moment I inevitably respond.
...

Yes, and it's a jolly wheeze, isn't it? Especially if you haven't got anything better to do and are bored. You certainly seem to enjoy the attention you attract. Good on you.

[Stewart P Evans]

Do not know...

Unfortunately, Stewart, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the reason actually cited for the "discredited/discounted" status ultimately accorded to Hutchinson's evidence. It was treated this way, in part, because of his failure to approach the police until three days after the murder. This may not have been the full reason, but it surely demonstrates that he was discounted owing to doubts about his credibility, and not because the hapless plonker had identified the wrong Astrakhan man.
...

Actually we simply do not know what the police finally concluded about Hutchinson, nor what reasons they may have had for reaching any such conclusion. I ventured a hypothesis, nothing more.

We do know what various newspapers reported but, of course, we know not their actual sources nor if what they printed was wholly correct and free from gilding. If they had police sources were those sources different individual police officers with their own opinions or ideas, were they officers in the know, were they opinions generally shared by all the police? We simply do not know and we certainly can't accept what they printed without caveats.

[Monty]

Hi Monty,



Just a news reporter proving - for reasons I've explained - that he did go to the police station and procured information relevent to Hutchinson's statement that we know for certain to be true.

I'm rather perplexed by your comment to Stewart, to the effect that I am only capable of "bamboozling" a few posters. Perhaps I'm being over-sensitive, but I always thought you were a cut above the "Isn't Ben an audacious bastard?" school of thought.

All the best,
Ben

Hey Ben,

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.

I do not think you are a bastard at all. You, in my opinion, have presented a case for Hutchinson on evidence which has at times misled. I can understand this as you have a favoured suspect which you will argue for at most cost. This, to me, isn't unusual.

Again, my opinion, but you have a robust debating style which does tend to come across as all knowing, and dismissive. Dismissive of person that is. Again, you are not the only person guilty of this (and I include myself).

This doesn't make you a bastard in my eyes. Just someone defending their views to the last, which is admirable.

Just that sometimes its wise to stand back and listen to the experienced and take their views on board (not necessarily to agree) than be too quick to shoot them down.

Again, my opinion, and that's all it is.

Monty

[Ben]

if Hutchinson had positively identified someone who was obviously an innocent person then it would, of course, cast doubt on everything he said and make any subsequent identification of little value.

Unfortunately, Stewart, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the reason actually cited for the "discredited/discounted" status ultimately accorded to Hutchinson's evidence. It was treated this way, in part, because of his failure to approach the police until three days after the murder. This may not have been the full reason, but it surely demonstrates that he was discounted owing to doubts about his credibility, and not because the hapless plonker had identified the wrong Astrakhan man.

You are all speculation dear boy. It amazes me how you manage to bamboozle some people with your endless posts.

I hypnotize people into engaging me in me in prolonged repetetive debates with my endless posts, Stewart - you included, apparently. What amuses me particularly is the way certain entrenched Ben-battlers make disparaging comments about me and my views in a dramatic swansong announcing their departure from the thread, only to snap back into action the moment I inevitably respond.

If Hutchinson had been exposed as a deliberate liar, and then, pretty obviously, as someone subject of suspicion

I never said anything about Hutchinson being "exposed" as anything. I observed that the police ultimately came to the conclusion that Hutchinson was a liar, in all probability. Those further down the hierarchal police chain obviously needed to be informed that the hunt for the Astrakhan man, or Astrak-hunt, was no longer necessary, but equally obviously, it was unnecessary to inform them why. I also never said anything about the contemporary police treating Hutchinson as a suspect.

I don't know where someone people have formed the impression that I consider myself the "world's leading authority". If I'm met with a respectful attitude, I'll respond in kind. If I disagree, I'll say so. You're welcome to regard me as a "young whipper-snapper know-it-all" if you wish, but I think focussing inordinately on people's ages isn't likely to score those points.

[Stewart P Evans]

Actually...

Hello Stewart,
Is that the same for you on your book on Tumblety?
Regards.

Actually, on reflection, I can answer this query and save 'Hatchett' the trouble of trying to draw any parallel.

The first two paragraphs of my post cannot apply to me and my book on Tumblety as I wrote the book in the pre-message board days when there was not so much agonising over the identity of the Ripper. There was no endless posting on particular suspects in those days. Certainly I aired no suspect preference prior to writing the book, nor did I engage in any suspect debate.

The last part doesn't really apply as I would rather have not written a suspect based book and, when I did, I noticed little kudos attaching to it. I ventured a hypothetical case as a solution to the mystery fully realising that there would be no consensus, or even majority opinion, that I had solved the case.

I suppose I realised that I would, at least, be recognised as a Ripper author (and I didn't believe that to be worth much) and I was realistic enough (and said so) to know that I couldn't prove the case against Tumblety but, at least, he was a genuine suspect of 1888 named by a senior police officer at Scotland Yard at the time.

We did, however, have three publishers interested in our proposed book and we accepted an offer from Century (Random House). And, yes, we did make 'a buck or two', but not a fortune. But my post was merely a suggestion to Ben as he must have written enough for a book on these boards already. Wouldn't a proper book convey his message much better than repetitive and specious argument in this forum?

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"Only some Stewart, only some."

Frankly, Monty, somebody has to do the dirty work. And itīs not as if Iīve lacked fuel and incentive along the road.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:;

"Whatever you may think about the Star and their experience, they were certainly pro-active, and were the only newspaper to track down Israel Schwartz."

This admirance of yours on behalf of the Star was apparently not there when I on the Stride threads pointed out that the paper in question wrote that Schwartz had stated that BS man was respectably clad in dark clothes. You went out of your way to tell me what filthy nonsense it was to believe in the account of a paper, when there was a police report that did not mention this at all.

I never full understood why - the police report said NOTHING about BS manīs general appearance, and I therefore thought it very legitimate top point out that the Starīs description of a respectably clad man seemed to swear very much against your assertion that BS man looked like Lawendes rough and shabby fellow, whereas it seemed to put him every much on par with Marshallīs man - a respectably looking man with the general appearance of a clerk, an educated, soft spoken man.

But according to you, at that occasion, the Star was an embarrasment, and I was even more embarrasing for lending them my ear. I can easily find your exact wording, Ben, if you wish.

Could you please elaborate on why you know put so very much trust in the Star, when you back then suggested that I was a complete idiot - or something to that effect (I cannot keep all your colourful slandering and insults in mind) - for pointing to the description they made of BS man? It should make for interesting reading, no doubt!

Is it not true, Ben, that you are an opportunist of the very worst kind, hailing a newspaper as pro-active and efficient and very much worth listening to when they provide you with something you can use, whereas you castigate people for using the very same paper as a useful source in instances where you do not agree with what they are saying?

Consequence, Ben, is A and O when researching. Cherry-picking is the exact opposite. Anybody who engages in it will be revealed for what he is, sooner or later.

You reap what you sow. And that time has come now, Ben.

The best,
Fisherman

[Stewart P Evans]

Don't know

Hello Stewart,
Is that the same for you on your book on Tumblety?
Regards.

In relation to what I posted? I don't know, do tell me.

[Ben]

Hi Monty,

Just a news reporter stating he went to the Police Station and obtained a statement?

Just a news reporter proving - for reasons I've explained - that he did go to the police station and procured information relevent to Hutchinson's statement that we know for certain to be true.

I'm rather perplexed by your comment to Stewart, to the effect that I am only capable of "bamboozling" a few posters. Perhaps I'm being over-sensitive, but I always thought you were a cut above the "Isn't Ben an audacious bastard?" school of thought.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Gosh, all this intense fascination with every single post I make.

Some people appear to have set aside an entire weekend for the obsessive pastime of battling Ben. I suppose I should be grateful for all this eager attention I attract.

"that the description given by Hutchinson was given a reduced importance when compared to Cox's description, therefore, he was not discredited."

No, not just in comparsion to Cox. It was discredited (or discounted - same thing, get over it) in part because of Hutchinson's failure to present his evidence earlier and "on oath". The only reason the importance came to be "reduced" rather than eradicated completely is because the police lacked proof that he was lying.

It is only natural that a discredited account should have been the subject of "careful inquiry" just as Packer's was. In fact, it could be argued that Packer's evidence was initially considered even more "significant" than Hutchinson's initially, with no less than the police commissioner, Charles Warren, interviewing him. Despite the careful nature of the inquiries in both cases, the witnesses came to be discredited.

- 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...

Yes, well done. You've noticed that the two pieces of evidence correlate. Not all your mates from the Ben-bothering brigade appear to recognise this obvious truth, though. Hutchinson did not become "suspect number #1" in the minds of the contemporary police just because we've recognised the connection, especially considering his lack of medical knowledge or butchering skills, his lack of criminal history (presumably), and lack of any external manifestations of insanity. You'll notice that most, if not all of the 1800s suspects met at least one of these criteria. But then the police at the time had no knowledge of serial offenders, and they were very unlikely to have considered for one moment that the real murderer would come forward voluntarily as a witness. If they did come to suspect him, their only option was discreet surveillance, for which we have no evidence.

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

Yes, but look at the press filth that you continue to invest in, which I will once again address once I've sorted out the latest moutain of nonsense here. You even support press claims that we know for certain were factually in error. Whatever you may think about the Star and their experience, they were certainly pro-active, and were the only newspaper to track down Israel Schwartz. They most assuredly did not hijack anything published by the Echo. They independently attested to the same observation regarding Hutchinson. The Star dismissed Packer in the same article, but nobody makes nearly so much of a fuss about this, presumably because his account doesn't include a titilating suspect.

Your dog in this fight is your fixation with a well-dressed suspect with a black bag, and you would clearly say anything to defend his existence.