Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"A few posts ago, you even claimed it was your “moral duty” to disagree with me!"

Just to clear things up, Ben, I actually said that it was my INTELLECTUAL duty to do so. I do not like to have it uncorrectly quoted for what should be obvious reasons.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

" In his memoirs Walter Dew discounts Hutchinson on the basis that his sighting may have been on a different day, and not the morning of the murder"

The important word is "may". It means to concede the possibility.
In other words, Dew didn't know anything for sure."

You are right and you are wrong, Ruby. Casebook as such does not know what Dew knew or not, so that "may" is Casebooks assessment and nothing else.

Then again, it is completely clear that if there was a consensus back in 1888, it did not involve all parties - if it had, Dew would not have presented his solution to the Hutchinson riddle the way he did. Arguably, Hutchinson himself stuck to his version throughout, and would not accept that he WAS mistaken. That is how I see things, at least.

Important to keep in mind is also that Dew actually said that he could see NO OTHER EXPLANATION than a mistake on Hutchinson´s behalf. Therefore, it can be argued that Dew felt convinced, but the truth of the matter is that when somebody expresses something like this, it has an undertone of "maybe there IS another explanation, but if there is, I can´t see it".

At any rate, it is perfectly obvious that Dew is attempting to provide an answer to what was considered something of a riddle to at least some extent - how much, we can´t tell - when it happened. It may be that there were different people arguing different things, and it may equally be that there was a consensus amongst the police - all of them or a group of them - that Hutchinson would have missed out on the dates.

This, exactly, is what we are dealing with.

"One thing of which we can be certain is that if Dew -and/or the police- had had certain proof that Hutchinson had got the day wrong (such as hard proof that he was elsewhere at the time of the murders, or that it was otherwise impossible for Hutchinson to have been in Miller's Court on the night of Kelly's death), then he would surely have stated it."

That is completely true, I think. No absolute consensus would have been around. But it may well be that Hutchinson was the only party that differed - that would put him on par with Maxwell, more or less, where the police were of the opinion that she must have been mistaken, whereas she was adamant herself that this was not the case. And in spite of this uneven balance, her testimony is still considered something of a riddle to this day! Of course, the exact same thing may apply in Hutchinson´s case.

"I used the word 'bewildered' about Dew in an earlier post, because it is clear that whilst Dew believed in Hutchinson's honesty (I'd love to know on what he based his belief), yet he knows that Hutchinson's story doesn't add up."

Exactly. Precisely. Spot on. Bull´s eye.

... and when somebody knows that a story a witness has told does not add up, but STILL believes in the person´s honesty the way Dew did - what is the most reasonable suggestion?

That Dew actually thought that Hutchinson was a killer?

That Dew liked Hutchinson so much that he did not care that his story was flawed - he chose to believe in him anyway?

... or that Dew accepted that honest men make honest mistakes?

It will take a very skewed picture of the affair not to pick the latter alternative. It is the ONLY reasonable one here, namely. Let´s keep in mind that it does not mean that Dew must have been right in his assessment, though - but his grounds for the "bewilderment" you speak of should be very obvious.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

quick apology..at the end of my previous post I said it was Dew that used a weak 'may' directly -whereas I was again referring to Casebooks assessments of Dew's guessing game.

[Monty]

Sorry Ben,

To be clear, Hutchinson is discredited in a news report whereas Abberline obviously backs this man and it is the news report which must take favour?

Is that what you are stating?

Monty

[Rubyretro]

If you look up Walter Dew under 'police officials' on Casebook, this is what
Casebook has to say about Dew's speculation that Hutchinson was an ' honestly mistaken' witness :

" In his memoirs Walter Dew discounts Hutchinson on the basis that his sighting may have been on a different day, and not the morning of the murder"

The important word is "may". It means to concede the possibility.

In other words, Dew didn't know anything for sure.

Either Dew had no direct information pertaining to Hutchinson from contempory Police sources -so this was pure guesswork

Or he did have inside knowledge of the case -in which case, it is the Police that didn't know anything for sure.

One thing of which we can be certain is that if Dew -and/or the police- had had certain proof that Hutchinson had got the day wrong (such as hard proof that he was elsewhere at the time of the murders, or that it was otherwise impossible for Hutchinson to have been in Miller's Court on the night of Kelly's death), then he would surely have stated it. Instead he resorts to a weak "may".

I used the word 'bewildered' about Dew in an earlier post, because it is clear that whilst Dew believed in Hutchinson's honesty (I'd love to know on what he based his belief), yet he knows that Hutchinson's story doesn't add up.
So he has thrown in a bit of speculation to try and explain why he is dismissing Hutchinson.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I will always try to adopt a respectful approach to divergent opinions"

If so, you have failed miserably in this intent on innumerable occasions. All of them, more or less, when exchanging with me.

I´m sorry, but with a starting line like that, I simply could not bring myself to read on. Some other time, I´m sure, but not now.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“I can, in fact; I can provide the necessary material to outline the shortcomings of the Hutchinsonian agenda. And I do just that, as you know.”

No, I’m sorry, you just don’t.

I will always try to adopt a respectful approach to divergent opinions, and yes, you have provided alternative suggestions to the one’s I’ve proposed, but that’s not the same as “outlining the shortcomings” of my proposals. Try not to use expressions like “Hutchinsonian agenda” if you wish to avoid an acrimonious exchange. What ought to be a amicable discussion of conflicting ideas can quickly turn sour the moment you treat debating as some sort of crusade to bring your perceived opponent crashing down. A few posts ago, you even claimed it was your “moral duty” to disagree with me!

“But that does not mean that we must buy Tully´s picture over other researchers”

Of course not, but his views illustrate rather well that it isn’t just those nasty, naughty, nefarious Hutchinsonians/ites who don’t invest undue significance in Abberline’s not-to-last opinion regarding the perceived honesty and importance of Hutchinson's account, which appeared in a missive that was written before any investigation into, and even adequate contemplation of, Hutchinson’s claims could realistically have occurred. I don’t think there was anything major that “drilled a hole” in it, but rather a gradual recognition that all was not well, followed by those doubts being fuelled by his divergent, embellished press interview and/or, as Garry suggests, a possible self-incriminating slip-up when on the Astrak-hunt with the police.

“And we know that Hutchinson´s story was not regarded a bad one from the outset.”

It was not regarded as bad AT the outset.

A crucial distinction, that one.

“This is one of the reasons why I think that the proposal of a mistaken day is so appealing - astrakhan man would have been of interest to the police in any case - only to a much diminished degree.”

But there’s no evidence of any interest attaching to Astrakhan man. Had “date confusion” been considered a realistic proposal, he would still have been of "much" importance to the police as someone who had spent considerable time in Kelly’s room in the small hours of the night preceding her death. But this didn’t happen, apparently.

“I thought back then and I think now that there are mistakes in Dew´s book - in fact, I can prove that. I thought back then and I think now that Dew must - in spite of this - be regarded as a very valuable source.”

Fair enough. It’s just a bit odd, though, that whereas a year ago, your remarks about Dew were almost exclusively negative, they are now exclusively positive. That’s a colossal change, and an extremely noticeable one, not that I criticise you for this. There is no dishonour whatsoever in changing your mind radically about a certain thing after all. I’ll admit that my first impression was that you were completely unaware of Dew’s Hutchinson’s claims until I brought them up on that “...van der Hutchinson” thread, and that you endorsed them from then on, but you tell me that’s not the case. Fair enough. I believe you.

“I would also appreciate if you refrained from adding another post with the sole intention of piling up more insults and derogatory comments”

I’m quite happy to accede to this request, Fisherman, but it’s rather interesting and disappointing that you offered this suggestion and then made that post to Stewart concerning my nasty, arrogant character. That doesn’t assist matters at all.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Welcome back Stewart.

“Why, if he was merely 'inserting himself into the police inquiry', would he need to be so certain as to say that he could identify his man and agree to search for him?”

It depends what his motivation was for doing so, in my extraordinarily humble opinion. If he just wanted the attention, he probably wouldn’t have paid such specific attention to the man, but if he was preoccupied with concealing the true reason for his presence near a crime scene, as registered by Sarah Lewis, there was obviously a greater incentive for him to deflect attention away from himself. In the latter case, it would have made sense to provide a suspect that the police would latch onto as an investigative lead. “Can be identified” was therefore a necessary component to this. Bear in mind that this suggestion - and it’s only that – is not predicated on Hutchinson having been the murderer, necessarily.

I would be somewhat surprised if an attempted identification involving Hutchinson and an Astrakhan man went on behind closed doors without the press hearing of it, which is precisely what occurred in the cases of Sadler, Grainger (with Lawende as the witness) and, to my recollection, the witnesses from Mrs. Fiddymont’s pub. As such, I would tend to doubt very much that any such attempted identification took place in Hutchinson’s case. Even if one occurred, I find it doubtful that Hutchinson would have been “discredited” on the basis of an incorrect identification. Joseph Lawende may have identified the Church Passage man as two separate individuals – Kosminski (1881) and Grainger (1895) – without being discredited.

Moreover, we already know from the Echo’s communication with the police that the statement was “considerably discounted” in part because “the 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 appeared on the 13th November. It was observed the next day that the statement was “considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner”.

Thus, there can be little doubt, in my opinion, that Hutchinson was discredited owing to doubts about his credibility, and not because of any consideration that he was “honestly mistaken”.

“Had Hutchinson been discredited as a total liar and given his claim to have been, probably, the last one to see her alive it is certain the police would have looked upon him with grave suspicion and that he would have become a real suspect rather than a discredited witness”

But if the police discredited him as a “total liar”, it would follow that his alleged presence in Dorset Street would have been thrown out with the rest of his statement, as occurred in the case of Emanuel Violenia. Despite Violenia’s claim to have been near a crime scene, his entire statement was apparently dismissed, including his alleged presence, and he was not considered a suspect. I suspect very strongly that Hutchinson was treated similarly.

The trouble with Dew is that he offered his own personal speculations regarding Hutchinson, rather than the collective wisdom of the contemporary police. It certainly was not established at the time that Hutchinson was “honestly mistaken”, or else he’d have said so, rather than appealing to his readers to accept his musings as to what he regards as “probable”. He was evidently impressed with the 1.00am time of death and the theory that the blotchy-faced man was the murderer.

“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”

I didn’t mean in general. I meant as a substitute to Fisherman as my principle combatent. But that was written out of intense and temporary irritation, which has since subsided, and I don’t really want Fisherman substituted.

All the best,
Ben

[harry]

The Hutchinsonians(A rare breed).Some write as though we conspire together.For my part,I came to my conclusions,independently of any other poster.I know nothing of them,either socially or historically.I have never met them and probably never will.I make little impact on these boards.I do not and never have,tried to influence anyone to my way of thinking.I have however been inclined to the belief,that Ben,Bob,Garry and others,have presented Hutchinson as the best suspect.My first book of reading on the ripper murders was'Autumn of Terror".I too at first believed Hutchinson a credible and honest witness.I have changed my mind.I apolgise to those ladies whose names I missed,but I no less value your input.

[Fisherman]

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, I´m afraid. By admitting that you have entertained the possibility that Hutchinson was honestly mistaken, by stating that the police would certainly have looked upon Hutchinson with grave suspicion instead of lightheartedly letting him walk and by stating that Dew would conclusively have known if Hutchinson had been dubbed a liar by the force he worked within, I suspect you have burnt your ships when it comes to credibility à la Ben.

But we shall see!

On a separate note, I would like to further press one point you make. It´s when you write: "There is reason to think that the importance of Hutchinson's testimony came to be greatly lessened or even discredited." I think that you make a very useful distinction here. The Hutchinsonians will have it that Hutchinson was first doubted and only later in the process totally discredited. My own stance is that the press reports that speak of the diminished value attaching to Hutchinson´s story are all totally reconcilable with each other and may equally well have pointed to the same factual circumstances throughout. I do not as such see two steps of discrediting. I only see the one step, worded differently and arriving at separate times in separate papers. This has not been very much discussed - if at all - and I think it ought to be pointed out.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hello Tecs!

If I may?

I think the important difference in Hutchinson´s case was that he actually WAS believed from the outset. With him, we are logically looking at a parameter surfacing AFTER the initially given testimony, giving rise to the disbelief in his story. Well, not disbelief as such, if I am correct - there are indications that what happened was that the initial trust smouldered away into something rather smallish, but without disappearing totally.
This is one of the reasons why I think that the proposal of a mistaken day is so appealing - astrakhan man would have been of interest to the police in any case - only to a much diminished degree.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tecs]

In his statement and in Abberline's report we see that Hutchinson was certain that he could identify the suspect. This to the degree that he agreed to accompany detectives round the district in an effort to locate the man. Why, if he was merely 'inserting himself into the police inquiry', would he need to be so certain as to say that he could identify his man and agree to search for him? Something he would know himself to be a pointless exercise. Like Lawende he could have simply said that he hadn't had a good enough look at the man's face to recognise him again.

As I, again, suggested in the past it is very possible that Hutchinson actually believed that he could identify the man and may have seen him again and that he actually identified the man to the police. When the man was identified by Hutchinson the man may have immediately proved that it could not have been him and that he had a watertight alibi. That alone would be enough to discredit Hutchinson's story and cast great doubt on his reliability as a witness. In fact this is a more likely scenario, in my opinion, than the idea that Hutchinson was the actual murderer. Of course the real problem is that no other official papers concerning Hutchinson have survived so we have no real idea of what actually happened.

Hi Stewart,

As a former plod, you might have an interesting angle on this point.

Isn't the above akin to Marcella Claxton and Marilyn Moore in the Yorkshire Ripper case? Both were honest witnesses who gave incredibly accurate descriptions of Sutcliffe but for various reasons their testimony was not believed. Only after Sutcliffe was arrested was it conceded that they were 100% correct. Until then they were both "discredited witnesses."

Regards,

[Stewart P Evans]

No answer...

...
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.
...

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.

[Stewart P Evans]

Amazed

I am amazed (although I suppose that I shouldn't be) to see the Hutchinson debates still going on with as much gusto as ever. I can only admire the stamina of some of the contributors and be intimidated by their prolixity.

Opinions and interpretations are entrenched and immovable, endless repetition is used as a means of pressing their arguments and open minds and flexibility are notable by their absence. Whilst it is true that there is no need for anyone, not wishing to, to become embroiled in the debate on this endless and irresolvable problem, it does exercise a strange intrigue all of its own. And the real answer will, of course, never be known. Those who have stated their opinions so strongly as to even make the actual claim that Hutchinson was the murderer will never retreat from their position nor will they allow for more viable explanations.

In the cold light of day we have very little by way of evidence to prove anything but certain, qualified, assumptions may be drawn. There is reason to think that the importance of Hutchinson's testimony came to be greatly lessened or even discredited. But, of course, if that was the case it does not make him a murderer. Indeed, in the past I ventured the opinion that Hutchinson may have been mistaken in some shape or form despite his apparent certainty, which is the reason for his initial credibility.

In his statement and in Abberline's report we see that Hutchinson was certain that he could identify the suspect. This to the degree that he agreed to accompany detectives round the district in an effort to locate the man. Why, if he was merely 'inserting himself into the police inquiry', would he need to be so certain as to say that he could identify his man and agree to search for him? Something he would know himself to be a pointless exercise. Like Lawende he could have simply said that he hadn't had a good enough look at the man's face to recognise him again.

As I, again, suggested in the past it is very possible that Hutchinson actually believed that he could identify the man and may have seen him again and that he actually identified the man to the police. When the man was identified by Hutchinson the man may have immediately proved that it could not have been him and that he had a watertight alibi. That alone would be enough to discredit Hutchinson's story and cast great doubt on his reliability as a witness. In fact this is a more likely scenario, in my opinion, than the idea that Hutchinson was the actual murderer. Of course the real problem is that no other official papers concerning Hutchinson have survived so we have no real idea of what actually happened.

Another factor that we must consider is the total absence of any further mention of Hutchinson in any official report and the continued search for the unknown murderer after the Kelly murder. Had Hutchinson been discredited as a total liar and given his claim to have been, probably, the last one to see her alive it is certain the police would have looked upon him with grave suspicion and that he would have become a real suspect rather than a discredited witness. Whatever you may say about Walter Dew it cannot be denied that he was a detective officer and was there at the time. But Dew still regarded Hutchinson as a witness who had probably erred, stating, "And if Mrs. Maxwell was mistaken, is it not probable the George Hutchison [sic] erred also? This without reflecting in any way on either witness, is my considered view." Had Hutchinson been exposed as an arrant liar and as a real suspect Dew would certainly have known and would hardly have used these words.

But whilst there are those with the fixed belief that Hutchinson was the Ripper and that their views are right and simply cannot be wrong this debate will continue. For my part I give only my humble opinion and I know that there are many who will disagree with that.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"You can’t do anything about it, Fisherman. "

I can, in fact; I can provide the necessary material to outline the shortcomings of the Hutchinsonian agenda. And I do just that, as you know.

After this, you present a long rant about how apt you are for discussing the Ripper case, and how unapt I am, how very credible you look and how uncredible I look and so forth. It´s a pityful business, as always, with a pathology entirely of it´s own, easily recognizable both as to the source and - of course - as to the relevance for the thread.

Yawn.

"what advice do you give to yourself then?"

Always to keep an open mind, mainly.

"As James Tully observed, the police were ready to clutch at any straw at the time of Hutchinson’s appearance."

They would have been eager to find a clue, reasonably. But that does not mean that we must buy Tully´s picture over other researchers - keep an open mind, remember? Moreover, even IF we DID buy Tully, we should not make the assumption that any clue that surfaced must have been a bad one. That would be doing it backwards. And we know that Hutchinson´s story was not regarded a bad one from the outset. It obviously proved to be of very limited value later on, but that does not mean that Abberline made a bad decision when believing in it. It could well have been watertight until something surfaced that drilled a hole in it.

That´s how we must reason - with an open mind. We cannot say that "Aha - he must have lied", because that is in itself a lie.

Oh-oh - then you rant away again about Dew and my earlier posts, and that is something I have already answered a number of times. Did you not read it? I feel you are wasting valuable time here, Ben. I also think that for a poster who always speaks about how his opponents "dredge up" old things, it is a careless thing to do. But of course, if you need to hear it again, I will oblige:

I thought back then and I think now that there are mistakes in Dew´s book - in fact, I can prove that. I thought back then and I think now that Dew must - in spite of this - be regarded as a very valuable source. I thought back then and I think now that when we find material that speaks for a solution that perhaps does not tally with our earlier beliefs, then we need to relocate our stance in correlation with this. That is what I mean when I speak of the weight of an open mind.

But no matter how much I poo my pants, you won´t take that on board. And as you did not bring up one single thing in your post that could move the discussion on the topic itself a millimeter forwards, this is where I will bow out for the moment. Now, please do not cook something up about me having promised to stay away from the discussion as such, and please do not disallow me to change my mind, should I choose to! I would also appreciate if you refrained from adding another post with the sole intention of piling up more insults and derogatory comments, since it makes me feel slightly uncomfortable and also since it does not belong to the discussion we are supposed to conduct out here.

Thanking you in advance,
Fisherman