Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"That appropriate enough attention?"

It will do for me!

... then again, that attention was awarded as the result of Hutchinson´s going to the police station, and we STILL do not know that his statement to the Sunday morning police received the same attention do we?

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Fish -off to work and no time to reply..

Nobody has ever disputed that Hutchinson's story was initially taken seriously.

He probably had a very convincing manner (another reason to find it incredible that a policeman in the street would not take him seriously).

When his story was looked at closer, it didn't stand up to scrutiny, as evinced by sceptism in the Press, and the police quietly dropping him.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Nobody has ever disputed that Hutchinson's story was initially taken seriously."

... and nobody ever explained why it was not laughed out of the legal system if it was so very ludicrous. THAT is what I need explained. No matter if a person is convincing personally, seasoned policemen will not accept a ****-and-bull story anyway.

But you don´t seem to regard his story ****-and-bull? You seem to be suddenly speaking of a story of calibre...?

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

We know what he said he did.We do not know he did what he said.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"We know what he said he did.We do not know he did what he said."

That is the fairest assessment of the whole deal I have seen by anybody supporting the "Hutch-the-killer-theory" I have seen for a long time, Harry. Others will have it that it is a near certainty that he could not have done what he said he did, and that is where the debate takes a nosedive.

This summary of yours, however, is a very reasonable and useful starting point for a functioning debate.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Ruby,

You raise a very important distinction, and one that some people aren’t able to get to grips with for some reason. While the content of Hutchinson’s statement may have been extremely bogus, there can be little doubt that his presentation was considerably more convincing. It is a misconception that liars will always appear hesitant and nervous when lying, and that a policeman will always be able to distinguish the truth from falsehoods accordingly.

A sensible point that requires nobody to complicate.

That still doesn't mean that Hutchinson's statement was believed for any surprising length of time given its content. A "very reduced importance" had already been attached to Hutchinson's statement on the evening of 13th November, less than 24 hours after Hutchinson first put in an appearance. We can thus dispense with the idea, advanced by some, that Abberline would have looked silly had be endorsed a very clearly fictional account for any appreciable length of time.

It is perfectly natural that a police official should pay scant attention to any purported witness evidence that doesn’t relate to any of the crimes or any of the crime scenes. If a witness approached a policeman and spoke of some scary lodger from Aldgate, the latter would have no reason to investigate the matter. If, on the other, hand, a witness approached an officer with information relevant to one of the actual victims on the night and at the place where that the victim in question was murdered, that officer would be negligent in the extreme to ignore it. There is a world of difference between the two.

The idea that Hutchinson's evidence was just a “story” among many others is complete nonsense. If a witness approached a policeman with information that pertained directly to the victim, directly to the location in which she was murder, and directly to the time, no policeman is going to ignore it or fail to alert the station. Not unless he was some negligent monster. Defending such non-existent action on the part of this transparently non-existent police officer doesn’t say a great deal for the defenders, other than the obvious – that they would make shockingly bad policemen. Once again we find this bizarrely inconsistent approach to the police on the part of Hutchinson’s hapless defenders; criticise anyone who contemplates disagreeing with Abberline, but give the thumbs-up to those to would characterize the police on the ground as bunch of doughnut-munching can’t-be-arseders.

And all for the sake of undiscrediting that thoroughly discredited “witness” Hutchinson.

If a policeman failed to take any action with regard to Hutchinson, he would have been booted off the force for appalling dereliction on duty. As Garry Wroe observed in his book:

“…is it credible that any member of a police force desperate to resolve a series of barbarous murders would, just two days after the latest and most grotesque killing of all, have reacted with utter indifference on discovering a witness of Hutchinson’s potential importance?”

The answer is very obviously “no”.

Even if the policeman wanted to be a punchably negligent moron, he knew he could have been identified by superiors based on his location, so why risk it? He also knew that on-the-spot perceptions as to credibility were not the responsibility of the average copper on beat, even if he was faced with such a tall tale as Hutchinson’s.

Predictably, people have been skimming over the other elephant in the room here, which is Hutchinson’s total failure to mention this detail at the time of the initial police interview. Naturally, he could not have mentioned it, or else he would have exposed himself very easily as a liar. Had he told Abberline that he had initially reported the story to a constable, he would have been asked to pinpoint the time and location in order for the constable in question to be identified, with a view to grilling him as to why he did not report this story earlier. The end result would have been either a) the policeman in question was traced and fired behind close doors, and the report detailing the incident got conveniently bombed in the blitz (or whatever), or the vastly more probable b) Abberline and colleagues quickly and easily discovered that there was no such PC at that time or location, or that there was, but he heard nothing of Hutchinson’s tall tales.

But that’s if we explore the scenario that he told the police on 12th about this mysterious policeman, which he clearly didn’t. Instead, he only told the press about it a day later, knowing full well that the press were unable to trace beat times and individual policeman, unlike the police. As soon as the police did get to hear of the “Sunday policeman” episode, Hutchinson’s account was discredited!

Or is that yet another of those extremely striking coincidences again?

[Garry Wroe]

Which is why I have long thought it likely that Hutchinson gave himself away whilst on walkabout with the two detectives on the Monday evening, Ben.

But on a different note, when was it that Harry expressed it as his belief that Hutchinson was a killer?

[Rubyretro]

Absolutely, Ben.

You have answered Fish's questions to me very well indeed.

I like the quote from Garry Wroe's book. I thought that Fish's assertion
that the Police would be grateful for lowly coppers filtering out time wasters
just laughable.

Can you imagine any vast organisation like the police Force functioning if
there was no structured hierarchy, and the least qualified members were allowed to make arbitrary decisions on what information from the public they decided to pass on, or not ?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"You raise a very important distinction, and one that some people aren’t able to get to grips with for some reason. While the content of Hutchinson’s statement may have been extremely bogus, there can be little doubt that his presentation was considerably more convincing. It is a misconception that liars will always appear hesitant and nervous when lying, and that a policeman will always be able to distinguish the truth from falsehoods accordingly."

It is a good thing that not everybody "get to grips" with things the way you do, Ben. And it is equally good that others refrain from making preconceived deductions.

From a not preconceived wiewing angle, it must be laid firmly down that none of us - and I expect least of all you - knows or can make any assertions about parameters of "little doubt".

I doubt you enormously and soundly so. The reason is, amongst other things, that your ansers are always predictable. There is never any doubt about in which way the will go.

The funny thing about it is that you are always totally perplexed when somebody argues or suggests things that go against their normal way of thinking- such things are apparently extremely exotic to you?

Anyway, let´s just establish the fact that nobody knows whether the police judged Hutchinsons appearance and manners more or less convincing than his story. We may suggest and debate it, but it won´t move this fact a millimeter. And as it could easily be predicted that you would opt for an "interpretation" of the story being absolutely ludicrous whilst George Hutchinson was an absolute genius in convincing people just the same, very little credibility can be awarded your argument, as usual.

Those who want to believe that the policemen that originally were approached by Hutchinson at the police station, plus all other officials involved, were all duped by a master con artist with a story that was embarrasingly bogus and incredibly easy to reveal - had it not been for George the wiz and his hypnotizing abilities! - are free to do so.

Nobody can tell what swayed the police most to believe Hutchinson. Fact. End of story.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"I thought that Fish's assertion
that the Police would be grateful for lowly coppers filtering out time wasters
just laughable.
Can you imagine any vast organisation like the police Force functioning if
there was no structured hierarchy, and the least qualified members were allowed to make arbitrary decisions on what information from the public they decided to pass on, or not ?"

Yes, I can. It would much look like any police organization in the world, where policemen make their own calls day in and day out, judging by way of their experience what needs to be forwarded and what can be discarded. And every time the police is absolutely flooded for some reason, more material will be left unattended to.

Taike a look at teh Sutcliffe case, for example. After that, if you still feel like laughing, well, more fool you.

You are embarrasing yourself, but I am told that some people thrive on such stuff.

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Fish,

Go to Romford (the thread). Ruby is meeting us part way. Things are happening! Soon, you can bring out the signatures again!

Mike

[Fisherman]

Ben:

" As soon as the police did get to hear of the “Sunday policeman” episode, Hutchinson’s account was discredited!

Or is that yet another of those extremely striking coincidences again?"

The interview where Hutchinson speaks of the Sunday morning police was published the 14:th.

The Echo claimed that a reduced importance attached to Hutchinson´s story on the 13:th.

Therefore it applies that the police telepatically understood the importance of the Sunday morning policeman one day before it was published, and accordingly began to doubt Hutchinson because of this detail one day in advance.

You make up stories as you go along, garnish them with "clearly´s", "obviouse´s" and all sorts of unappropriate drivel. It is very clear that whatever made the police doubt the story IT WAS NOT the Sunday morning police detail! This is beyond dispute.

Of course, you are not adverse to painting over the tarnishes in your canvas of concoctions by claiming that the police would have sensed the bluff early, and had confirmation on the 14:th. But that only goes to show how you work, and not what would have happened. The spellbinding Hutchinson would surely have had the police around his finger before the revelation about the policeman, Ben! He had that influence on senior police officers, remember?

There is no way that the articles of the 14:th can be tied to the dismissal of Hutchinson´s story. To claim otherwise is to be very economical with the truth and very generous with loose assumptions. Fact. End of story.

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

You make up stories as you go along, garnish them with "clearly´s", "obviouse´s" and all sorts of unappropriate drivel.

Yes, and that's exactly why I need to dredge up mockery, insulting (in a kind way), and ridicule to combat that neverending string of crap.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Mike:

"Ruby is meeting us part way. Things are happening!"

Read it. Not impressed. Maybe I should be, but no.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Read it. Not impressed. Maybe I should be, but no.

dammit man! When a baby is learning ABCs, he has some steps forward and some steps back, and the progress must be viewed as a slow process. A baby step, here. A baby step there. Soon we have, "Yeah, Hutch could have been a murderer but there are many other possibilities as well." and isn't that all we want? I beg you.

Mike