Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[Ben]

“When it comes to you? Nothing whatsoever. Not a chance.”

Then I can only assume you particularly enjoy engaging in discussions that are neither “fair” nor “intelligent”, Fisherman.

Fair enough.

Bit weird, though…

“Could you rephrase that?”

Certainly: I never said that I wanted you to leave Casebook.

“Eh - no. Sam Flynn, Stewart Evans (two of my many "occasional hangers-on, I take it...?), The Good Michael, Caz, Marlowe, Stephen Thomas, Lechmere, Wickerman”

You’re obviously rather insecure in the validity (or lack thereof) of your own arguments if you feel you have to list those people who disagree with my stance on Hutchinson (perhaps in an attempt to encourage their participation so they can help you out?). I’m certain that all those people you’ve listed disagree with some aspects of your views of the case, assuming they've even bothered to familiarize themselves with them. I wonder how many of those listed would agree with date-befuddlement or "Lewis the liar" as probable explanations, for example? There are an equal number of people who agree with many of my views, but I’m not so gauche and immature as to list them all. I am no more “disagreed with” than you are, although I'm always grateful for the attention.

“What was there in it that Abberline could not look at from second one?”

All sorts of things – polar opposite contradictory descriptions, a claim to have walked up to Kelly’s window, walks all the way from Romford, American cloth, “red stone seals” and the disappearing, negligent oddball of a Sunday policeman, amongst other goodies. It obviously detracted from Hutchinson’s already tenuous credibility in the minds of the police. As James Tully observed the following in his book:

“Abberline expressed the opinion that the statement was both true and important, but that is hardly significant because by then the police were ready to clutch at almost any straw.”

And I don’t think anyone’s about to accuse Tully of being a hardened Hutchinsonite.

“But we normally wait until it is proven before we point fingers at people and call them liars and killers”

There’s that fallacy again that we must wait for proof until we can assess that which is probable and improbable, with Hutchinson’s statement falling into the latter category. Of course we can opine on the basis of the extant evidence. That’s what discussion forums such as these are for.

What does “beyond reflection” mean?

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Then I can only assume you particularly enjoy engaging in discussions that are neither “fair” nor “intelligent”, Fisherman."

The reason I counter your posts, Ben, is that I cannot get used to the idea of allowing somebody to state things that are more substanceless than a journeyman boxer´s brain as if they were state of the art facts. It annoys me, simple as that, and much as I have realized that my pointing it out won´t make you change your mind, I feel I owe it to myself and the ones who are interested in an unskewed picture of the case to supply the information that you are working from a strict perspective of Hutch-guilt. I nourish the hope that somebody may be thankful for having a balanced alternative presented every now and then.
I does not make me a saint or a narcissist, you need not worry about that. It merely makes me an occasionally outraged poster.

"Certainly: I never said that I wanted you to leave Casebook."

Thanks. Twice.

"You’re obviously rather insecure in the validity (or lack thereof) of your own arguments if you feel you have to list those people who disagree with my stance on Hutchinson"

Come again? I listed them since you claimed that I was alone in pointing out, over the years, that you may need to reconsider the case every once in a while.

On a separate note, do you really perceive that I feel insecure on my stance? If so, I´m afraid you´ve got one more thing to reconsider...

" I’m certain that all those people you’ve listed disagree with some aspects of your views of the case"

So am I! ... but what does that have to do with the point I was making...? Nothing, actually. Nothing at all.

" I wonder how many of those listed would agree with date-befuddlement or "Lewis the liar" as probable explanations, for example? "

Me too, in some cases. In others, I have the answer. What I think I can be reasonably sure about, is that none of them would consider the proposition outlandish (it rests on a good many facts, it has the support of Dew and it has not been disproven in any single instance, so that would be a fair bet) or dismiss it out of hand. I am equally sure that none of them would call it "unpopular" or other, much more derogatory things. The mere thought of anyone of them questioning my sanity over it or insulting me is quite ridiculous, of course. As far as I can tell, they do not belong to that category of posters.

But I have no evidence of it, of course! So you are free to interpret it in any way you like, and claim anything you wish!

"There are an equal number of people who agree with many of my views, but I’m not so gauche and immature as to list them all."

I actually did not list them all, Ben. And I did it only because you explicitly claimed - falsely, of course - that noboy agreed with me, more or less. All in all, a rather clumsy and uncalled for try to make me look like the one with the Bonaparte complex. Thanks. Appreciated.

"All sorts of things – polar opposite contradictory descriptions, a claim to have walked up to Kelly’s window, walks all the way from Romford, American cloth, “red stone seals” and the disappearing, negligent oddball of a Sunday policeman, amongst other goodies."

I am not sure what you are answering here, Ben? But it sure is not my question, for I asked what there was in THE POLICE REPORT that Abberline could not look at from second one and dismiss. So I am going to need another effort on your behalf here.

"There’s that fallacy again that we must wait for proof until we can assess that which is probable and improbable, with Hutchinson’s statement falling into the latter category. Of course we can opine on the basis of the extant evidence."

There´s that fallacy again that Hutchinson´s stament "falls into the latter category". It doesn´t. If it HAD, you would not be having this discussion with me.

"What does “beyond reflection” mean?"

Probably nothing in British, since you ask - but I pointed to the fact that Dew said that he would not reflect upon Hutchinson as a witness. To Dew - who was THERE, who worked the case, who was inside Kelly´s room, who became a celebrated detective - Hutchinson was in the clear.

So I guess it´s a case of believing in you or in Dew. Nuff´said.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

I feel I owe it to myself and the ones who are interested in an unskewed picture of the case to supply

a completely skewed version of the case -but skewed in a different direction. Infact systematically skewed to 'innocent' Hutchinson at all costs, even if that means 'reinterpreting' facts.

"There are an equal number of people who agree with many of my views, but I’m not so gauche and immature as to list them all."

You shouldn't talk about Mike behind his back.

Probably nothing in British, since you ask - but I pointed to the fact that Dew said that he would not reflect upon Hutchinson as a witness. To Dew - who was THERE, who worked the case, who was inside Kelly´s room, who became a celebrated detective - Hutchinson was in the clear.

However, it is clear that Dew was perplexed by Hutchinson, even if he thought him innocent, and his 'wrong night ?' query was only a personal
supposition.

He would certainly have known far less about serial killers than we know today.

It's probable that he had less access to information about the case (globally) , than some modern researchers.

[Fisherman]

Ruby, Ruby, Ruby ...

Why don´t you READ posts before you answer them...?

What is on the line here is NOT my stance about Hutchinson - it is Ben´s (and yours, for that matter). And that stance IS extremely skewed, as most people and posters would agree. Therefore, no matter what I think myself, it ought to be pointed out that your "truth" is a substanceless concoction.

Once that is pointed out, I am very fine with people disagreeing with me and challenging my theory. Thing is, I won´t call them halfwitted or - like you do - laughable for doing so.

I can also lean somewhat against the very clear fact that every contemporary source that has something to say about Hutchinson´s character, only speaks well of him, plus I have Dew to support this take on things! And for the life of me, I cannot see why my pointing to this, supporting Hutchinson as a very probably honest man, totally unguilty of any sinister involvment in Kelly´s deat, let alone of being her killer, should be "skewed".

I echo the contemporary sources for Christ´s sake, Ruby! How is that "skewed"? Please tell me!

"You shouldn't talk about Mike behind his back."

The quote you provided was Ben´s, so maybe you should lesson him instead . Or, alternatively, take my advice and read the posts before you answer them...? No?

" it is clear that Dew was perplexed by Hutchinson, even if he thought him innocent, and his 'wrong night ?' query was only a personal
supposition."

Is it? How can we tell that Dew was "perplexed"? What source do you use here? Where is it evidenced? Have you pondered the fact that people who wait fifty years to write their memoirs, are seldom "perplexed" at the time they sit down by their typewriters? Dew had had lots and lots of time to think, Ruby. Afterthought and experience would have been what he put on paper, not perplexion.

Likewise, how can you tell that the wrong night theory was a personal one on his behalf? Where is that evidenced?

Keep in mind, Ruby, that if you cannot provide this evidence, it will do further damage to your trustworthyness. It will become painfully apparent that you throw things forward as evidenced or proven although they are no such thing!

But you perhaps DO have that proof on hand?

No?

Then suffer the consequences, Ruby, and try and understand why you come across as a poster with preconceived views, with an agenda, with a totally skewed picture. A Hutchinsonian, in other words.

"He would certainly have known far less about serial killers than we know today."

That would depend on who "we" are. Dew was in the game, he served on the force that investigated the most infamous serial killer case of all time, and he reached old age with a clear mind and huge amounts of experience, apparently always taking great interest in crime.
Yes, "we" have more cases, more experience and more collected knowledge to lean against - but I warn very much about regarding Dew as being in any fashion ignorant about serial murderers.

"It's probable that he had less access to information about the case (globally) than some modern researchers."

The "knowledge" about this case grows by the minute, Ruby. As such, we have much more material collected quantitywise that Dew was able to take part of.

Then again, QUALITYWISE, he lived in a time when all the files were there, when all of the men in charge of the case were around to ask questions and, last but not least, he WORKED THE CASE HIMSELF! If you think that puts him in an inferior position informationwise than the one we are in today, then think again.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Then again, QUALITYWISE, he lived in a time when all the files were there, when all of the men in charge of the case were around to ask questions and, last but not least, he WORKED THE CASE HIMSELF! If you think that puts him in an inferior position informationwise than the one we are in today, then think again.

Nah, Fish. People can be just as wrong whenever they live, in whatever circumstances - time has nothing to do with it. That Dew expressed an opinion - much as you are doing - after the fact is neither here nor there in the scheme of things. You just choose to attach undue weight to it because it suits your purpose.

Carry on.

[Tecs]

"I frequently find myself being Shere Khan"

I often find myself in Shere Khan too. The Lamb Balti is excellent.


Regards,

[Fisherman]

Sally:

" People can be just as wrong whenever they live, in whatever circumstances - time has nothing to do with it. "

Yep. You are living proof of it. So I agree.

"You just choose to attach undue weight to it because it suits your purpose."

This time I must disagree. I attach weight to it because Walter Dew was a detective that worked the case, and beacuse he is the only official from that time that mentioned George Hutchinson in his memoirs. He did not do so in order to support my stance in advance, but instead because he had vital and relevant information to offer on the case.

As such, I wonder how you can establish that the weight I attach to Dew´s statement is "undue"? Have you got information telling us that he was wrong? For if he was not, I think that the weight I attach is instead very due.

But that could not be it, Sally, could it? For some reason, undue is the only alternative, right?

Did you, by the bye, notice that due and undue both rhyme on skew?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“The reason I counter your posts, Ben, is that I cannot get used to the idea of allowing somebody to state things that are more substanceless than a journeyman boxer´s brain as if they were state of the art facts.”

You can’t do anything about it, Fisherman. This may be gutting for you, but it’s the reality of the situation. You may squirm with frustration, but you are incapable of “disallowing” anything I post. In fact, the more you post, the more confidence I have in the validity of my observations. You can poo your pants with as much “annoyance” as you want, but the reality is that you are a very poor and eternally unsuccessful guide to the perceived wrongdoings of Ben. You sustain me in this regard, as I can always rely on your personal insults, your prolixity, and your attentive, bombastic long-windedness to make me look more credible by comparison. Be circumspect for one rare moment - do you really think that you are the man for this evidently arduous task of “countering my posts”? 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.

You’re just not up to the job. I’m so terribly sorry, but you’re just not. No wonder you keep appealing to the imaginary masses. You’re the most “audience aware” poster of anyone I’ve discussed this issue with. Try the Stride threads. Seriously. You used to be quite passionate about those before you discovered me. We’ll see who wins that coveted stamina war eventually. You’ll never guess who my money’s not on….

“Come again? I listed them since you claimed that I was alone in pointing out, over the years, that you may need to reconsider the case every once in a while”

And you don’t?

So what advice do you give to yourself then? Stick with whatever conclusions you jumped to from the outset without any possibility of reconsideration? Oh no wait, very shortly after I first mentioned Dew in the context of Hutchinson, you decided to support Dew’s Hutchinson-related speculations.

“What I think I can be reasonably sure about, is that none of them would consider the proposition outlandish (it rests on a good many facts, it has the support of Dew and it has not been disproven in any single instance, so that would be a fair bet) or dismiss it out of hand.”

Seems rather doubtful to me, but I would bet lofty sums that few, if any of the people you’ve mentioned, buy into the Dew Spew as a probable explanation. It was met with a friendly nod and a wink when you dredged up those 1938 unpopular Dew speculations that originally appeared in a “riddled with mistakes” book that “got lots of things terribly wrong”, but the best we can say about that particular theory is “kan inte uteslutas”.

"...I asked what there was in THE POLICE REPORT that Abberline could not look at from second one and dismiss”

As James Tully observed, the police were ready to clutch at any straw at the time of Hutchinson’s appearance. It’s just a relief that the straw wasn’t clutched for long in this case, and that it was relinquished very shortly after it first appeared.

“Probably nothing in British, since you ask - but I pointed to the fact that Dew said that he would not reflect upon Hutchinson as a witness.”

Ah yes, the Dew Spew…

What was it you said about Dew again?

His book is “riddled with mistakes”.

He got lots of things “terribly wrong”.

You explicitly discouraged me from listening to Dew, but then very shortly after I made reference to his date-confusion hypothesis on a Hutchinson thread, you endorsed his theory and disavowed all your previous criticisms of Dew. The most hilarious thing here is that Dew never described Hutchinson as an "honest man", nor does he suggest that he had arsed-up the date of the Astrakhan encounter by 24 hours. He simply concluded that Hutchinson and Maxwell must have been wrong, but that’s only because he wedded himself very strongly to a 1.00am-ish time of death and the theory that Blotchy was the killer, both of which are obviously incompatible with Hutchinson’s and Maxwell’s evidence.

Dew offered his own speculations and nobody else’s. That much is obvious, otherwise he would not have appealed to his readers to agree with him. He was most assuredly not reporting a detail that the police as a collective had established, and it is, of course, complete nonsense to state that all contemporary sources spoke positively about Hutchinson. They didn’t. The police informed us, via the Echo, that his evidence was “considerably discounted” in part because of his failure to present his evidence earlier and at the inquest “under oath”. This was quite obviously a negative police commentary on his credibility, and worlds away from the Dew Spew.

You laud and magnify Dew as though he were the saviour of “ripperology” these days, but your previous opinion on Dew was as follows:

"To begin with, we both know that Walter Dews book came out when he was 75 years old. In it, he turns Thomas Bowyer into a young fellow, he has Diemschitz entering the club crying: "The Ripper! The Ripper!", etcetera"

"I think you will agree with me that if we are to sharpen the pictuce of what happened back in 1888, Walter Dew is not neccessarily the best tool for going about it ..."

"And, of course, if we choose to believe overall in what old Walter said in his book - which is riddled with mistakes."

"But we know for sure that Dew WAS mistaken in a number of instances."

"we know for a fact that the 75-year old Walter Dew got a number of things terribly wrong."

What makes you think he wasn’t largely ignorant about serial killers, on the whole?

[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

[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.

[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.

[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,

[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

[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

[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.