Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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

[Ben]

Hi Lesley,

I agree entirely with your thoughts on Dew. A crucial point that tends to get overlooked very often is that he subscribed to the theory that Kelly had been killed at 1.00am, and that Blotchy (who he mistakenly described as “bearded”) was the killer. This evidently influenced his entire thinking on the Hutchinson question. As you sensibly point out, Dew was offering his personal speculations only in 1938, rather than the accepted wisdom on the matter in 1888 amongst his then police superiors.

Dew proved himself quite willing to provide his own acutely personal views, even if they differed markedly from those of his superiors at the time of the murders. For example, he did not believe that the GSG was written by the killer, in stark contrast to the views of Charles Warren, Henry Smith and others.

His “honestly mistaken” view of Hutchinson was obviously just another of his private opinions, and one which did not enjoy mainstream support in 1888. Dew is often erroneously credited with having suggested that Hutchinson had confused the time of his alleged Astrakhan encounter by an exact 24 hours, whereas in fact, his remarks were far more generalized than that. He observed that some witnesses make errors as to time and date, and that Maxwell and Hutchinson were probably "wrong". People tend to gloss over the “time” bit, but the reality is that Dew never claimed that Hutchinson was “a day out” or whatever it is that modern commentators allege.

It seems likely to me that Dew became aware, during the course of the investigation, that Hutchinson’s account had been discredited, but was not necessarily informed as to why. This is hardly surprisingly considering that “Dew was still a bit of a freshman. He was 25 years old, and not in a commanding position. Therefore, we cannot conclude to which extent he knew about the discussions carried on at a higher level.”

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Monty,

I do not reject Abberline's initial endorsement of Hutchinson's statement. I have every faith that at the time he penned the report (a few hours after his first ever meeting with Hutchinson), he meant precisely what he wrote. It is very clear, however, that the police came to discredit his account very shortly after it first appeared, and this is not based on press speculation. We know for certain that the Echo communicated directly with the police, based on other observations they reported in relation to Hutchinson's account, and it was this paper that first alluded to the "considerably discounted" status accorded to Hutchinson's statement.

Cheers,
Ben

[Wickerman]

....It is very clear, however, that the police came to discredit his account very shortly after it first appeared, and this is not based on press speculation. We know for certain that the Echo communicated directly with the police, based on other observations they reported in relation to Hutchinson's account, and it was this paper that first alluded to the "considerably discounted" status accorded to Hutchinson's statement.

This must be in reference to the Echo article of Nov. 14th.
The "inquiry at the Commercial-street police station" was to ascertain the source of the "elaborate description" given at the beginning of the article. This was the 2nd version given by Hutchinson to the press.

The answer was that this second version came from the same source and the police do not attach so much importance to THIS (2nd) document as our contemporaries do.

This explanation say's nothing about the official police version, it only concern's us with the opinion of the police with respect to this 2nd unofficial version which was the subject of this Echo article.

In the first paragraph the Echo explains that the first official version was of "discounted" value when compared with witness testimony given at an inquest, not that the description had no value at all.
It is just 19th century terminology which confuses. Discounted only means 'of lesser value' than it could have been.

Because Cox's description was 'sworn to', the Met. police were induced to give Cox's testimony precedence. Which does not automatically mean that any 'out of court' testimony is useless, it is simply of lesser legal value.

Regards, Jon S.

[Stewart P Evans]

The trouble...

Welcome back Stewart.
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”.
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.
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

The trouble with Ben is that he offers his own personal speculations regarding Hutchinson, rather than the collective wisdom of most modern theorists.

[Stewart P Evans]

Don't quite understand...

...
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.
...
Ben

I don't quite understand your point here. If a witness accompanies police officers around an area in an effort to spot a suspect he has seen and that witness then points out the man, on the street, who he had seen in suspicious circumstances the police would immediately approach that man and question him. A suspect thus identified cannot be then subjected to a formal identification by that witness, obviously as the man had just identified him on the street to the police. If the man thus stopped was able to immediately (or even subsequently) clear himself and prove an irrefutable alibi he would be bothered no further and the witness's previous claim to be able to identify the suspect would thus be discredited.

[Stewart P Evans]

Walter Dew

For those who may not have a copy of I Caught Crippen here is a page from Walter Dew's book discussing the witnesses Maxwell and Hutchinson.

[Stewart P Evans]

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.

Dear old Harry. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion and that should not be denied. You have been around these boards a long time and I don't think that anyone would, or should, say that you make little impact on these boards. You have made many interesting points in your posts over the years. I hope you don't mind me referring to you as 'Dear old' as, although I am old, I think you are a fair bit older than me. I'm old fashioned and I think that people should respect age.