Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[Fisherman]

Jon:

"we are debating with someone who's principal source of evidence is the Star! "

Not necessarily, Jon! For when I on the Stride threads claimed that we have evidence telling us that BS man was respectably clad, namely in the article published in the Star of the first of October (it is the only source that speaks of BS man´s general appearance), Ben fervently and in a somewhat loud voice claimed that it was totally useless to believe in the article. He much preferred to have BS man directly comparable to Lawendes ruffian, see, and the passage in the Star would have made that impossible.

So I do not think we are dealing with somebody who necessarily regards the Star the prime source. I instead think that we are looking at full-fledged opportunism and a will to grab anything at hand, no matter where it comes from, to try and support your favoured wiew. So SOMETIMES the Star was an eminent source, whilst in others it was an embarrasing rag, totally untrustworthy and a shame to even mention.

The best,
Fisherman

[Stewart P Evans]

No...

I wasn’t aware of any “collective wisdom” regarding Hutchinson, Stewart. Some think he was non-murdering liar, some think he was a murdering one, while others believe he was a squeaky-clean eyelash-shade spotting witness. You even get the odd one or two believe the silly sausage muddled up the date! It occurs to me that there is considerable variety of opinion on the Hutchinson issue, rather than one collectively and wisely accepted version of events.
...
Ben

No, I was actually trying to be clever here (like you) by paraphrasing your quote on Dew and the collective wisdom of the 1888 police which you seem to have knowledge of. But I am simply no good at it (being clever that is).

[Stewart P Evans]

The reason...

...
It would mean that particular identification was discredited, along with his claim to be able to “swear to the man anywhere”. That doesn’t mean that the entire account and its author would cease to be of use to the inquiry, and yet this is the strong inference from those press sources that established contact with the police. The reason cited for this “very reduced importance” had nothing, apparently, to do with honest confusion, but with doubts about his credibility that were triggered by his failure to approach the police with his evidence sooner.
...
Ben

The reason I made this point was because you had missed the point (didn't you run on about an identification behind closed doors etc.?). The point being with this scenario there would have been no 'private' identification, it would have been a street identification and if Hutchinson had positively identified someone who was obviously an innocent person then it would, of course, cast doubt on everything he said and make any subsequent identification of little value.

[Stewart P Evans]

Amuse

...
I agree that he would have been made aware of Hutchinson’s discrediting, as I believe he was, but I’m not nearly so certain that his relatively junior status at the time would have ensured that he was supplied with the “reason” for this. Indeed, Dew’s personal speculations make clear that he was not – either that or he had simply forgotten (he was writing 50 years after the murders). He would not have appealed to his readers to endorse his “is it not probable that…” type of musings if he was reporting established police wisdom at the time, otherwise he would naturally and logically have stated, “we eventually established that…”.
It is likely that the police on the ground were simply informed not to continue the search for the Astrakhan man. There was nothing to be gained from informing them why.
...
Ben

It really does amuse me how you appear to be everybody's pocket expert on the Victorian Police and what they would and would not have done.

You are all speculation dear boy. It amazes me how you manage to bamboozle some people with your endless posts. If Hutchinson had been exposed as a deliberate liar, and then, pretty obviously, as someone subject of suspicion, then all the detective officers on the case would have known. What are the police 'on the ground' exactly? How are they defined?

No doubt, writing years after the event, Dew would have (and did) naturally got some of his facts confused or wrong. It is human to err. Unlike you I do it often. It must be great to be impervious to errors. But I doubt he would have forgotten Hutchinson's exposure as a liar and suspect.

[Stewart P Evans]

I don't think...

...
Ah, got me. Hutchinson can’t have lied if that’s the case. Good point. I was minus quite a few years in 1969, and I’d imagine that Fisherman’s testicles had just about descended that year.
But if the new rule is that the oldest poster wins the argument, that’s excellent news for Harry, whose contributions I’ve always admired greatly.
Bad news for me, though. I thought it was stamina wars and prolixity that wins the day.
All the best,
Ben

I don't think I have ever stated that Hutchinson 'can't have lied', although I have advanced the opinion that he may well have been mistaken.

Yes, pretty crass of me to mention how long I have been studying the case, my experience and your tender years. In fact, damned crass of me. Probably it's even politically incorrect.

I didn't know that there were any set rules nor that simple age makes one right (in fact I often point out that I do make mistakes).

What I did let slip was the fact that I regard you as a young whipper-snapper know-it-all who is putting me in my place and not even allowing for the fact that there might be the remote possibility that you are wrong.

But, as you have shown (or think you have) I simply do not know what I am talking about and that you are absolutely right and that I may as well give up the idea of having any opinion on a subject upon which you are the world's leading authority.

Your prolixity and stamina certainly exceed anything I could even hope to aspire to. So, yes, undoubtedly your stamina and prolixity will 'win the day' and I might as well give up - but you are so 'wind-uppable'.

[Monty]

"It amazes me how you manage to bamboozle some people with your endless posts"

Only some Stewart, only some.

Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

A Final Thought

A final thought Ben. Why don't you write a book and put us all out of our misery, out of our despair at the idea of never knowing who 'Jack the Ripper' was.

The Hutchinson threads are now so many, so long, so confusing and so convoluted as to drive any sane man to drink. Full of thrust and parry, clever repartee, even, sometimes, arrogance and abuse, they become very difficult to read and even more difficult to understand.

Think of the kudos, the appreciation of so many, the guaranteed immortality of your name as the man who solved it all. You might also make a buck or two in the process. Surely the publishers are clamoring for a book from you?

[Hatchett]

Hello Stewart,

Is that the same for you on your book on Tumblety?

Regards.

[Ben]

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

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

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

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

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

- When one witness (Lewis) places a person at the door of the murdered woman, just prior to the murder, and...

- Hutchinson admits to being that same person who, however momentarily, stood at Kelly's door, then...

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

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

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

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

[Ben]

Hi Monty,

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

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

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

All the best,
Ben

[Stewart P Evans]

Don't know

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

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

[Fisherman]

Ben:;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"Only some Stewart, only some."

Frankly, Monty, somebody has to do the dirty work. And it´s not as if I´ve lacked fuel and incentive along the road.

The best,
Fisherman

[Stewart P Evans]

Actually...

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ben]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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