Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[Monty]

Hi Monty,



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

Hey Ben,

Again, I may be soft in the head, but how do we know it true? I have trawled through the case file again and cannot locate any reference to Hutchinson being discredited.

I do not think you are a bastard at all. You, in my opinion, have presented a case for Hutchinson on evidence which has at times misled. I can understand this as you have a favoured suspect which you will argue for at most cost. This, to me, isn't unusual.

Again, my opinion, but you have a robust debating style which does tend to come across as all knowing, and dismissive. Dismissive of person that is. Again, you are not the only person guilty of this (and I include myself).

This doesn't make you a bastard in my eyes. Just someone defending their views to the last, which is admirable.

Just that sometimes its wise to stand back and listen to the experienced and take their views on board (not necessarily to agree) than be too quick to shoot them down.

Again, my opinion, and that's all it is.

Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

Do not know...

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.
...

Actually we simply do not know what the police finally concluded about Hutchinson, nor what reasons they may have had for reaching any such conclusion. I ventured a hypothesis, nothing more.

We do know what various newspapers reported but, of course, we know not their actual sources nor if what they printed was wholly correct and free from gilding. If they had police sources were those sources different individual police officers with their own opinions or ideas, were they officers in the know, were they opinions generally shared by all the police? We simply do not know and we certainly can't accept what they printed without caveats.

[Stewart P Evans]

Yes...

...
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.
...

Yes, and it's a jolly wheeze, isn't it? Especially if you haven't got anything better to do and are bored. You certainly seem to enjoy the attention you attract. Good on you.

[Sally]

I also never said anything about the contemporary police treating Hutchinson as a suspect.

I thought the point re. Hutchinson was that he's a modern suspect; not that he was under suspicion at the time. People can call that revisionism if they want, but Hutchinson is hardly alone in the category.

Personally, I prefer Lewis Carroll.

[Stewart P Evans]

Congratulations

...
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 have to congratulate you on the qualifier 'in all probability', are we actually getting somewhere?

You appear to have a vague idea of the meaning of the police 'hierarchal chain' although you seem to adapt these meanings to suit your own arguments. You might be surprised to know that policemen of all ranks do, and did, discuss with each other much about cases they were investigating and most active detectives do (and did) know what was going on when a wanted description was dropped.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

" 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"

So, in conclusion, the longer you take to come forward - NO MATTER WHY - you are regarded by the police as a lesser trustworthy witness, and that lessened trustworthyness grows by the hour. Is that correct, Ben? The TIME elapsed after the deed is what matters, not the quality of what the witness has to say? No matter if the testimony binds things together and provides a solution, if the witness does not come forward until late in the process, that witness should be mistrusted?

Don´t you see how ridiculous this sounds? Did Abberline and his colleauges frown their noses and say : "Nah, we really don´t think that we ought to listen to you, since it is Monday now. If you had come forward yesterday, it would have been another story. If you had surfaced on Friday, we would have made you our star witness!"
"But please, won´t you let me tell you anyway? You can pretend that you believe me as long as I´m here, can´t you?"
"Oh, alright then, if you really must. Now then ...?"

Regardless of which bits and pieces you want to believe this time, and regardless of which rag provides you with it, the truth is and remains that the inherent quality of the evidence given and it´s compatability with what has been offered by other witnesses is what governs the faith the police will put in it, end of story. And no assertions on your behalf is going to change that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Stewart P Evans]

Impression

...
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.

I don't know about any others but it was an impression I had formed. In fact it's probably the main reason that I am wary of engaging you in debate. I do hate being made to look silly (even though I know that I can be).

I'm at an age when I am past worrying about what others think (as long as they don't become libellous or too obnoxious) so I tend to speak my mind. I don't know you from Adam, and, as I have said before, you are probably a really nice chap. However, I tend respond to what I read on message boards, if I choose to. You come across as a 'young whipper-snapper' and you are, aren't you? I wish I was one again. I have two children older than you are. You certainly come across as a 'know-it-all', but, then perhaps I do too, that's for others to say, not me.

I am not focusing 'inordinately on people's ages' nor am I into 'scoring points'. I mentioned the age difference because I believe that life and work experience count for something. You obviously don't agree, fine that's your opinion. You are the child of a different age to me. I'm much nearer to Harry's generation.

[Sister Hyde]

I thought the point re. Hutchinson was that he's a modern suspect; not that he was under suspicion at the time. People can call that revisionism if they want, but Hutchinson is hardly alone in the category.

Personally, I prefer Lewis Carroll.

Hi Sally,

I can understand why ripperologists are omnibulated with Hutchinson no matter what a challenge studying his testimonies are. and strangely I can definitely understand why he came under suspicion for Kelly's murder now, he's got a motive, but as I already told once to David (DVV, who's being too busy working at the moment to be with us), Hutchinson fits for Kelly's murder, but what motive would he have had for the others?? maybe that's why he was not a suspect at the time, before the idea spread that Stride and Kelly weren't killed by Our Ripper, there was a time when it was considered that "if you didn't commit one of the crime, then you didn't comit any of them". I guess ripperology is just like religion in a way... I learned a lot of new things following the thread anyway... did you know Hutch was a "cuddly" witness???

Cam in da fog

others PS: there's nothing wrong about living in obscurity.... Musset: "great honours are great burdens"

[Lechmere]

Ben
We don’t actually know that the Echo’s account is accurate, we don’t know whether their police source was credible or authoritative, official or unofficial. If it was anything it is more than likely it was an unofficial off the record briefing. Perhaps just one officer's private opinion - at best.

One other thing about Dew... If Hutchinson was somehow discredited in the manner Ben suggests, even if was so junior in 1888 that he was kept out the loop, it is scarcely credible that the matter wouldn’t have arisen in conversation with colleagues over the succeeding years.

And Ben you have frequently pulled the ‘old soldier’ routine to dismiss people who disagree with you – so you aren’t well placed to cry foul when the same is applied to you. Indeed you have done it so much I had the impression you were well into your 50s.

[Stewart P Evans]

Witnesses

Much is made of the fact that Hutchinson did not attend the police station until the Monday evening after the inquest had been concluded.

However, material witnesses coming forward late in the day, even in a murder case, is not an unknown occurrence. In fact some murder witnesses don't bother coming forward and have only been found by police inquiries. The reasons are various. Some are reluctant to get involved, some are frightened to get involved, some are so laid back they don't even consider it or bother to do so immediately. Some only do so when prompted by others.

In the case of Hutchinson we do not know anything about the character of the man and what his reason(s) was (were). What we do know is that when Abberline interrogated him he knew that Hutchinson had presented himself late and that the inquest was over. That fact still did not prevent Abberline from stating that 'I am of opinion his statement is true.'

Immediately after making his statement, and his interrogation by Abberline, Hutchinson was accompanied by two officers round the district for a few hours in an attempt to find the man.

[Ben]

Oh, look, it's Mr. "I'm (not) bowing out of this thread for now" aka Fisherman.

It must be apparent to all by now that you cannot resist the hypnotic appeal of these Hutchinson threads.

Probaby best it you confine your silly Stride nonsense to its appropriate thread, though. You have a disturbing habit of bringing it up completely off-topic just, and usually because of your continuing and painfully unsuccessful crusade to bring Ben down.

It seems your latest tactic is to accuse me of inconsistency, whereas in fact, all I pointed out was that a press report should not be prioritized over a press report if the two are at odds with one another, which they are most assuredly not in Hutchinson's case, since he was initially believed and then discredited. I can therefore accept Abberline's police report and the later police reports as true and correct, secure in the knowledge that there is no mutual exclusivity between the two. Schwartz's broad-shouldered man did not appear to be either respectable or respectably-dressed from Swanson's police report, in my opinion.

I don't know what "admiration" I am supposed to have lavished on the Star. I was simply stating a fact in observing that they were the only newspaper to track down Israel Schwartz. Is it impossible that I've voiced criticisms of the Star on previous occasions? No, of course it isn't, but then I don't need to be best mates with the Star's jouranlists in order to support the contention that Hutchinson was discredited, since the observation had already been made by a newspaper that we know communicated with the police directly.

But are you not recognizing the sheer irony and hypocrisy in what you're accusing me of here?

No.

Of course not.

But I'll explain. You are pooh-poohing the Star's observation that Hutchinson was discredited, whereas before you were championing the Star's observation that the broad-shouldered man had a respectable appearance. In other words, you are guilty of precisely the trait you accuse me of, but in reverse, and if I'm an "opportunist of the worst kind" that would make you a hypocrite of the most disgusting kind.

And that time has come now, Ben.

Excuse me? What's happening "now" that hasn't happened before? Dealing with nuisances on Hutchinson threads is second-nature to me. I've been doing it for years with a thin smile on my face as I'm met with the type of uppity feigned indignation that some inhabitants of Hutchinsonia delight in resorting to. What's changed?

Frankly, Monty, somebody has to do the dirty work.

Frankly, Fisherman, it would be a lot better for all concerned if that "somebody" wasn't you.

What's this nonsense about "fringe ripperology", by the way? How do we distinguish this from traditional, mainstream, rank-and-file "ripperology"? Sounds like rather a bogus concept to me. Or are you referring to people with suspect theories? If so, you need to take on board that all suspect theories are minority endorsed. And as for "general acceptance of other theories being better supported by the facts" I have no idea what other theories you're referring to, but I dearly hope you don't mean the Dew Spew, which has considerably less support, and is considerably less known about (for some astonishing reason) than the suggestion that Hutchinson was a liar and/or possibly the murderer.

[Stephen Thomas]

Hutchinson fits for Kelly's murder, but what motive would he have had for the others?

What motive might he have had for killing Kelly?

I can't think of one.

[Wickerman]

I thought the point re. Hutchinson was that he's a modern suspect; not that he was under suspicion at the time.

Which is true, and makes it all the more perplexing that anyone would push Hutchinson as a liar to the police when the end result would be Hutchinson would end up as suspect #1, which he didn't, and wasn't.
So why promote an hypothesis which leads to only one conclusion, when no such conclusion was considered? It makes no sense at all.

Personally, I prefer Lewis Carroll.

Ah, a sense of humor..

[Ben]

So, in conclusion, the longer you take to come forward - NO MATTER WHY - you are regarded by the police as a lesser trustworthy witness, and that lessened trustworthyness grows by the hour. Is that correct, Ben?

I think you'll find we've discussed this at length on many occasions, and yes, it is perfectly natural that a witness who comes forward late should be treated with some scepticism. At the very least, s/he has considerably more explaining to do than those witnesses who came forward shortly after learning of the murder, especially when the murder victim was an alleged friend or acquaintance of three years, and especially if the witness' attempts to account for his late arrival were so astoundingly bogus.

Anyway, you're just shooting the messenger here, because the Echo of 13th made the following observation:

Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?

"..,such a 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"

"(the description) was considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner."

However "ridiculous" you irrationally think it sounds to query a witness' late arrival, the 1888 "authorities" would not have agreed with you. Hutchinson's discrediting was inextricably and irrefutably connected with his failure to come forward earlier.

Of particularly incriminating value was his decision to come forward just after the inquest, just after Lewis' statement involving a loitering man opposite Miller's Court had become public knowledge. The timing suggests very strongly that he either deliberately waited for the inquest to finish before putting in an appearance, or that he only did so as soon as he became aware of genuine evidence (Lewis') which might have incriminated him.

[Sally]

Which is true, and makes it all the more perplexing that anyone would push Hutchinson as a liar to the police when the end result would be Hutchinson would end up as suspect #1, which he didn't, and wasn't.
So why promote an hypothesis which leads to only one conclusion, when no such conclusion was considered? It makes no sense at all.

Perhaps, Wickerman, you should consider taking that up with the people who wrote the books - they know far more about it than I do.

Ah, a sense of humor..

(sic.)

No, I was quite serious.