Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

I'm afraid you're being led astray by this "young" business. Dew also referred to "young Richardson" from Hanbury Street, who was in his mid-thirties at the time of the ripper murders. The 30-year-old Joseph Barnett was also described as a "young man". The inference is obvious: the real Hutchinson could have been in his 30s and still have been considered a "young man" by Dew.

I doubt very much that McCarthy sent his 14-year-old son to the police station. Indeed, the evidence strongly suggests that he didn't.

I must repeat again, that Reg's account was not solely for ''The Ripper and the Royals'', it cropped up at least 18 years earlier

No evidence at all for this, I'm afraid.

But let's try and confine Toppy to his appropriate thread(s).

All the best,
Ben

[Monty]

Hi Monty,



But a day before the Echo disclosed that Hutchinson's statement had been "considerably discounted", the same newspaper had referred specifically to the views of the police regarding Hutchinson:

From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, 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. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?

This article establishes that whereas the police were previously inclined to invest importance in Hutchinson's evidence, "later investigations" had resulted in that importance being reduced. This article quite clearly relates to the question of Hutchinson's credibility.

All the best,
Ben

That it does Ben however that is a seperate article which holds no official comment.

"From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now."

It appears.

Again, nothing official nor even confirmed.

It is up to you how you interpret so called evidence, however to state the Police certainly discredited and held no credence with Hutchinson at a later stage is a leap of faith too far.

There is no evidence, just mere interpretation.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"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."

The usual thing, of course - When an argmment can´t be met by a credible answer, you start your pathetic kindergarten bully routine again. This time you do not wish to discuss Stride, and it should therefore make you happy that you won´t have to. The only thing you are required to discuss is why the Star is a top notch source when it suits your theory, whereas it suddenly is a useless crap rag when it goes against you.

No need, thus, to speak of Stride - all you have to do is to explain your opportunist approach to the sources. Is the Star a good source or a bad one, Ben? Or is it SOMETIMES useful and other times not? Hmm?

I know that you try to "explain" your methodology by claiming that Swansons report did not speak of a respectable man, but that is no explanation at all. Swanson did not say anything about the general appearance of BS man. He never even as much as hinted at it. That, though, has not stopped you from claiming earlier that the police report spoke of the total opposite of respectability.

It is true! I can dig the post out, if you don´t believe or remember it! Of course, the claim that the police report did this is totally untrue. And that is what you sometimes need to resort to, since no realistic argumentation is left to you. Some posters will in cases like this look away from the facts and concoct stories with no support in the real world. And you are one of them.

" 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"

Not at all. You are wrong on all counts here. Again, it may be added.

To begin with, I am not saying that the Star IS wrong about the discrediting of Hutchinson´s story. I have said in hundreds of posts that it seem pretty clear to me that this was what happened.

To carry on, in Hutchinson´s case we have two sides of the coin - the Star (and other papers) claim a discrediting, whereas there are clear signs that Astrakhan man was sought for many days after this alledged discrediting. We therefore have TWO bids.

In the case of Schwartz, we have one source and one source only that has anything to say about the general appearance of BS man - and that is the Star. If the police report had spoken of a ruffian in shabby clothes, it would have been the credible source to lean against. It does not, however. It says not a iota about the standard of the cap, the jacket, the trousers and the shoes the man wore. Therefore, as regards the police report, BS man could have been respectably OR shabbily clad. We are not informed about it, quite simply.
The Star therefore is the ONLY source, and the only source is by definition the most credible, since it has no competition for that title. The best bid is to believe in the Star in this instance, the next best bid is to regard it as undecided, and the only truly catastrophic bid is to lie and claim that the police report tells us that BS man was of a shabby appearance.

But that did not stop you, did it?

"What's changed?"

You have not changed. But what HAS changed is the number of posters that have started to see what you are all about. Thin smile and all.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Again, nothing official nor even confirmed.

Absolutely, Monty, but then I've never suggested that it was ever "confirmed" that Hutchinson lied. In my opinion, however, it is clear from the press sources I've provided that the contemporary police arrived at the opinion that he may have done, and that he was accordingly discredited. At the very least, the articles in question establish that "the authorities" attached a "very reduced importance" to Hutchinson because of doubts about his credibility.

There is nothing to suggest the Echo article was lying or in error. Quite the reverse.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"the contemporary police arrived at the opinion that he may have done"

Oh, really? They were of the opinion that he MAY have lied? And not of the opinion that he was genetically misdispositioned to do such a thing?

Is there any witness at all in the investigation, that the police considered impossible in the liar´s role?

Reaching the conclusion that somebody MAY lie does not equal that somebody being a probable liar, does it? Anybody can lie - I know that from experience.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Hi Ben,

Yes, I'm fully aware that it is your opinion.

Obviously my opinion its going to be the opposite. There is nothing on official record stating Hutchinson lacked credibility in Police opinion and nothing official in any Echo report.

You have intrepted the 'discounted statement' report as evidence which stated the police found Hutchinson to be lying whereas in my opinion they are merely stating his evidence cannot be admitted due to the fact the inquest had drawn conclusion and closed.

The 'very reduced importance' quote does not state this was official opinion and does not hold any authoritative mention at all. It is obvious with the pre text of "it seems" that the Echo is merely expressing opinion and not stating fact.

I am not stating the Echo was in error or lying. I am stating that it does not hold any evidence of Police opinion at all. It is merely your own interpretation.

To state the Police had clearly discredited Hutchinson is simply your opinion and not ascertained fact, which is what you stated it was.

That, in my opinion, is misleading.

Monty

[Ben]

You and your long-winded filibustering, Fisherman.

“This time you do not wish to discuyss Stride, and it should therefore make you happy that you won´t have to”

If you wish to discuss Stride, pop yourself along to the Stride threads and see if you have any better luck there (you're unlikely to do any worse), but if you want to stick around here, you should show some consideration for the other participants in the discussion and avoid derailing the thread in the direction of the “BS man” and whether or not he was wearing a nice coat in Berner Street. That acrimonious petty debate obviously had a profound effect on you if you’re still fussing about it several years later.

I have never described the Star as a “top-notch source”, anymore than I have described it as a “useless crap rag”. So this “opportunism” that you delight to accuse me of is yet another unsuccessful attempt to score those much sought-after points. We have no idea if the "respectable" detail was the result of the Star’s misreporting or an error in translation. Either way, even if they did make a mistake, it still wouldn’t enervate the fact that they were the only newspaper to track down Schwartz. I certainly don't believe that the Star deliberately invented the detail.

I am quite aware that Swanson didn’t comment on the “respectability” of the broad-shouldered man. I was simply observing that the description of the man, as originally provided by Schwartz and later transcribed by Swanson, did not depict a respectable individual. You accuse me of “lying” in expressing this opinion, despite knowing full well that had I levelled such an accusation at you, you would have bleated to the moderators.

The Star’s version of the Schwartz account differed markedly in certain respects from the Swanson report, and I felt you were exhibiting a clear preference for the former because you hoped it might lend weight to some Stride theory you were keen on a few years ago. I also felt that if Schwartz really said that the man was respectable, the detail would have been included in Swanson’s report.

I’m not sure who taught you the mantra that “the only source is by definition the most credible” but I wouldn’t cling to it, as the only source is also by definition the least credible. Think about it…

But really, all this is for the Stride threads, and if you want to pick yet another fight with me on that subject, it is incumbent upon you to take the matter there. It would take a brand of pettiness as yet unknown to civilization if you disregarded this advice and kept on with the Schwartz and the Stride fun here, and if you're truly up for it, I guess it’s another stamina war.

“whereas there are clear signs that Astrakhan man was sought for many days after this alledged discrediting”

No, this is nonsense.

There is no evidence that the Astrakhan man was “sought for many days” after Hutchinson’s statement was discredited.

“But what HAS changed is the number of posters that have started to see what you are all about.”

Sorry to piss on your bonfire, but if you think you’ve recruited a handful of extra Ben-botherers, you should guess again. Every one of those recent participants in this increasingly exciting exchange has argued Hutchinson with me well in advance of me even knowing who you are.

“They were of the opinion that he MAY have lied? And not of the opinion that he was genetically misdispositioned to do such a thing?”

Is this a language confusion issue, or are you just being petulant and extremely weird again? Oh good, the latter. Yes, it is clear that police were of the opinion that Hutchinson may have lied in his account, which is a lot different to suggesting that he might be endowed with the human capacity to lie. I was very obviously referring to this specific instance, and yes, it is clear that the police dismissed him as a probable liar. I’m afraid semantic wars work out even worse for you than stamina wars do.

[Ben]

Hi Monty,

It is clear that the Echo established a direct communication with the police. It was established through this communication that Hutchinson's initially endorsed account had received a "very reduced importance" partly because of his failure to come forward earlier and, more specifically, in time for the inquest where he would have been quizzed "on oath". Having established beyond reasonable doubt that the Echo did communicate the police, exactly as they reported, and were supplied with accurate information, there can be little reason to doubt the veracity of the information contained in these reports. In spite of the absence of any "official" police declaration that Hutchinson was discredited, we can be pretty sure that this is what happened, and that the reason for this was linked to doubts surrounding his credibility.

Why make specific reference to his failure to present himself in time to be questioned in public "on oath" if the issue of credibility didn't enter into the equation?

All the best,
Ben

[Monty]

Hey Ben,

Not that I do but there is every reason to doubt these reports veracity. No Official spokesman is named. It could simply be a passing Beat Constable who expressed his opinion, could have been Abberline himself however the fact remains no name is linked to that comment (which you have missed the key words 'it seems').

In my experience that is an indicator of either an off the record comment or someone afraid of the consequences. Whatever it is it most certainly is not official as you declare.

As for discreditation, they may well ask why Hutchinson did not come forward sooner. However whilst that question is valid it is no indicator that Hutchinson has either lied or committed Kellys murder (valid reasons are liitered throughout these forums and elsewhere).

Failure to see a reasonable alternative, and stating 'obviously' as well as 'we can be pretty sure' misleads and results in myth making. Something which hinders and certainly not aids.

No, we cannot be pretty sure as ascertaining evidence is missing. Therefore we can only speculate. This is fine however you must be aware of the alternatives and state them.

To do anything else simple isn't cricket.

Monty

[Ben]

Hi Monty,

I understand the need to acknowledge "reasonable alternatives" where they exist, but I'm not sure what the reasonable alternatives are supposed to be in this case. Yes, it could have been a beat constable who spoke of a "very reduced importance" being attached to Hutchinson's claims, but this must be considered very unlikely considering the Echo's observation that the "authorities" wondered why he did not come forward earlier. Their inquiry was made at the Commercial Street police station, rendering it unlikely that a beat constable was their priniciple informant.

I'm only pointing out that the specific reasons provided by the Echo for "discounting" Hutchinson are associated with the question of credibility and trust. I'm not saying this can only indicate culpability in the crime itself, and I don't believe for a moment that the contemporary police considered him a suspect, but it appears that at the very least, his account was distrusted. Everyone's mileage may wary, and there may be other alternatives, but I'd personally be surprised if people didn't consider this the most probable explanation.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben (after having opening up in his usual style of slander and insults) arrives at:

"I was simply observing that the description of the man, as originally provided by Schwartz and later transcribed by Swanson, did not depict a respectable individual."

This "simple" observation of yours is the exact underlying reason for my criticism. For it cannot be made! There is nothing at all in Schwartz´description in the police report or Swansons transcription that says one single word about whether BS man looked respectable or not.
You conducted a very strange line of discussion back then, claiming that people wearing peaked caps, shortish dark jackets and dark trousers - which is about everything we have on record for BS man - could not look respectable, and that is of course just laughable. But then again, you needed to bolster your thought that Lawendes man and BS man looked very much the same with something, and as there was not a word around in either the police report, in Swansons writings OR in Schwartz own wordings that even remotely hinted at BS man having the kind of shabby appearance that Lawendes man portrayed, you had to make it up on your own - in direct conflict with the only source that DID speak about the general appearance of BS man; the Star. To top things of, you speak of the probability that the paper got it wrong.

And no, the Stride killing does not belong to this thread, but YES, the pointer to your way of handling source material very much does belong here, just as it belongs to every post you make as long as you do things like these.

"There is no evidence that the Astrakhan man was “sought for many days” after Hutchinson’s statement was discredited."

Oh yes, there is - and your cherished paper report:
"Considerable excitement was caused in London on Saturday afternoon by the circulation of a report that a medical man had been arrested at Euston, upon arrival from Birmingham, on a charge of suspected complicity in the Whitechapel murders. It was stated that the accused had been staying at a common lodging-house in Birmingham since Monday last, and the theory was that if, as was supposed by the police, he was connected with the East-end crimes, he left the metropolis by an early train on the morning of the tragedies. The suspected man was of gentlemanly appearance and manners, and somewhat resembled the description of the person declared by witnesses at the inquest to have been seen in company with Kelly early on the morning that she was murdered."

... belongs to it. But you make a very much more fanciful "interpretation" of the implications here, I am the first one to admit that.

"Every one of those recent participants in this increasingly exciting exchange has argued Hutchinson with me well in advance of me even knowing who you are."

But I thought, Ben, that experience and years gone by were of little interest to you, as per your post to Stewart Evans? Anyways, I know very well that you have been on these boards for a longer time than I have. I can clearly even remember that you were once a rather respected poster out here.

"it is clear that the police dismissed him as a probable liar"

This is a lie. It is not clear at all. Normally, I am very careful about stating that somebody lies, but in this instance there can be no doubt - claiming that it is clear that the police dismissed Hutchinson as a probable liar, is in itself a blatant lie. If you are in fact so totally convinced about this lofty speculation or if you simply choose to lie anyway is not for me to say. But it IS for me to point out this assertion of yours as being untrue.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"it appears that at the very least, his account was distrusted. "

THIS is where you should go, Ben, and no longer! THIS is what the sources allow for. It APPEARS that at the very least, HIS ACCOUNT was distrusted.

Exactly so! It SEEMS as though the STORY was, partially or on the whole, distrusted to some degree. And whether the reason for that distrust lay in any suspicion of foul play or in Hutchinson making an honest mistake, we cannot tell.

From that, one may well form the theory that Hutchinson could have been the killer. Fine. It even SHOULD be thrown forward.

But that is not where you ended up, is it? No, you ended up scorning other posters for acknowledging the thin material behind any accusation of Hutchinson being the culprit.
And, interestingly, you ended up telling Monty that "it appears that at the very least, his account was distrusted", but telling me "it is clear that the police dismissed him as a probable liar", adding numerous insults to it to top things of.

This is the first time for a very long stretch of arguing one strange thing after another that I have heard you voice a reasonable view about the Hutchinson affair:
"I'm only pointing out that the specific reasons provided by the Echo for "discounting" Hutchinson are associated with the question of credibility and trust. I'm not saying this can only indicate culpability in the crime itself, and I don't believe for a moment that the contemporary police considered him a suspect, but it appears that at the very least, his account was distrusted. "

There is one thing wrong with this statement of yours, and that is that you claim that you are "only" doing this. For you are in truth doing a whole lot more, are you not?

Now, can you please, please stick to this very wise stance you are describing in your post to Monty, and refrain from "spicing things up" by claiming that "it is clear that the police dismissed him as a probable liar"? There are numerous useful other wordings that would function, like for example "It SEEMS clear that the police dismissed him as a probable liar".

I would not agree with that wording either, not for a second - but it is completely legal to state it, in stark contrast to the totally illegitimate ""it is clear that the police dismissed him as a probable liar". If it had BEEN clear, we would not be having this discussion, would we?

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

Exactly so! It SEEMS as though the STORY was, partially or on the whole, distrusted to some degree. And whether the reason for that distrust lay in any suspicion of foul play or in Hutchinson making an honest mistake, we cannot tell ... From that, one may well form the theory that Hutchinson could have been the killer. Fine. It even SHOULD be thrown forward.

On the contrary. The evidence should be evaluated purely on its own merit. In this case, the principal issue is to determine whether Hutchinson's Astrakhan story was true. If not, there isn't a shred of evidence that Mary Kelly ventured outdoors subsequent to being sighted by Mary Cox, meaning that her killer was either Blotchy or someone who came to be in the room subsequent to Blotchy's departure. If the latter, there is every reason to believe that there was not only a pre-existing relationship between Kelly and her killer, but that Kelly was also explicitly targeted.

But then, why explore an area that may well prove productive when the opportunity exists for a seemingly endless series of point-scoring and petty squabbles?

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"The evidence should be evaluated purely on its own merit."

And a fine mess that has resulted in. Has it not occurred to you, Garry, that different posters ascribe very differing (!) merit to the evidence in this case?

"In this case, the principal issue is to determine whether Hutchinson's Astrakhan story was true. If not, there isn't a shred of evidence that Mary Kelly ventured outdoors subsequent to being sighted by Mary Cox, meaning that her killer was either Blotchy or someone who came to be in the room subsequent to Blotchy's departure. If the latter, there is every reason to believe that there was not only a pre-existing relationship between Kelly and her killer, but that Kelly was also explicitly targeted."

Meaning that you miss out totally on possibility number three - that Hutchinson was out on the dates. And if we are to "evaluate the evidence purely on it´s own merit", don´t you think that we should weigh in ALL factors?

Besides, the post I directed to Ben was very much in criticism of the fact that he set the evidence aside in order to claim that "it is clear that the police dismissed him as a probable liar".

That should make for a very good example of what I pointed to first in this post - there are those who will not accept to play by the rules, instead making up "truths" as they go along. But this you refrain from commenting on, instead, it would seem, criticising me?

A fine mess, Garry. A fine mess indeed.

"why explore an area that may well prove productive"

I fail to see who´s stopping you? I only just posted that I believe that Hutchinson must be looked into as a potential Ripper, just like any other candidate. Explore away, Garry, by all means!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Ah, good.

An interminable debate with dear old Fisherman it must continue to be. My cherished favourite.

I asked you not to keep derailing the thread with more of this unrelated Stride stuff from years ago, but you continue to do so in pursuit of this ill-starred and rather obsessive crusade to bring me down. Oh well, I suppose I’ve got years to spend battling this issue out for another thousand or so pages.

“There is nothing at all in Schwartz´description in the police report or Swansons transcription that says one single word about whether BS man looked respectable or not”

Exactly, and the overwhelmingly logical reason for this is that Schwartz never said anything about the man’s “respectable” appearance, or lack thereof. Had he done so, it would have been included in the police report. He didn’t saw anything about “Pipeman” having a knife in his hand when speaking to the police, and yet this detail also suddenly appeared in the Star report. So yes, I do “speak of the probability that the paper got it wrong”, and it would be extremely unusual if anyone argued otherwise. I also think it not unreasonable that the broad-shouldered man was the supposed Mitre Square murderer described by Lawende, yes. There is sufficient congruity in terms of clothing, headgear and age to enable the inference that they may have been the same person. The police clearly believed the same person murdered the two women, and both Schwartz and Lawende gave descriptions of the probable murderer in each case.

But that’s you off to the Stride threads for now if you want to continue with anything Stride-related. Don’t attempt to justify your continuing derailment of the thread on the grounds that it’s necessary to “expose” me, as it’ll only make you appear obsessed.

You do relish the opportunity to dredge up long buried arguments, don’t you?

“The suspected man was of gentlemanly appearance and manners, and somewhat resembled the description of the person declared by witnesses at the inquest”

This article refers to Sarah Lewis, who was a witness at the inquest (as described in the article) and used the word “gentleman” to describe the man she encountered on Bethnal Green Road. Astrakhan man does not meet the criteria mentioned in the Echo article.

“I can clearly even remember that you were once a rather respected poster out here.”

Nothing has changed, Fisherman. Certainly your input here has done nothing to affect whatever reputation I had before you showed up, whether positive or negative. You’re not even the first Scandinavian to engage me in lengthy battle on these Hutchinson threads.

“This is a lie. It is not clear at all. Normally, I am very careful about stating that somebody lies, but in this instance there can be no doubt - claiming that it is clear that the police dismissed Hutchinson as a probable liar, is in itself a blatant lie.”

The only blatant lie in the equation is your offensive, shoddy little accusation. If I state that something “is clear”, the obvious implication is that it is clear to me. People use “it is clear” in various contexts, but very rarely it is interpreted as “it has been factually established that…”. I stand by my observation. The reports in question make it very clear - in my unassuming, reticent, self-effacing opinion - that the doubts associated with his account were related to the question of credibility, and not honest date-confusing befuddlement, otherwise they would not have referred specifically to his failure to come forward before.

I also stand by the statement I quoted to you:

“it appears that at the very least, his account was distrusted”

That’s “at the very least”. I also happen to believe that the evidence more than allows for additional inferences. Have I been more robust in my terminology to you than I have been recently to Monty? Probably, but that’s because he is not nearly as aggressive and antagonistic in his prose as you are, nor does he accuse me of lying. You know full well that I haven’t “made up” anything, nor have I attempted to construct any ironclad “truths” where the evidence doesn’t enable us to state something as fact. In observing the probability, as I perceive it, that Hutchinson was dismissed as a probable liar, I’m doing so on the basis of the evidence, rather than “setting it aside”.