Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[Garry Wroe]

I am having serious trouble understanding how this makes ME the bad guy, but I am sure that you can explain it in a very pedagogical manner.

Apologies, Fish, if my previous posts created the impression that they were aimed specifically at yourself. I thought I'd made it clear that they were intended for all concerned parties. So again, apologies for the confusion.

[Rubyretro]

I agree entirely, Garry.

If we work from the basis of the inquest evidence only, there is no evidence that Kelly ventured out of her room after she was last seen to enter it with Blotchy.

All the best,
Ben

I agree with you both.

[Ben]

“... but STILL just as embarrasing now as it was then, right?”

Well yes, I was embarrassed for you, which is why I’m amazed you took the catastrophic decision to dredge it all up again. I’m sure the police did take an active interest in the appearance of the broad-shouldered man, which is why they would certainly have remembered and recorded any detail that related to the man’s respectable or non-respectable appearance had Schwartz mentioned anything about it. The total absence of any commentary from Schwartz on that subject – as recorded in Swanson’s report – suggests very strongly indeed that Schwartz never broached it.

It is therefore extremely likely to my mind that either the Star was in error, or there was an understandable translation error.

“But I reserve the right to point to it when you are very tendentious in your choice of evidence material.”

Again with this delusion that you are in any way suitable for the role of Guide to the Wrongdoings of Ben. In fact, your attentive persistence is more likely to increase my chances of “getting away” with naughty interpretations of the evidence.

“Stupid, I´m afraid. The word "gentleman" was mentioned by Lewis, yes. But that is only one parameter attaching to this article.”

Oh, you’re repeating this nonsense again?

Bear with me a moment, dum di dum di dum…here we are:

Hutchinson didn’t even specify a man of “gentlemanly” appearance, so the 19th November Echo description couldn’t have applied to Hutchinson even if he did attend the inquest. Lewis was the only witness to describe a “gentleman” suspect, a detail that you oh-so-conveniently omit from your reproduction of Lewis’ evidence.

From the Daily Telegraph, 13th November:

“On Wednesday night I was going along the Bethnal-green-road, with a woman, about eight o'clock, when a gentleman passed us. He followed us and spoke to us, and wanted us to follow him into an entry. He had a shiny leather bag with him.”

It doesn’t matter in the slightest whether or not you think the man had gentlemanly appearance and manners. Sarah Lewis, who was able to observe and listen to the man at close quarters, still described him as a “gentleman”. I go with Lewis’ impression, not yours.

Also, since Lewis was the only inquest witness who referred to a “gentleman” suspect, it follows that the 19th November Echo article could only have been in reference to Lewis, thus demonstrating continued police endorsement of her evidence a week after the inquest. There is no other explanation. The Echo were in direct communication with the police, and they knew full well that Hutchinson did not attend the inquest – indeed the were one of the few newspapers that made specific reference to his non-attendance. It is impossible to accept, therefore, that they described Hutchinson as a “witness at the inquest” when they knew full well he wasn’t.

“1. gentlemanly appearance
2. gentlemanly manners
3. seen in Kelly´s company on the murder night
4. testified about at the inquest”

You can forget #3 for starters. The Echo didn’t say anything about the suspect having been seen with Kelly on the night in question, so you can also forget the idea that the Echo were wrong on any point in that article. This leaves us with the remaining three, and suffice to say, Lewis’ description meets all the existing criteria, with Hutchinson's meeting none of them. He did not attend the inquest, nor did he describe a gentleman. Your desperately nonsensical claim that the 19th November article applies to Astrakhan man is predicated on the flawed and baseless assumption that the article in question was wrong, and yet when you leave it untouched, it points unambiguously and unmistakably to Sarah Lewis having been the witness referred to.

It is quite clear that Cox’s man wasn’t the individual referred to, as he was not of “gentlemanly appearance”, unlike Lewis’ man. But Blotchy is a better candidate than Astrakhan, I’ll give you that much. I don’t know where you formed the impression that the man from Bethnal Green Road was “abusive”, but Lewis conveyed no such impression.

Sarah Lewis was most emphatically the witness described in the 19th November article, as I am prepared to reiterate for decades and decades, if necessary.

“If you are speaking of yourself, you need to press that: "It is clear TO ME" etcetera”

No. I don't.

I will do no such thing at your behest. When I say, “it is clear”, I expect people to be able to figure out that I mean clear to me, without my having to hold their hand and specify as much. Hence, it is totally and utterly clear that Hutchinson was discredited for reasons that pertained to his credibility. You can foam at the mouth about this if you want, but if you call me a liar for expressing that view, I’m just going to call you one back, and if you seriously think you can go around calling people liars and then report people who retaliate in kind, you are utterly fantasizing.

If you wish to retract that accusation, I might be inclined to retract mine. But as it stands, I stand by every single observation I've made. I did not make a “linguistic mistake”, and I will continue to think, and say, that Hutchinson was clearly discounted because of doubts surrounding his credibility. I know for certain that nobody is going to apply any “external pressure” to retract those statements, and it's utterly ludicrous for you to threaten any.

[Ben]

I agree entirely, Garry.

If we work from the basis of the inquest evidence only, there is no evidence that Kelly ventured out of her room after she was last seen to enter it with Blotchy.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"Do you recall the events of last year? Do you remember why Stephen felt the need to take action?"

Yes, I do. Why would I not? But I fail to see why you ask ME this, when Ben is the party claiming that it is OK to state that it is clear that the police regarded Hutchinson a liar. To this, he adds that I am a shoddy little liar for pointing out that this is not true.

I am having serious trouble understanding how this makes ME the bad guy, but I am sure that you can explain it in a very pedagogical manner.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I asked you not to keep derailing the thread with more of this unrelated Stride stuff from years ago"

... but STILL just as embarrasing now as it was then, right?

" ...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."

You will appreciate, Ben, that I do not turn to you to find out what is "overwhelmingly logical" or not! My guess - and since it is a guess , I CALL it a guess - is that the police took great interest in BS man´s appearance, and that they accordingly asked about his general appearance. Then again, there is, like you say, nothing in the report to prove that they did so. But I feel confident in saying that not all things went into all reports.

At the end of the day, though, I may persuade you to agree that ALL information that could be had about BS man would have been of interest to the police?

"So yes, I do “speak of the probability that the paper got it wrong”, and it would be extremely unusual if anyone argued otherwise."

No. It should be argued that the paper COULD have gotten it wrong, but not that it was probable as such. For every thing a paper gets wrong, it gets thousands of things right.

"Don’t attempt to justify your continuing derailment of the thread on the grounds that it’s necessary to “expose” me"

Oh, you´ve exposed yourself for the longest time, Ben. It is not my doing - it is yours. But I reserve the right to point to it when you are very tendentious in your choice of evidence material.

"This article refers to Sarah Lewis, who was a witness at the inquest 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."

Stupid, I´m afraid. The word "gentleman" was mentioned by Lewis, yes. But that is only one parameter attaching to this article. So let´s list them, and get this embarrasing suggestion out of the world once and for all.

1. gentlemanly appearance
2. gentlemanly manners
3. seen in Kelly´s company on the murder night
4. testified about at the inquest

Now, where does Lewis fit in? Yes, that´s right - she ticks the first and the fourth box. The other two - no. The so called Bethnal green man was called abusive by the Times, and that is not exactly gentlemanly manners, is it? Furthermore, Lewis´ man was NOT seen in Kellys company on the murder night!

So, two out of two. How about astrakhan man? He ticks boxes 1, 2 AND three! Meaning that he is the better bid.
Can we take it further? Yes indeed, we can. For we have Cox´s man too, and HE ticks boxes 3 and 4 very clearly, plus it CAN be claimed that supplying drink for a lady can be called gentlemanly manners, at least if we use a little fantasy - and you normally don´t mind that, do you?

So, my fine friend, you hang things up very much on the claim that the man in Birmingham resembled a man that was alledgedly spoken about at the inquest. But many days had elapsed since that inquest, and we KNOW that no such man as the one described in the article was EVER described at Kelly´s inquest.
It could NOT have been Lewis´man, for he was not in the company of Kelly and he was not very gentlemanly in his manners. Cox´s man seems a better bet, for he WAS in Kelly´s company, and that is a much, much more qualifying detail than the very vague title of "gentleman". Blotchy, though was shabbily dressed and as far as we can tell, there is no evidence that Kelly was offered any beer at all from the pale - so he seems a better, but not a good bet.
But Astrakhan man! We already know that something was wrong in the papers report, and if we accept that it was the claim that this fellow was mentioned at the inquest, the rest is spot on: the gentlemanly appearance, astrakhan coat, collar, gold chain and all, the gentlemanly manners, offering Kelly his handkerchief plus the all-important fact that he was reportedly seen in Kelly´s company on the murder night.

The combination of inquest and "gentleman" falls flat on it´s nose in comparison. It makes for a deplorable comparison. It will take a lot of desperation to go for the kind of "interpretation" that you choose here.

"Nothing has changed, Fisherman. "

No? Let´s just agree to disagree on that score!

"The only blatant lie in the equation is your offensive, shoddy little accusation."

Shall we ask the administrators about their view, Ben? To see if THEY think I am a shoddy little liar and you are not? I think that time may have come.

"If I state that something “is clear”, the obvious implication is that it is clear to me."

That is equally untrue. When something is clear, there is no doubt about it. If you are speaking of yourself, you need to press that: "It is clear TO ME" etcetera.
You may wriggle and writhe as much as you like, but I will tell you that it is NOT clear that the police dismissed Hutchinson since they thought he was a liar.
It is absolutely and totally UNCLEAR, it is in all probability only a minority-endorsed suggestion and I have every right in the world to point that out without myself being called a liar for it!!
I can accept a linguistic mistake on your behalf, but only if you admit it. If you do not admit it, and admit that it is NOT clear that Hutchinson was a liar in the eyes of the police, I shall certainly report your claim: "The only blatant lie in the equation is your offensive, shoddy little accusation."

Myself, I don´t have a hope in hell to make you admit your misrepresentations without any external pressure, so there´s the only bid I can give you.

"That’s “at the very least”. I also happen to believe that the evidence more than allows for additional inferences."

Fine. No problems. That´s as it should be.

"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. "

No. He used "misrepresent". And you should know better than to let your personal antagonism towards me taint your way of describing the evidence!

" 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”.

Fine again. But when you claim that it is clear that the police thought him a liar, you ARE tampering with the evidence, and that is something you need to correct!

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

"why explore an area that may well prove productive"

I fail to see who´s stopping you?

No-one's stopping me, Fish. Just as no-one's stopping any of those posters who have been driven away by the seemingly interminable squabbles that have come to characterize the Hutchinson threads.

Do you recall the events of last year? Do you remember why Stephen felt the need to take action?

Just a word to the wise.

[Garry Wroe]

"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?

I think that you'd be better served by reading what I actually wrote, Fish. If Hutchinson's story was untrue - in other words, even if it is unreliable courtesy of mistaken dates or timings - we are left with no evidence whatsoever that Mary Kelly went outdoors after her encounter with Mary Cox. Thus events take on an entirely different complexion to those traditionally associated with her death.

[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”.

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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