Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[Wickerman]

In the main, I agree, Jon - but are there exceptions? For example, would calling Matthew Packer a "liar" necessarily designed to bolster any particular theory? Unless there's a "Packer is a liar" theory, but then labelling him as such to support said theory would be rather circular

Packer is excluded Gareth, the police at the time dismissed him.

My comment concerns the opinions of modern theorists, 'we' today accuse witnesses of lying when they just happen to say something that speaks against a particular theory.
None of these witnesses were accused of lying at the time.

[DJA]

Hi,

Dont you think that there is a lot of speculation here that is really clouding what is a very basic issue

Best wishes.

Which facts specifically are speculation?

All the Best.

[Hatchett]

Hi,

Dont you think that there is a lot of speculation here that is really clouding what is a very basic issue.

A guy is out on the street on a very unclement night. He has time on his hands. He sees a guy making an attachment to someone he knows, and perhaps is someone who could, if it wasnt for this newcomer, have provided him with a place of dry refuge for the night.

Of course he is going to take notice, not just because of the above, but also because he has the time on his hands, and nothing else to do.

What he said he saw is also reinforced by the FACT that Abberline believed him.

Let us all leave this one, and take it on the face of what it is. The rest is just speculation, and in my opinion a waste of time.

Best wishes.

[DJA]

"Why did Abberline believe Hutch?"

An alternative question might be:

"Why do so many not accept Abberline's view that the man's account was credible?

Given that Hutchinson had possibly approached Dr. Phillips over the weekend in the hope of being pardoned for being a lookout,Abberline again appears to have been brought in to ensure our Jack was not caught.

George's X ray vision is unbelievable.

The uninitialized change of hotels on the statement is a big worry.

The description of A Man is that of Randolph Churchill.
His moustache changes as do his 'photos.
Sir William Withey Gull lived next door to him.
The seal implies something else.High Office.

The statement was a warning to The Establishment that Jack needs to be left free.

Look at WE Gladstone's letter to The Times.
Guess whose idea that was?

[Abby Normal]

There seems to be some very circular reasoning going on here.

He may have told the truth, but also he may have lied, and because he was never discovered to be a liar, then that makes him a good liar?????

Hows about, not being discovered makes him truthful?

Incidentally, Packer simply changed his story, nothing skilled about that. More stupid than skill, more likely just confused.

Right-which is why he was a bad liar. Not proved he lied either.
Just confused-No.

[Abby Normal]

Abby Normal: Hi Fish

Hi Abby!

I should have prefaced that with "in my opinion" or "might have been" because of course you are correct that it is impossible to "prove" he lied. He may have 100% been telling the truth.

Well, you know, I was mostly being a tease - I sometimes say things about Lechmere that others think are too confident, so I may not be the one to tutor others in issues like this one...

However, in my opinion, all things considered, I have come to the conclusion that hutch, at the very least, was a liar in his account.

I know, Abby, I know. I just donīt agree.

And since he didn't get thrown in jail for perjury or obviously fobbed off as not credible (at least on record) like Packer than he had some skill in lying.

If you are correct, you mean? I guess. On the other hand, I donīt think you are correct. But that - like so many other matters Hutch - are water under the bridge! Still, I like having a friendly discussion about Hutchinson every now and then, since such beasts are incredibly rare!

Hi Fish
Thanks!

Whats your take on Hutch?
Do you think he was 100% telling the truth?
Maybe embellished his story?
Was pretty much lying in parts or all of his story (A-man in particular)?

[Sam Flynn]

I'm failing to see any other reason to do it Christer.

In the main, I agree, Jon - but are there exceptions? For example, would calling Matthew Packer a "liar" necessarily designed to bolster any particular theory? Unless there's a "Packer is a liar" theory, but then labelling him as such to support said theory would be rather circular

[Wickerman]

Hard to say. But if you remove the suffix "in order to bolster some theory", Iīd say we can count them in dozens.

I'm failing to see any other reason to do it Christer.

Saying that everybody who reasons that a witness may have lied must do so to bolster some theory, is more or less saying that the proponents are ALSO liars....

Only in cases where the proponent knows otherwise.

[Fisherman]

How many witnesses to date have now been labelled a liar in order to bolster some theory?

Hard to say. But if you remove the suffix "in order to bolster some theory", Iīd say we can count them in dozens.

Saying that everybody who reasons that a witness may have lied must do so to bolster some theory, is more or less saying that the proponents are ALSO liars. And that will take us out on deep water. Not that I canīt see the relevance of the suggestion every now and then...

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal: Hi Fish

Hi Abby!

I should have prefaced that with "in my opinion" or "might have been" because of course you are correct that it is impossible to "prove" he lied. He may have 100% been telling the truth.

Well, you know, I was mostly being a tease - I sometimes say things about Lechmere that others think are too confident, so I may not be the one to tutor others in issues like this one...

However, in my opinion, all things considered, I have come to the conclusion that hutch, at the very least, was a liar in his account.

I know, Abby, I know. I just donīt agree.

And since he didn't get thrown in jail for perjury or obviously fobbed off as not credible (at least on record) like Packer than he had some skill in lying.

If you are correct, you mean? I guess. On the other hand, I donīt think you are correct. But that - like so many other matters Hutch - are water under the bridge! Still, I like having a friendly discussion about Hutchinson every now and then, since such beasts are incredibly rare!

[Wickerman]

"Why did Abberline believe Hutch?"

An alternative question might be:

"Why do so many not accept Abberline's view that the man's account was credible?

I think it has become more difficult for the modern reader/researcher to identify reasonable suspects outside the murder inquiry. So they prefer to take the easy route and look inside the inquiry, but in order to do that they have to label someone a liar.

How many witnesses to date have now been labelled a liar in order to bolster some theory?

[Wickerman]

There seems to be some very circular reasoning going on here.

He may have told the truth, but also he may have lied, and because he was never discovered to be a liar, then that makes him a good liar?????

Hows about, not being discovered makes him truthful?

Incidentally, Packer simply changed his story, nothing skilled about that. More stupid than skill, more likely just confused.

[Abby Normal]

Was he? How so?

Anybody who is a good liar would produce a lie that is very hard to reveal - but some say that Hutchinsonīs purported lies were so extremly obvious that they would have been completely ridiculous to believe in.

How does that make him a "good liar"?

Of course, it is very premature and quite possibly totally wrong to suggest that he WAS a liar - since it is utterly impossible to prove that he lied...

Hi Fish
I should have prefaced that with "in my opinion" or "might have been" because of course you are correct that it is impossible to "prove" he lied. He may have 100% been telling the truth.

However, in my opinion, all things considered, I have come to the conclusion that hutch, at the very least, was a liar in his account.

And since he didn't get thrown in jail for perjury or obviously fobbed off as not credible (at least on record) like Packer than he had some skill in lying.

[Fisherman]

Hutch was a good liar.

Was he? How so?

Anybody who is a good liar would produce a lie that is very hard to reveal - but some say that Hutchinsonīs purported lies were so extremly obvious that they would have been completely ridiculous to believe in.

How does that make him a "good liar"?

Of course, it is very premature and quite possibly totally wrong to suggest that he WAS a liar - since it is utterly impossible to prove that he lied...

[Abby Normal]

"Why did Abberline believe Hutch?"

An alternative question might be:

"Why do so many not accept Abberline's view that the man's account was credible?

Hi Bridewell:

Prima facie Hutches account has many red flags.
There are news reports that his account was quickly discredited.
Abberline is only human-there was probably a lot of wishful thinking going on-initially.
His account of a "suspect" is clearly the best sighting so far of any witness and yet he drops like a stone from the investigation.
Hutch was a good liar.
Later when Abberline is discussing Chapman as his favored suspect, he does not mention Hutch, eventhough there are obvious similarities between his A-man suspect and Chapman.