Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[Wickerman]

Hard to say. But if you remove the suffix "in order to bolster some theory", I´d 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.

[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

[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 don´t 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 don´t 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)?

[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.

[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?

[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]

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.

[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.

[Wickerman]

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?

Is that serious?

[DJA]

Is that serious?

Yep.

Check out pictures of Randolph in his coats. Heard of Google?
Gull resided next door in Brook Street.

Have a look at the timeline of events after Mary Ann Kelly's murder.
Especially Phillips attempts at gaining a pardon over the weekend.
Next thing the cops have Hutchinson.

[Hatchett]

Hi,

Just about everything you have written DJA.

Best wishes.

[Ben]

“Though Astrachan was not described as "opulent", that is your interpretation.”

No, it isn’t, Jon.

Anyone who prominently displays a thick gold chain and wears expensive clothes is irrefutably opulent – no “interpretation” required. I never once claimed that nobody “dressed up” at night-time in that part of the East End (we need only consider the purportedly “theatrical” Israel Schwartz to appreciate otherwise). I observed that nobody would advertise their obvious wealth in one of the most notorious areas on London, especially not at a time when police and public were apt to accost anyone looking vaguely out of place. I would suggest that this reality ought to be obvious to anyone not tantalized by the long-demolished image of the ripper as a dashing doc with a top hat.

An N-reg Ford Escort with body-coloured bumpers and an overlarge spoiler may be described as flashy, whereas a brand new Bentley Continental is opulent.

“It was not his attire that let him down, but the fact he drew attention to himself in attempting to gain admittance to the pier without a ticket, by claiming to be a Detective”

…And it was a claim that was met with immediate scepticism (and probably quiet ridicule) because "his attire let him down". There is no evidence that Isaacs’s appearance convinced anyone, even for a moment, into thinking that he was an actual detective. So immediate and abysmal was his failure that it is tempting to feel sorry for him and his stupid-looking fake watch chain from Claire's Accessories.

“Impersonating a detective IS a serious felony.”

In which case, thousands of men commit a “serious felony” on a nightly basis following a visit to Ann Summers and a special request from an adventurous missus – Jon “Kinky Cop” Smyth included, no doubt!

“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”

For “easy route” read “logical route”, or rather “first route taken by any competent modern-day detective”. I don’t know who convinced you that looking for suspects “outside” the murder inquiry takes precedent over looking “inside” it, but I can assure you that it runs contrary to normal police practice.

“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.”

But your insistence that Hutchinson told the truth – which, incidentally, is not the majority-held opinion – is predicated on a “particular theory” that you subscribe to concerning the sequence of events on the morning of the 9th November, and it happens to be an extremely unique and alternative one. It is therefore very unfair to assert that it is only Hutchinson’s doubters whose arguments in that regard are governed by the defence of a “particular theory”.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

“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.”

I’ve highlighted in bold the more problematic elements with this reductive assessment of Hutchinson’s statement, and I’m afraid they betray a lack of understanding about the likely mentality of a homeless person who had just walked 13 miles in the small hours on a “very inclement night”. If Hutchinson was the irregularly employed casual dosser he claimed to be, he would have put every effort into rectifying his homeless predicament as soon as possible, and that would reasonably have involved getting out of the cold and wet, and seeking shelter in a secluded doorway somewhere. Neither boredom nor a desire for pointless, voyeuristic entertainment was likely to weigh heavily on the mind of a person in those dire circumstances.

You ask us to accept everything that Hutchinson said because Abberline believed him, but then add some brand new bits of your own and insist we must accept those as well, despite them not appearing anywhere in Hutchinson’s statement. He told Abberline that he couldn’t help Kelly with sixpence because he had “spent all (his) money going down to Romford”, which is quite different to the perfectly innocent “please can I stay in your room because I’ve utterly exhausted from walking for miles and miles in the rain”.

You claim to reject “speculation”, but it is precisely that which you engage in here. It seems "speculation" is only permissible if it is Hutch-friendly.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

No, it isn’t, Jon.

Anyone who prominently displays a thick gold chain and wears expensive clothes is irrefutably opulent – no “interpretation” required.

Isaacs wore that imitation gold chain while impersonating a Detective, no-one described him as opulent.
Just because you use the term does not make it so, Ben.

…And it was a claim that was met with immediate scepticism (and probably quiet ridicule) because "his attire let him down".

No-one mentioned his attire, like I said, he failed to produce the warrant card, that is why he was arrested.

In which case, thousands of men commit a “serious felony” on a nightly basis following a visit to Ann Summers and a special request from an adventurous missus – Jon “Kinky Cop” Smyth included, no doubt!

Not really sure where you are going with that.
The Police Code informs us that it is a felony to impersonate anyone for gain, be it property or financial.
Isaacs attempted to gain admittance to the pier by fraudulent means, the price of admittance is the financial gain.
The fact he impersonated a Detective in order to perpetrate the fraud only makes it worse.

But your insistence that Hutchinson told the truth – which, incidentally, is not the majority-held opinion – is predicated on a “particular theory” that you subscribe to concerning the sequence of events on the morning of the 9th November, and it happens to be an extremely unique and alternative one.

You repeatedly forget that your accusations have never been established. You also keep saying they are 'the majority opinion', yet it is the same five or six voices that keep repeating the same accusations. The same five or six voices that can't even agree on what they 'believe' he may have lied about.
Not what you would call a unified front.
That, does not constitute a majority opinion.

The statue quo is that Hutchinson was believed, and never shown to have lied, or even accused of lying.
Like it or not that it the official history of this issue.

By the way, who was your last post, #613 aimed at?
It doesn't look like something I had written.

[Paddy]

Dja

Originally Posted by DJA

Check out pictures of Randolph in his coats.

I thought Randolph was gay? Pictures of him were circulated in a pink tutu.
If it was him wouldn't he be targeting men?

Also I would have thought fur trimmed coats would have been common with immigrants from the Pale or Russia. Some were not that poor.

Pat....