Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[Ben]

Ben this, Ben’s that…

It’s fun to occupy people’s thoughts so much.

If Hutchinson was “proved” a liar, he would not have been “considerably discounted”; he would have been conclusively eliminated. You construct the strawman argument that others have claimed to be in possession of proof that Hutchinson lied, whereas had you been paying attention to the discussion, you would know that Hutchinson's account received a “very reduced importance” in the absence of proof of his dishonesty, otherwise it would have received a "totally eradicated importance". The police merely had strong suspicions in that regard, as they had with Packer and Violenia before him, neither of whom were “proven” liars either. You claim that a witness can’t be discredited without proof of lying, but we know for a fact that you’re wrong, as the latter two cases demonstrate.

Then you come out with the truly bizarre and baseless claim that I’ve somewhere stated (where?) that proof is a “purely personal matter”. That is not my view, and I can only assume you've drastically misread me, or are making nonsense up to paint your perceived “opponents” in a bad light, like you do with your silly new signature. It is proven that Hutchinson was discredited, yes, and I’ll defend that position for longer than you’re capable of trying to fight me on the subject; but I never claimed he was discredited on the basis of “proof” that he was lying. There are aspects to his statement where lying is the only realistic conclusion, short of ludicrous alternatives, but even with those I don’t claim proof.

But you derail the thread (again), when we were addressing the issue of Hutchinson sleeping rough or not. You haven’t provided a scrap of evidence to suggest that anyone used “walking about all night” as a “euphemism” for sleeping rough, which Hutchinson had no reason to do in any case, according to you, because he had money to pay for his doss. The critical nature of the Whitechapel murder investigation was such that any ludicrously minor transgression, such as sleeping in a doorway, was guaranteed to be ingored, and no witness could possibly have so stupid as to expect otherwise.

[Wickerman]

Exactly right, Harry.

Clearly there was no possibility of "proving" the accuracy and truthfulness of his account a scant few hours after first meeting Hutchinson, which was when Abberline penned his report expressing the "opinion" that the statement was true. Hence, that opinion must have been based primarily on faith.

All the best,
Ben

How many witness sightings of Hutchinson do you think is necessary for Abberline to confirm his basic story?

[Wickerman]

..... You construct the strawman argument that others have claimed to be in possession of proof that Hutchinson lied,

Others 'have' asserted Hutchinson lied, AND, they asserted it proven.

....whereas had you been paying attention to the discussion, you would know that Hutchinson's account received a “very reduced importance” in the absence of proof of his dishonesty,..

Would you kindly quote the source that asserts the reason you offer in bold?
I must have missed it, or maybe it is only your opinion?

The police merely had strong suspicions in that regard,

This police source is available to everyone?

...as they had with Packer and Violenia before him, neither of whom were “proven” liars either.

Well actually, Swanson tells us Packer offered two different stories:
"Packer,.....has unfortunately made different statements...(therefore)....any statement he made would be rendered almost valueless as evidence."
Therein lies the proof. Only one story can be true, therefore Packer has lied.

And Violenia broke down under interrogation, you only do that if you are lying.
"Subsequently, cross-examination so discredited Violenia's evidence that it was wholly distrusted by the police, and Pizer was set at liberty."

I take it you keep repeating these two names, ad nauseam, because you are out of options?
They have been shown to be irrelevant to your argument many times over.

Then you come out with the truly bizarre and baseless claim that I’ve somewhere stated (where?) that proof is a “purely personal matter”.

“Proof is not a matter of personal belief, Ben.”
Christer.

"Yes it is, or else juries would reach unanimous verdicts all the time. There has always been, and will always be, debates over what has or hasn’t been proven beyond reasonable doubt, and the discrediting of Hutchinson’s account unquestionably has, in my opinion. "
Ben.

Do my eyes deceive me?

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=294250&postcount=1164

It is proven that Hutchinson was discredited, yes, and I’ll defend that position for longer than you’re capable of trying to fight me on the subject;

It is this 'proof' that we seek.

There are aspects to his statement where lying is the only realistic conclusion, short of ludicrous alternatives, ....

Not even close.
Nothing credited to Hutchinson has been or can be proven to be a lie.
The more you repeat it the deeper the hole you dig for yourself.

[harry]

Well Jon ,lets start with you.What part of Hutchinson's story have you proved to be true.The claim of Hutchinson to have stood adjacent to the court, is the only element that has secondry support by a witness.It is not a basic on which anything else he claimed,can be taken for granted.His residency at the Victoria Home is one of habitation,and does not prove or disprove his activities of the preceedind period.Hutchinson's whereabouts at the time the home closed is not known.It cannot be shown that the closure of the home prevented Hutchinson gaining admittance,Aberline's opinion notwithstanding.

[Ben]

How many witness sightings of Hutchinson do you think is necessary for Abberline to confirm his basic story?

Lots of strategically located people dotted around Commercial Street and Dorset Street, of course; all mysteriously up and about in the small hours, some perhaps gazing reflectively out of their windows, others just stationary voyeurs, all conveniently just there to record and document Hutchinson's activity with their binoculars.

It's just too bad none of that happened.

And it's just too bad we don't get to invent such people.

"Packer,.....has unfortunately made different statements...(therefore)....any statement he made would be rendered almost valueless as evidence."
Therein lies the proof.

Therein....no, Jon.

Evidence of inconsistency is not proof of lying. It is merely a very strong indication in that regard, and the police were well aware of that distinction. Were it otherwise, Hutchinson would be a proven liar. Any number of crap alternatives could account for the change in Packer's evidence: forgetfulness, senility, an insistence on Packer's part that Sgt. White's first visit only concerned his activity after 12:30am, and that it only occurred to him subsequently that the woman with the flower might have been the murder victim.

The police were not in possession of proof that Packer lied, and the same was true of Violenia, who you keep wrongly insisting "broke down". Here again, crap alternatives apply - maybe he was under the influence, maybe he was forgetful, maybe he was "confabulating" etc etc. The police couldn't prove him a liar, but they arrived at the conclusion that he was one.

I take it you keep repeating these two names, ad nauseam, because you are out of options?

I repeat those two names ad nauseam because they illustrate my point very successfully in response to the fights you keep picking ad nauseam. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Do my eyes deceive me?

I think it's more the case that your common sense eludes you.

It is quite common for people to arrive at different conclusions as to what has and hasn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Nothing credited to Hutchinson has been or can be proven to be a lie.

Oh, there are cringe-inducingly bad and unconvincing alternatives to obvious realities, of course there are; just as there will always be a pig-headed refusal, on the part of some, to stare reality on the face, but that doesn't make it a laudable approach to revive any old nonsense as accurate just because it can't be proven false. I can't prove that Hutchinson's alleged encounter with a PC on that Sunday was a lie, but to the same extent that I can't prove that there isn't a pink alien called Tyrell hiding underneath a rock in my garden.

Now, I've mentioned the Sunday policeman episode, Jon, and that is your cue to start loooooong battle on that subject.

I'm definitely playing.

[Wickerman]

Well Jon ,lets start with you.What part of Hutchinson's story have you proved to be true.

Hi Harry. Not your usual cautious self I see?

On what grounds is anyone today required to prove what has already been dealt with successfully by police at the time?
The burden of proof, as always, is on the accusers to demonstrate, or prove, the police were wrong at the time.

To take two examples already offered by Ben's desperate position, the police established Packer was untruthful, that he lied.
What evidence exists today outside of police notes to enable anyone to independently establish this, and why should we?

Likewise with Violenia, only the police knew how he folded under interrogation, only the police knew he lied.
What evidence is there outside of that police summary by Swanson?
And, what cause is there to question his conclusion?

You are looking at this from the completely wrong angle Harry.

The claim of Hutchinson to have stood adjacent to the court, is the only element that has secondry support by a witness.

It is not all that was available to Abberline, to enable him to draw his conclusion.
It is only all that has survived today, big difference.

His residency at the Victoria Home is one of habitation,and does not prove or disprove his activities of the preceedind period.Hutchinson's whereabouts at the time the home closed is not known.It cannot be shown that the closure of the home prevented Hutchinson gaining admittance,Aberline's opinion notwithstanding.

It has already been demonstrated that Hutchinson did not claim to be residing at the V.H. before his relocation there over the weekend.
Therefore, any references by later theorists based on his wrongly assumed residency at the V.H. are equally erroneous.

We do not know where Hutchinson was residing up until the night of Nov. 8-9th.
We only know he was there from the 12th.

[Wickerman]

It is quite common for people to arrive at different conclusions as to what has and hasn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Oh dear, what did you previously write?

"Then you come out with the truly bizarre and baseless claim that I’ve somewhere stated (where?) that proof is a “purely personal matter”."

First you said it was a personal matter (to Christer), then you denied saying it (to me), then you repeat it again.

Are you sure you are not in need of another few weeks vacation from the boards, the pressure getting to you?

I don't mind Ben, I'm used to this.
Just so long as you are aware that your group leader, Garry, does not approve of people offering personal beliefs as if they are facts.

[Ben]

The police were not wrong at the time.

They discredited Hutchinson's evidence shortly after it first appeared. Any modern commentator seeking to un-discredit Hutchinson or conjure up painfully bad excuses for arguing that the discrediting never occurred has all the work to do in order to demonstrate that "the police were wrong at the time".

You continue to claim, without a scrap of evidence, that the police were able to "prove" Packer and Violenia liars. As crippling that must be for your errant conclusions, that never happened. The police merely came to the conclusion that neither witness was truthful. You do realise, I hope, that the commentary offered on the treatment of both of these witnesses came in the form of internal police documents, and that if Swanson had wished to convey the impression that Packer and Violenia were proven liars, there was nothing to prevent him from saying so?

You must dispense with your lodging house nonsense, and realise that it will sink without trace, never to gain popular acceptance. We most assuredly DO KNOW that Hutchinson slept at the Victoria Home on the morning of the 9th, and any protestation to the contrary is necessarily predicated on the acceptance that the 1888 police were incompetent buffoons who failed to record the most basic of details. Please don't be so naive as to imagine that your extremely controversial idea will gain any popularity beyond the agendas of one or two Ben-botherers.

This is another Isaacstrakhan, I'm afraid.

First you said it was a personal matter (to Christer), then you denied saying it (to me), then you repeat it again

I never claimed that proof was a personal matter. A thing is either proven or it isn't. However, that will not prevent disagreements from occurring as to whether or not a thing has been proved.

Are you sure you are not in need of another few weeks vacation from the boards, the pressure getting to you?

Yes, Jon.

Scary, intimidating stuff from you as always.

Yes, I'm afraid real life and real work will be intervening soon, and will therefore force a vacation from my beloved Hutchinson debates. This won't be happening to you anytime soon, and for that you have sympathy, but at least it means I can rely on you to ensure the proliferation of Hutchinson debates in my absence.

You're for Hutchinson debates, Jon, and there you must (and will) stay.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

Any modern commentator seeking to un-discredit Hutchinson or conjure up painfully bad excuses for arguing that the discrediting never occurred has all the work to do in order to demonstrate that "the police were wrong at the time".

Hi Ben!

You are wrong.

What can be "un-discredited is Hutchinsons story, not the man himself. And what modern commentators must demonstrate is that THE PRESS was wrong at the time.

The police did not offer a single word about either man or story, apart from Abberlines recognition that Hutchinsion was probably truthful, and Dews appraisal of the man' s honest intentions.

You must dispense with your lodging house nonsense, and realise that it will sink without trace, never to gain popular acceptance.

What can I say? Dream on.
The Victoria Home affair will never return to itīs old status.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

The Victoria Home affair will never return to itīs old status.
Fisherman

Fish,

It could be a good little Sunday joke, alas, you are serious.

And pompiculous.

Cheers

[Fisherman]

My advice to you is to wait and see, David.

If it is ruled that the suggestion Jon makes is groundless, you will have your way.

If people see itīs value, then itīs the other way around.

While we wait, I will tell you a little story:

A man, sitting in a car, driving, turns to the person sitting in the seat adjacent to him and says:

The car I usually drive has a six gear transmission box.

Guess which car he is talking about - the one he is sitting in or another one?

Thereīs another little Sunday joke for you. I wish you good luck solving the riddle.

The best
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

They discredited Hutchinson's evidence shortly after it first appeared.

His statement was devalued, quite possibly & quite reasonably, due to contradictory evidence being offered by Dr Bond. Though his veracity was never in doubt.

The press were able to establish that police were now on the trail of two quite different suspects as a result. On the one hand Cox's suspect, and on the other Hutchinson's suspect.
And this situation continued for the next several days after the Star made their erroneous exaggeration.

There is nothing to establish the police voiced any opinion against Hutchinson to change his status.

.... if Swanson had wished to convey the impression that Packer and Violenia were proven liars, there was nothing to prevent him from saying so?

That is precisely what he did.
A Chief Inspector will always tone down his conclusions, especially when writing a report to his superiors.
The term 'liar' is too heated, it betrays emotion.

We most assuredly DO KNOW that Hutchinson slept at the Victoria Home on the morning of the 9th,....

You've had your chance to come up with "how you know", likely another one of your personal beliefs?

So long as we can all read that Hutchinson did not claim that "this place" was closed, only that "my usual place" was closed, and yet referred to speaking to a lodger "here" (at the V.H.), then anyone with a decent command of the English language can understand that "here" and "my usual place" were not the same.
The correct response would have been "here was closed", or, "this place was closed".

Hutchinson's "usual place" was not the V.H.

That my dear friend, is what they call a slam dunk!

I never claimed that proof was a personal matter.

"a matter of personal belief", to be precise.
Not a problem Ben, I am used to this backsliding when being caught out.

A thing is either proven or it isn't. However, that will not prevent disagreements from occurring as to whether or not a thing has been proved.

The simple solution my friend is, to never claim something IS proven, unless you have the fact in your possession.
Otherwise, your opinions are nothing more than your belief (which we all know anyway).

[Wickerman]

If it is ruled that the suggestion Jon makes is groundless, you will have your way.

Ah but Christer, the silent majority are not interested in these quibbles.

The best result we can expect is that whenever the subject of Hutchinson being a long term resident of the V.H. is raised, the silent majority will reflect on that as just another unsubstantiated claim by the Hutchinsonians.

Change is often unpopular, especially when accompanied by the realization, "Dammit, so we have been wrong all these years!"

Alas, such is the case.

[Fisherman]

Ah but Christer, the silent majority are not interested in these quibbles.

The best result we can expect is that whenever the subject of Hutchinson being a long term resident of the V.H. is raised, the silent majority will reflect on that as just another unsubstantiated claim by the Hutchinsonians.

Change is often unpopular, especially when accompanied by the realization, "Dammit, so we have been wrong all these years!"

Alas, such is the case.

Personally, I like change very much - without it, we are never going to be able to get any further with the case.

But of course, when personal status is at stake, change will not be welcomed by some.

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

The best result we can expect is that whenever the subject of Hutchinson being a long term resident of the V.H. is raised, the silent majority will reflect on that as just another unsubstantiated claim by the Hutchinsonians.

Change is often unpopular, especially when accompanied by the realization, "Dammit, so we have been wrong all these years!"

Alas, such is the case.

Hi Jon,

Don't worry, you'd have only been wrong for a few days.
And please note that even if you were right (which you're not), Hutch must have been dossing in the area nonetheless - so it changes nothing regarding his candidacy. Indeed, what was he doing around Commercial Street/Whitechapel Road/Thrawl Street (still according to the DN 14 Nov) ?

My opinion, Jon, is that you read too much into an ill-written article (example : "The man I saw did not look as though he would attack another one" - better than my own English, but not that much), in which the context is never settled - there is no mention at all of the VH.

Not that the VH has been "forgotten" by the journalist, but we can reasonably assume that the paper couldn't decently claim that one George Hutchinson, of the Victoria Home, was currently looking for Jack the Ripper.

Having made no mention of the VH, there is stricly nothing to baulk at when the DN chooses to write : "After I left the court, I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed."

Have you noticed that the verb "to sleep" is the only one in the sentence conjugated in the present ?

Will you read too much into an article and miss this detail ?

Hutch didn't say "the place where I usually slept" or "used to sleep"... and this strongly indicates that he had always slept in the VH.

Other little details, Jon. Hutch said he walked about all night, right ? What for ? He was just killing time waiting for his doss-house to open.
Strange, isn't it ? According to your interpretation, I mean.
Here is a man able to spend hours in the streets because his well-loved doss-house was closed, but who would move to another place one right after ?

And in that new place, he would have found himself at ease with another lodger, so much that he would have told him what he had witnessed on Friday night...

Again : do you think Badham and Abberline didn't ask him which was the lodging-house that was closed on Friday night ? That was SO important.
Had Hutch given another address, would we read : "George Hutchinson of the Victoria Home" in his statement without any mention of another address ?

Clearly impossible, Jon.