Vetting Hutchinson

[Wickerman]

Always question, Jon, always. Take nothing at face value*

And questioning the accusations against Hutchinson begins when?

There are two little points here to take away. One, there are problems with Hutchinson's account; sufficient in themselves to raise questions. Two, Abberline was not infallible. Of course, it might suit you to believe so, but that doesn't make it so.

Problems, which stem from our lack of information, not from anything said or done by Hutchinson.
The fact that his explanations to Abberline have not survived are no justification for accusing him of anything.

What? Who's said they must be proven wrong? And about what, exactly? I don't recall that either. Perhaps examples would be useful here, too?

You don't?

The reality is of course that there's very little 'proof' to be had here; as so often in historic enquiry. All there is often at the end of the day is opinion. Mine are always supported with actual evidence; I don't hold them otherwise - I have no time for whimsical speculation - how about you?

All very commendable, until it comes to actual practice that is.
The fact 'no' proof exists is the basic problem for those making accusations against Hutch. Funny thing is, over the years I don't recall you ever questioning the grounds for these accusations, on the contrary your focus appears to be to help defend them.

Lets repeat this:

All there is often at the end of the day is opinion. Mine are always supported with actual evidence;

You seem to have formed a solid opinion that "you-know-who" was in prison on 9th Nov, so I take it you accept isolated, uncorroborated press stories as "evidence" too?

[Wickerman]

My favorite is the lack of one spec of detail about MJK but the suspect is detailed right down to a horsepin in his tie.

Out of all the witness statements describing a suspect he is the odd one out and even G.Chapman is 23, not mid-thirties.

Throughout this series, Hutch was the only witness who knew the victim, why should he describe her clothing?
He may have if he was asked, was he asked?

[Batman]

Throughout this series, Hutch was the only witness who knew the victim....

According to him and no one else.

why should he describe her clothing?

He likely can't, so omits it.

He may have if he was asked, was he asked?

It's the type of omission that we would expect from a faux witness. Maybe he only gave it after been shown her in the mortuary. A mistake that they couldn't correct once done. He also omits the most important fact that could corroborate him... Lewis, whom he should have seen going into Miller's Court, but also strangely omits.

Odd behaviour for a man who can tell us the colour of the suspects eyebrows.

[Wickerman]

Why do you think it matters that he should have identified her clothing?

The other victims were dressed when murdered, it was necessary for every witness to describe the woman they saw on the street just incase they gave a wrong description. The implication is obvious, they saw a different woman. so there evidence would be of little use.

This did not apply to Hutchinson, Kelly was murdered undressed, the police had no sure description of what she was wearing just before her death, so what use was a description of her clothing to the police?
The clothes found in her room were not complete, some had been burned.
Therefore, there was no advantage to Hutchinson being asked to describe her clothing.

The issue you raise is of no consequence, it wouldn't have helped the police.

[Batman]

Why do you think it matters that he should have identified her clothing?

The other victims were dressed when murdered, it was necessary for every witness to describe the woman they saw on the street just incase they gave a wrong description. The implication is obvious, they saw a different woman. so there evidence would be of little use.

This did not apply to Hutchinson, Kelly was murdered undressed, the police had no sure description of what she was wearing just before her death, so what use was a description of her clothing to the police?
The clothes found in her room were not complete, some had been burned.
Therefore, there was no advantage to Hutchinson being asked to describe her clothing.

The issue you raise is of no consequence, it wouldn't have helped the police.

It would help them to accept or dismiss him.

Its not just clothing, its her whole being. Why would one not think this an important detail unless a lot of leeway is been given because one wants to accept this witness and suspect.

[Abby Normal]

Throughout this series, Hutch was the only witness who knew the victim, why should he describe her clothing?
He may have if he was asked, was he asked?

Hi Wick
This is another anomolie that has always struck me. Hutch was the only witness who knew the victim. and saw the victim with a suspect.

Does that not strike you as odd in any way?

[Sally]

It's the type of omission that we would expect from a faux witness. Maybe he only gave it after been shown her in the mortuary. A mistake that they couldn't correct once done. He also omits the most important fact that could corroborate him... Lewis, whom he should have seen going into Miller's Court, but also strangely omits.
Odd behaviour for a man who can tell us the colour of the suspects eyebrows.

With you there, Batman.

Yes, why didn't Hutchinson describe Kelly's clothing? I think it's been suggested that he would have been asked about it; but of course, for this contention there is no evidence at all.

It is evident that other witnesses were asked to describe Kelly's attire on the night of her death; but this is simply a means of identification, isn't it? I wonder if he wasn't asked on account of his claim to have known her for three years.

I don't know, it's a thought.

[John G]

Red handkerchief

Regarding Hutchinson's detailed description of the suspect. On this particular issue, why does that make him a less reliable witness than Lawende? I mean, this witness gave a fairly detailed description of Eddowes' supposed killer, right down to the knotted "reddish handkerchief", and the colour of his jacket, cap and cap-peak. Not bad from a witness who claimed he only got a short look of the suspect in awful lighting conditions! What makes this description all the more extraordinary is that Harris claimed that the three friends only saw the back of the suspect.

[Ben]

At any stage, or anything like it, Huh?
And comparing yourself to a Jury too....

I stand by my comments, Jon.

People will have different opinions as to whether an issue has been "proved" or not, as my jury example illustrates. Sorry you had the time to waste keyword-searching my posts from yesteryear in an effort to catch me out, but it just hasn't worked out well.

I notice you're still relying on non-existent reports that conveniently "haven't survived", forgetting that this appeal to "lost-to-history" information doesn't help your argument any more than it helps mine. I could play the same game myself and insist that the police report documenting Hutchinson's discrediting as a publicity-seeker got bombed in the blitz, but I'm not into appealing to the non-existent. I prefer to work with the extant evidence.

And no, the lack of "proof" for Hutchinson's truthfulness or otherwise is no more "basic problem for those making accusations against Hutch" than it is a "basic problem" for those arguing that he told the squeaky-clean truth.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

It would help them to accept or dismiss him.

Its not just clothing, its her whole being. Why would one not think this an important detail unless a lot of leeway is been given because one wants to accept this witness and suspect.

What clothing was left in her room, apart from the shawl, what else?

To be honest Batman, I think if he had described her clothing, you would just pick on some other detail to complain about.

It just was not necessary, that's all there is to it.
We have no idea what Hutchinson told Abberline, so this constant complaint, "Why didn't he tell Abberline, this.....etc...", is pointless, he may well have told Abberline, we simply do not know.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wick
This is another anomolie that has always struck me. Hutch was the only witness who knew the victim. and saw the victim with a suspect.

Does that not strike you as odd in any way?

Hi Abby.
It's different, but is it significant?

He didn't have to tell the police he knew her, he didn't have to mention that she spoke to him. If he had anything to hide, it sure makes this charade more complicated than it needed to be.
Then again, if he was telling the truth....

[Bridewell]

We have no idea what Hutchinson told Abberline, so this constant complaint, "Why didn't he tell Abberline, this.....etc...", is pointless, he may well have told Abberline, we simply do not know

.

This is the nub of it, Jon. A statement was taken from Hutchinson (from memory by Sgt Badham?) and he was interrogated (probably at length) by Abberline. It's been said many times, but it bears repeating, that a statement taker elicits an account from a witness by means of a series of questions. The Officer then formulates the wording based on the account given and makes a decision as to what needs to be included. There is, therefore, no significance, in terms of his veracity or otherwise, to the fact that Hutchinson's statement doesn't include a description of MJK. You can argue that Badham should have obtained and included that description but quite clearly he didn't, probably because Hutchinson was claiming to know MJK well. The omission, though, is Badham's. It cannot (or at least should not) be used as a stick with which to beat Hutchinson.

[Wickerman]

I stand by my comments, Jon.

Oh, and here's me thinking you said not at any time in any way. I guess you changed your mind. Or is it that memory again?

People will have different opinions as to whether an issue has been "proved" or not, as my jury example illustrates. Sorry you had the time to waste keyword-searching my posts from yesteryear in an effort to catch me out, but it just hasn't worked out well.

No, I didn't waste any time Ben. I have an instinct for troublesome posts. When I see them, I Bookmark them, knowing full well that this post will come back to haunt the poster at some point. Time is always on my side.

I notice you're still relying on non-existent reports that conveniently "haven't survived", forgetting that this appeal to "lost-to-history" information doesn't help your argument any more than it helps mine. I could play the same game myself .....

You are. Don't you accept a telegram that somehow vanished?, and you thoroughly believe there is a court record that also mysteriously vanished.
The trouble with that though, the way court records were registered was not the same way police files were kept.
Court records were archived from very early on, police files were frequently purged.

.....and insist that the police report documenting Hutchinson's discrediting as a publicity-seeker got bombed in the blitz, but I'm not into appealing to the non-existent. I prefer to work with the extant evidence.

That wouldn't work though, not when Abberline thought he had caught Hutchinson's suspect in early December. He wouldn't have been interested had Hutchinson been truly discredited.

And no, the lack of "proof" for Hutchinson's truthfulness or otherwise is no more "basic problem for those making accusations against Hutch" than it is a "basic problem" for those arguing that he told the squeaky-clean truth.

Oh, it most certainly is.
It's the ball and chain around the theory. The complete lack of anything to substantiate these accusations.

[Wickerman]

.

This is the nub of it, Jon. A statement was taken from Hutchinson (from memory by Sgt Badham?) and he was interrogated (probably at length) by Abberline. It's been said many times, but it bears repeating, that a statement taker elicits an account from a witness by means of a series of questions. The Officer then formulates the wording based on the account given and makes a decision as to what needs to be included. There is, therefore, no significance, in terms of his veracity or otherwise, to the fact that Hutchinson's statement doesn't include a description of MJK. You can argue that Badham should have obtained and included that description but quite clearly he didn't, probably because Hutchinson was claiming to know MJK well. The omission, though, is Badham's. It cannot (or at least should not) be used as a stick with which to beat Hutchinson.

Thankyou Colin.
Some are intent on gathering as many sticks as possible with which to beat Hutchinson, regardless how little thought they put into it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Thankyou Colin.
Some are intent on gathering as many sticks as possible with which to beat Hutchinson, regardless how little thought they put into it.

His statement has provided those sticks to which you refer.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk