Vetting Hutchinson

[Amanda]

Description age about 34 or 35. height 5ft6 complexion pale, dark eyes and eye lashes slight moustache, curled up each end, and hair dark, very surly looking dress long dark coat, collar and cuffs trimmed astrakan. And a dark jacket under. Light waistcoat dark trousers dark felt hat turned down in the middle. Button boots and gaiters with white buttons. Wore a very thick gold chain white linen collar. Black tie with horse shoe pin. Respectable appearance walked very sharp. Jewish appearance. Can be identified.
Always seemed a bit over the top to me....(No I am not an ex policeman or anything)..Still its always seemed a bit "too" detailed"
I mean..If i just took one of of those items away and asked you to name it...some would struggle...
Did Hutchinson sorta stand in front of him for 10 minutes just staring...?
And surely if the bloke was walking "sharp" , How much time did Hutchinson have to take in this sort of detail?

I have always wondered about the inclusion of the horseshoe tie pin.

I've read in many books that it was a very common piece of jewellery worn by gentlemen in the 19th century, and have also seen many examples in antique jewellery shops up and down the country.
However, I have only ever seen one JtR suspect (Cream) wearing such an item.

Does anyone know of an existing image where another suspect is wearing one?
Amanda

[Wickerman]

Hutchinson's claim to have been a Groom, may have something to do with this piece of jewelry catching his eye. A man responsible for the care & maintenance of horses will be familiar with such adornments worn by the gentry.

[Wickerman]

You do know, don't you Jon, that there is absolutely no evidence - none whatever - that Isaacs was Hutchinson's Astrakhan Man?

Let me just reword that.

You do know, don't you Sally, that there is absolutely no evidence - none whatever - that Hutchinson lied about anything.


Interesting that when someone takes a similar approach with Isaacs, as is pursued with the Hutchinson argument, you protest, a very noticeable one-sided protest it is.

At this stage Isaacs as Astrachan is nothing more than a working hypothesis. The strongest claim I have made is that so far there is no better candidate.

It's a shame the Hutchinson argument was not pursued in a more cautious manner. Rather than wait for factual evidence to be uncovered (like you complain with Isaacs), the case against him was the product of assertions based on speculation, and then insisted as 'proven'.
Where is your appeal for evidence now?

Considering the wide range of accusations now leveled against Hutchinson, all the product of conjecture, it is interesting that you say nothing - the silence is deafening.

So much for this "holier-than-thou" attitude in first claiming to be "impartial", and then recently, to "question everything".

You may fool some of the people, some of the time, etc. etc.

[Garry Wroe]

I wouldn't expect him to either, a responsible Inspector should not entertain his superiors with conjecture.
Whether the unnamed Hutchinson suspect truly was the named Cusins suspect can only be established once they find him.

I would suggest a change in medication.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

I wouldn't expect him to either, a responsible Inspector should not entertain his superiors with conjecture

He was absolutely duty-bound to "entertain" (?) his superiors with tangible evidence linking a particular suspect to a recent eyewitness account, especially if it was the primary basis for his opinion that Hutchinson's statement was true - according to your brand new and unique theory.

I'm afraid, with respect, you don't come across as being anywhere near as "cautious" as you suggest with your Isaacstrakhan theory, or else you would not be nearly as confident as you seem to be that your "alibi" excuse offers the explanation for the police loss of interest in Hutchinson. I'm sorry to keep referencing the theme of popular support for one's argument (which is not the be-all and end-all), but doesn't it tell you something when a great many people support the contention that Hutchinson may have lied, whereas nobody besides yourself believes Isaacs was Astrakhan man? If I were in your shoes, that would at least give me cause to ponder, with a view to possible reassessment.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
He was absolutely duty-bound to "entertain" (?) his superiors with tangible evidence linking a particular suspect to a recent eyewitness account,...

There is no evidence without proof, something you would do well to remember for your own situation.
Abberline will not make the connection to his superiors before it has been established.

I'm sorry to keep referencing the theme of popular support for one's argument (which is not the be-all and end-all), but doesn't it tell you something when a great many people support the contention that Hutchinson may have lied, whereas nobody besides yourself believes Isaacs was Astrakhan man?

Popular support? - that's a laugh, maybe you should hold a conference and see how many show up, there's an empty phone box down the road. Or better still, have a meeting to see if you can all agree on precisely what it is Hutchinson is supposed to have done wrong.

It actually makes no difference whether 2, or 22 people hold the same belief, what matters is the proof of their belief. To date, all you can offer is opinion, not one of you have offered anything factual in your accusations.

For every bias conclusion you have bought there is a perfectly reasonable explanation, in some cases more than one.
Seek comfort in your laurels if you like, but the reason the Hutchinson theory has not taken off beyond the vocal minority here is because it is unsustainable.

[Ben]

There is no evidence without proof

What?!?

Do think a bit more carefully about what you're saying, Jon.

Did you really mean to suggest that there can only be "evidence" for things that are already proven? I'm quite sure Abberline understood the distinction between "evidence" and "proof", even if you appear not to.

Popular support? - that's a laugh, maybe you should hold a conference and see how many show up, there's an empty phone box down the road.

If the criterion for membership of this conference was a refusal, on the basis of the existing evidence, to accept that Hutchinson was a squeaky-clean witness, there would be a great many attendees; whereas Inspiring Isaastrakhanians 2015 would consist of you alone in that "empty phone box down the road".

Seek comfort in your laurels if you like, but the reason the Hutchinson theory has not taken off beyond the vocal minority here is because it is unsustainable.

Not taken off? What "theory" are you talking about - the lying one or the ripping one? Let's deal with the latter first: there are more books written about Hutchinson than any other suspect, the screenwriters of the recent Whitechapel TV series favoured him as the most likely suspect and "used" him accordingly, and he has dominated internet discussion of the case for the last five years (with your help!). If you mean the theory that Hutchinson merely lied hasn't "taken off", I'm afraid that's an even worse delusion, considering that it is now, with very little doubt, the most commonly held view of his statement.

Those "laurels" are starting to feel quite cosy.

[Ben]

Hutchinson's claim to have been a Groom, may have something to do with this piece of jewelry catching his eye.

I'm afraid it doesn't lessen the sheer implausibility of such a tiny item being spotted in those conditions, and it no more validates his sighting than the "flying pig" spotter's background in aviation validates his.

What's this about the "gentry" all of a sudden? I thought you decided that Astrakhan was a phoney who wore spats at night, a hanky in his overcoat pocket, and a cummerbund round his head?

[Sally]

Hi Jon,

Let me just reword that.

You do know, don't you Sally, that there is absolutely no evidence - none whatever - that Hutchinson lied about anything.

'Reword' whatever you like, Jon, it won't make you right.

There is ample evidence that Hutchinson may have lied. As Ben observes, it's a commonly held view. Would that be so, do you suppose, were there no evidence in support of that view?

There is no proof, but that's another matter entirely.

Interesting that when someone takes a similar approach with Isaacs, as is pursued with the Hutchinson argument, you protest, a very noticeable one-sided protest it is.

At this stage Isaacs as Astrachan is nothing more than a working hypothesis. The strongest claim I have made is that so far there is no better candidate.

Yes, but Jon, you haven't taken a 'similar approach' with Isaacs, have you? What you have done is take a couple of known facts about Isaacs - that he dressed well and had been living close by; added a piece or two of press speculation and come up with your 'working hypothesis' which is, I'm afraid, unsupported conjecture at best, fantasy at worst.

With Hutchinson it's rather different. The working hypothesis that he lied; or at very best, exaggerated his tale; is based on actual, factual, evidence.

Can you see the difference?

[Wickerman]

What?!?

Do think a bit more carefully about what you're saying, Jon.

Did you really mean to suggest that there can only be "evidence" for things that are already proven? I'm quite sure Abberline understood the distinction between "evidence" and "proof", even if you appear not to.

Take any example you wish.
Claims that have not been verified, are not evidence.
We have had this same issue with the GSG.
Until, the provenance (ie; when it appeared), is established, it cannot be used as evidence relating to the murder(s).
Like I said, that which is proven/established/verified, is used as evidence.

Abberline does not share conjecture with his superior, he shares facts.

[Wickerman]

With Hutchinson it's rather different. The working hypothesis that he lied; or at very best, exaggerated his tale; is based on actual, factual, evidence.

Can you see the difference?

If you can see this "factual, evidence", I think it's time you shared it.
Because from where I sit, and I am not the only one who questioned it, there has been no "factual, evidence" submitted.

It is all conjecture.

[Ben]

So, Jon...

According to your logic, is your contention now that unless a person is proven guilty, there can be no evidence in favour of that person being guilty? Unless a person can be proven to have lied, there can be no evidence of lying? Do you understand the distinction between evidence and proof? A serious question.

While we're on the subject of "evidence", where is the slightest hint of a suggestion that an Astrakhan coat was found in Isaacs's room? Had such an item been found prior to Hutchinson coming forward, Abberline's failure to make reference to it in his report on the subject of Hutchinson's Astrakhan description would make him quite the negligent cretin.

[Wickerman]

So, Jon...

According to your logic, is your contention now that unless a person is proven guilty, there can be no evidence in favour of that person being guilty?

Completely wrong, not even close to what I wrote.
'Evidence' must have an established provenance before it can be used as such. In other words, it must first be 'proven' to be what it is claimed to be.

While we're on the subject of "evidence", where is the slightest hint of a suggestion that an Astrakhan coat was found in Isaacs's room?

Where did I claim there was?

Had such an item been found prior to Hutchinson coming forward, Abberline's failure to make reference to it in his report on the subject of Hutchinson's Astrakhan description would make him quite the negligent cretin.

It isn't necessary that the coat was found, or a watch chain, or his gaiters, merely mentioned by Cusins would be sufficient.
What is to be expected is that Abberline obtained a name & description of her mysterious lodger. Both what he was wearing on the night in question, and what he was wearing on the morning he vanished.

Any details obtained over that weekend would have already been submitted along with his daily reports.

[Garry Wroe]

'Evidence' must have an established provenance before it can be used as such. In other words, it must first be 'proven' to be what it is claimed to be.

Except when it involves Sarah Lewis seeing a couple pass up Miller's Court.

[Wickerman]

Except when it involves Sarah Lewis seeing a couple pass up Miller's Court.

Layperson testimony given at a Coroner's inquest is given on faith.