Vetting Hutchinson

[Wickerman]

What about the bit where he claimed to have gone into the court and stood outside her window?
http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media...morley/88.html

Hutchinson is not reported as saying that.
I wouldn't rely on that Dissertation, it is not always accurate.

You would do better go to the Press Reports (in the margin to the left of this page.)
There were different versions printed in the press, I used the Times version.
Compare:
- Pall Mall Gazette, 14th Nov.
- Evening News, 14th Nov.
- St. James Gazette, 14th Nov.
- Daily News, 14th Nov.
- Times, 14th Nov.
- Star, 14th Nov.

The Daily News offers this:
"I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house or hear any noise."

That line suggests he stood outside her window, looking & listening.

[Wickerman]

Jon,
In response to your post 140,any way you can.
For instance,Evidence must have an established provenance before it can be used as such....

If you wish to know what the context was, go back to post #126.

It was suggested to me that Abberline should have told his superiors that he had just obtained "tangible evidence"... :
"He was absolutely duty-bound to "entertain" (?) his superiors with tangible evidence linking a particular suspect to a recent eyewitness account,..."

To which I responded:
"There is no evidence without proof.."

The reason, Abberline does not "know" (not proven), that the man described by Hutchinson was the missing lodger described by Mary Cusins.

That, is the context.
Do you dispute this?

[Wickerman]

...It cannot be PROVED that Kelly met Astrakan, but Hutchinson can give evidence that they did.

Where is the provenance?

Hutchinson - he is the alibi for Kelly meeting Astrachan.

I can give evidence in court that I am alone in my unit writing this,but I cannot prove it.

You are not giving evidence, you are only making a statement.
Telling us you are at home, is not "evidence" of you being at home.
In this case, "evidence", would be verification of you being at home.

[Wickerman]

As I've explained previously, the police here in the UK do not operate in the way you appear to imagine. There is a rigid command structure wherein decisions are made by those in charge and implemented by those further down the pecking order. Since the decision making process is (or should be) guided by up-to-date intelligence, all relevant information is passed up the command chain as a matter of course. Your notion, therefore, that Abberline would have sat on potentially case-breaking information until such time as Isaacs was in custody is utterly nonsensical. But then, no more so than your contention that Astrakhan remained a suspect even though Hutchinson's story had been discredited courtesy of Dr Bond's time of death estimation in the Kelly case.

"the police here in the UK" do not operate the same way today, as they did a hundred years ago.
Telling me what the police do today, is no indication of how they operated a hundred years ago.

Given that a coat trimmed with Astrachan was hardly unique, and that this style of fashion was distinctly East European, typically worn by foreigners, of which there were numerous across the East End, it is necessary for Abberline to identify exactly who Hutchinson saw before he suggests to his superiors that this new witness has seen the missing lodger.

Swanson's most obvious response would be, "and how do you know Fred?"

To which Abberline replies?.... (go ahead Garry, tell us)

[Wickerman]

Jon,

As anyone who has read anything substantial knows about these cases, like yourself, George Hutchinson isn't a trusted witness.

This is today's opinion, and by people who have more questions than answers.
For Abberline to believe him, he would have had more answers than questions.
See the difference?

There are many reasons to set him aside, beginning with his unsubstantiated statement that he knew Mary Kelly at all, let alone by name.

Michael.
If you don't mind me saying so, this myopic view is common with all the accusations against Hutchinson.
"Unsubstantiated" - to whom, - You?
Was it unsubstantiated at the time?

Then you have his reluctance to come forward with his obviously embellished story for four days. Four Days Jon...Four. Anyone who knows even a little about friendships would consider a 4 day delay in coming forward with a story that might have great impact on the investigation into the most gruesome murder in all the unsolved murders file a travesty...re-setting the last person seen with Mary for one. A friend wouldn't hesitate in coming forward, perhaps with some promise of protection, but anyone who cared about Mary even casually with the kind of information he provided would be compelled to bring it to the police.

But Michael, this couldn't be further from the truth.
In the real world, police often have to search for close friends, even relatives, in a murder case.
What you are suggesting is like a "Mr Rogers Neighborhood" view of the world. It isn't real Michael.

Anyone who might seek validation of his claims might also have presented himself to the Inquest organizers, knowing that others that also knew Mary might corroborate his casual friendship with her.

Abberline may have done that already. He doesn't need to do it that night (Nov. 12th), he could have sent detectives off to Breezers Hill the next day to check out if Hutchinson knew Mary Kelly there, three years ago.
WE, do not know what verifications Abberline conducted on Hutchinson's background.
You think that because You do not know, that nobody knew.

Such is the basis for these blind accusations.

She might have mentioned him to someone if she knew him...she didn't. He might have talked with her on the street sometime and had that encounter witnessed by courtyard witnesses who knew Mary beyond question. No-one came forward after his statement to tell the police they knew of the friendship.

The investigations files have all been lost, purged, destroyed, and because you cannot read what you think you should be able to read, you assume this information never existed.
See what I mean, that is myopic.

The over-riding reality here is that George came forward after the Inquest was concluded, after the courtyard witnesses who knew Mary well had dispersed and gone home, and with a delay which would certainly inhibit any possibility of then finding the man in his story.

The reality is, that even today close witnesses still do not come forward, they have to be sought out by police.
Your choice to ignore this reality is self-serving, you only weaken your case if you acknowledge it.

So...the real question about George is why the hell he bothered to come from out of the woodwork and provide such an imaginative and obviously embellished story?

Twice now you have thought to include your personal bias, "obviously embellished". I feel it is obvious to me that you are more interested in promoting a myth than actually finding out who he might have seen.

He is suspicious, his motives are suspect and his story is far fetched if only by the degree of detail he noted from across the street in near darkness.

Ah, suspicious - yes.
There are reasonable suspicions, agreed.
I have suspicions about McCarthy inventing, or exaggerating that rent debt, but I don't go accusing him of anything.
I have suspicions, and that is as far as I can reasonably take it.

When we have questions we cannot answer, we naturally harbor suspicions.

What is wrong, in my opinion, is to provide our own answers to these questions, and then, based purely on 'our' self created answers, 'we' make accusations.
Therefore, these accusations are not based on anything corroborated, nothing confirmed, nothing factual, - just speculation.

Hutchinson is a fine example of a contrived suspect.

[harry]

Jon,
What are you on about.Hutchinson,had he been required to give evidence in court, would state he saw a meeting of Kelly with a male person.That statement would be evidence. Where does alibi come into it.? He was a witness,not a suspect at that time.( That the whole story was meant as an alibi,I sincerely agree)As that meeting is not verified by any other evidence,it cannot be proven that a meeting took place.Evidence without proof which you claim cannot exist.
Same as my other example of being alone.In court I would be sworn to give truthfull evidence.My statement of being alone w ould be evidence.That I would not be able to prove by any other means that I was alone means evidence without proof.Now you show where a statement without proof cannot be evidence
You want to read your post 140 on this thread very closely,and if you want to carry on this silly claim of yours,be my guest.

[Batman]

Story change

Hutchinson is not reported as saying that.
I wouldn't rely on that Dissertation, it is not always accurate.

You would do better go to the Press Reports (in the margin to the left of this page.)
There were different versions printed in the press, I used the Times version.
Compare:
- Pall Mall Gazette, 14th Nov.
- Evening News, 14th Nov.
- St. James Gazette, 14th Nov.
- Daily News, 14th Nov.
- Times, 14th Nov.
- Star, 14th Nov.

The Daily News offers this:
"I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house or hear any noise."

That line suggests he stood outside her window, looking & listening.

I don't understand. At the start of your reply you said "Hutchinson is not reported as saying that." Then your closing line is "stood outside her window, looking & listening".

This is a change in the story right?

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

You accuse Michael and others of substituting a supposed lack of answers to Hutchinson-related questions with “accusations”, but you’re about the very worst offender when it comes to filling in the blanks with highly creative scenarios of your own, and to make matters worse, it appears such theories are actually needed in order for the so-called defense to stand. All it tells me – as one such vile “accuser”, apparently – is that defending Hutchinson against (now very popular and mainstream) suspicions that at the very least, he might not have told the whole truth is proving a difficult task.

It typically falls to the accusers to posit the existence of conveniently “lost” reports – you know, the type that must have backed up the theorist’s position if only they hadn’t been obliterated – and yet only in Hutchinson debates do we see the roles constantly reversed. It is the squeaky-clean-truth-ers coming up with mystical lost reports, whereas the rest of us rely on the extant evidence.

At the moment, you are relying on such theories as Astrahan/Isaacs had an alibi, and the false Daily News “passing up the court” detail being revived as accurate, but what if these were rejected as everyone else rejects them? How would you go about the business of fending off these “accusations” if these substitute theories of yours disappeared?

“What is wrong, in my opinion, is to provide our own answers to these questions, and then, based purely on 'our' self created answers”

And what exactly is the Isaacstrakhan “alibi” conjuration if not precisely that – “a self created answer”? Albeit one that receives immeasurably less support than the notion that Hutchinson may have lied.

If Hutchinson divulged any critical information to Abberline that had a direct bearing on his opinion that the witness told the truth, the latter was duty-bound to include in his report; just so with mythical Astrakhan coats discovered in nearby houses, and supposedly belonging to suspicious men who threatened violence towards women. Had such a thing happened, it is impossible that Abberline would have failed to mention such a crucial detail to his superiors – not implausible, not inconceivable, but actually impossible. If Abberline couldn’t confirm that such a coat belonged to the suspect, but had strong suspicions in that regard (who else’s could it realistically have been it was found in the room he had only just vacated?), the information would have passed up the chain of command…as I look forward to repeating for an eternity, if necessary. We’ll just have to see.

“In the real world, police often have to search for close friends, even relatives, in a murder case.”

But in the real world, “close friends” tend not to come forward only after discovering than another witness had seen them at the crime scene, as almost certainly occurred in Hutchinson’s case, unless that close friend had something to hide.

I’m glad you seem to think it was such a doddle to “check out if Hutchinson knew Mary Kelly (in Breezer’s Hill), three years ago”, but a modicum of imagination might persuade you otherwise.

“You are reading the same script that Ben uses when he is backed into a corner”

Oh, is that how you back people “into a corner”. By demanding that other people repeat that which you’ve noisily and inaccurately insisted must be wrong?

Those Stride threads are looking pretty Jon-less at the moment. What do you reckon? Have a look.

Regards,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

"the police here in the UK" do not operate the same way today, as they did a hundred years ago.
Telling me what the police do today, is no indication of how they operated a hundred years ago.

I've explained what they do today and what they did during the course of the Whitechapel Murders, not that the two approaches are radically different. But it's all to no avail. You either know nothing about UK police procedures past or present or simply ignore reality in order to sustain what to the vast majority is an unsustainable argument. Confirmation bias at its very worst.

Given that a coat trimmed with Astrachan was hardly unique, and that this style of fashion was distinctly East European, typically worn by foreigners, of which there were numerous across the East End, it is necessary for Abberline to identify exactly who Hutchinson saw before he suggests to his superiors that this new witness has seen the missing lodger.

To which end the information provided by Mary Cusins would have been crucial if your hypothesis holds true. Again, however, your ignorance of police procedure is breathtaking.

Swanson's most obvious response would be, "and how do you know Fred?"

To which Abberline replies?.... (go ahead Garry, tell us)

'Jon told me.'

'Sorry, Fred, but I'm reassigning you to traffic duty.'

[Wickerman]

I don't understand. At the start of your reply you said "Hutchinson is not reported as saying that." Then your closing line is "stood outside her window, looking & listening".

This is a change in the story right?

How is it a change?

Police Statement: "I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not."

Times version: "I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not."

Daily News version: "I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house or hear any noise."


In his police version he says, "I then went to the Court".
To go to the court, you have to walk up the passage right?
If you don't walk up the passage, you are still out on Dorset St.
Millers Court is the rectangle at the back of the house.

So he is saying he went up the passage to the Court. And, that is what he says in the other two versions, just in different words.

There is no change.

[Garry Wroe]

How is it a change?

Because Hutchinson's police statement places him on Dorset street throughout the entirety of his claimed vigil. His press statements place him at the Kelly crime scene at a time critical to the murder.

See the distinction?

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
You accuse Michael and others of substituting a supposed lack of answers to Hutchinson-related questions with “accusations”, but you’re about the very worst offender when it comes to filling in the blanks with highly creative scenarios of your own,...

Rubbish.
The day I claim that a "may-be" is a "proven fact", then you can claim I am no different to yourselves.
Such an accusation just shows how little attention you pay to what we discuss.
Every theory requires "may-be's" to tie the pieces together.
None of these theories are "proven", just like none of your accusations are "proven", yet there is only one of us constantly repeating that they are.

It typically falls to the accusers to posit the existence of conveniently “lost” reports – you know,....

Lost files are a matter of fact.

As for the onus of proof lying with the proposer. Yes, and you know this all too well. Yet to date, none of your vocal minority, including yourself, have ever offered anything like proof to contest the status quo of Abberline's written opinion of Hutchinson.

Any word on Isaacs lost court case yet?

At the moment, you are relying on such theories as Astrahan/Isaacs had an alibi, and the false Daily News “passing up the court” detail being revived as accurate, but what if these were rejected as everyone else rejects them? How would you go about the business of fending off these “accusations” if these substitute theories of yours disappeared?

The alibi is a theory, I've stated nothing different.
And, you have never yet shown how the Daily News coverage was "false", like everything else in these debates, its only your opinion.
Which means nothing - what other opinion could you possibly have.
You need it to be false, that is the only reason you have.

And what exactly is the Isaacstrakhan “alibi” conjuration if not precisely that – “a self created answer”? Albeit one that receives immeasurably less support than the notion that Hutchinson may have lied.

Where do you get this constant obsession with "what people think"?
Why do you need this reassurance Ben? Does it all comes from this rather juvenile "my gang is bigger than yours" nonsense?
Since when did numbers replace logic?

If Hutchinson divulged any critical information to Abberline that had a direct bearing on his opinion that the witness told the truth, the latter was duty-bound to include in his report;....

"If" this, "If" that. Since when was Ben Holme a professional on Police procedure?
"If" you had any appreciation for police procedure, you would know all the details of the interrogation would be in the interrogation report.

But in the real world, “close friends” tend not to come forward only after discovering than another witness had seen them at the crime scene, as almost certainly occurred in Hutchinson’s case, unless that close friend had something to hide.

I'm relieved you slipped that "almost certainly" in there, it tells me you are guessing again.

I’m glad you seem to think it was such a doddle to “check out if Hutchinson knew Mary Kelly (in Breezer’s Hill), three years ago”, but a modicum of imagination might persuade you otherwise.

Merely a matter of asking the Landlord (or lodgers) if a man by that name had any connections with this house at the time Mary Kelly was there.
Not as difficult as you choose to imply.

Oh, is that how you back people “into a corner”. By demanding that other people repeat that which you’ve noisily and inaccurately insisted must be wrong?

Those Stride threads are looking pretty Jon-less at the moment. What do you reckon? Have a look.

When backed into a corner, they tend to want to change the subject too.

[Wickerman]

Because Hutchinson's police statement places him on Dorset street throughout the entirety of his claimed vigil. His press statements place him at the Kelly crime scene at a time critical to the murder.

See the distinction?

Once again.
"The Court" is at the other end of the passage.

[Wickerman]

Again, however, your ignorance of police procedure is breathtaking.

Oh yes, the Telegraph man.

This, from someone who cannot provide one simple example of evidence/proof/fact, in debate after debate, and at every stage falls back on nothing more convincing than, "opinion".

Have you not noticed that this is a common theme amongst you all?
Nothing you (collectively) assert is supported by factual information, it is always, "your opinion".

[harry]

A court,and I know because I was born in such,would be the area from the pavement to the back end.You were at the court if you were at the beginning of the passage way.Now this is factual information.When Hutchinson states he went to the court,it need be he went no further than the entrance to the passageway.
Yes Jon,there is evidence aplenty in the ripper murderers.Things that could be proven,and information,such as Hutchinson's,that could not be so proven.