Vetting Hutchinson

[harry]

Fisherman,
Lets get this statement of Drews in it's right perspective.He did not assume anything of the kind regarding the wrong night,and certainly Aberline and Badham accepted that Hutchinson was claiming the 9th.What Drew remarked,and he included Maxwell,was IF both were wrong,then a different view of their evidence was possible,or words to that effect.IF,thats the operative word.If they were wrong.IF Hutchinson was wrong.Well he has not been proven wrong yet.
Millers court was no more of a risk than the other sites,whether for Hutchinson,Lechmere or any other named suspect.
You say Hutchinson did not see Lewis.Assumtion nothing more.Based on what? That it wasn't written into the witness report.Not that it wasn't made.As Lewis had already,under oath,revealed her presence at 2.30AM,what further need for it to be recorded.
Nobody at the time had a bad word for him.There only seems to be two people who did comment.Aberline,who only formed an opinion,and a reporter who remarked he looked soldierly.Still 2 to nil in your favour you'll claim.Good on you.

[Fisherman]

harry: Fisherman,
Lets get this statement of Drews in it's right perspective.He did not assume anything of the kind regarding the wrong night,and certainly Aberline and Badham accepted that Hutchinson was claiming the 9th.What Drew remarked,and he included Maxwell,was IF both were wrong,then a different view of their evidence was possible,or words to that effect.IF,thats the operative word.If they were wrong.IF Hutchinson was wrong.Well he has not been proven wrong yet.

"Words to that effect", Harry? "If"? Dew was adamant that Htuchinson WAS wrong. Here is the full quote:

But I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken, not necessarily as to a person, but as to date and time. And I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were wrong.

So Dew can see one explanation only, and that is that both Maxwell and Hutchinson were wrong. It is not a question of "if", it is a question of Dew predisposing that the two got it wrong.

Millers court was no more of a risk than the other sites,whether for Hutchinson,Lechmere or any other named suspect.

It was a cul-de-sac, so it WAS more of a risk than, say, Buck´s Row or Mitre Square. And let´s not forget that this was a man that did not seem keen to linger on the spots.

You say Hutchinson did not see Lewis.Assumtion nothing more.Based on what?

Based on Hutchinson himself claiming to have seen two people only during his vigil, a lodger and a PC. That, I´m afraid, is not assumption. It is accepting Hutchinsons word and going by the recorded evidence. What is not in evidence and never was, is that Lewis´ lodger was Hutchinson. As you know, there is an alternative explanation to this; that Hutchinson mistook the days.

That it wasn't written into the witness report.Not that it wasn't made.As Lewis had already,under oath,revealed her presence at 2.30AM,what further need for it to be recorded.

I am not questioning Lewis´ presence. But that is all she swears to under oath. She does not for a second say that her lodger was Hutchinson. That conception was - understandably - formed when it was overall accepted that Hutchinson was in place on the murder night. And it is based on the second version given by Lewis, meaning that we should be extremely careful not to put too much trust in it.
Nowadays, the notion that the loiterer must have been Hutchinson has been challenged, and rightly so. Very much speaks AGAINST him being in place. Everything, actually, but for Lewis´ statement. But Lewis has the loiterer on the wrong side of the street, mind you, so he would not have been Hutchinson.

Nobody at the time had a bad word for him.There only seems to be two people who did comment.Aberline,who only formed an opinion,and a reporter who remarked he looked soldierly.Still 2 to nil in your favour you'll claim.Good on you.

Looking at the recorded material pointing to Hutchinson as a liar or timewaster, there can be little doubt that my view is the one supported by the evidence, yes.

[Garry Wroe]

The difficulty I have is this:is there any evidence that the police spent much time investigating Blotchy or BS man as suspects? Isn't it the case that they became quickly "disinterested" in Scwartz, Cox and Lawende as witnesses after their initial investigations failed to bear fruit? Well, at least until years later when Kosminski/ Saddler were identified as suspects.

In the long term, John, witnesses were of use only once a viable suspect was in custody. We know of Lawende’s participation in the Saddler case because the press reported on it. The police played their cards close to their chest throughout the Ripper investigation – even more so once Anderson returned to duty. The chances are that more witnesses were utilized but journalists were kept in the dark.

Remember that Swanson averred that the identification of Anderson’s witness would have been sufficient to hang Kosminski. That’s the way in which it worked in those days. The lack of forensics meant that witness testimony was critical in securing convictions. Often it was a case of the more witnesses the better. This being so, investigators would hardly have discarded the likes of Cox, Schwartz, Lawende and Long. They were simply kept on hold until needed.

[Garry Wroe]

His witness statement implies nothing of the sort. There is no mentioning at all about him crossing any road. Not a iot. There is no mentioning or implication whatsoever that he was ever on the south side of Dorset Street.

Hutchinson claimed to have followed Kelly and Astrakhan from the Queen’s Head and monitored them as they chatted for a couple of minutes. He therefore approached Dorset Street from the south and almost certainly took up a vantage point on the southern footway. If he then walked as far as the interconnecting passage he must have crossed the street from south to north.

This so called implication only enters the stage if we accept that the man Lewis spoke of was Hutchinson. It is thus as circular a reasoning as we are ever going to see on Casebook. It does not allow for the alternative take that the loiterer was somebody else. It MUST have been Hutchinson, the reasoning goes, since Hutchinson himself said he was around at the pertinent hour.

Two independent witnesses who each confirm the other’s story might be coincidence to you, Fish. To most, however, it is likely corroboration.

Enter Walter Dew. Dew says that Hutchinson was not a man he would reflect on. Dew is very clearly of the meaning that Hutchinson was not any liar or any timewaster - Dew thinks he was honestly mistaken, and he thinks he was mistaken as to "date and time". Clearly, Walter Dew thinks that Hutchinson muddled the days.

Dew knew that Hutchinson’s story had been discredited but not why. Since he was disinclined to question Hutchinson’s integrity on the basis of unknown evidence he gave him the benefit of the doubt. Thus he speculated upon the possibility of date or time confusion. Nothing more. Tellingly, this speculation was not reserved for Hutchinson alone. Dew also included Carrie Maxwell in the same category. The problem for Dew, however, is that investigators established beyond doubt that Maxwell was correct in context of the date and time she visited the Bishopsgate milk shop on the morning of Kelly’s death. So Dew was wrong with regard to Maxwell. And if he was wrong about Maxwell he could just as easily have been in error over Hutchinson.

Now we can speak of implications, Garry - and the implications are that Dew was correct. Hutchinson seemingly muddled the days.

Hutchinson claimed to have returned to the Victoria Home early on the Friday morning, Fish. By early afternoon the East End was awash with policemen, sightseers, sellers of drinks, food, pamphlets and trinkets. Newsboys were everywhere, attempting to sell their newspapers with shrill announcements of yet another murder. Even if Hutchinson hadn’t ventured outdoors and witnessed this scene for himself, the Victoria Home would have been fizzing with the news of the Dorset Street murder. Hence it would have been impossible for him to have remained ignorant of such. Given this scenario it is beyond implausible to assume that Hutchinson could have learned of the murder and confused the Astrakhan episode of twelve hours earlier with events of the previous day. When the alleged walk from Romford is also factored into the equation it is difficult to fathom how anyone could entertain the possibility of date confusion. But then, not many people do.

[Garry Wroe]

Apologies for the repetition, but ...

So Dew can see one explanation only, and that is that both Maxwell and Hutchinson were wrong. It is not a question of "if", it is a question of Dew predisposing that the two got it wrong.

The problem for Dew, however, is that investigators established beyond doubt that Maxwell was correct in context of the date and time she visited the Bishopsgate milk shop on the morning of Kelly’s death. So Dew was wrong with regard to Maxwell. And if he was wrong about Maxwell he could just as easily have been in error over Hutchinson.

Dew was wrong. Pure and simple.

[Garry Wroe]

If he was fabricating his story, common sense dictates that he keep it simple, down to earth and believable.

Common sense, perhaps, but the empirical evidence demonstrates otherwise.

The less detail the better, a liar cannot take the risk that the police will investigate and find fault with his story.

Once again, the empirical evidence demonstrates otherwise.

A liar knows to be vague, quite the opposite to what we have in George Hutchinson.

Study after study has demonstrated the polar opposite. Those providing false evidence (for whatever reason) tend to overelaborate, providing a level of minutia not normally found in the narratives of truthful witnesses.

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe: Hutchinson claimed to have followed Kelly and Astrakhan from the Queen’s Head and monitored them as they chatted for a couple of minutes. He therefore approached Dorset Street from the south and almost certainly took up a vantage point on the southern footway. If he then walked as far as the interconnecting passage he must have crossed the street from south to north.

There´s that "almost certainly" again that is so popular in your circuits, Garry. I can assure you that no "almost certaily" applies here, unless you are VERY keen to hang on to a specific scenario. Hutchinson can have walked into Dorset Street on the southern OR the northern footway, and he may equally have walked inbetween them. We can´t possibly determine what applies. All we know is tnhat Hutchinson said that he went to the court - and the court was on the northern side, so that is where he went. At least there is written evidence to support that.

Two independent witnesses who each confirm the other’s story might be coincidence to you, Fish. To most, however, it is likely corroboration.

I agree. But when person A fails to see person B passing right by his nose, that corroboration disappears. It also applies in this even that the two did NOT corroborate each others stories. Hutchinson said he went to the court, which is on the northern side, and Lewis´ loiterer was on the southern side. The two do therefore not corroborate each other. Like I said, if we accept that Hutchinson was there at 2.00-2.45, then he must have been the loiterer, regardless of how he said he was on the other side of the street.
But once we allow ourselves to reason that Hutchinson may have been wrong - as per Dew - then the loiterer was somebody else.
We can also see that whereas Hutchinson was there for three quarets of an hour, the loiterer can only be tied to his position on the other side of the street for a measly few seconds. No corroboration there either, thus.

Dew knew that Hutchinson’s story had been discredited but not why.

That is not clear, I´ afraid. My take on things is that Hutchinson was told by the police that he would have been out on the dates - and that Dew knew that. But I also think that Hutchinson did not accept this - we have Reg Hutchinson saying that the one thing his father regretted was that nothing came of his information. That´s my take, and it has Dew in the know. Let´s also admit that the importance of the story was graded down, not totally discredited.

Since he was disinclined to question Hutchinson’s integrity on the basis of unknown evidence he gave him the benefit of the doubt.

Once again, thin and conjectural ice, Garry.

Thus he speculated upon the possibility of date or time confusion. Nothing more.

No, he said that he could only see that explanation. It was the only resaonable solution to him.

Tellingly, this speculation was not reserved for Hutchinson alone. Dew also included Carrie Maxwell in the same category. The problem for Dew, however, is that investigators established beyond doubt that Maxwell was correct in context of the date and time she visited the Bishopsgate milk shop on the morning of Kelly’s death. So Dew was wrong with regard to Maxwell.

No, that does not follow. Dew said that people could be wrong, not necessarily about identities but also about dates and time. He ascribed Maxwells error to category one and Hutchinsons to category two.

And if he was wrong about Maxwell he could just as easily have been in error over Hutchinson.

But he was in all probability right about Maxwell - and Hutchinson. The former mistook the person, the latter the date.

Hutchinson claimed to have returned to the Victoria Home early on the Friday morning, Fish. By early afternoon the East End was awash with policemen, sightseers, sellers of drinks, food, pamphlets and trinkets. Newsboys were everywhere, attempting to sell their newspapers with shrill announcements of yet another murder. Even if Hutchinson hadn’t ventured outdoors and witnessed this scene for himself, the Victoria Home would have been fizzing with the news of the Dorset Street murder. Hence it would have been impossible for him to have remained ignorant of such. Given this scenario it is beyond implausible to assume that Hutchinson could have learned of the murder and confused the Astrakhan episode of twelve hours earlier with events of the previous day. When the alleged walk from Romford is also factored into the equation it is difficult to fathom how anyone could entertain the possibility of date confusion. But then, not many people do.

I can see how it would be convenient for you if it was really impossible for Hutchinson to muddle the days. Sadly, it was nothing of the sort. He worked very odd hours, he changed jobs, he lost sleep, he walked the streets at nights and sometimes slept in doss houses. It is the perfect soil to grow day-muddling in.
By the way, he never said he returned to the Victoria Home. He said he returned to the place where he normally dossed.

[Fisherman]

Apologies for the repetition, but ...

Dew was wrong. Pure and simple.

Says you. Nothing new there. I disagree, as do others. Nothing new there either. Maybe we should agree not to try and present our takes as a fact either way...?

[Fisherman]

Those providing false evidence (for whatever reason) tend to overelaborate, providing a level of minutia not normally found in the narratives of truthful witnesses.

... and yet he managed to leave out Lewis.

[Sally]

... and yet he managed to leave out Lewis.

I agree that this is a problem.

Perhaps his eyesight wasn't all that he imagined, eh?

[Fisherman]

I agree that this is a problem.

Perhaps his eyesight wasn't all that he imagined, eh?

What is not there cannot be seen.

That, though, may be a point lost on you.

[Fisherman]

Actually, it has been argued that Hutchinson did not want to be too obvious. So he left out Lewis. Otherwise, the clever policemen would think: Ah - he only admits he was there because he KNOWS she was there!

I find this a bit hard to accept. It would have been pretty damn obvious to Abberline et al that Hutch MUST have seen Lewis, and so it would be odd in the extreme for him to deny it.

I nevertheless think he did exactly that. I all honesty. And I think that was when Abberline realized that something was very wrong. Up til then, Abberline would have reasoned like Garry does - Hutchinson could not have muddled the dates. After it, however - that´s another story.

Once again, it fits the development like a glove. And it explains why Dew put so much stock in Hutchinson fifty years on, instead of coming clear about how the police had revealed him as a liar or a timewaster.

But those who promote Hutchinson will not concede this. To them, Dew must have been guessing away, not having been informed by anybody that Hutchinson had been discarded. As if the police would not have seen the use in telling their men that Hutchinson was out of the game.

It´s a legless tango.

[Sally]

Once again, it fits the development like a glove

Only to you, Fish.

The wrong day idea is implausible to everybody else [Xmere theorists aside, of course]

[Garry Wroe]

Garry Wroe: Hutchinson claimed to have followed Kelly and Astrakhan from the Queen’s Head and monitored them as they chatted for a couple of minutes. He therefore approached Dorset Street from the south and almost certainly took up a vantage point on the southern footway. If he then walked as far as the interconnecting passage he must have crossed the street from south to north.

There´s that "almost certainly" again that is so popular in your circuits, Garry. I can assure you that no "almost certaily" applies here, unless you are VERY keen to hang on to a specific scenario.

I am: the one described by Hutchinson in which he allegedly followed Kelly and Astrakhan into Dorset Street from the south. It’s about probability, and probability suggests that Hutchinson crossed Dorset Street from south to north.

I agree. But when person A fails to see person B passing right by his nose, that corroboration disappears.

Fails to see? How about consciously omitted to mention? You know, as in the way that in his police statement Hutchinson consciously omitted to mention having seen Astrakhan on the corner of Thrawl Street whilst walking along Commercial Street. Or consciously omitted to mention the Sunday policeman. Or consciously omitted to mention having stood directly outside Kelly’s room for a couple of minutes shortly before three o’clock.

Quite independently of one another Sarah Lewis sighted a man who appeared preoccupied with the interconnecting passage, and Hutchinson claimed to have monitored the court from his position on Dorset Street. Given that such behaviour is both specific and somewhat out of the ordinary, it lends itself to the ‘likely corroboration’ I described in an earlier post.

Thus he speculated upon the possibility of date or time confusion. Nothing more.

No, he said that he could only see that explanation. It was the only resaonable solution to him.

Which amounts to speculation.

Tellingly, this speculation was not reserved for Hutchinson alone. Dew also included Carrie Maxwell in the same category. The problem for Dew, however, is that investigators established beyond doubt that Maxwell was correct in context of the date and time she visited the Bishopsgate milk shop on the morning of Kelly’s death. So Dew was wrong with regard to Maxwell.

No, that does not follow. Dew said that people could be wrong, not necessarily about identities but also about dates and time. He ascribed Maxwells error to category one and Hutchinsons to category two.

He did nothing of the kind.

Hutchinson claimed to have returned to the Victoria Home early on the Friday morning, Fish. By early afternoon the East End was awash with policemen, sightseers, sellers of drinks, food, pamphlets and trinkets. Newsboys were everywhere, attempting to sell their newspapers with shrill announcements of yet another murder. Even if Hutchinson hadn’t ventured outdoors and witnessed this scene for himself, the Victoria Home would have been fizzing with the news of the Dorset Street murder. Hence it would have been impossible for him to have remained ignorant of such. Given this scenario it is beyond implausible to assume that Hutchinson could have learned of the murder and confused the Astrakhan episode of twelve hours earlier with events of the previous day. When the alleged walk from Romford is also factored into the equation it is difficult to fathom how anyone could entertain the possibility of date confusion. But then, not many people do.

I can see how it would be convenient for you if it was really impossible for Hutchinson to muddle the days. Sadly, it was nothing of the sort. He worked very odd hours, he changed jobs, he lost sleep, he walked the streets at nights and sometimes slept in doss houses. It is the perfect soil to grow day-muddling in.

Perhaps, Fish, you’d care to enlighten me about Hutchinson’s working hours. And who says he changed jobs? Neither do we know that he walked the streets at nights (plural). As for his sleeping arrangements he stated that he usually stayed at the Victoria Home. All in all it appears that this soil isn’t the muddle-friendly growing medium you’d have us believe.

So let’s return to my original premise. It would have been nigh on impossible for Hutchinson to have been unaware of Kelly’s death by early- to mid-afternoon on the Friday. As such it would have been all but impossible for him to have confused the events of twelve hours earlier with those of the Wednesday night. Not only did he allegedly encounter Kelly with her presumed killer, he also claimed to have walked from Romford to the East End in what might best be described as hostile weather conditions. Again, such circumstances would have been psychologically salient and couldn’t possibly have led to date confusion within twelve or so hours given a normally or even relatively normally functioning individual. Like I said, the proposition is beyond implausible, which perhaps explains why it has attracted few adherents.

[Batman]

Why did Hutchinson wait three days before going to the authorities about an exceptionally unique looking Dick Dastardly who eviscerated a friend he deemed worthy of spending near b-movie length time waiting for in the rain?