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?

[Batman]

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.

[Wickerman]

No, Jon.

Ben didn't do any such thing at any stage, or anything like it.

You recall this statement (post 1162):
"...and when I believe that something has been proven, I also "make it a point" to demonstrate as much."

And Christer replied (post 1163):
“Proof is not a matter of personal belief, Ben.”

To which you responded (post 1164):
"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."

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=294250#post294250

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

[Ben]

I like the one about Hutchinson spotting Astrakhan on more than two occasions (the latter never changing any aspect of his attire, of course), and managing to memorise just a little extra detail each time!

"So I saw a splash of red last time, so let's have another check...Oh, it's a red stone seal!"

[Sally]

some people who attempt to do so frequently come unstuck with all the eccentric arguments that go with it.

Yep - now what was my favourite?

The wrong night, perhaps? The Romford Pub?

So hard to choose - but I think the one where Hutchinson waited for three days before coming forward because he'd been locked in a stable in Romford since Wednesday was possibly the best.

[In danger of falling off my chair now... ]

[Sally]

In this case the expressed opinions of Abberline have established the base line, history will not change that. Those who chose to contest that opinion have the burden of proof to establish.

Oh dear Jon. I fear that this is a case of 'it's the written word of one in authority so it must be true' a classic trait of the amateur historian. You have my sympathy - really.

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

Abberline could've been right; Abberline could've been wrong - neither can be proven and I struggle to recall a time when anybody posting on here said that it could. Perhaps, if you know of such occasion[s] you would like to elaborate?

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.

As is often the case, rather than admit their accusations are ill-founded and poorly researched, they prefer to dodge the issue with the self satisfied attitude that "we must be proven wrong"

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?

I have openly offered challenges to this vocal minority over the years to show and stand by their "proof", an offer consistently met by a wall of silence.

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?

*Something you would do well to apply in your pursuit of Isaacs.

[Ben]

A foregone conclusion Ben. If you can't 'exonerate' Hutchinson one way - well, there's always another poorly-evidenced, vehemently endorsed 'theory' to resurrect, eh?

Indeed, Sally, hence the recent return of other old favourites like the Daily News and all that "passing up the court" fun. Having an opinion that Hutchinson told the truth is one thing, but the sheer baggage that often accompanies it is what alarms me most.

I recall in a reply to Christer, Ben explained that he regards something as proven if he himself is convinced it is proven.

No, Jon.

Ben didn't do any such thing at any stage, or anything like it.

I'd read Sally's post more carefully too.

She does not remotely "insist" that anyone favouring the notion of a truthful Hutchinson "prove" their case. She observed that some people who attempt to do so frequently come unstuck with all the eccentric arguments that go with it. If the "honest" argument hinges on bizarre identity/alibi theories for Astrakhan and Daily News errors being resurrected as accurate, I'd say that argument has problems.

How's your quest progressing for evidence that Hutchinson's critics and doubters are in any sort of "minority", by the way?

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

I am surprised from time to time at the amount the time and energy invested by some in the pursuit of 'proving' Hutchinson to be an honest, innocent chap. I guess people like a challenge.

I remember that type of logic expressed on the Diary threads. The Maybrick lot would insist "those who do not believe" had to prove the Maybrick'ers accusations were wrong too.

It's a shame some people have not spent time finding out how the rule of provenance works.
In this case the expressed opinions of Abberline have established the base line, history will not change that. Those who chose to contest that opinion have the burden of proof to establish.

As is often the case, rather than admit their accusations are ill-founded and poorly researched, they prefer to dodge the issue with the self satisfied attitude that "we must be proven wrong".

I have openly offered challenges to this vocal minority over the years to show and stand by their "proof", an offer consistently met by a wall of silence.

[Wickerman]

Hi,
I had to rise from the dead , as Ben made my ears burn..
For years my Topping views fell on deaf ears..for the very good reason, I could not prove anything....
I have yet to see however, proof that he was not Topping...thus leaving the whole issue in a stalemate situation.
Regards Richard.

I recall in a reply to Christer, Ben explained that he regards something as proven if he himself is convinced it is proven.
I feel quite sure Ben will extend that same courtesy to yourself, so consider your argument proven Richard.



I don't know either way Richard, but I saw nothing in previous threads to dismiss the suggestion. It is unfortunate you have not been able to take it further.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I had to rise from the dead , as Ben made my ears burn..
For years my Topping views fell on deaf ears..for the very good reason, I could not prove anything....
I have yet to see however, proof that he was not Topping...thus leaving the whole issue in a stalemate situation.
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

Hi Sally,

I reckon Toppy's up next for a "pop-up" revival.

I can feel it...

A foregone conclusion Ben. If you can't 'exonerate' Hutchinson one way - well, there's always another poorly-evidenced, vehemently endorsed 'theory' to resurrect, eh?

I am surprised from time to time at the amount the time and energy invested by some in the pursuit of 'proving' Hutchinson to be an honest, innocent chap. I guess people like a challenge.

[Sally]

[QUOTE=Wickerman;334752]I do recall you making a big deal about respectable men looking the same, apparently oblivious to the fact that respectable men did dress the same.
Like trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Yet, it is what we have come to expect...

Nah, You've spectacularly missed the point, obvious though it is. Try again. And drop the condescension, eh? It's tedious.

I notice "many people" who doubt the story are not well informed about the nightlife of the East End. Yet the one man who was, and well able to judge, yes, Abberline, apparently made no objection.
Then of course, within this circus of obfuscation, Abberline is the only one who actually knows what he is talking about.

Do you. Good for you.

The generic 'well-dressed man' has been discussed over and again Jon. Why you should wish to dredge it all up again now I don't know - oh wait, yes I do...

And then of course, he eventually found him. So much for the pontifications of modern theorists...

Ah! And off we go, into the realms of private fantasy again...

Knock yourself out Jon, you'll know the truth about Isaacs soon enough.

[Wickerman]

I'm by no means the first person to note the resemblance between this account and that of Hutchinson a couple of days later; nor to hold the view that Hutchinson's account may, accordingly, have been derivative.

I do recall you making a big deal about respectable men looking the same, apparently oblivious to the fact that respectable men did dress the same.
Like trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Yet, it is what we have come to expect...

Oh please, Jon. Do at least try to come up with something sensible if you're going to try to challenge me. I'm quite sure you realise, after devoting so much of your time to perpetual Hutchinson debates, that many people doubt the reality of Mr Astrakhan - because they find the idea that an apparently affluent man would be looking for a good time on Dorset Street in the small hours; because they find the extraordinary detail in Hutchinson's account incredible - you know, all the obvious reasons to at least question Hutchinson's account.

I notice "many people" who doubt the story are not well informed about the nightlife of the East End. Yet the one man who was, and well able to judge, yes, Abberline, apparently made no objection.
Then of course, within this circus of obfuscation, Abberline is the only one who actually knows what he is talking about.

And then of course, he eventually found him. So much for the pontifications of modern theorists...

[Ben]

Hi Sally,

I reckon Toppy's up next for a "pop-up" revival.

I can feel it...

[Sally]

FFS...

How many Hutchinson threads are you seriously intending to dredge up?

It's Hutchbook again, obviously...

Isaacs-Buch more like, Ben.

Regrettably.