Soliciting or night attack.

[Observer]

These reports would also correspond with police reports, interviews and memoirs that lend weight to Hutchinson's "discrediting", from Anderson's claim that the only person to have acquired a good look at the the killer was Jewish, to Abberline's observation that the witnesses who described foreign suspects only acquired rear sightings, to Macnaughten's claim that nobody saw the killer, unless it originated from Mitre Square. To say Hutchinson is conspicuous in his absence would be an understatement.

All the best,
Ben

HI Ben, regarding Abberlines observation that the witnesses who described foreign suspects only acquired rear sightings

What about Lawende? He looked at his suspect face on, if Lawende is Andersons witness he saw a Jew, a foreign suspect, face on.

Areyou suggesting that Abberline was not privvy to the Anderson, Lawende, Kosminski connection?


Regarding Macnaghten, he stated that no one saw the murderer ! The picture becomes more confusing with the revelation that he is also accredited with the assertion that a City PC at Mitre Square sighted the murderer, this is obviously an error on Macnaghtens part.

In short, can senior police officials be called on to discredit Hutchinsons statement on the strength of their memoirs penned years after the events of 1888? The answer to this is no. No amount of reading into their memoirs will alter this fact.

all the best

Observer

[Sox]

In short, can senior police officials be called on to discredit Hutchinsons statement on the strength of their memoirs penned years after the events of 1888? The answer to this is no. No amount of reading into their memoirs will alter this fact.

Hooray for common sense.

As you are aware, there were journalists who completed the same reports for numerous newpapers in one edition.

Hooray for more common sense.

I find it very very odd that some Ripperologists will dismiss, out of hand, the memoirs Walter Dew wrote, but will completely accept those that Anderson wrote for example. Is that not selective reasoning? well of course it is. I am supposed to believe, according to some, that the man in charge of the investigation on the ground knew LESS than those he reported TO....well that might be okay for some, but it really does not work for me. Show me the official report saying Hutchinson was a liar, and then we can talk, until such a time...sorry but he has to be given some credibility.

Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes are all rendered helpless and dispatched in seconds, wide awake and standing up, without the least sign of a struggle. But Mary Kelly, asleep lying prone and helpless in bed, manages to put up a fight? I'm not really buying into that either. However Mary Kelly died, she managed to struggle, and that suggests to me that the killer was at a disadvantage for once, and not that he came upon a sleeping and helpless woman.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Hutchinson appears again.
How I wish I had never heard that radio broadcast way back, then I would proberly have the same doubts as the majority of Casebook, ie, that Hutchinson was a unknown man , who decided to put himself in the frame, for the sheer hell of it, or because he was the killer of kelly, or her pimp, or a prospective mugger, etc etc,.
But because I did hear that broadcast, and it was many years before Reg Hutchinson came into contact with Fairclough, i know that it was not made up for the sake of aiding book sales.
I also am confident that Reg gave that broadcast on radio, as the content was the same on radio , as in the book.
I cant prove that unfortunetly, but that avenue is open still, Brighton Univesity holds the key, Radio times editions, back pages first , between 1971/1975, its there folks somehere, but my little team last summer, looked at the front.....
So its Topping guys, make of that as you will, do you really believe he took over the character of the real GH, and briefed himself on the case, and the statement of that man, even remembering from idle gossip, that this witness was paid money for his help.
And to supplement his income in later life, he had many a free pint from those hearing his tale of the dark days of the Ripper.
He even told his family this charade, and they have carried in down through generations.
What a cad.
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

Off track a bit but... since some claim Hutchinson wasn't Toppy, why not Hutchinson as the witness? He got a good look at the night attacker (bringing it back on thread smugly), so why not him as the Seaside Home witness. He could have been Jewish. We don't have a clue (I do, but enough of that) as to his ethnic background.

Cheers,

Mike

[DVV]

I also am confident that Reg gave that broadcast on radio, as the content was the same on radio , as in the book.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard,

once again, and again, I have no doubt you heard Reg on the radio... But what does it prove ?
Absolutely nothing.

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

“What about Lawende? He looked at his suspect face on, if Lawende is Andersons witness he saw a Jew, a foreign suspect, face on.”

Lawende never stated that he believed the suspect in question had a foreign appearance. It is quite possible for a gentile man to share physical similarities with another man who happens to be Jewish, even if it boils down to height, weight, colouring, moustache, dress or whatever else. That doesn’t permit us to conclude, for one moment, that Lawende detected anything Jewish foreign-looking about the man at the time of the initial sighting. The very idea of Lawende playing cat and mouse police with the tantalising “Yes, I unhesitatingly identify this man as the suspect I saw that night, but no, I’m not going to swear to it”, is too ridiculous to contemplate anyway. If the identity attempt actually occurred, it’s far more likely that Lawende wasn’t remotely sure of the identification and refused to swear to it for that reason.

But this takes us rather drastically off topic.

“Areyou suggesting that Abberline was not privvy to the Anderson, Lawende, Kosminski connection?”

No.

“Regarding Macnaghten, he stated that no one saw the murderer ! The picture becomes more confusing with the revelation that he is also accredited with the assertion that a City PC at Mitre Square sighted the murderer, this is obviously an error on Macnaghtens part.”

It’s not really that confusing. Macnaghten remembered that the police were taking particular interest in one of the witnesses from the double event. He remembered correctly that it was a City witness sighting that originated from the Mitre Square murder, but given the message of time, he accidentally amalgamated Lawende’s sighting with that of fellow double event witness PC Smith, hence the construct “City PC from Mitre Square”. A conspicuous absentee from any aspect of this picture is George Hutchinson.

Hutchinson was not a City witness.

Hutchinson’s sighting did not originate from Mitre Square.

Hutchinson wasn’t a PC.

It would have been acceptable to keep Hutchinson in the frame had Macnaghten then added “…and not forgetting that star witness from the Kelly murder who has head and shoulders above the rest”. It didn’t happen, and it is totally impossible to accept – or really should be – that this omission of Hutchinson from Macnagthen’s memoirs just happened to correspond with other police memoirs that also omit him? Robert Anderson stated that the only person to have acquired a good look at the murderer was Jewish, and since he could not have dismissed Astrakhan man completely as someone who arrived at the murder scene before the ripper, it follows that he dismissed Hutchinson as a potential ripper-spotter for other reasons - most probably the reasons reported on 13th November in the Daily Echo, to the effect that the “authorities” were entertaining suspicions about his motivations for coming forward.

“In short, can senior police officials be called on to discredit Hutchinsons statement on the strength of their memoirs penned years after the events of 1888?”

Yes, as I’ve just demonstrated.

[Ben]

Is that not selective reasoning?

You don't need to be selective about which police reports you accept, Sox. The salient and crucial point here is that, despite the numerous contradictions that appear in their various writings, they all lend mutual support to the premise that Hutchinson's evidence was discarded as having little value shortly after it's first appearance. It's really no use expecting an official missive asserting in bold terms "He lied! You've heard it from the top". You won't find any such sentiment levelled at even the most absurdly bogus of ripper witnesses. Far more persuasive is a weight of mutually corroborative evidence supporting Hutchinson's "discrediting", and we most assuredly have that.

But Mary Kelly, asleep lying prone and helpless in bed, manages to put up a fight?

Hardly a fight. If a "fight" took place, don't you think the neighbours would heard something a little more than a single emanation of "Oh murder" coming from the direction of the room? The single cry is far more compatible, I would suggest, with a second or two's waking recognition of her impending fate, which in turn, is perfectly compatible with an attack commencing as Kelly slept. For what it's worth, the suggestion that there wasn't "the least sign of a struggle" is probably wrong, in my view.

Hi Richard,

So its Topping guys

No it's not guys.

do you really believe he took over the character of the real GH, and briefed himself on the case, and the statement of that man, even remembering from idle gossip

No, I believe two incautious royal conspiracy authors phoned around the East End asking anyone with the surname Hutchinson if they were descended from the George Hutchinson who claimed to have seen Mary Kelly before she died, and that Reg replied in the affirmative. The subsequent interview consisted of the "reseachers" telling Reg about the royal conspiracy theory, showing him the "Abberline diaries" as well as Hutchinson's police statement. Reg's ripper-related contributions appear to have consisted of confirming what he'd just heard (as opposed to offering anything of his own that would cement his claim to ripper fame), adding useful pro-royal conspiracy nuggets in the process, including the infamous My dad saw Lord Randolph Churchill the Ripper revelation.

But we're off topic here, so best to sshhhh....

Best regards,
Ben

[Monty]

Hey Ben

I'm not talking about a single police-endorsed statement attesting, unambiguously, to the fact that Hutchinson's statement had been discredited for the simple reason that such a report was unlikely to have been penned at any stage for any witness. It's quite clear that the police quickly lost interest in the likes of Emily Waler, Emanuel Violenia and Matthew Packer, but there was never any internal police missive that said, in effect: It's official folks, this witness' evidence is officially not worth listening to. What we're looking for instead is corroborative evidence for a "discrediting" process, and we most assuredly have that in Hutchinson's case in the form of press reports, and police memoirs, interviews, and reports, all independently attesting to the same observation - that's Hutchinson's description was ultimately discarded as having little value to the murder investigation.

...that's Hutchinson's description was ultimately discarded as having little value to the murder investigation

Until the evidence comes to light, and this evidence is confirmed, and the confirmation is undoubted, then these reports, memoirs etc are personal opinions. Therefore Hutchinsons statement cannot be dismissed, nor has it been.

I doubt very much that the eyewitnesses were selected for identity attempts on the basis that they, the witnesses, "felt they saw" Jack. Surely it was up to the police themselves to assess the likelihood of whether or not the witnesses saw the actual killer?

Yes, though they obviously felt Lewande saw someone of significance.

Kind of you to say so, Monty. I have greatly enjoyed being a part of it all.

I look forward to more.

Cheers
Monty

[Ben]

Hi Monty,

Until the evidence comes to light, and this evidence is confirmed, and the confirmation is undoubted, then these reports, memoirs etc are personal opinions.

But don't you think several senior police officials attesting, in essense to the same observation (quite a rare feat amongst that lot), ought really to be considered compelling evidence, especially when they are corroborated by independent press reports? It isn't just personal opinions either. It's the utilization of evidence on the part of the police that also happens to support the collective observation shared by Anderson, Macnaghten, Abberline and others. A Jewish witness was used for identity efforts instead of Hutchinson, who alleged a far more detailed description.

We're off-topic here, but suffice to say that I consider the evidence of Hutchinson's discrediting to be both plentiful and compelling.

All the best,
Ben

[Monty]

Ben,

I disagree. The press reports arent sourced therefore suspect. No official police report supports* the suposition that Hutchinson was lying and personal opinion is the only reason why some officials eyed his words with suspicion. They provide no fact.

As we are off topic Im reluctant to persue it here any further.

I guess we differ on this topic but thats Jack for you.

Cheers
Monty


*by that I mean provide evidence.

[Ben]

Hi Monty,

If you're arguing that the police never procured ironclad proof that Hutchinson was lying, I'd agree. It was more likely a consensus amongst senior officials that subsequently made it into the press who, let's face it, had no reason to lie about Hutchinson's evidence being discarded, especially not two independent sources deciding upon the same lie. Then again, there was never any proof that Packer or Violenia dropped lied either. It was merely a police consensus.

But you're quite right - best to drawl a discreet veil over this (off) topic and return to the original discussion.

Best regards,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Not a Hutchinson thread. Save the battles. In fact, the battle has been discredited.

Mike

[Monty]

Michael.

There was no battle. Ben and I debated for twenty minutes then decided I was right

Lets move on.

Monty

[Ben]

Ah, but I never claimed that proof had been procured to establish that Hutchinson had definitely lied, Monty. Only that there is strong mutually supportive evidence from several senior police officials, bolstered by press reports, that his evidence had been discarded, and that's more than good enough for me.

Now let's move on.

Cheers,
Ben

[Chava]

Kudzu. AKA 'The witness that ate this board'.