Tweet
It’s interesting that when some people threaten to leave the thread after tossing out a whole load of unwarranted personal insults, it very quickly emerges they don’t actually have any intention of following through with that swan-song. And really, if people want to have lovely acrimonious and frosty-spirited, please keep calling me a “know-it-all”, and we’ll see what transpires.
I see we’re still hearing this nonsense about Abberline, as though his thoughts represented the final police stance on Hutchinson’s statement, which they most assuredly did not, and are not. As I’m prepared to reiterate whenever the subject it broached (which could be an eternity depending on the willingness of some people to keep picking this particular fight), it is very clear that this opinion came to be revised. The Echo approached the police directly. We know this to be true because they reported information relevant to Hutchinson’s statement that we now know to be true and could only have been obtained from the police. They also divulged that the statement had been “considerably discounted” because of the witness’ tardy arrival in presenting his evidence.
We can thus dispense utterly with the suggestion that discrediting of Hutchinson did not originate with the police. It can be argued that the police could still have wrong to discredit Hutchinson, and we can speculate for years on end as to why, but it is pointless to argue that it didn’t happen at all.
I am also noticing a familiar old fallacy creeping into the threads – the one that asserts that the suspects that were viewed as such by the contemporary police stand a greater likelihood of having been the ripper than those put forward more recently. As Babybird has sensibly pointed out, the police had no experience whatsoever of serial offenders, and if Hutchinson was indeed the culprit, the fact that his potential culpability may have been overlooked should certainly not be considered a “con” in his case, as opposed to a “pro”. Even today, modern investigations are littered with examples of senior police officials being duped by both liars and killers (Sutcliffe was interviewed a great many times but was dismissed on each occasion), and there have been several examples of serial killers inserting themselves into their own investigations.
In short, Hutchinson could easily have been one of them, and I have always thought be stands out particularly because of his apparently proximity to, and interest in, the Miller's Court crime scene on the night in question. As soon as he the inquest closed, he made himself known and provided a highly questionable and soon-to-be-discredited account, suggesting very strongly that he realised he’d been seen and sought to legitimize his presence accordingly, using the transparently fictional “Astrakhan man” as a vehicle for this. It is generally considered more likely than not, and for exceptionally good reason, that the killer was a working class local man. I would only submit that Hutchinson is the “best” unknown local man we know something about.
When viewed from a criminogical perspective, this qualifies him as a suspect light-years ahead of Druitt (who has also been brought up here), who did not live in the East End and as far as I know can’t even be placed there at any point in time, let alone loitering outside a crime scene of the night of a murder. Abberline did not think there was anything beyond the time of his suicide to incriminate him, and it is unlikely in the extreme that Macnaghten should have withheld information from Abberline.
Yes, but not by me, Stewart, and by any of the other people you’ve insulted. Your name was referenced by the people who would undoubtedly team up with you in criticising and insulting me, probably in effort to get you to join in. Obviously and misguidedly, you swallowed the bait.
As to dismissing profiling as “pshyco-bable” I doubt very much that this is the general view amongst the police today. My impression is that there is no “us against them” mentality, and the interests of investigative progress would be significantly retarded if there were such an attitude. Not that any of the arguments that relate to Hutchinson have a great deal to do with profiling. Rather, they relate to experience and hard facts garnered from other cases – the type that you make reference to in your Tumblety book.
In reference to the theory than Barnett was responsible, you state:
But it would mean that Abberline was WRONG about Barnett (you keep going complaining about people claiming to know more than Abberline), and would make Barnett one of your “non-contemporary” suspects, so why does this suspect theory hold “much merit” and not Hutchinson, who meets both these criteria? Like it or not, by suggesting that the Barnett theory "holds much merit", you are clearly defending the adoption of a position not shared by Abberline, i.e. that he had no involvement in the crime. Double-standards are clearly being employed for some annoying reason. To make matters worse, there is no evidence that Hutchinson was even considered a suspect (unlike Barnett), and you can't a dismiss a suspect without first considering him as such.
I see we’re still hearing this nonsense about Abberline, as though his thoughts represented the final police stance on Hutchinson’s statement, which they most assuredly did not, and are not. As I’m prepared to reiterate whenever the subject it broached (which could be an eternity depending on the willingness of some people to keep picking this particular fight), it is very clear that this opinion came to be revised. The Echo approached the police directly. We know this to be true because they reported information relevant to Hutchinson’s statement that we now know to be true and could only have been obtained from the police. They also divulged that the statement had been “considerably discounted” because of the witness’ tardy arrival in presenting his evidence.
We can thus dispense utterly with the suggestion that discrediting of Hutchinson did not originate with the police. It can be argued that the police could still have wrong to discredit Hutchinson, and we can speculate for years on end as to why, but it is pointless to argue that it didn’t happen at all.
I am also noticing a familiar old fallacy creeping into the threads – the one that asserts that the suspects that were viewed as such by the contemporary police stand a greater likelihood of having been the ripper than those put forward more recently. As Babybird has sensibly pointed out, the police had no experience whatsoever of serial offenders, and if Hutchinson was indeed the culprit, the fact that his potential culpability may have been overlooked should certainly not be considered a “con” in his case, as opposed to a “pro”. Even today, modern investigations are littered with examples of senior police officials being duped by both liars and killers (Sutcliffe was interviewed a great many times but was dismissed on each occasion), and there have been several examples of serial killers inserting themselves into their own investigations.
In short, Hutchinson could easily have been one of them, and I have always thought be stands out particularly because of his apparently proximity to, and interest in, the Miller's Court crime scene on the night in question. As soon as he the inquest closed, he made himself known and provided a highly questionable and soon-to-be-discredited account, suggesting very strongly that he realised he’d been seen and sought to legitimize his presence accordingly, using the transparently fictional “Astrakhan man” as a vehicle for this. It is generally considered more likely than not, and for exceptionally good reason, that the killer was a working class local man. I would only submit that Hutchinson is the “best” unknown local man we know something about.
When viewed from a criminogical perspective, this qualifies him as a suspect light-years ahead of Druitt (who has also been brought up here), who did not live in the East End and as far as I know can’t even be placed there at any point in time, let alone loitering outside a crime scene of the night of a murder. Abberline did not think there was anything beyond the time of his suicide to incriminate him, and it is unlikely in the extreme that Macnaghten should have withheld information from Abberline.
“Normally I wouldn't get involved in these tedious debates, but, as I say, my name was mentioned.”
As to dismissing profiling as “pshyco-bable” I doubt very much that this is the general view amongst the police today. My impression is that there is no “us against them” mentality, and the interests of investigative progress would be significantly retarded if there were such an attitude. Not that any of the arguments that relate to Hutchinson have a great deal to do with profiling. Rather, they relate to experience and hard facts garnered from other cases – the type that you make reference to in your Tumblety book.
In reference to the theory than Barnett was responsible, you state:
“Mind you it is an idea that holds much merit and should at the very least be borne in mind when weighing up the evidence”
Comment