Witnesses are no use in JtR case

[Wickerman]

It is not MEMORY that call's hutchinson's account into question, it is the unlikelihood of any man being dressed as described at that time of day. The whole description doesn't add up.

By whose standards? There is nothing unlikely about the description as Stewart & Don affirm (thankyou Fisherman), not that you (or Ben) see the need to pay any attention to seasoned professionals.
Afterall, this anti-Hutchinson 'clique' consists of nothing more than uneducated guesswork, sorry, but that's the way it is.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I would again refer you to Bon Hinton’s book, where he observed that he had spoken to policeman – both retired and serving – all of whom dismiss Hutchinson’s statement as “pure fantasy”."

Ah - and I should choose Bob Hinton´s policemen´s view over the view of policemen Evans and Rumbelow because ...?

"Only if you’re deliberately attempting to take in a “number of details” in favourable conditions."

That was the premise, Ben - no worries! I am not trying to fool you into something. It still means that we agree on this very important point, so often misunderstood.

"It shouldn’t take a deductive genius that these were insufficient conditions for Hutchinson to have registered all that he alleged. "

No - it would take a time traveller, who could assess the light and the time afforded. Geniality does not enter the equation.

"by all means pick a fight with me and we’ll see who ends up on top."

Yawn ...! Hmm, what was that...?

"It annoys me deeply to see you describe me as “revisionist”"

That owes to your unwillingness to accept that PC Smith did what he said he did. You reap what you sow, and all that.

"If I’m “revisionist”, what would that make you? The purveyor of that oh-so-popular theory that Hutchinson mistook the dates?"

It makes me a theorist, picking up on a source written by a man who served as a detective on the case. If I had claimed that Dew was not of the meaning that Hutchinson mistook the day, THEN I would have been a revisionist.

"I’m only observing that in order for Smith to record as many details as he claimed, he must have “noticed” the man’s appearance to some degree, and can’t have been an entirely disinterested observer."

No, you are not "only" doing this. You are instead proposing that PC Smith was somebody who in the line of his profession took a very good look at his man. That was what you proposed, whereas Smith himself clearly stated that he did not notice the man much.
Don´t change the facts, Ben. That´s revisionism.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

There is nothing unlikely about the description

Don't be absurd.

Like it or not, popular perception these days is to the effect that Hutchinson's description was "unlikely". As for "seasoned professionals", you obviously overlooked by reference to Hinton's book, which includes the claim that a number of retired and serving policeman have dismissed the statement as pure fantasy. I suppose they all belong to this "clique" you've dreamed up.

Hi Fisherman,

Ah - and I should choose Bob Hinton´s policemen´s view over the view of policemen Stewart and Rumbelow because ...?

I didn't say that, although the policeman I referred to were obviously independent from each other and from "ripperology", in addition to being apparently greater in number.

No - it would take a time traveller, who could assess the light and the time afforded.

This is such nonsense, Fisherman. How can you say this? Are you seriously suggesting that in the absence of a time machine, we can't make very reasonable deductions about the extent of visibility in Commercial Street at 2.00am in 1888?

"That owes to your unwillingness to accept that PC Smith did what he said he did"

I have no such unwillingness. I perfectly accept that Smith saw what he described. In order to have done so, he must have paid the man some attention. This may not have been a "very good look", but he must have noticed him somewhat in order to record all he did. I am "revising" nothing - just applying some common sense.

[Phil H]

By whose standards? There is nothing unlikely about the description as Stewart & Don affirm (thankyou Fisherman), not that you (or Ben) see the need to pay any attention to seasoned professionals.
Afterall, this anti-Hutchinson 'clique' consists of nothing more than uneducated guesswork, sorry, but that's the way it is.

Sorry that you are so lacking in confidence for your views, Wickerman.

However, we are talking opinion here - and your view is of no more weight than anyone else's here.

As far as my paying attentuion to "seasoned professionals" is concerned - I utterly reject your wholly misplaced and ill-judged opinion. You have no basis for any such claim save your imagination (and ill-manners, evidence by your post quoted above)- so please retract that statement.

I yield to no one in my respect for our "experts" where the facts and documents of the case are concerned. this topic, however, relates to neither.

Falling back on this sort of name-calling simply shows that you have nothing else to fall backk on.

A very annoyed,

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Inspector Abberline

The sticking point for many modern theorists and 'experts', of course, is Inspector Abberline.

Abberline stated, on 12 November 1888, "An important statement has been made by a man named George Hutchinson which I forward herewith. I have interrogated him this evening and I am of opinion his statement is true."

I simply do not care what arguments, hypotheses and theories (most to suit a personal agenda or theory) are put forward by various 'know it alls' on this site. And goodness, they never tire of repeating these endless arguments.

Abberline was a hugely experienced detective inspector (fourteen years as H Division Local Inspector). He knew, inside out, the people, the times the criminals, how to obtain witness evidence, lighting conditions at all hours, etc., etc.

We do not know how, or indeed if, Hutchinson's evidence was discredited or even later eliminated (there are several possible reasons) and I refuse to accept some of the drivel I have read by those wishing to inculpate Hutchinson with the crime.

Perhaps it's time to give this tiresome debate a rest and realise that there will never be a consensus of opinion here.

[Wickerman]

Falling back on this sort of name-calling simply shows that you have nothing else to fall backk on.

A very annoyed,

Phil

And that "name" was what?

[John Bennett]

The sticking point for many modern theorists and 'experts', of course, is Inspector Abberline.

Abberline stated, on 12 November 1888, "An important statement has been made by a man named George Hutchinson which I forward herewith. I have interrogated him this evening and I am of opinion his statement is true."

I simply do not care what arguments, hypotheses and theories (most to suit a personal agenda or theory) are put forward by various 'know it alls' on this site. And goodness, they never tire of repeating these endless arguments.

Abberline was a hugely experienced detective inspector (fourteen years as H Division Local Inspector). He knew, inside out, the people, the times the criminals, how to obtain witness evidence, lighting conditions at all hours, etc., etc.

We do not know how, or indeed if, Hutchinson's evidence was discredited or even later eliminated (there are several possible reasons) and I refuse to accept some of the drivel I have read by those wishing to inculpate Hutchinson with the crime.

Perhaps it's time to give this tiresome debate a rest and realise that there will never be a consensus of opinion here.

These things can go around in circles as much as anybody wants, but Stewart makes the logical point here.

Thank you Stewart!

There seems to be a lot of accusations on the forums (both of them) claiming that Police officials were lying, covering up, saving face etc etc etc. The way it's going, we might as well forget the whole subject because nothing counts anymore!

[Hatchett]

Hi All,

I agree with you Stewart. it is the voice of reason.

I will not add to what you have said, I have said it before on this thread.

But another point has to be taken into account when you compare the description that Hutchinson makes to Abberline and the description he gives to the press.

Human beings are instinctive. When people give explanations or descriptions of either people or events, they know intuitively that they are speaking to different audiences, for different reasons,and so the details will vary.

Also what has to be taken into account is that the what he said to the press was after his statement to the police, so he would have had time for his mind to analyse the situation.

Perhaps his statement given to the police was too early before this analysis process had started? Who knows?

But that is how human beings work.

Both of the statements of Hutchinson, although perhaps different in the degree of detail could both have been honest descriptions in Hutchinson's own mind.

Best wishes.

[babybird67]

The sticking point for many modern theorists and 'experts', of course, is Inspector Abberline.

Abberline stated, on 12 November 1888, "An important statement has been made by a man named George Hutchinson which I forward herewith. I have interrogated him this evening and I am of opinion his statement is true."

That is what Abberline said on that date. It doesn't mean he could not have changed his mind. There is evidence that Hutchinson was discredited, that has been gone over many times. But how likely is it that a police official is going to come forward and say directly, ok, I was wrong a few days ago, that guy I believed got one over on me?

Not very likely.

I have the utmost respect for the Police at the time. I believe they did their best under very difficult conditions and circumstances. I don't believe they covered anything up or there were any conspiracies. I merely believe they were fallible human beings, like the rest of us, 'expert' and hobbyist alike, and can get things wrong.

Abberline stated at one time he believed Klosowski was the Ripper. I don't think that is true. Therefore his judgement was not infallible. Therefore people are entitled to question it and make up their own minds on this aspect of the case as well as any other, and if other contributors find the subject of Hutchinson tiresome there is no obligation for them to get involved in the debate.

[Wickerman]

...(nothing of value]...

You don't need to tag along with this absurd anti-Hutchinson clique. It is misguided, ill-informed, and factually misleading.

Regards, Jon S.

[babybird67]

You don't need to tag along with this absurd anti-Hutchinson clique. It is misguided, ill-informed, and factually misleading.

Regards, Jon S.

A bit like your posts then, eh Jon?

I don't need your permission or approval to have views of my own, thanks.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"the policeman I referred to were obviously independent from each other and from "ripperology", in addition to being apparently greater in number."

policemEn, I take it? I don´t think that either Evans or Rumbelow would have liked the insinuation you are making - and as you know, I often use the fly analogy when people start counting votes...

"Are you seriously suggesting that in the absence of a time machine, we can't make very reasonable deductions about the extent of visibility in Commercial Street at 2.00am in 1888?"

I´m afraid that the question is a little more complicated than that, Ben. We also need to take into account the distances from the light sources and the angles of the bodies of the people involved, other potential elements of distortion or disturbance, etcetera, etcetera, so yes, we are in no position to make any definite call at all in this errand. And I am very serious.

"I have no such unwillingness. I perfectly accept that Smith saw what he described. In order to have done so, he must have paid the man some attention. This may not have been a "very good look", but he must have noticed him somewhat in order to record all he did. I am "revising" nothing - just applying some common sense."

The only common sense you need to apply here is to recognize the fact that PC Smith took in all he took in without noticing his man much. It is spelled out to us in capital letters, Ben.
Smith did not pay very much attention to his man.
Smith, in spite of this, was able to make out lots of things and details, assess age, height AND the parcel, size and all.

He could not have done this WITHOUT paying attention to the man - but he is adamant that he did so without paying CLOSE attention to him: He didn´t notice him much. "Oh, him...? Yeah, well, I did not notice him much, but yes there WAS a bloke there, and as far as I can remember he was ..."

Clearly, this very much differs from Hutchinson´s approach. He would not say that he did not notice HIS man much, would he? No, he instead did all he could to take in as much as possible, he was interested in a man that was interacting with a friend of his, he had a lot more time on his hands than the PC, he would have come a lot closer to his man than Smith and the streets where he made his observations were testified about as being comparatively well lit, whereas Berner Street got the exact opposite verdict.

This is really all we have to realize. Hutchinson´s effort was infinitely better suited to make for a much more detailed description than Smith´s. And to boot things, Hutchinson´s man had a much more elaborate clothing and accesoirs, making him stand out from the ordinary Eastenders like a sore thumb. And these things will not go unnoticed!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Absolutely, Beebs.

And don’t worry about Jon. He’s a supercilious, disagreeable bloke who delights in reviving some of the most bogus press nonsense around. He’s all out of luck with this particular topic, but it will be interested to see how long he sticks around.

As far as Abberline is concerned, I agree - I don't understand why he should be considered a "sticking point" at all. The whole point about the evident discrediting of Hutchinson is that in spite of Abberline's initial endorsement of the statement, the result of later investigations was the revision of this opinion. So whenever people stress Abberline’s abilities and experiences, I simply nod in acquiescence and observe that they may eventually have played a role in the discrediting of Hutchinson. Notice also that this has nothing whatsoever with any insinuation that the police were “lying, covering up, saving face” or anything of that nature. The recognition that Hutchinson was ultimately discredited and probably lied therefore carries no implied criticism of Abberline.

Having said that, you raise the crucial observation that his judgement was not infallible. He thought the ripper was an “expert surgeon” and his ideas about Kloswoski’s involvement and motivation were some of the most outlandish touted by any police official, and yet for some reason, it is fashionable to criticise any police official except Abberline.

“if other contributors find the subject of Hutchinson tiresome there is no obligation for them to get involved in the debate”

Absolutely.

[babybird67]

Absolutely, Beebs.

And don’t worry about Jon.

Hi Benz. I don't worry about him at all but thanks for your support. I find it hugely ironic that someone should pretend to quote me and subsititute my words with *nothing of importance* when they themselves choose to make a post purely designed to belittle another poster. What a gentleman eh? A gentleman and a scholar, obviously. And a man obviously of great importance!

As far as Abberline is concerned, I agree - I don't understand why he should be considered a "sticking point" at all. The whole point about the evident discrediting of Hutchinson is that in spite of Abberline's initial endorsement of the statement, the result of later investigations was the revision of this opinion.

Absolutely, as if for all time, one opinion -opinion note - crystallised in history on the date Abberline interviewed Hutchinson must only and for all time be ajudged to be his only opinion (there's that word again) of Hutchinson...and worse, therefore constitute the indomitable facts of the matter! Yet we know for a fact Hutchinson's account was discredited by the Police. So to me it would be odd if Abberline had not revised his opinion of Hutchinson shortly after having the time and opportunity to reflect upon what Hutchinson had told him. The problem with effective liars is that they are very convincing in person. It is only when one reflects on what they have said that loose ends start to show up. I am sure this explains the initial excitement about and endoresement of Hutchinson by the Police, followed by his dismissal as a useful witness.

So whenever people stress Abberline’s abilities and experiences, I simply nod in acquiescence and observe that they may eventually have played a role in the discrediting of Hutchinson. Notice also that this has nothing whatsoever with any insinuation that the police were “lying, covering up, saving face” or anything of that nature. The recognition that Hutchinson was ultimately discredited and probably lied therefore carries no implied criticism of Abberline.

Again, absolutely. I don't think Abberline was incompetent or crooked. He was merely fallible like the rest of the human race. As the examples you have chosen demonstrate.



Beebs x

[Ben]

And round and round we go…

I say, Fisherman, I’m really in the mood going round in relentless repetitive circles on the subject of Hutchinson.

Care to join me?

“I don´t think that either Evans or Rumbelow would have liked the insinuation you are making”

Why would either of them have a problem with my observation that Bob Hinton probably spoke to more than two policemen? Are you sure you’re not trying to encourage yet more people to pick a fight with me?

“we are in no position to make any definite call at all in this errand. And I am very serious.”

So am I. I never said anything about “definite calls”. However, we are in an excellent position to assess the general conditions that existed at that time and location, i.e. dark, miserable conditions, Victorian London gas lamps etc. You just have to use your imagination and come up with a realistic picture accordingly, which isn't difficult. This realistic picture should inform us that Hutchinson could not have even noticed, let alone memorized, all that he alleged with his suspiciously conspicuous bogeyman suspect.

“The only common sense you need to apply here is to recognize the fact that PC Smith took in all he took in without noticing his man much.”

I don’t know why you’re finding my observation so difficult to compute. The extent to which PC Smith noticed the man was evidently sufficient for him to have recorded the non-outlandish extent of detail he divulged at the inquest, which wasn’t much by any means, but not unimpressive considering the brief nature of the sighting. Had Smith been scrutinising the man specifically, there was still only so much he could notice and then commit to memory, i.e. nowhere near as much as discredited Hutchinson implausibly claimed.

“No, he instead did all he could to take in as much as possible, he was interested in a man that was interacting with a friend of his”

Hutchinson only SAID he was interested, Fisherman.

What if he simply lied about this in the hope that the extent of detail would appear less ridiculous and outlandish. Clearly the lie didn’t work, as the “interest” factor doesn’t prevent the description being outlandish and ridiculous.

I see you revert back to this “well lit” business, but this description applied to Dorset Street only, and there was no opportunity to register horseshoe silly tie-pins and silly dark eyelashes as he followed the couple from a distance.

“And to boot things, Hutchinson´s man had a much more elaborate clothing and accesoirs, making him stand out from the ordinary Eastenders like a sore thumb.”

Hutchinson only SAID the man had elaborate clothing.

What if he simply lied about it to vindicate his interest in the man’s appearance? What if he lied about it because he wanted to deflect suspicion in a false direction, and realised that the stereotypical bogeyman would be ideally suited to that purpose?

Backing up Hutchinson’s claims with Hutchinson’s claims is very circular reasoning.

Regards,
Ben