Witnesses are no use in JtR case

[Ben]

Already have!

So you do fancy a nice, long-winded repetetive Hutchinson debate?

It's so reassuring that some people can always be relied upon.

Otherwise, I find it hard to defend a line where a casual observation would yeld nearly as much as an intense ditto would.

Obviously if you deliberately set out to scrutinise and memorize something, yor description is likely to be fuller, albeit not to a ridiculously implausible (i.e. Hutchinsonian) extent. Unfortunately in Hutchinson's case, we only have it on his dubious, discredited say-so that he did take a particular interest in the man. And what was his reason? Oh yes. Because he stood out like s sore thumb. Unfortunately, we only have Hutchinson's word for that too.

"Besides, it was NOT the "only" thing he did. He also added that he stooped down to see the man better, and that he followed him intently all over the place."

You misunderstand. I meant that we have Hutchinson's word "only" that he was interested in the man. In other words, there is no corroboration to this three-day late claim that appeared in his soon-to be-discredited account.

Then he would have been a fool, Abberline would have been gullible and I would be wrong.

No, he would have been a liar, Abberline would have been correct to discredit him as such, and...yes, you would be wrong - shockingly enough.

which is why we should work from the assumption that he noticed the facial features when he took a look at them, and realize that he may have taken in the horse-shoe pin, positioned a few inches away from the face at the same stage.

Hardly possible, Fisherman. There just wasn't the time available, to say nothing of the visibility, which was very poor. The Astrakhan man passed the Queens's Head in a few fleeting seconds, and Hutchinson SPENT those few fleeting seconds paying particular attention to the man's face. He couldn't have paid equal attention to the man's glittering midriff section at the same time. This is the point I tried to make the last hundred or so times we had this identical argument.

Then he would have been a fool, Abberline would have been gullible and I would be wrong. None of the suggestions work for me.

No, he would have been a liar, Abberline would have been correct to discredit him as such, and...yes, you would be wrong - shockingly enough.

But please let's play this endless repetition game some more. I've got decades if necessary.

Backing up a conjured-up wish that he was the killer with all the things he did NEVER say remains a lot worse, I´m afraid.

Oh, but of course, how I "wish" that the killer was a non-descript labourer! Just think of all the money I'd make if that turned out to be true...! Meanwhile, back on our planet, I think you've missed the point. "Circular reasoning" happens when you back up Hutchinson's claims WITH Hutchinson's claims, and you've done this a number of times on this thread.

Regards,
Ben

[Hatchett]

Hello Benz and Beebs,

The point has been made that Abberline suspected Chapman and that makes his judgement questionable!

How do you know that?

Certainly there is an amount of circumstantial evidence that Chapman perhaps could have been the ripper.

I am not saying that he was. I am saying that you cannot prove that he wasnt, so you cannot make a rational decision that because of that Abberline's judgements were questionable.

As I have asked and pointed out time after time no official evidence from the police in any form what so ever has been produced that Hutchinson's statement was discredited.

You can huff and puff as much as you like. But until you do that and stop relying on two press reports then no one is going to take it seriously.

Best wishes.

[Wickerman]

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.

And the reason's you offer are quite sound. What has not been debated beyond passing comments is to query the differences between Hutchinson's initial statement at Commercial St. and the official description published in the press release on the 13th.
The differences are also minor but they exists and some are not even similar. Hutchinson gave his complexion as "pale", yet the police published "dark". The moustache was originally described as "slight", but was also published as "dark".

The differences between the two published descriptions, to which you refer, are not a big issue. Neither are the minor differences between the unpublished version on the night of the 12th, and it's published version on the morning of the 13th.

The principal issue here is the depth of detail given in any of these accounts.
The description is not that of a "West-end Toff", just a reasonably well-to-do Jewish male, of which this mode of dress in the East End is not unusual. Jewish males who had means took pride in their appearance. This is what we see in Hutchinson's description. And, there were a good number of Jewish businesses in the immediate area. This male was not dressed unusual and he was not out of place.

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.

Yes, and that is key, "honest", with no justifiable reason to think otherwise.

And don’t worry about Jon. He’s a supercilious, disagreeable bloke who delights in .......

Winding people up?

But only those who make naughty claims that are not true

Regards, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

[Ben:

"I say, Fisherman, I’m really in the mood going round in relentless repetitive circles on the subject of Hutchinson.
Care to join me?"

Already have!


"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?"

I was more hinting at YOUR hinting at the twine being Ripperologists, thus making that a potential reason for their stance.

"You just have to use your imagination and come up with a realistic picture"

I do just that. Thing is, your imagination and mine seemingly differ. A lot

"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."

If you are correct, it would all hinge on the sparsity of the man´s attire. Otherwise, I find it hard to defend a line where a casual observation would yeld nearly as much as an intense ditto would. Such a suggestion is completely unviable, if that is your meaning.

And everybody knows that, so perhaps I am misreading you.

"Hutchinson only SAID he was interested, Fisherman."

Not "only", Ben. Such a thing would imply that he lied. Hutchinson said that the man was interested, and that may be true or untrue.

Besides, it was NOT the "only" thing he did. He also added that he stooped down to see the man better, and that he followed him intently all over the place. Taken together, it points not AWAY from an interest, but TOWARDS such a thing.

"What if he simply lied about this in the hope that the extent of detail would appear less ridiculous and outlandish?

Then he would have been a fool, Abberline would have been gullible and I would be wrong. None of the suggestions work for me.

"Clearly the lie didn’t work, as the “interest” factor doesn’t prevent the description being outlandish and ridiculous."

I ascribe to the exact same view here as Stewart Evans.

"I see you revert back to this “well lit” business. 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."

... which is why we should work from the assumption that he noticed the facial features when he took a look at them, and realize that he may have taken in the horse-shoe pin, positioned a few inches away from the face at the same stage. If this was not when it happened, then we must accept that it happened at some other stage of his following the man and observing him. How hard can it be?

"Hutchinson only SAID the man had elaborate clothing."

Not "only", Ben. Such a thing would imply that he lied. Hutchinson said that the man had elaborate clothing - and that may be true or untrue.

"What if he simply lied about it to vindicate his interest in the man’s appearance?"

Then he would have been a fool, Abberline would have been gullible and I would be wrong. None of the suggestions work for me.

"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?"

Same answer.

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

Backing up a conjured-up wish that he was the killer with all the things he did NEVER say remains a lot worse, I´m afraid. And normally, when people testify and are believed, it is not called "circular reasoning", Ben. If we are to go down that alley, then why did you try to paint me out as heartless for not believing in Lewis second version of the truth, differing totally from the first? Would that not make your totally uncritical belief in her story "circular reasoning"?

The best,
Fisherman

[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

[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]

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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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!

[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?

[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.