Choosing which witnesses to believe

[Cogidubnus]

So no, no gripe with you, I was just labouring to make certain you understood the point at hand as opposed to, "what we think today", which is irrelevent.

So let's just take this at the friendliest and most amicable level and say we understand each other Jon!

Every good wish

Dave

[Fisherman]

Michael:

" the Echo dated November 13th, the day after his statement, supports it. There are no later copies of the Echo here ... He WAS discredited...historical fact ... You cannot prove that Hutchinsons suspect was considered viable for more than 1 day by the Echo of November 13th..."

Hi Michael. Well, Jon - and everybody else - can actually move things one day forward at the very least, and take a look at the Echo of the 14:th, in which it was said about Hutchinson´s testimony: "The police do not attach so much importance to this document as some of our contemporaries do; but they think it sufficiently significant to induce them to make it the subject of careful inquiry."

And there we are - the testimony of George Hutchinson had suffered some sort of diminution on behalf of the police. And the Echo had caught wind of it, whilst other newspapers ("our contemporaries") were still not in the know.
However, Michael, and this is important, although the paramount interest of the police was no longer there, they still thought Hutchinson´s story "sufficiently significant to induce them to make it the subject of careful inquiry".

What does that sound to like you? Like George Hutchinson had been discredited? Do you make discredited stories subjects of careful inquiry? No, you don´t.

What, then? How could a story first be of the outmost interest and the hottest lead in the Ripper affair, only to next day be graded down to something to which the police did not attach any true importance - but still investigated carefully?

Well, Michael, what if Walter Dew was right? What if George Hutchinson had told a story he BELIEVED to belong to the murder night - only to have it checked by the police who realized that something in the story (the absent Lewis, par example, or something else, perhaps unknown to us today) pointed to Hutchinson having gotten the days muddled? Then what would the result be?

My suggestion remains that such a thing would have them discrediting the story in relation to the murder night, whereas they would still make
Astrakhan man the subject of careful inquiry, since he belonged to the very few people that had had contact with Kelly in the last 24 hours leading up to her death. He could potentially have been informed by her about what plans she had laid for the following day, he could have seen whether Kelly seemed scred or upset, whether somebody else but himself tried to make contact with her. He was a witness of reduced importance, but a witness they would very much like to talk to anyway.

So you see, Michael, it is anything but clear that Hutchinson WAS discredited. There are other options, actually answering better to what we know.

All the best,
Fisherman

PS. Just noticed Jon beat me to it! DS.

[Errata]

Is it possible that there is an easier way to go about this?

Take Hutch's statement. I read the description of the suspect, and I think to myself "There is no way this guy is the killer. He's not dressed for it, he sticks out like a sore thumb, he has little to no guile... he's more likely to get mugged than to commit a pre planned violent act. I mean, he's wearing white spats for god's sakes."

It doesn't matter if I think Hutch lied or not, was correct or not, etc. I don't believe that the man he described was the killer. So all he is giving us is a possible other witness for later on in the evening. Which given all of the other statements the police have from various people in the neighborhood, is really not that big a deal. It's possible A-man saw the killer. But that doesn't mean he knows he saw the killer, and it doesn't mean the killer was Jack the Ripper.

I know a guy who swears he was abducted by aliens, and they gave him heart disease. And sadly, I'm convinced he absolutely believes that to be true. I don't believe in alien abductions. But who knows? I could be wrong. In the end it doesn't matter what the aliens look like or what procedures they performed on him, or even if I believe in alien abductions. They didn't give him heart disease. 40 years of beer and cheeseburgers gave him heart disease.

If Astrokhan Man is not a viable suspect for this crime, it doesn't matter if anyone saw him with the victim. It doesn't matter if thirty people saw him with the victim. In the end, I don't have to believe or disbelieve Hutch. I don't have to defend him or discredit him. I dismiss him entirely. I don't believe his statement has any bearing on the crime. Aliens don't cause heart disease. Walking theft magnets do not eviscerate women and get away without a trace.

[Wickerman]

So let's just take this at the friendliest and most amicable level and say we understand each other Jon!

Every good wish

Dave

Thankyou, I wouldn't have it any other way.

Best, Jon

All the best,
Fisherman

PS. Just noticed Jon beat me to it! DS.

No harm in hammering the point home Christer. I do wish "they" would share this seemingly discredited "fact" with the world. I'm tired of looking at smoke & mirrors.

Best Wishes, Jon S.

[Bridewell]

Take Hutch's statement.

Which still exists, almost 124 years after it was taken. If Hutchinson and/or his evidence was discredited what was the point of keeping his worthless statement on file? I would argue that its continued existence, its preservation, lends support to the notion that Hutchinson's evidence was thought to be worth preserving.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Lechmere]

Good point bridewell

[Ben]

“The premiss (sic) of the "Hutchinson Discredited" argument is that he "must" have been found to have lied.”

No, Jon, that is not the premise of the “Hutchinson Discredited” reality (it’s only becomes an “argument” inasmuch as people are hell bent on challenging it with futility). I’ve never suggested for a moment that he was “found” to have lied – only that he was suspected of lying (see the difference?), and it is perfectly acceptable for a police force to dismiss a witness statement because they don’t consider it reliable, even if they can't prove it false. Emanuel Violenia is another example - do you fancy reviving him as a credible witness. The reverse approach is to endorse as accurate every single piece of evidence, irrespective of how obviously bogus it seems, simply because it can't be proven false. Is this the approach you favour?

“The question then becomes, what is there in his statement that the police could have investigated, and subsequently, have found fault with?”

Well, most of it apparently, because, as I’m prepared to reiterate long after you’ve expired and I’ve got many more decades left to compose “Hutchinsonian posts”, his statement was discredited owing to doubts surrounding his credibility. They couldn’t prove it false, but they suspected it of being false (see the difference again?), and the situation was made considerably worse by his later press disclosures, which most emphatically DID contain claims that were demonstrably false, such as the mysterious, untraceable “Sunday policeman”.

“The police accepted his "description", also no other witnesses were found to confirm or contest the description of Astrachan. Therefore...... the police were in no position to accuse him of lying.

Therefore, the claim is false.”

No!

For feck’s sake, how complicated can this be?

Abberline initially accepted his description, and yet days later, his account was discredited, and one major reason for this was his three-day delay in coming forward, since it impacted negatively on the question of his credibility. He was discredited because he was suspected of lying. They couldn’t prove it, just like they couldn’t prove it in Violenia’s case, but they suspected it.

“In fact, The Echo supported the Hutchinson suspect as opposed to the Cox suspect.”

This is intolerable, infuriating, provably erroneous nonsense. Here is what the Echo said on the 13th November:

“From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?”

There. Read, digest, and realise that the Echo were not supporting Hutchinson’s suspect. A few lines down, however, the same article states that there is:

“no reason to doubt the accuracy of Mary Anne Cox's testimony”

Thumbs up for Cox.

Thumbs down for Hutchinson.

Deal with it.

The next day, the 14th Novemver, the Echo reiterated the reason for this reduced importance being attached to Hutchinson’s statement, noting that it had been:

“considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest in a more official manner”.

From other details, it is clear that this information obtained directly from the police. The Echo were not themselves endorsing the belief that there is “not the slightest reason” for doubting Hutchinson’s veracity. It was simply “declared” to be so by an unspecified source, although my suspicion is that this was another scathing reference to the Echo’s press contemporaries, who, besides being duped into believing that the police and press Astrakhan descriptions referred to two separate sightings (!), were also inclined to invest more importance in the account than its discredited content (and author!) merited.

“The Star made an unsupported claim which as it turns out was wrong. The Echo stood by Hutchinson.”

This is another irritating fantasy of yours that you stubbornly waste your time persisting in. The Echo reported accurately on the discrediting of Hutchinson. The Star reported accurately on the discrediting of Hutchinson. The two newspapers support each other 100% in this regard, and the Echo definitely did not “stand by” Hutchinson. Had they done so, they would not have noted that a “very reduced importance” was now attached to his account, nor would they have noted his absence from the inquest, nor would they have stated that they do not share their “press contemporaries’” enthusiasm for his account.

“On the 13th The Echo had already discovered the shift in the case, and even the next day, the 14th, The Echo is still reporting that Hutchinson is in good stead”

They did the absolute reverse. They explicating queried Hutchinson’s credibility, and made it abundantly clear that the police were discounting him for that very same reason. If there was a shift in the case, it was almost certainly because they believed the Astrakhan man was a fabrication.

Once again, it matters not that the police did not “accuse” Hutchinson of lying. They didn’t “accuse” Emmaniel Violenia either. They simply arrived at the conclusion that his evidence was not genuine. Same with Hutchinson, thus explaining the total non-reference to him in later police interviews and memoirs, as well as the police preference for a Jewish witness, whose sighting was far less detailed than Hutchinson's, as the only person to have acquired a good look at the murderer.

“The receipt by Anderson of Bond's estimated Time of Death was sufficient to shift the focus of the case.”

It had nothing to do with any shift of focus, because the police evidently did not accept Bond’s time of death.

“No harm in hammering the point home Christer.”

If anyone thinks that “hammering home” a flawed point is going to achieve anything, it’s time to ease off this particular nonsense and create a nuisance elsewhere. I’ve got a much bigger hammer and the capacity to be far more relentless with it if a "stamina war" is the preferred debating strategy. I’ve had an absolute gutful of some of the noisy, obstreperous, perpetually internet-bound people around here thinking that endless, verbose repetition is going to win arguments and earn them precious brownie points.

I'm tired of looking at smoke & mirrors.

Then kindly go away and find a topic that might "tire" you less.

[Wickerman]

Ben.

prem·ise (prms)
n. also prem·iss (prms)
1. A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Premiss

You waste your time on inconsequential differences.

No, Jon, that is not the premise of the “Hutchinson Discredited” reality (it’s only becomes an “argument” inasmuch as people are hell bent on challenging it with futility).

The single comment in The Star alone, by itself is not an argument.
You have insisted that Hutchinson must have lied to the police causing them to dismiss him.
This is your proposition, ie;
"A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn.", from which you conclude Hutchinson was discredited.
Therefore it is your premiss/premise, and unsubstantiated at that.

...and it is perfectly acceptable for a police force to dismiss a witness statement because they don’t consider it reliable, even if they can't prove it false.

Yes, but we're are long past that, Abberline has approved it. Therefore, the police did NOT dismiss his statement.

Also, Hutchinson was never seen near a police station a second time. So, Hutchinson was never brought in for a re-interview due to some "speculated" future flaw found with his statement, which most certainly would have happened if this important witness had been suspected of lying.
It never happened!

They couldn’t prove it false, but they suspected it of being false (see the difference again?),

You have just walked into another one of those "put-up or shut-up" moments.
Show me!

Abberline initially accepted his description, and yet days later, his account was discredited,

Not by the police, that's where your theory goes off the rails.
The Star published false information, like they have been prone to do in the past.
Do I really need to raise those examples again?
Your Star is proven to be disreputable, dishonest, inflamatory, and often just plain wrong.

Here is what the Echo said on the 13th November:

“From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?”

We've been over that already, where were you?

If the importance hinged on it being given at the Inquest alone, then Abberline would not have approved it!
Whether any statement is of sufficient importance is Abberline's decision, not the media!
This is all rhetorical, as is the question at the end, "Why, ask the authorities", etc. The authorities do not ask the media, it is the media who are asking this question of the authorities, who are not answering their questions. Hence the rhetorical question to the public.

You are only repeating the same quotes, you need to read my previous post.

and the Echo definitely did not “stand by” Hutchinson. Had they done so, they would not have noted that a “very reduced importance” was now attached to his account,

Of course the importance was reduced (not dismissed!), by the receipt of Bond's estimated time of death.
As much as it irks you, there is more factual support for this as a reason for the shift in the case than for any indication that Hutchinson lied.

Your theory is pure fiction!
Suck it up!

Jon S.

[Wickerman]

In the end, I don't have to believe or disbelieve Hutch. I don't have to defend him or discredit him. I dismiss him entirely. I don't believe his statement has any bearing on the crime.

Hi Errata.
The most apparent complexity in this debate is that "we" are imposing our opinions on the case as if the police would see things from the same perspective as ourselves, they did not.

The first fact is this:
It does not matter if "we" do not believe what he said, Abberline did!

The second fact is this:
No other witness ever surfaced who saw what Hutchinson saw, therefore, the police had no means to contest the description given by Hutchinson.
Which is to say, they had no means to accuse him of lying. Which they did not.

The third point is an apparent fact, in that:
Given the hunger of the press over this case and their presence at both Leman St. & Commercial St. the police were never seen to bring Hutchinson in for a second interview, which they most certainly would have IF they had uncovered something suspicious in his statement.

This is why this "Discredited" theory is untenable, it is based on a sequence of unproven assumptions and as a result is pure fiction!

What we "think" of Hutchinson's story is completely irrelevant to how the police viewed it, and they were in possession of more facts than we are.
They accepted his story, his credibility was not questioned. That avenue is closed.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

1. A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn.

And you pick the obviously more obscure one. Okay.

The single comment in The Star alone, by itself is not an argument.

By itself it's a statement that just happens to be wholly supported by an actual police communication with another newspaper. You're quite right to say it's not an argument. Of course it isn't. There is nothing to "argue" about. The accuracy of the Star's statement is wholly proven by the Echo-police communication, as well as being bolstered by Hutchinson's total non-appearance in later reports, interviews and memoirs of senior police officials. Had Hutchinson's ludicrous music hall villain suspect being considered anything other than a probable fabrication, there certainly wouldn't have been the need for any Jewish witness to be used in later identity parades. Hutchinson was discredited on the basis of doubts surrounding his credibility. We know this because the Echo obtained other information from the police which we know to be both correct and only obtainable from a police source.

Abberline has approved it. Therefore, the police did NOT dismiss his statement.

Yes, they did.

Abberline's initial statement of approval was penned a few hours after he was first introduced to Hutchinson, and before any sort of investigation into the latter's claims could realistically have occurred. Once these investigations had occurred, Hutchinson was discredited. Not because he confused the day or because the police liked Bond's 1.00am time of death, but because "in light if later investigation", they distrusted his honesty, citing his late arrival and failure to attend the inquest, where he would have been quizzed under oath.

Also, Hutchinson was never seen near a police station a second time. So, Hutchinson was never brought in for a re-interview due to some "speculated" future flaw found with his statement

You don't know that at all. Besides, once his major press embellishments and contradictions had been circulated, his original statement had been so drastically undermined that any attempt to catch him out may well have been considered a waste of precious time. Other witnesses were considered bogus too, and very few, if any of those, were ever recalled to "explain" their contradictions.

You have just walked into another one of those "put-up or shut-up" moments.

This has been demonstrated hundreds of times on numerous threads, but if you've got the time to waste both producing and requesting endless repetition, I suppose I can dig out another copy and paste.

The Star published false information, like they have been prone to do in the past.

This was not false information - FACT.

It said precisely what the Echo had been saying a day or two earlier, and we know for certain that the latter was police-endorsed. That particular quote appeared under the heading "Worthless stories lead police on false scent" in an article that also detailed Packer's tall tales. For what possible, even vaguely sane, reason would the Star report correctly on the discrediting of Packer while incorrectly lumping Hutchinson in the same category?

We've been over that already, where were you?

Pissing on that very bonfire for the thousandth time, most probably.

Abberline was not the sole representative of the police. If his superiors had a problem with the three-day lateness and failure to attend the inquest, their opinion would certainly override Abberline's. They had no more reason to endorse Abberline's short-lived opinion than his views on Klosowski. In any case, it is quite clear from Abberline's own 1903 interview that himself he did not endorse Hutchinson's evidence by that stage.

This is all rhetorical, as is the question at the end, "Why, ask the authorities",

It doesn't matter who they were asking or whether it was rhetorical or not (and it obviously was). The salient point is that the press were reporting on actual doubts the actual authorities were having with Hutchinson's statement, and unfortunately for those who would undiscredit Hutchinson 120 years later, those doubts were inextricably linked to the question of his honesty, or apparent lack thereof.

Of course the importance was reduced (not dismissed!), by the receipt of Bond's estimated time of death. As much as it irks you, there is more factual support for this as a reason for the shift in the case than for any indication that Hutchinson lie

That is definitely, factually, not the case. So why would I waste time getting "irked" by it? You may as well call me fat, and it would "irk" be just as much.

Your theory is pure fiction!
Suck it up!

It's definitely time for some hush from you on this particular topic.

[Ben]

It does not matter if "we" do not believe what he said, Abberline did!

Initially, but that was in the immediate aftermath of taking his statement, before any investigation into it could realistically have occurred. Once this investigation had occurred, both Hutchinson and his statement were discarded owing to doubts about his credibility, as proven by the Echo's proven police communication. And I'll say it again and again and again and again and again and again, and however many times it takes for you to stop repeating the same points as though they were never addressed, Jon.

No other witness ever surfaced who saw what Hutchinson saw, therefore, the police had no means to contest the description given by Hutchinson

In the same way that nobody contested what Emmanuel Violenia saw, AND YET HIS STATEMENT WAS ALSO DISCREDITED. Why? Because the police are capable of deciding for themselves whether a statement is credible or not. Do you really, really believe that unless a statement can be proven false, it must be treated as accurate?

Is that how a responsible detective or a sane human being goes about things?

They accepted his story, his credibility was not questioned. That avenue is closed.

We know for certain that his credibility was questioned, and that his story was not ultimately accepted. Close whatever avenue you wish, but don't a great flock to follow you in that closure.

[Errata]

Hi Errata.
The most apparent complexity in this debate is that "we" are imposing our opinions on the case as if the police would see things from the same perspective as ourselves, they did not.

The first fact is this:
It does not matter if "we" do not believe what he said, Abberline did!

The second fact is this:
No other witness ever surfaced who saw what Hutchinson saw, therefore, the police had no means to contest the description given by Hutchinson.
Which is to say, they had no means to accuse him of lying. Which they did not.

The third point is an apparent fact, in that:
Given the hunger of the press over this case and their presence at both Leman St. & Commercial St. the police were never seen to bring Hutchinson in for a second interview, which they most certainly would have IF they had uncovered something suspicious in his statement.

It doesn't matter what the police thought. The pertinent question in this particular thread is how do we choose which witnesses to believe. Abberline could believe Hutch all he wanted, but even Abberline did not think that Hutch saw the Ripper. And believing Hutch certainly didn't lead to any additional witnesses or arrests. Just because his statement is true, or at least is not suspicious doesn't mean that he saw the killer. I happen to think he didn't. I happen to think that he lied in his statement. But even if I thought he was channeling the voice of god in a torrent of divine truth, I still wouldn't think that the guy he saw killed Mary Kelly. So whether I believe him or not is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what you think of the messenger if you don't think the message applies.

[Hunter]

Its too bad we only have Echo copies up until the 13th isnt it? Who knows what the Echo press wrote later that same week.

We do know what the Echo reported later in the week. This is from a post I made over a year ago:


from the Nov. 19th edition of the Echo, page 3:

"...Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson as to his having seen the latest victim with a gentlemanly man of dark complexion and with a dark moustache. Others are dispersed to think that the shabby man with a blotchy face and a carrotty moustache, described by the witness Mary Ann Cox, is more likely to be the murderer..."

The full article can be read here as posted by Howard Brown in post #4:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=12433

If this article is to be relied upon in the same vein that others are relied upon by some, then it is obvious that certain individuals within the investigation still thought that Hutchinson was a reliable witness.

[DVV]

Initially, but that was in the immediate aftermath of taking his statement, before any investigation into it could realistically have occurred. Once this investigation had occurred, both Hutchinson and his statement were discarded owing to doubts about his credibility, as proven by the Echo's proven police communication.

Hi Ben, agreed - of course.
We KNOW Hutch was discredited, and the question should be : why wasn't he suspected ? And well, I believe the answer is quite obvious : Abberline didn't think the murderer was a poor local with no surgical skills / great anatomical knowledge. Had Hutch been interrogated by Moore....

[Fisherman]

David:

"We KNOW Hutch was discredited"

I KNOW you are factually wrong.

Make that work, if you can.

Please note that I am not saying that Hutchinson could not have been discredited. What I am saying is that you don´t know it.

The best,
Fisherman