Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Trevor Marriott 9 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Sam Flynn 27 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - by Simon Wood 4 hours ago.
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - by harry 5 hours ago.
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by drstrange169 5 hours ago.
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by Robert St Devil 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - (49 posts)
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - (41 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (11 posts)
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - (6 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: East End Photographs and Drawings - (3 posts)
General Discussion: Jack The Ripper and Venus - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Hutchinson, George

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #221  
Old 12-17-2017, 05:38 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,613
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Not only is that a Weasley cheap shot that isn’t even true, but rich coming from you who cherry pick news reports, no matter how ridiculously obvious that they are erroneous, to fit into your well dressed man legendarium and then constantly spout this misleading nonsense ad nauseum as if it were fact.
I "use" news reports. You "reject" news reports.
That is not cherry-picking, are you sure you even know what cherry-picking is?

When these same reports identify a respectably dressed man, then obviously it isn't me who is forming the theory, the issue existed at the time.

As Macdonald demonstrated a specific interest in that Britannia-man, and this same Britannia-man is identified in the press as one of the three suspects, along with Blotchy & Astrachan, then this is just another example of your blind approach to the problem, or you are not as well informed as you pretend to be.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 12-17-2017, 05:49 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,613
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Not "gut feeling" at all. I studied experimental method for three years as part of my degree course. I know the difference between empiricism and subjectivity. That's not to say that I'm right, but I am at least capable of distinguishing subjectivity from objectivity.
Well, your opinion is not the result of empiricism as you have no firsthand experience, and you seemingly reject alternative explanations for Hutchinson's story, so you cannot be accused of being objective, so what is left?
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 12-18-2017, 12:15 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is online now
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Well, your opinion is not the result of empiricism as you have no firsthand experience, and you seemingly reject alternative explanations for Hutchinson's story, so you cannot be accused of being objective, so what is left?
The fact that I find the bull$hit interpretation of Hutchinson's story the more probable. That may be incorrect, but it is NOT guesswork nor idle dismissal.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 12-18-2017, 05:14 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,458
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
I "use" news reports. You "reject" news reports.
That is not cherry-picking, are you sure you even know what cherry-picking is?

When these same reports identify a respectably dressed man, then obviously it isn't me who is forming the theory, the issue existed at the time.

As Macdonald demonstrated a specific interest in that Britannia-man, and this same Britannia-man is identified in the press as one of the three suspects, along with Blotchy & Astrachan, then this is just another example of your blind approach to the problem, or you are not as well informed as you pretend to be.
Blind approach? No wick, I keep an open mind, that’s why I always view things as likelihood of different scenarios. Unlike you who twist everything to fit your pre conceived well dressed man scenario
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 12-18-2017, 05:16 AM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert St Devil View Post
Gotcha. Nothing really sticks out to me against Hutchinson, and it seems like it was the police who put George in the spotlight when they forwarded his statement up the chain of command post haste. It seems to me like he was just offering the piece of information that he knew to the police station; next thing he knows, he's talking with Abberline and his name's in the press a few days later. One thing, The Times have him stating that he identified Mary at the Shoreditch mortuary. Would he have had to offer some proof of acquaintance (ie general description) before he gained that type of access from the authorities?
GH's statement itself gives us reason to question his story, because if he had a relationship with the woman he wouldn't have waited 4 full days and until after the end of the Inquest to come forward. If the glorious descriptive elements of his story weren't enough. And the fact that the press reports that Wednesday that his story is discredited.

I wonder if the Inquest had lasted a few days when he might have come in.
__________________
Michael Richards
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 12-18-2017, 06:39 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,613
Default

See, this is typical of why much of the criticism against Hutchinson is both self induced, and a bit of a fantasy.

The newspapers after the murder, over the weekend, were full of press theories about Kelly being murdered after 9:00 Friday morning. Around 7 hours after Hutchinson spoke to her at 2:00. Yet a handful of modern theorists expect him to rush to police to tell them he saw Kelly with a man 7 hours before she is presumed murdered?
What conceivable use would his sighting be to police in their investigation if the press theories were correct?

Then there is this preoccupation with the apparently false claim by the Star on Thursday, 15th, where it is claimed Hutchinson's story is discredited.
We can see how false the claim is by the fact the Star make no further mention of their claim, yet the very next day, the 16th, Galloway's story appeared in the press where we learn the police are looking for Astrachan.

Then again, three days later, on the 19th, the press report how the police are divided between pursuing both suspects, blotchy & Astrachan.

So, it is patently clear the report by the Star on the 15th was false, yet the alternate reports which demonstrate the police were still actively investigating Hutchinson's story are ignored.

Self-induced fantasy.
This, as one other member might recognize, is a perfect example of cherry-picking.
You refuse to accept the evidence as a whole, but prefer to only recognize what fits your own personal theory.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 12-18-2017, 07:01 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,613
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Blind approach? No wick, I keep an open mind, that’s why I always view things as likelihood of different scenarios. Unlike you who twist everything to fit your pre conceived well dressed man scenario
An "open mind" means you are open to alternate theories, you wouldn't be so caustic in your dismissal of Hutchinson if that were true.

I don't need to twist anything, the contemporary belief in the "well-dressed" suspect was widespread and well reported in the press.
Again, you choose to ignore this. The defective approach lies with yourself, not Caz, c.d., myself nor anyone else who has shown you why your arguments don't stand up to scrutiny.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 12-18-2017, 07:55 AM
Robert St Devil Robert St Devil is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: North Kilttown, Scotland
Posts: 834
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
GH's statement itself gives us reason to question his story, because if he had a relationship with the woman he wouldn't have waited 4 full days and until after the end of the Inquest to come forward. If the glorious descriptive elements of his story weren't enough. And the fact that the press reports that Wednesday that his story is discredited.

I wonder if the Inquest had lasted a few days when he might have come in.
Hi Michael. After following this thread, I'm not convinced George was acting deceptively, but I get the suspicion around his "4-day wait".

>I wonder if it was the police action in the wake of his statement that is partly behind this suspicion:
Morning Advertiser, 13 Nov 1888
The police apparently attach some importance to the man's story, and the statement was forwarded to the headquarters of the H division by a special detective.

IOW, George had no clue that his statement was going to make the evening news or get him an interview with Abberline. He probably didn't know where his info was going to fit in with the police investigation; it just so happened the police attached some importance to his statement and forwarded it up the chain, making his name forever more part of Ripperology.
I posted that The Star had a slant against George Hutchinson in favor of Mary Cox's suspect. I would need the full newspapers to verify 100% but I don't see similar discrediting coming from The Times, Daily Telegraph or Morning Advertiser in the days after he came forward.

>As for the inquest, he narrowly missed having to attend a 2nd inquest:
The Star, 14 Nov 1888
A second inquest would have been held on Kelly's body had it been removed into the Whitechapel district for burial. But the double inquiry has been averted by the action of Mr. H. Wilton, parish clerk and keeper of the Shoreditch mortuary. He has undertaken to inter the body at his own expense, assisted by contributions which may be received, and yesterday he obtained from the coroner's officer an order to prepare a coffin.
__________________
there,s nothing new, only the unexplored
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 12-18-2017, 08:37 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,458
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
An "open mind" means you are open to alternate theories, you wouldn't be so caustic in your dismissal of Hutchinson if that were true.

I don't need to twist anything, the contemporary belief in the "well-dressed" suspect was widespread and well reported in the press.
Again, you choose to ignore this. The defective approach lies with yourself, not Caz, c.d., myself nor anyone else who has shown you why your arguments don't stand up to scrutiny.
no wick, I am open to alternate theories and scenarios-and theres nothing wrong with a well dressed suspect per se, its your constant, misleading twisting of the meaning and veracity of the reports where your theory becomes crackpot.

and stop always trying to drag anyone else(Caz, CD, "authors" who don't post here anymore LOL) when trying to get back up for your arguments.
Its so childish, and too easy to see right through your desperate attempts to win the argument with the "everyones on my side" bullshit.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 12-18-2017, 12:54 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,613
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert St Devil View Post
I posted that The Star had a slant against George Hutchinson in favor of Mary Cox's suspect. I would need the full newspapers to verify 100% but I don't see similar discrediting coming from The Times, Daily Telegraph or Morning Advertiser in the days after he came forward.
Hi Robert.

I'm not sure if you are aware but the Star was a new paper in 1888, they were known to make controversial claims in order to sell copy. They needed their paper to make money right out of the gate, so to speak.
Their contemporaries (Times, Telegraph, etc.) looked on this new upstart as notorious and unreliable as regards to accuracy in their reporting.
John Pizer threatened to sue the Star over their exaggerated claims that he was Leather Apron. The Star settled out of court.

With respect to this issue of "discrediting" Hutchinson by the Star, we see more of the same cavalier approach towards the truth.
What had transpired was that as a result of Hutchinson's appearance on Monday night following the inquest, this new suspect - Astrachan, was immediately vaulted up to being suspect No. 1. This was reported as such on the morning of the 13th, the day following his interview with police.

Also on the 13th, in the evening edition of the Echo, they report that Hutchinson's statement is now of seemingly of "reduced importance", without providing any reason why.

The next day, on the evening of the 14th, the Echo report that the police are making this statement the subject of careful inquiry.
However, in contradiction to this the Star of the 14th report that the story by Hutchinson "is now discredited".
The story can't be discredited, if they are still making it the subject of careful inquiry .

Then on the 16th the Evening News & the Star both report that one Met. constable was not looking for the Cox suspect, but "someone of a very different appearance" - presumably alluding to Hutchinson's suspect - Astrachan.

Then on the 19th, the Echo report that the police "have not relaxed their endeavours" to hunt down the murderer - though they are now divided between looking for both Blotchy & Astrachan.

From this sequence of events it can be seen that the controversial claim by the Star on the 14th was another exaggeration.
That Hutchinson had suddenly been elevated to a star witness, only to be downgraded to being of parallel importance with Cox. That the police are pursuing two equally important suspects. Hutchinson had not been discredited at all, the police were still pursuing Hutchinson's suspect four days later, on the 19th.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.

Last edited by Wickerman : 12-18-2017 at 12:58 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.