A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Why do we keep ranting on about the Hutchinson saga?
Why don't we just accept that he made his statement to the police in good faith?
It should be simply a case of did the man seen by him, represent Mary Kelly's killer.?
The policeman passing the ''Commercial street'' end at 3am, is surely a pointer to Hutchinson actually being there ...would it not have been easily checked, leaving the options one of three.
A] He was there at as he stated.
b] He was familiar with the regular beat of that officer, and used it to his advantage.
c]He mistook the day.
Option A..is the obvious, no man even out to earn a penny, would place himself right opposite the murder scene , and invent a story of seeing the victim out at 2am, complete with dialogue, and to boot a suspicious man dressed in finery, unless he was off his head.
b]Even if he was familiar with the police patrols , he could not be certain [ unless he was there] that the evening in question, a officer would pass that location at precisely the time he stated.
c]To suggest that he mistook the day ..is to be frank clutching at straws. people were not morons , he stated that he returned to the Victoria home ''when it opened'' which would have been on the Friday morning, which is usually a different day then the weekend. ie sat/sun, and could have been easily checked by the police.
Was there not a daily record of occupying residents?.
We have Hutchinson the witness on a par with Maxwell the witness, both were believed by Abberline, and both have gone down in Casebook as having made ''a genuine mistake''.
Have we proof of this, or is this a question of trying to be too clever?.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Hi,
Why do we keep ranting on about the Hutchinson saga?
Why don't we just accept that he made his statement to the police in good faith?
It should be simply a case of did the man seen by him, represent Mary Kelly's killer.?
The policeman passing the ''Commercial street'' end at 3am, is surely a pointer to Hutchinson actually being there ...would it not have been easily checked, leaving the options one of three.
A] He was there at as he stated.
b] He was familiar with the regular beat of that officer, and used it to his advantage.
c]He mistook the day.
Option A..is the obvious, no man even out to earn a penny, would place himself right opposite the murder scene , and invent a story of seeing the victim out at 2am, complete with dialogue, and to boot a suspicious man dressed in finery, unless he was off his head.
b]Even if he was familiar with the police patrols , he could not be certain [ unless he was there] that the evening in question, a officer would pass that location at precisely the time he stated.
c]To suggest that he mistook the day ..is to be frank clutching at straws. people were not morons , he stated that he returned to the Victoria home ''when it opened'' which would have been on the Friday morning, which is usually a different day then the weekend. ie sat/sun, and could have been easily checked by the police.
Was there not a daily record of occupying residents?.
We have Hutchinson the witness on a par with Maxwell the witness, both were believed by Abberline, and both have gone down in Casebook as having made ''a genuine mistake''.
Have we proof of this, or is this a question of trying to be too clever?.
Regards Richard.

Richard, if Hutchinson had been confirmed to be the Crossingham´s man, I don´t think that his story would have been dismissed, by and large, by the police.
But it was.
So either he was disconfirmed to have been that man, or something else surfaced that allowed for the police to drop his story and still regard Hutchinson as an honourable man. Any suggestions what that may have been?
We have Dew, a man that served as a detective on the spot, at the time - and he says that Hutchinson was not a man he would reflect on, and he leads on that a mistake was made regarding the dates on Hutchinson´s behalf.

To me, that puts your option C in the driving seat. People may have a hard time accepting that this sort of confusion over the days occur, but it actually does. There are heaps of examples of it, and given Hutchinson´s vagabonding lifestyle he would have been very much subjected to the risk.

All the best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
The word ''dismissed'' can conjure up a false picture.
I would say, that the inquiry based on Hutchinson's statement resulted in nothing coming of it, and it faded from there investigation.
I agree people can mistake days, but it is a fact also, that important times in ones life [ and this would have been one in Hutchinson's] never leave ones memory, especially over such a short time from the 8th/9th -12th November.
And his vagabonds lifestyle is speculation, does one trek to Romford sum up his lifestyle.?
At the period we are talking about, the average citizen walked everywhere, my grandmother born 1880, used to recollect that as a young woman she would walk miles to reach a destination, and she was not a vagabond...
And what about the Victoria homes daily records of inmates, one would assume they existed , and would have been easily for the police to have checked.
The home was not for the down and outs , but was vetted, and its residents of good character.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Hi,
The word ''dismissed'' can conjure up a false picture.
I would say, that the inquiry based on Hutchinson's statement resulted in nothing coming of it, and it faded from there investigation.
I agree people can mistake days, but it is a fact also, that important times in ones life [ and this would have been one in Hutchinson's] never leave ones memory, especially over such a short time from the 8th/9th -12th November.
And his vagabonds lifestyle is speculation, does one trek to Romford sum up his lifestyle.?
At the period we are talking about, the average citizen walked everywhere, my grandmother born 1880, used to recollect that as a young woman she would walk miles to reach a destination, and she was not a vagabond...
And what about the Victoria homes daily records of inmates, one would assume they existed , and would have been easily for the police to have checked.
The home was not for the down and outs , but was vetted, and its residents of good character.
Regards Richard.

But it did not "fade away" slowly, the Hutchinson proposition, did it, Richard? In a matter of days - and few of them - the red hot trail, arguably the hottest trail there had ever been, was reduced to next to nothing.
It was curtains down, Richard, no fading at all.

You say that important days in your life never leaves your memory. I agree! But that has never been up for discussion, has it? For Hutchinson DID remember that day, in very great detail - so great, in fact, that it has many posters disbelieving him.

Therefore, this is a non-issue, Richard. It´s not challenged by anybody at all.

The suggestion I bring to the table is not that Hutchinson may have been off when it comes to his detail memory. What I say is that he failed when it comes to the SEQUENTIAL memory. And these are two different things, as I have tried to explain many, many times. To little avail, it would seem, since you speak of people not forgetting important days!

I know of a very nice poster out here that claims that he has heard a radio programme where Hutchinson´s son Reg spoke about his father. And I don´t doubt that this poster really DID hear that programme. The detail memory is very strong, and the poster in question remembers phrasings and such things, just as he can say what time of the day it was sent.
But he cannot pin the day, the week, the month or the year.
And THAT, dear Richard, is because when he tries to do so, he needs to employ the SEQUENTIAL memory - which is another thing altogether, and something that is easily muddled.
It´s apples and mango fruits, Richard.

All the best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi ,
I wonder who that nice poster can be?
I would suggest that on this occasion the poster was unaware that some forty years later , it would be important that he could pinpoint the exact day and month, and year, that he heard such a programme .
He could however remember the subject discussed , and even some phrasing, because I would suggest his concentration was focused on that, and not the relevance of the actual date aired.
With respect, I cannot see the relevance to Hutchinson , and the time frame of of a few days, especially as the whole of the area would have been discussing the latest murder, he clearly did not get mixed up with the days Saturday/Sunday/Monday. as the murder had been previous, and one would have thought his memory span, and the recent nights he spent at the Home would through the power of deduction reached the correct day..he had to have been absolutely certain before visiting the police on the Monday evening.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Hi ,
I wonder who that nice poster can be?
I would suggest that on this occasion the poster was unaware that some forty years later , it would be important that he could pinpoint the exact day and month, and year, that he heard such a programme .
He could however remember the subject discussed , and even some phrasing, because I would suggest his concentration was focused on that, and not the relevance of the actual date aired.
With respect, I cannot see the relevance to Hutchinson , and the time frame of of a few days, especially as the whole of the area would have been discussing the latest murder, he clearly did not get mixed up with the days Saturday/Sunday/Monday. as the murder had been previous, and one would have thought his memory span, and the recent nights he spent at the Home would through the power of deduction reached the correct day..he had to have been absolutely certain before visiting the police on the Monday evening.
Regards Richard.

... and how many times do you think people have said "Jeepers - I was so sure it was on Wednesday, not on Tuesday", Richard?
Your ordeal with that radio programme is of course another thing altogether, given the long perspective, but it still serves very well to show us that removes in time is something our brains do not register in the same exact manner that it registers more tangible details.
All you have to do is ask yourself what you had for supper last week, and then sort the days. You will likely remember what you ate - but will you remember on which days?

Any memory expert will be able to tell you that these things happen in shorter perspectives too. I trust you know that yourself. You know you played tennis some days ago - but when? You know that you hit your head - but when? You know that you saw your old school comrade - but which day was it? Surely, Richard, you recognize this?

The details stick, the dates don´t. And - once again - the more vagabonding lifestyle and the less sleep, the more prone you will be to mix things up.

Dew was of the meaning that Hutchinson had mistaken the days, apparently. Why would anybody reach such a conclusion? Would Dew say "Well, the story worked, the man seems honest and he is corroborated by Lewis´ testimony - so let´s drop him"?

What reason do we have for concluding that somebody is out on the days, Richard? On what grounds do we build such a suspicion?

I would suggest that we do so when we can see that there is one or more element/s in the story we are checking that do not pan out.

I can see no other reason to make the suggestion of a mistaken day. Can you?

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi Fisherman.
You are absolutely correct in your reasoning, I will not dispute the way you have summed it up.
It all depends on the importance of the memory, the radio programme was just one of many I listened to during that era, I saw no relevance to write down the date of the event, why would one?
But with Hutchinson , he would have seen great relevance in this event, and it would have been of great importance to him, so I would suggest he would have found it vital that his statement to the police was a accurate one, and thought a great deal .
We can only both state what we find more believable .
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

True, Richard - and I very much agree that Hutchinson would have done his best to present accurate facts. And I have little doubt that he thought that this was what he did.
... but we sometimes fool ourselves in this regard - and when we do, we are normally very certain that we are right until somebody comes along who can prove us wrong. And indeed, it would seem that Hutchinson stuck to his original claims throughout, meaning that if the police told him that they believed him to be out on the dates, he did not agree with this himself.

Unfortunately, that does not necessarily make him right.

All the best, Richard!
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

You are of course correct here, Jon. We have no absolute certainty! (I do, however, think that the subject WAS approached - but not until after the police interview)

Hello Christer.
There can be no doubt that when Abberline sat down to interview Hutchinson, any questions posed by Abberline would have been from the perspective of the whole scenario. Bearing in mind the movements of the few players that there were, Abberline would have posed questions to see where Hutchinson fit into the overall scheme.

I'm sure Abberline would have contemplated Hutchinson being the loiterer seen by Sarah Lewis.
If we, today, can figure this out with sparse evidence then Abberline must surely have seen the parallel. He had more witness statements at his disposal than have survived or us to see. So his view was much clearer than ours.

I'm inclined to think that it is precisely because Abberline recognised the 'fit' in this part of their two stories that he decided to believe Hutchinson. I'm not saying it was the only reason, it was a contributing factor, in my opinion.

What does not exist today is Abberline's detailed interview with question and answers, which must have consisted of several pages.
We do have his brief summary, a report to his superior's where he mention's that he interviewed him, but not the actual interview paperwork.
So, we do not know all the questions Abberline posed to Hutchinson, neither his replies, which would have included the reason he held back from coming forward. All that is lost.

Just getting back to Lewis's statement, she does not actually say that the loiterer was standing there when she walked down Dorset St.
What she does say, in both accounts, is; "...when I came up the Court ", and "...When I went in the court".
Why does she not say, "As I was walking down Dorset St."?

We do know she walked down Dorset St. from Commercial St., but she does not claim to see the loiterer at that time. Only when she entered the passage/court.

My question is, where had she been, between walking down Dorset St. and entering the passage/court?

Hypothetically, I'm seeing Lewis walk down Dorset St. and no man is standing opposite. Then, she steps into McCarthy's shop for a few minutes. On stepping out of the shop to turn into the passage she see's a man opposite who was not there a few minutes before.
This is why she only claims to see him as she entered the passage, but not as she approached the passage from Dorset St.

I see a window of time missing here, only a few minutes, but sufficient for the "couple" to arrive and walk up the passage, and for the loiterer to follow and take up his position opposite.
Then, Lewis reappears from the shop and mentions "another couple" and the "loiterer", neither of whom where there before she stepped into the shop.

So, why does Lewis not mention going into the shop?

Well, she is not telling a continuous story, in fact her story only begins "when I went up the court", in both statements. There is no lead up to her approaching the court. In fact, nowhere does she include walking down Dorset St. where her visit to the shop would be included.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

So either he was disconfirmed to have been that man, or something else surfaced that allowed for the police to drop his story and still regard Hutchinson as an honourable man. Any suggestions what that may have been?

Christer.
Once Dr. Bond had provided his estimated time of death, between 1:00-2:00 am, to Scotland Yard, Hutchinson's statement becomes redundant.

It only needs to be as simple as that.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Given the near certainty that Hutchinson was the man seen by Sarah Lewis (as explained above for the umpteenth time), it stands to reason that he must have seen her, and if he lied about his reasons for being there (not an unreasonable suggestion given the discredited nature of his account), he had every incentive to omit deliberately any reference to her in order to avoid making it obvious that it was her evidence that prompted him to come forward with a bogus "witness" account. In this case, it was a witness account that superficially appeared to legitimize what would otherwise be a suspicious, loitering presence near a crime scene. That’s a perfectly logical inference.

It is most assuredly not the case that Hutchinson was always considered a “stand-up” witness. On the contrary, the “authorities” (and we know it definitely was the authorities) “considerably discounted” his evidence because of his failure to alert the authorities until after the inquest, where he would have been quizzed under oath. In other words, he was discredited for reasons that irrefutably concerned the issue of his credibility, of lack thereof. Should anyone dispute this, I suggest they trot along to the relevant threads (which – Hintedy McHint-Hint – this one isn’t) and read all about the revelations in the Echo and elsewhere.

That was the reason provided for Hutchinson’s discrediting – no mystery whatsoever.

Walter Dew’s completely personal 1938 speculation that Hutchinson was discredited because he might have bollocksed up the day of his alleged experience should not be misconstrued as being representative of the accepted police wisdom at the time. In fact, Dew’s suggestion ran entirely contrary to it. Oh, and his book was “riddled with mistakes”. If the police at the time wished it to be understood that Hutchinson was discredited because the poor, well-meaning, hapless, addle-minded numpty had confused the day (silly sausage!), they’d have given THIS reason to the Echo, as opposed to the one they ACTUALLY gave.

Sorry, Fisherman. You’re entitled to your view, and I did say at the time that I enjoyed your article (if not its ultimate conclusion), but we went through all this date confusion stuff last year. All very interesting, but mighty difficult to agree with. He was hardly likely to confuse a day that coincided with the date of such a famous murder, AND his mammoth trek to Romford AND the Lord Mayor’s Show. Also, I can tell you for free that you’re not going to change the minds of Jon and Richard on that score. Jon is sticking very rigidly to his theory that Hutchinson, Lewis and Kennedy all “corroborate” each other and somehow point towards the guilt of Black Bag Bethnal Green Road Man (please don’t ask!), while Richard appeals to the “Why, oh why, can’t we just accept everything completely at face value?” school of thought. And me? Well, I’m just a naughty, nasty “Hutchinsonian” as you know.

So really, if you’re looking for some more (well, some) adherents to your “date confusion” hypothesis, you might not find too receptive an audience here. Just saying.

But this argument doesn’t stress me out nearly as much as some peoples’ determination to depict Hutchinson and Lewis’ Loiterer as different people, which they quite clearly were not. There is no evidence that any connection was ever made at the time between Hutchinson and the wideawake man mentioned by Lewis. That's just a fact. Had the connection been made, it is inconceivable that the press would not have latched onto it, especially given their demonstrated willingness to pass their own commentary on eyewitness evidence. It is extremely likely that the other man mentioned in Lewis’ testimony (the Bethnal Botherer) very quickly became the focus of her account, and thus a suspicious person of interest. The wideawake man was consequently overlooked in terms of potential significance, apparently.

There is not a scrap of evidence that the police ever quizzed Hutchinson over his failure to mention Lewis, and not a scrap of evidence that this clearly overlooked aspect of Lewis’ testimony was ever compared to Hutchinson’s account. This does not, for one moment, permit us to conclude that a connection was initially inferred but then dismissed owing to some mythical, imaginary, non-existent reason, such as Hutchinson being "tall and thin", or any of that nonsense. The Wideawake-Lewis connection was only not inferred because it wasn’t even noticed. Unless anyone has actual EVIDENCE to the contrary?

The only reason such an omission might seem so surprising to some of us is because we have many years at our at our disposal in which to assess the evidence, to focus the spotlight on one very specific aspect of one of the murders. We're not a beleaguered police force having to sift through many hundreds of leads, most of them bogus, and being pressured from all sides. The timing and detail between Lewis's wideawake man and Hutchinson is too great for it to be argued credibly that they were too separate individuals.

What angers me so very intensely is that the people decrying and ridiculing the very notion of the police overlooking such a detail (i.e. the Lewis-Hutchinson connection) are the same people who make a lot of noise on other threads asserting that the police completely overlooked the very suggestion of Charles Cross’ culpability in the crimes. Well, sorry, but bollocks. If they could “overlook” the Cross-as-ripper potentiality, they could certainly overlook the recognition that Lewis loiterer and George Hutchinson were one and the same…as they clearly were…as accepted in the mainstream…for very very good reason.

Please let’s not create silly, meaningless schisms between the “northern” and “southern” sides of Dorset Street as it for counts for anything besides ludicrous pedantry. Hutchinson’s account of his movements – if people choose to believe it – is quite consistent with the general region outside Miller’s Court entrance: an area circumscribed by a few feet. His location is perfectly compatible with Lewis’ evidence of a man standing outside the lodging house.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Yes, I'm aware of two but I have never raised them in a discussion as one of them (P.I.P.) is hardly worth mentioning, the figure at the end of the passage is only a silhouette.

I'm talking about this photograph:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4098

Yes, it's from the IPN, 24th November, and yes, the individual depicted was certainly Hutchinson. This has never been disputed and for good reason, given how astoundingly obvious it is. The drawing of Astrakhan and Kelly was evidently based on reports of their appearances (as described by Hutchinson in the former's case), and the same might reasonably be said of the Hutchinson sketch. It doesn't matter in the slightest if the individual reporters or sketchers from the IPN didn't see any of the depicted individuals in the flesh. They were perfectly capable of working on the basis of descriptions supplied.

If I'm not mistaken you have vociferously objected to Astrachan even existing, yet here you are promoting a source who pictures both Astrachan and Hutchinson together in a scene you have sworn did not take place.

You are completely bypassing the point. Of course I don't believe the "scene" took place. I'm talking about Hutchinson's appearance, and the fact that the best press sketch we have of him tallies very well indeed with the description provided by Sarah Lewis - apparently not tall, stout, and wearing a wideawake - thereby reinforcing your argument that Sarah Lewis's wideawake man ws probably Hutchinson. You're so used to picking unwinnable fights with me that you choose to make a confrontational difficulty about a point I raised regarding a sketch of Hutchinson which happens to aid your world view of the Kelly murder.

Bewildering.

My first concern is that you call on Sugden when he is being vague, so you can use his opinion to support your cause against Kennedy, but when Sugden is being clear in his acknowledgement of Hutchinson's claim, you ignore every word he says to the point of claiming the complete opposite of Sugden.

Well, you shouldn't be "concerned" about that.

I agree with some of the things that Sugden says, but disagree with others. Problems?

If you read on, you'll discover that Sugden later argues that a striking resemblance existed between Astrakhan man and Severin Klosowski, which I think is totally wrong, as do most people. Sugden doesn't go so far as to say that Klosowski was the ripper, but he clearly considers him the best named suspect. There is not, incidentally, a "remarkable consistency" between Hutchinson's police and press accounts. The latter's description incorporates lots more lovely accessories for Astrakhan man, a walk to Kelly's actual window, a provably bogus claim about a Sunday policeman, and yes, polar opposites. A dark complexion is a polar opposite to a pale one, and a slight moustache is essentially the polar opposite of a heavy one. That IS "significant", despite any wrong assertions to the contrary. Less significant by far is the ability of someone to remember what they lied about, especially if they're basing a fictional character on a pre-existing model.

Why don't you open your horizon's a little and read what other media outlets report, you will find the Star published opinions that were intentionally misleading and not the consensus.

You mean like the way YOU "open your horizon's (sic) a little" and endorse the demonstrable misreporting and provably false claims from the Daily News, ignoring all other sources that paint a completely different picture?

The discussion was not "off track" until you arrived to raise old arguments

...Which you then jumped enthusiastically into, knowing full well that they were "old" and "off track", and despite there being plenty of new and "on-track" posts that you could have responded to had you not been so determined to trade repetitive blows with me?

Interesting. But no, I'm afraid the "off-track" stuff did not originate with me.

Best regards,
Ben

Edit to previous post: I meant: "Please let’s not create silly, meaningless schisms between the “northern” and “southern” sides of Dorset Street as if it counts for anything besides ludicrous pedantry."

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer.
There can be no doubt that when Abberline sat down to interview Hutchinson, any questions posed by Abberline would have been from the perspective of the whole scenario. Bearing in mind the movements of the few players that there were, Abberline would have posed questions to see where Hutchinson fit into the overall scheme.

I'm sure Abberline would have contemplated Hutchinson being the loiterer seen by Sarah Lewis.
If we, today, can figure this out with sparse evidence then Abberline must surely have seen the parallel. He had more witness statements at his disposal than have survived or us to see. So his view was much clearer than ours.

I'm inclined to think that it is precisely because Abberline recognised the 'fit' in this part of their two stories that he decided to believe Hutchinson. I'm not saying it was the only reason, it was a contributing factor, in my opinion.

What does not exist today is Abberline's detailed interview with question and answers, which must have consisted of several pages.
We do have his brief summary, a report to his superior's where he mention's that he interviewed him, but not the actual interview paperwork.
So, we do not know all the questions Abberline posed to Hutchinson, neither his replies, which would have included the reason he held back from coming forward. All that is lost.

Just getting back to Lewis's statement, she does not actually say that the loiterer was standing there when she walked down Dorset St.
What she does say, in both accounts, is; "...when I came up the Court ", and "...When I went in the court".
Why does she not say, "As I was walking down Dorset St."?

We do know she walked down Dorset St. from Commercial St., but she does not claim to see the loiterer at that time. Only when she entered the passage/court.

My question is, where had she been, between walking down Dorset St. and entering the passage/court?

Hypothetically, I'm seeing Lewis walk down Dorset St. and no man is standing opposite. Then, she steps into McCarthy's shop for a few minutes. On stepping out of the shop to turn into the passage she see's a man opposite who was not there a few minutes before.
This is why she only claims to see him as she entered the passage, but not as she approached the passage from Dorset St.

I see a window of time missing here, only a few minutes, but sufficient for the "couple" to arrive and walk up the passage, and for the loiterer to follow and take up his position opposite.
Then, Lewis reappears from the shop and mentions "another couple" and the "loiterer", neither of whom where there before she stepped into the shop.

So, why does Lewis not mention going into the shop?

Well, she is not telling a continuous story, in fact her story only begins "when I went up the court", in both statements. There is no lead up to her approaching the court. In fact, nowhere does she include walking down Dorset St. where her visit to the shop would be included.

Regards, Jon S.

An interesting thought, Jon - that Abberline put faith in Hutchinson primarily because he seemed to fit the Lewis evidence.
And you reasoning that Abberline would have had the detailed knowledge in hand, enabling him to ask all the vital questions is something that I concur with. What we have to work with today is but a fraction of what he had.

Still, I think you are wrong. And the reason lies very much in our agreement on Abberline´s superior knowledge of the details. For if he immediately recognized the potential corroboration of the Lewis and the Hutchinson testimony as regards the so called loiterer - then why did he not ask Hutchinson about whether he saw Lewis or not? That, to me, would have been a question of major importance in this context.
The moment that flash of insight went through Abberline´s body, he must have realized that all he needed to do to clinch the story was to ask that question: Did you see anybody, man or woman, entering the court as you stood there?

Apparently, that thought never crossed his mind ...?

Moreover, if he HAD asked that question, the whole affair would have been nicely wrapped up - if he got a positive answer. No reason at all to put less faith in Hutchinson´s story! Abberline would have had a description he believed in and a confirmation that he was justified to do so, and a witness that was the epitome of honesty and a role model for stand-up citizens. But this was not what happened, which is why I think that Abberline did not make the connection until after the interrogation of Hutchinson. And then the details did not pan out when he tried to make it all stick.

THEN we should expect the police to drop their suspicions, but STILL come away with the picture of an honest witness.

On the shop issue, I´m afraid I fail to see how such a thing would have been left out on Lewis´ behalf when she told her story. Her loiterer is placed in one spot and one spot only, and that is in the doorway of the dosshouse. The prevailing darkness, the rough weather and a slight recess of the dosshouse door would - to my mind - have been quite enough to allow him to stay undetected by Lewis until she turned into the court. If she had not seen him at that stage either, I would not be surprised.

As for Bond´s estimated time of death being a key factor in dismissing Hutchinson, I think we must accept that there was much confusion over how quickly the body would cool off, having been torn to shreds. Phillips - a man with vast experience - made another estimation, and Maxwell, claiming that Kelly was alive long into the morning hours, was accepted as an inquest witness.

Bond´s timing would perhaps have had some peripheral influence on the decision to drop Hutchinson, but only in the context that it lent itself to strengthening the reasoning. No more than that - if anything at all. That´s my take, anyway!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben!

You will, I trust, forgive for not replying to your post. You and I have been over this too many times already, and the reason I participate now is not to once more discuss this with you. I´m here to do so with other posters.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Hi Christer.

An interesting thought, Jon - that Abberline put faith in Hutchinson primarily because he seemed to fit the Lewis evidence.

Not "primarily" Christer, I said "a contributing factor".

Still, I think you are wrong. And the reason lies very much in our agreement on Abberline´s superior knowledge of the details. For if he immediately recognized the potential corroboration of the Lewis and the Hutchinson testimony as regards the so called loiterer - then why did he not ask Hutchinson about whether he saw Lewis or not?

Such questions as this would have been included on the interrogation paperwork, which no longer exists. Abberline's Report to his superiors only provides a few brief points.
So yes, Hutchinson would have been asked, and his reply written down, but its gone.

On the shop issue, I´m afraid I fail to see how such a thing would have been left out on Lewis´ behalf when she told her story.

Well, we can only guess why that bit was left out, likewise we can only guess why she never mentioned walking down Dorset St.
She may or may not have stepped into the shop, but she certainly did walk down Dorset St. but she left that out too.

As for Bond´s estimated time of death being a key factor in dismissing Hutchinson, I think we must accept that there was much confusion over how quickly the body would cool off, having been torn to shreds. Phillips - a man with vast experience - made another estimation,

Apparently, Bond's report was with the corroboration of Dr. Phillips.

“..Dr. Phillips has only vaguely indicated to the local police the result of his investigations, but a report on the question has, it has been asserted, been jointly made by him and Dr. Bond, and submitted to Sir Charles Warren."
The Echo, 10 Nov. 1888.

The wording does not indicate that Phillips and Bond held different opinions on the subject at this stage (on the 10th).

Regards, Jon S.