A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Thatīs why I am saying that if that man was Hutchinson, then Hutchinson must have given up his stance at the corner of the court and crossed the street.

But there is no evidence that Hutchinson adopted any "stance at the corner of the court" until after he went into the court itself, which, according to his press interviews, was the last thing he did before allegedly departing the scene and heading off on an all night walkabout. Prior to that, and according to his police statement, he went "to the court" to see if Kelly and Astrakhan would "come out". In other words, he walked not into the court, but outside it, which would place him anywhere in Dorset Street that resided in front of the court. A very small area really, but one with nevertheless encompassed the spot outside Crosssingham's.

Abberline would have known full well that the area outside Crossingham's was interchangeable with the area outside the court. Lewis' loiterer and Hutchinson were standing in irrefutably the same location, and engaging in ostensibly the same behaviour, i.e. watching and waiting for someone to emerge from the court. No amount of pedantry over a matter of ten feet is going to change that.

If you're really so worried that I'm the reason people are choosing to accept that wideawake man was Hutchinson, why not simply provide a link to the previous argument? It doesn't really make sense to repeat it all again unless you're worried that your earlier attempts to expose my wrongness on the subject didn't work out very well. It's all here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5262

Hi Jon,

As previously stated, it suggests very strongly that Dr. Bond's estimate carried considerably more clout with Warren & Anderson than some are prepared to accept.

Hutchinson's discrediting had absolutely nothing to do with Bond's time of death, which, incidentally, was not accepted without question by the police. On the contrary, it is quite clear from other sources that the police considered the mutually corroborative evidence of Lewis and Prater to be a rough guide in that respect. The Echo makes perfectly clear the reasons for Hutchinson's evidence being "considerably discounted", and it involved his lateness in coming forward and the inevitable impact this had on his credibility.

While we're on the subject of the Echo, it is quite clear that they obtained some of their information directly from the police, and in several cases, we know that the information supplied was 100% accurate. It was irrefutably one of the better informed newspapers reporting on the crimes.

All the best,
Ben

[Observer]

But not the one in which Abberline documents the fact that he has interrogated Hutchinson and considers him to be a truthful witness.

An even more important report is missing though is it not? The report which would explain why the police considered Hutchinsons statement was considered much reduced in value shortly after they considered him a truthful witness

Prudent approach.

It is indeed

[lynn cates]

Is there an "Echo" in here?

Hello Colin. Did you have a particular problem with "The Echo" or is it just a case of, Beware of news reports?

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

The thing is all the police reports are lost.

But not the one in which Abberline documents the fact that he has interrogated Hutchinson and considers him to be a truthful witness.

I would take everything the Echo reported with a very very large pinch of salt though.

Prudent approach.

[Wickerman]

...There is no evidence that Hutchinson was ever considered a suspect. The fact that a "reduced importance" was attached to his account suggests very strongly that the police had suspicions about his account, rather than being in possession of actual proof that his account was false.

As previously stated, it suggests very strongly that Dr. Bond's estimate carried considerably more clout with Warren & Anderson than some are prepared to accept.
Without labeling Hutchinson a liar, the police were "induced" to realign their inquiries, Hutchinson's claim must be shelved in favor of an earlier suspect. Right or wrong, that was the moment of a significant turn in the direction of the investigation.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman

I believe Hutchinson became a bit of an embarressment to Abberline when he learnt that he had pulled the wool over his eyes.

Lets not forget that two detectives accompanied Hutchinson as they scoured the area looking for Mr A. Notice would have been taken of this by the press, and they were only too ready to lambast the police should they end up with egg on their faces.

Let sleeping dogs lie comes to mind when Hutchinson was found to be telling porkiies. Hence the newspaper report of a "reduced importance," rather than total discreditment when it came to Hutchinsons story. That way the police lead the press to believe that Hutchinson was a witness of sorts, and not tottaly discredited. In short, total discreditment would have meant that the police would have had to reveal to the press that they had been completely hoodwinked by Hutchinson. Considering the pressure they were under to catch the killer, I don't think they would have been best pleased with Mr Hutchinson.

Dew simply stuck to the policy of the time. Hurchinson was an embaressment to the police, so tell all and sundry he was a reliable witness, of sorts

Just my take on things of course.

Regards

Observer

Yes, just your take, Observer. And thatīs fine. But I think that we have no proof at all that Hutchinson told porkies, so Iīd prefer a verdict of "not proven" when it comes to his culpability.

And Dew - why would he follow procedure fifty years after the events, when he had not been tied to the force for decades...? Is it not simpler, better and more logical not to twist what he said, and just accept it?

I know I do.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"He didn't need to have "traversed" the street, Fisherman. His evidence is perfectly compatible with the location of the wideawake man seen by Sarah Lewis - immediately outside Crossingham's lodging house and opposite the court. His behaviour is even more consistent with the wideawake man's. And by the way, he only left the corner of Miller's Court because the last thing he did before allegedly departing the scene was to venture into Miller's Court itself and hover outside Kelly's window. No reference to this activity at all in his police statement, naturally."

Lewisīman was apparently standing in the doorway of Crossinghams. Thatīs why I am saying that if that man was Hutchinson, then Hutchinson must have given up his stance at the corner of the court and crossed the street. And there is no evidence saying that he did.


"If someone is reported to have been standing outside the Miller's Court entrance, they would also have been standing outside Crossingham's."

In a sense, yes. That somebody would be outside ALL the buildings in the street. But what I am saying is that no matter how narrow you say that street was, Hutchinsonīs story could still have been geographically incompatible with Lewisīditto. And that is what counts here, since it opens up the possibility that Abberline was able to conclude that the two could not have been one and the same. We cannot possibly diminish the two areas - the space by the door at Crossinghams and the space at the corner of the court - so much that they melt into one space only. Ten feet can be very crucial in this context.

"Okay, you've reacted now, and I've responded, and we're making no more progress than we did when we discussed this ad nauseum on the other thread, which I'd hate to have to copy and paste from."

To be perfectly honest, I did not expect you to change your mind. But I wanted to point out that you placed Hutchinson in a position in which he never confessed to have been standing at. Plus I wanted to point to how this discrepancy may lie behind the dismissal of the Hutchinson story.

Not for you, Ben. Fot those who uncritically accepted your placing of Hutchinson. SO if you are to copy and paste anything at all, then copy and paste proof that Hutchinson ever stood directly outside the door of Crossinghams. Then , and only then, will it make a difference.

The best,
Fisherman

[Observer]

Can't argue with a personal hunch, Observer, although I would caution very strongly against positing the existence of "lost reports" to support a proposition. There is no evidence that Hutchinson was ever considered a suspect. The fact that a "reduced importance" was attached to his account suggests very strongly that the police had suspicions about his account, rather than being in possession of actual proof that his account was false.

Cheers,
Ben

No problem Ben. Each to his own as they say.

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

Observer:

"Very hard Fisherman! The thing is all the police reports are lost. I would take everything the Echo reported with a very very large pinch of salt though. Wasn't it the Echo which reported that the piece of envelope bearing the Sussex Regiment address was found next to Polly Nichols body. And the interview with John Kelly melodramatic or what?"

Mmm - papers can be very unreliable. But in this case, Dew asserts us that Hutchinson was a stand-up witness with honest intents, and no report or no article has anything detrimental to say about him (only about his story) so I see corroboration here.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman

I believe Hutchinson became a bit of an embarressment to Abberline when he learnt that he had pulled the wool over his eyes.

Lets not forget that two detectives accompanied Hutchinson as they scoured the area looking for Mr A. Notice would have been taken of this by the press, and they were only too ready to lambast the police should they end up with egg on their faces.

Let sleeping dogs lie comes to mind when Hutchinson was found to be telling porkiies. Hence the newspaper report of a "reduced importance," rather than total discreditment when it came to Hutchinsons story. That way the police lead the press to believe that Hutchinson was a witness of sorts, and not tottaly discredited. In short, total discreditment would have meant that the police would have had to reveal to the press that they had been completely hoodwinked by Hutchinson. Considering the pressure they were under to catch the killer, I don't think they would have been best pleased with Mr Hutchinson.

Dew simply stuck to the policy of the time. Hurchinson was an embaressment to the police, so tell all and sundry he was a reliable witness, of sorts

Just my take on things of course.

Regards

Observer

[Ben]

I believe that after police enquiry he was found to be tucked up in bed, in the Victoria Home, during the whole Mary Kelly drama.

Can't argue with a personal hunch, Observer, although I would caution very strongly against positing the existence of "lost reports" to support a proposition. There is no evidence that Hutchinson was ever considered a suspect. The fact that a "reduced importance" was attached to his account suggests very strongly that the police had suspicions about his account, rather than being in possession of actual proof that his account was false.

Cheers,
Ben

[Ben]

And you will no doubt appreciate that much as you think it a near certainty that Hutchinson must have traversed the street, there is not a iot mentioned about it anywhere.

He didn't need to have "traversed" the street, Fisherman. His evidence is perfectly compatible with the location of the wideawake man seen by Sarah Lewis - immediately outside Crossingham's lodging house and opposite the court. His behaviour is even more consistent with the wideawake man's. And by the way, he only left the corner of Miller's Court because the last thing he did before allegedly departing the scene was to venture into Miller's Court itself and hover outside Kelly's window. No reference to this activity at all in his police statement, naturally.

But it stands as a fact that no report and no newspaper article ever speaks of him standing outside Crossinghams

Yes there is, actually.

If someone is reported to have been standing outside the Miller's Court entrance, they would also have been standing outside Crossingham's. It was impossible to avoid, given that we're talking about an area circumscribed by less than ten feet. Two of my supine body lengths would be greater than the distance you're talking about. It counts for absolutely nothing, and the distinction is utterly meaningless.

Thatīs why I reacted.

Okay, you've reacted now, and I've responded, and we're making no more progress than we did when we discussed this ad nauseum on the other thread, which I'd hate to have to copy and paste from.

All the best,
Ben

[Observer]

Hi Observer,
That only follows if the police continued to believe that Hutchinson really was there that night. The overwhelmingly strong likelihood, however, is that after his credibility was doubted and his account discredited, he was adjudged to have been a mere two-a-penny publicity/money-seeker who wasn't there when he said he was. Were they wrong in making that determination? Perhaps so, but it there is no indication that Hutchinson was ever connected to Lewis' wideawake man (as he ought to have been), and the precedent for fame-seeking witnesses had been very much set.


All the best,
Ben

Absolutely. And I truly believe that he wasn't anywhere near the place. I believe that after police enquiry he was found to be tucked up in bed, in the Victoria Home, during the whole Mary Kelly drama.

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

And yet there is apparently no sign that he was ever considered a suspect. I mean, it's not as if the police didn't know where he lived, is it? Yet no reports of his having been taken into custody as a suspect. So again, if he was discredited, it seems more likely that he was considered to be a time waster, perhaps hoping to make some money out of it - a chancer.

Hi Sally

There are no surviving documents that he was ever considered a suspect, I'd agree. It's my opinion that they once existed though. As for being a chancer, I think you've hit the nail on the head. I don't think he was anywhere near Millers Court on the morning in question.

Observer

[Fisherman]

Observer:

"Very hard Fisherman! The thing is all the police reports are lost. I would take everything the Echo reported with a very very large pinch of salt though. Wasn't it the Echo which reported that the piece of envelope bearing the Sussex Regiment address was found next to Polly Nichols body. And the interview with John Kelly melodramatic or what?"

Mmm - papers can be very unreliable. But in this case, Dew asserts us that Hutchinson was a stand-up witness with honest intents, and no report or no article has anything detrimental to say about him (only about his story) so I see corroboration here.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Observer,

Hi Fisherman,

I think, if you don't mind, we've already done that one to death. You know precisely how I feel about Hutchinson's location. I feel that it would be taking pedantry to the absolute extreme by making any meaningful distinction between the area immediately in front of Crossingham's and the area immediately in front of the Miller's Court entrance. A matter of eight feet separated these two location, and most sane people who remain STANDING in one spot for any length of time tend to move around a bit, especially if it's cold. In short, there is not the remotest contradiction between Hutchinson and Lewis with regard to the loitering man's location.

But I'm sure you know very well that this is how I feel on the subject, just as you know how I feel on the subject of the proposed "date confusion". The Echo report makes clear that the reason for Hutchinson's discrediting was inextricably linked to the question of his honesty.

All the best,
Ben

The devil, as you know Ben, is in the details. And you will no doubt appreciate that much as you think it a near certainty that Hutchinson must have traversed the street, there is not a iot mentioned about it anywhere. To my mind, if Hutchinson felt he needed to warm himself, he could just as well have walked back and forth directly outside the passageway leading into the court.

He may of course also have scaled the wall of Crossinghams ten times to keep warm. We donīt know, as no complete list of movements on his behalf is supplies. But it stands as a fact that no report and no newspaper article ever speaks of him standing outside Crossinghams, whereas there is recorded evidence of him standing at the corner of the court, and also of him stating that he stood wher he stood for fortyfive minutes.

Therefore, no matter how you feel about it, and no matter how well I know your sentiments, it is not grounded in the evidence to state that Hutchinson stood opposite the court - at Crossinghams, as it were - for any remove of time at all.

Thatīs why I reacted.

The best,
Fisherman