A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[Fisherman]

Hi Jon!

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

Aha - sorry if I misunderstood you. Anyways, my answer is the same, I should say.

"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."

True - but not necessarily (and to my mind probably not) tied to the interrogation we have on record. My guess is that the connection between Lewis and Hutchinson was not discovered until after some short time - hence Abberlines enthusiasm, much lessened when the circumstances surrounding the two witnesses´ presence in Dorset Street became clear.

"Well, we can only guess why that bit was left out, likewise we can only guess why she never mentioned walking down Dorset St."

But Jon, unless she flew or made her way by means of telepathy, she MUST have walked down Dorset Street. It kind of goes without saying, does it not? The leaving out of any mentioning on Hutchinsons behalf that ghe saw or did not see Lewis would be much more of a mystery. We can guess, just like you say, but no guess could be logically grounded and funtioning as far as I can see. If it came up during the interrogation, it should have been in the report.

"She may or may not have stepped into the shop, but she certainly did walk down Dorset St. but she left that out too."

I´m sorry, but I do not for a moment think that she went into the shop, and moitted to say so at the inquest - or to the police. Nor do I think that she DID say it, but had it left out by the ones who reported. I see no reason at all to surmise that she ever went into the shop. Do you?

"The wording does not indicate that Phillips and Bond held different opinions on the subject at this stage"

A joint report does not necessarily mean that they agreed in detail about everything, Jon, as I think you wioll appreciate. And both Bond and Phillips made it very clear that it was a very difficult call, establishing the TOD; Bond said that rigor mortis could appear anywhere between 6-12 hours after death, and it was apparent that it had set it but not fully as Kelly was examined, so that leaves us with a six-hour gap, and not a two-hour gap only. Bond primarily went by the state of the food in her stomach to try and establish the time, and he did niot say that one or two would be the correct time - he said it would to his mind be the probable estimate.

Phillips, on the other hand, said that Kelly had been dead for some five or six hours as he saw her at around eleven o clock, so he opted for around five or six in the morning. And as far as I can tell, the joint report may well have offered both gentlemens´views - or a generously spaced time - or the information that the TOD was very hard to establish. All three examples would represent a "corroboration", Jon.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Hi Christer.

"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."

True - but not necessarily (and to my mind probably not) tied to the interrogation we have on record.

What we have on record is only a voluntary statement, the witness is not questioned while this type of statement is made.

My guess is that the connection between Lewis and Hutchinson was not discovered until after some short time - hence Abberlines enthusiasm, much lessened when the circumstances surrounding the two witnesses´ presence in Dorset Street became clear.

I would think Abberline saw the connection during the interrogation.

"Well, we can only guess why that bit was left out, likewise we can only guess why she never mentioned walking down Dorset St."

[B]But Jon, unless she flew or made her way by means of telepathy, she MUST have walked down Dorset Street.

It does go without saying, yes. Though if this loiterer was involved in the murder the Coroner should be interested in when he appeared, and, if Lewis saw him standing there as she approached Millers Court then the Coroner should be interested in this.
Lewis could have witnessed any number of people or activities in the street which might have had a bearing on the murder, but there is no mention at all.

I'm not saying this is suspicious, I'm saying the first time she saw the loiterer was when she entered the passage, but that requires an explanation.
However, if she saw nobody suspicious in Dorset St., then this may be why her story begins with her first sighting of him, ie; he was not there several minutes before, but as she did not see him appear, then she was not in the street when he did appear - so where was she?

I see no reason at all to surmise that she ever went into the shop. Do you?

Well, Mrs McCarthy spoke to someone that morning.

"Mrs McCarthy herself gives a slight clue as to a person who was seen in the court early on Friday morning, as one of her customers remarked to her – before the murder was known - “I saw such a funny man up the court this morning”. Mrs McCarthy says she has been so worried by the shocking affair that she cannot now remember the customer who thus spoke to her."
The Echo Wed. Nov. 14 1888

Whoever spoke to Mrs McCarthy, it was not a tenant, just a customer whom should could not remember the name. The possibility exists it was Lewis, it could have been anybody yes, but "anybody" includes Sarah Lewis.

[B]A joint report does not necessarily mean that they agreed in detail about everything, Jon, as I think you wioll appreciate. And both Bond and Phillips made it very clear that it was a very difficult call,

Phillips never spoke to the press, some media reports do credit with him giving his opinion but he was 'old school', he would not talk to the press. His assistant may have, but thats hearsay.
In short, we do not know what conclusions Dr. Philips arrived at, he was not allowed to present his findings.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

Jon:

"What we have on record is only a voluntary statement, the witness is not questioned while this type of statement is made."

Correct - the interrogation was something that followed upon the witness statement and was shaped by it. And I still say that the connection and it´s implications were not dealed with - at least not in extenso - until AFTER Abberline had had time to process the material. That is why it took a day or two before Hutchinson´s story became of a much lesser value, if you ask me.

"I would think Abberline saw the connection during the interrogation."

If so, then what had Hutchinsons story sunk was not any discrepancies or anomalies tied to the connection. And of course, it need not have been so. Hutchinson could simply have claimed that he had done something on the morning of the 9:th that was not possible to do at that stage, whereas it WAS possible to do on the 8:th, or something like that.
It´s just that I think that Hutchinson´s story puts him at the corner of the court - on the NORTHERN side of Dorset Street, that is, whereas Lewis places her loiterer on the SOUTHERN side of it. And Hutchinson says "I stood there for fortyfive minutes" or something such, plus he says that he left from the corner of the court when he left. Plus he does not mention Lewis in the report. Taken together, that is quite enough to make a very good case for Lewis´ loiterer not being Hutchinson, something that I think is underlined by the fact that no mentioning of such a connection is there in any shape or form throughout all the press articles and all the memoirs. Instead we have Dew pointing to a mistake on Hutchinson´s behalf. To me, that more or less clinches it. If the connection had been made, it would have been of vital interest, and it would have strengthened Hutchinson´s candidacy as the best witness.

"if this loiterer was involved in the murder the Coroner should be interested in when he appeared, and, if Lewis saw him standing there as she approached Millers Court then the Coroner should be interested in this."

Arguably, yes. But a man standing still is hard to detect under the circumstances that prevailed, and I think the coroner simply had to accept that Lewis only sat the man as she reached the corner of the court. Lewis could of course not offer any information as to how long he had been there or where he had come from. He stood still at the dosshouse, that´s all.

"Lewis could have witnessed any number of people or activities in the street which might have had a bearing on the murder, but there is no mention at all."

And? She does mention a few other people in the vicinity and she mentions the man outside Crossinghams. To me, that reads those were the only people she saw.

"I'm not saying this is suspicious, I'm saying the first time she saw the loiterer was when she entered the passage, but that requires an explanation."

I´ve already given my view, Jon: Horrendeous weather, making her hurry along with the court in focus, not a night for taking in all external features, relative darkness meaning that the visual opportunities were impaired and the man was perhaps close to the door, standing in a shallow recess obscuring him. Also, when does the hunter see the wild boar - when it stands absolutely still, hiding in the shadows of the forest, or when it gets nervous and makes a sudden dash?
I don´t find it in the least suspicious or strange that she did not see the man until late in the process.

"if she saw nobody suspicious in Dorset St., then this may be why her story begins with her first sighting of him, ie; he was not there several minutes before, but as she did not see him appear, then she was not in the street when he did appear - so where was she?"

To be fair, her story begins before that stage, Jon. Lewis informs us that she had had a few words with her old man, and that she passes the church with it´s clock - she provides a background to her story.

Where was she when he appeared? On her way to Dorset Street, I´d say. The man places himself outside Crossinghams, and he may have come the east or the west, just as he may have come from within the house. At any rate, he stops outside the door, and stands still there. Then Lewis rounds the corner of Dorset Street, walks the shortish stretch to the court entrance, and as she turns the corner, she sees him standing there.
I see no problems at all here, Jon. And if you want me to guess, I´d say the man was perhaps coming from Crossinghams, opened the door, realized that it was a very foul night weatherwise, stooped down and looked out onto the street, having second thoughts about whether it was a good idea to leave the dosshouse or not - and then Lewis passed by, looked up and saw him and thought "What´s he looking at?", his gaze being fixed in her direction - the direction of the court.
How she concluded that he was actually looking up the court as if waiting for somebody to come out is more than I can understand ...!

Well, Mrs McCarthy spoke to someone that morning.

"Mrs McCarthy herself gives a slight clue as to a person who was seen in the court early on Friday morning, as one of her customers remarked to her – before the murder was known - “I saw such a funny man up the court this morning”. Mrs McCarthy says she has been so worried by the shocking affair that she cannot now remember the customer who thus spoke to her."
The Echo Wed. Nov. 14 1888

Whoever spoke to Mrs McCarthy, it was not a tenant, just a customer whom should could not remember the name. The possibility exists it was Lewis, it could have been anybody yes, but "anybody" includes Sarah Lewis.

Of course, "any customer" includes Sarah Lewis as a possibility. But Lewis would not say that she saw a strange man up the court! Well, maybe she would, but if she did, then she referred to somebody else but the loiterer - for he stood at Crossinghams.

"we do not know what conclusions Dr. Philips arrived at, he was not allowed to present his findings."

But he DID state his view: he opted for a TOD at around five or six in the morning.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Hi Christer.

Jon:

It´s just that I think that Hutchinson´s story puts him at the corner of the court - on the NORTHERN side of Dorset Street, that is, whereas Lewis places her loiterer on the SOUTHERN side of it.

Given the short distance between the two sides, this is immaterial.
Anyone spying on this couple from the top corner of the street will naturally walk down the south side of Dorset St., attempting to look all innocent and detached from the couple who have just disappeared up the passage.
Only when you are opposite, and sure no-one is about to come back out, will you feel safe enough to cross the road and stand at the passage entrance.
That's just human nature, he doesn't need to spell out his every step.

[B]I´ve already given my view, Jon: Horrendeous weather, making her hurry along with the court in focus, not a night for taking in all external features, relative darkness meaning that the visual opportunities were impaired and the man was perhaps close to the door, standing in a shallow recess obscuring him.

It was raining, on and off, that is all. The weather was nothing close to horrendous, besides, if Hutchinson can see a policeman walk across the top of Dorset St. 30? yds away then it is pretty certain one person can see another from just 30? feet away, across the street.

As it is, Lewis did see him standing opposite, so there is no excuse for her not to see him while she was walking down the street - except of course, if he had not yet arrived.

[B]To be fair, her story begins before that stage, Jon. Lewis informs us that she had had a few words with her old man, and that she passes the church with it´s clock - she provides a background to her story.

Lewis starts her story with her entering the passage, then adds the Wednesday night episode, and finally what she saw on her arrival at the Britannia, because this was the same man as she saw on Wednesday.
There is no continuous story, Lewis is obviously responding to questions, not telling a continuous narrative. Her story still begins with her entering the passage.

[B]But he DID state his view: he opted for a TOD at around five or six in the morning.

This estimate came from somewhere, I'll grant you that, but Phillips did not entertain the press, so whether he was overheard talking to the police, or his assistant Mr Clark actually provided the story I don't know.
Whatever the source, it was published on the Monday, so probably old news.
Much investigation had been done over the weekend, the long autopsy on Saturday morning would have provided a great deal more info than they knew on Friday afternoon.

In the absence of any written opinion from Dr Phillips I think it best to leave that 5-6 hrs estimate as dubious. Dr. Bond's estimate, with the collaboration of Dr. Phillips, is the only reliable opinion we have.

Regards, Jon S.

[Lechmere]

Ben
I know none of these theories are yours.
But don’t I remember you pooh-poohing Sugden’s theorising recently regarding the callousness of Paul and Cross/Lechmere?
On the ‘Murder’ cry- the Star only reported Prater and Kennedy as uttering it.
They did not cover Lewis’s testimony as they are an evening paper.
The first recorded person to recall the ‘Murder’ cry was Kennedy.
You claimed Kennedy was denounced by the Star – I pointed out that they were sceptical about her story on 10th but withdrew that scepticism by the 14th.
You interpret – interpret – the reports to suggest that Kennedy was a plagiariser. You state this as if it is a fact. It is your interpretation and the reports allow a totally different interpretation.

And it doesn’t matter a jot if you say for the umpteenth time X a thousand that Lewis’s wide-awake man was Hutchinson.
No one – not the ever enterprising Star, not the police, not any other newspaper, connected Hutchinson to Lewis’s man – so we can be pretty damn sure they were not one and the same.
I can appreciate that a main plank of your theory being unsustainable is very annoying, irritating and stressful.
I do not suggest that the police overlooked the ‘Lewis-Hutchinson connection’. I am suggesting there was no connection. No doubt one of the reasons Hutchinson was discounted.

Remind me again – how did Hutchinson discover what Lewis’s inquest evidence was prior to his appearance at Commercial Street Police Station?

Oh – there’s a little bit of difference between the police neglecting to look at Cross/Lechmere in a suspicious manner (which was clearly the case), and the Police failing to make the ‘Lewis-Hutchinson connection’(which you think they failed to do).

On the one hand we have ample evidence as to who the police did look on suspiciously in the very earliest days of the case – ‘Leather Apron’ from 1st September, the three jolly butchers, High Rip gang members and even Robert Paul. Never a mention of Cross and his real identity was never even established.
Furthermore Cross/Lechmere as an English householder and a man in regular employment was not in the category of person that the police regarded with suspicion. He did not conform to their stereotype, he did not meet their prejudice.

What has this to do with the police and the press failing to make the supposed ‘Lewis-Hutchinson connection’?
By mid November 188 the case was being poured over in immeasurably greater detail than in early September 1888.
Hutchinson was discussed by the press in great detail. He was interrogated by Abberline. He was taken out by the police looking for the A-man. He gave newspaper interviews.

Cross/Lechmere gave no interviews and there is no record of him being interrogated. His involvement was given no significance by the police or the press – in marked contrast to Hutchinson at least for a brief period.

[Michael W Richards]

I think one way to see this issue is the order in which witnesses came forward. Lewis's sighting and story were taken Friday, and rumours of it were around over the weekend and she gave her statement at the Inquest Monday. Hutchinsons story comes in Monday night, after the Inquest closed....and it seemingly confirms Sarah Lewis. Or...does it match with what Sarah Lewis claimed?

Thats the problem here. Did Hutch intentionally place himself in the shoes of the Lewis Wideawake Man?

When the extraordinary details of his suspect are given as if memorized, one wonders.

Cheers

[Ben]

But don’t I remember you pooh-poohing Sugden’s theorising recently regarding the callousness of Paul and Cross/Lechmere?

I didn't "pooh-pooh" it, Lechmere - you're right. I simply disagreed with it. What's the problem with me agreeing with some of Sugden's theories and not others?

You claimed Kennedy was denounced by the Star

No, I didn't. I claimed that the Star identified the phenomenon of women parrotting an "oh murder" account, and I observed that even if they failed to identify correctly the "parrottee" from the "parroters" (because Lewis, as we know, did not speak to the press), Kennedy's absence from the inquest and suspicious similarity with Lewis' genuine, original account establishes - beyond reasonable doubt, in my opinion - that she was one of the plagiarizers, and not the original witness, even if she appeared to be at the outset.

No one – not the ever enterprising Star, not the police, not any other newspaper, connected Hutchinson to Lewis’s man – so we can be pretty damn sure they were not one and the same.

It's not even worth my getting infuriating by such nonsense any more.

Some statements are just too obvious in their wrongness.

Look, your inference is a ludicrous one. The fact that no connection was alluded to only means that nobody noticed it, just as you allege that the police failed to consider the guilt of Cross when they ought to have done. The similarity between Lewis' "wideawake" loiterer and Hutchinson in terms of reported actions, movements and behaviour at the same location and at the same time is far too coincidental for the two to be separate people. That's just obvious. And yet we KNOW that it went unobserved even by the contemporary press. They published Hutchinson's account before they could conceivably have had a chance to discover that a potential Lewis-Hutchinson had been investigated and ruled out by the police (which is what you wrongly claim happened). The connection was there to be made, nobody had told them they'd spotted it or dismissed it beforehand, and yet they didn't notice it.

I can appreciate that a main plank of your theory being unsustainable is very annoying, irritating and stressful.

I wouldn't know, Lechers, but if that's the case, you must be feeling pretty annoyed, irritated and stressed out right now.

Remind me again – how did Hutchinson discover what Lewis’s inquest evidence was prior to his appearance at Commercial Street Police Station?

By word of mouth, by attending the inquest in person, or simply by noticing that Lewis was due to appear at the inquest. Sinch.

Oh – there’s a little bit of difference between the police neglecting to look at Cross/Lechmere in a suspicious manner (which was clearly the case), and the Police failing to make the ‘Lewis-Hutchinson connection’(which you think they failed to do).

Only if you phrase things in the above manner in a attempt to make your suggestion appear better than mine, but if we swap those parentheses around:

Oh – there’s a little bit of difference between the police neglecting to look at Cross/Lechmere in a suspicious manner (which you think they failed to do), and the Police failing to make the ‘Lewis-Hutchinson connection’ (which was clearly the case).

Ah, that's better. That's Tetley.

On the one hand we have ample evidence as to who the police did look on suspiciously in the very earliest days of the case – ‘Leather Apron’ from 1st September, the three jolly butchers, High Rip gang members and even Robert Paul. Never a mention of Cross and his real identity was never even established.

What about "lost reports"?

They're your favourite, remember?

You're forever positing the existence of "lost reports" in an attempt to weaken Hutchinson as a suspect. According to you, there "must" have been a document that said Hutchinson was checked out and discredited, there "must" have been a document that said Hutchinson wasn't Lewis' loiterer etc etc. No evidence at all, but you insist it was all there, once upon a time, in documents that are now lost. I turn that on its head now, and do the same for Cross. There "must" have been documents that revealed both Cross's real name, and the fact that he was investigated and ruled out as a suspect.

But the filing cabinet containing that document (and the Hutchinson ones) got bombed in the Blitz.

What an absolute bugger, eh?

Furthermore Cross/Lechmere as an English householder and a man in regular employment was not in the category of person that the police regarded with suspicion. He did not conform to their stereotype, he did not meet their prejudice.

Nor did Hutchinson.

There was certainly no "prejudice" against people who approached the police voluntarily as witness.

Hutchinson was discussed by the press in great detail. He was interrogated by Abberline. He was taken out by the police looking for the A-man. He gave newspaper interviews.

Yes, as a witness.

He was then discredited, apparently as a bogus false witness a la Packer and Violenia.

But there is no evidence, or indeed any good reason to suppose, that he was ever treated as a suspect.

Cross/Lechmere gave no interviews and there is no record of him being interrogated

So you're suggesting he had no police contact at all after PC Mizen?

Next time you pick a fight, it's advisable that you stick to the arguments that don't expose terrible double-standards.

Regards,
Ben

[Lechmere]

I don’t think there was a report that Hutchinson wasn’t Lewis’s loiterer – I think it was probably too obvious for the Police to report on. No doubt Hutchinson wasn’t ‘not tall but stout. Instead he probably had a military appearance of some sort and didn’t sport a wide-awake hat.

On Charles Lechmere – we know the police were still calling him Cross on 18th October 1988. There isn’t a lack of reports in his case. And we have accounts that state clearly who was under suspicion in the early days of the case. And we have good old Dew forgetting his very inconsequential name (unlike Hutch and Robert Paul).

Hutchinson met two of the police’s prejudicial stereotypes – he was a lodging house dweller and was not in regular employment.

Cleary Charles Lechmere did have contact with the police after he duped Mizen. He must have otherwise he wouldn’t have attended the inquest. He must have presented himself and given an interview – but this has been discussed elsewhere at length.
He did not give any press interviews.
We know nothing of him being interrogated by Abberline.
I prefer to work with what we know.

[Michael W Richards]

I fail to see how comparing Hutchinson's situation with "Cross's" validates either party. Unless Im missing something here.

Using witnesses that the contemporary police in fact did not believe gave true and/or accurate statements....(like Hutchinson, within days,... Caroline Maxwell, Pearly Poll, Mary Malcolm, Mathew Packer,...etc..),..when making arguments that legitimate events were recorded by these people is an odd and selective use of the historical data, to be sure.

Are we to trust witnesses that have but a moment of trust? Are we to believe in these people just because in some cases.. briefly... they were once believed by the authorities?

We have the luxury of looking back in time and seeing the witnesses vetted...we can see the follow up when it exists, we can read ahead in the storyline...so why would we bog ourselves down with something that was deemed without merit in the investigation at that time?

Best regards

[Ben]

Exactly, Mike. I've spent a number of pages on this thread trying to impress this upon a few people, to little avail.

Hi Lechmere,

No doubt Hutchinson wasn’t ‘not tall but stout. Instead he probably had a military appearance of some sort and didn’t sport a wide-awake hat.

I'm sorry, but this just gets worse and worse.

There is no evidence for any of this, so where exactly are you getting it from, if not from an imaginary, non-existent "lost report"? I've explained already in extensive detail that no connection was made between Lewis and Hutchinson only because said connection wasn't noticed, and certainly not because a connection was ruled out. For those of us with leisure time to assess the evidence from a distance (unlike the embattled, hassled, nascent 1888 police force) the connection is a strong and obvious one, even if it was only noticed in the 1980s/90s.

The press sketch of Hutchinson depicts someone not tall, stout, and wearing a wideawake-type hat, which tallies very well with the description provided by Lewis. Coincidence? Noperama. So let's not turn him into a non-wideawake-wearing tall, thin man on the basis of absolutely no evidence. That would just be the wrong thing to do, comically so.

On Charles Lechmere – we know the police were still calling him Cross on 18th October 1988.

Only because that's what he was known as at the time of the Nichols murder, and because a tangential note in the margin saying "...and by the way, guys, guess what? His name wasn't really Cross, it was Lechmere. Just throwin' it out there..." might not have been worthwhile or even appropriate.

And we have accounts that state clearly who was under suspicion in the early days of the case.

Just as we do in November 1888, and they didn't include Hutchinson.

Hutchinson met two of the police’s prejudicial stereotypes – he was a lodging house dweller and was not in regular employment

I'm not seeing too much evidence that these two traits raised alarm bells in 1888. Foreign - no. Jewish - no. Butcher - no. Mad - no. Co-operative voluntary witness who might be making it up for money or attention - Maybe.

Cleary Charles Lechmere did have contact with the police after he duped Mizen.

No convincing evidence that he duped Mizen, actually, but why so sure they this "contact with the police" didn't take the form of an interrogation a la Hutchinson/Abberline?

I prefer to work with what we know.

A laudable approach, Lechmere, but it's important that you stick to it, and that means accepting and acknowledging that we have no evidence that the Hutchinson-Lewis connection was ever registered, and no evidence that he was ever investigated or dismissed as a suspect. Such an acknowledgement would be refreshingly consistent with a "work with that we know approach", and for my part, I'd happily acknowledge the lack of evidence that Cross was ever considered a suspect.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

I think one way to see this issue is the order in which witnesses came forward. Lewis's sighting and story were taken Friday, and rumours of it were around over the weekend and she gave her statement at the Inquest Monday. Hutchinsons story comes in Monday night, after the Inquest closed....and it seemingly confirms Sarah Lewis. Or...does it match with what Sarah Lewis claimed?

Thats the problem here. Did Hutch intentionally place himself in the shoes of the Lewis Wideawake Man?

When the extraordinary details of his suspect are given as if memorized, one wonders.

Cheers

Hi Mike.

Hypothetically then, lets just say he chose to place himself in the role. What is the need for this Astrachan-looking-guy, when everyone knew what the real suspects looked like from the various descriptions published by the police?

Regards, Jon S.

[Sally]

..no connection was made between Lewis and Hutchinson only because said connection wasn't noticed, and certainly not because a connection was ruled out. For those of us with leisure time to assess the evidence from a distance (unlike the embattled, hassled, nascent 1888 police force) the connection is a strong and obvious one, even if it was only noticed in the 1980s/90s.

Yep, you might have something there Ben. I mean, it seems pretty obvious today; but I wonder if that's only because we've already made the connection.

You have to ask why it took so long for modern commentators to come up with the connection - maybe it wasn't so immediately obvious as some of us are assuming. The impression I get is that the police at the time were more interested in that naughty well-dressed foreign chap than the witness who'd encountered him.

[Garry Wroe]

It's also possible, Sally, that Abberline did make the connection, and that this in part is what convinced him of Hutchinson's truthfulness at the time of the police interview. As Ben says, however, there is no documentary evidence either in the newspaper reports or police files to confirm that such a connection was made.

[Sally]

It's also possible, Sally, that Abberline did make the connection, and that this in part is what convinced him of Hutchinson's truthfulness at the time of the police interview. As Ben says, however, there is no documentary evidence either in the newspaper reports or police files to confirm that such a connection was made.

Yes, Garry, I've often thought that, as well - and it must remain a possibility. That said, I do think there's some merit in the idea that an overburdened police force simply didn't make the connection - curious as that might seem to us now.

[Wickerman]

However over burdened the whole police force was, Abberline had his own duties to perform independent of the rest of the force. He interviewed potential suspects, and in this case, both Lewis and Hutchinson.

Abberline had both statements in his possession, that of Lewis and that of Hutchinson, the only two people who claimed to have been in Dorset St. that night, at that time. We cannot possibly entertain the idea that he forgot what Lewis had claimed.

It is no overburdening task for a lead investigator to put two and two together.

Regards, Jon S.