For me only 2 suspects stand out...

[Ben]

So what is the importance of coming forward at the inquest? - nothing really.

Nobody has suggested that it was "important" for him to have come forward "at" the inquest. If he was a genuine witness and a genuine three-year acquaintance of the deceased, the overwhelming likelihood is that he would have come forward as soon as he learned of the murder, i.e. well in advance of the inquest. The "actual timing of him coming forward" would most assuredly have "mattered" to the police, since it had a direct and unavoidable bearing on his credibility. What happened in reality, of course, is that Hutchinson's decision to make himself and his story known to the police "coincided" with the closure of the inquest, inviting the obvious conclusion that he timed it that way.

"If that were the case then Hutchinson is not likely to tell police he stood opposite Millers Court, when there was another witness (Lewis) who said she saw a man opposite Millers Court, at the same time, same night."

"Not likely" according to whom? There are well-documented examples of liars, killers and serial killers coming forward over the decades since 1888 with false explanations for their presence or activity after having been clocked by other witnesses, often under the false guise of a witness or informant. I'm afraid none of us have any business declaring that Hutchinson would not have behaved in a similar fashion if he was the killer.

[Ben]

Again Jon the theory relies on the cops being idiots and not doing the basics.

What "basics" are you talking about, GUT? And what "theory", for that matter?

Do you mean that Abberline ought to have registered that Hutchinson must have been the "wideawake" man from Lewis's account, and engineered a "viewing" session accordingly? What would it have achieved, though; that's the more important consideration. If she had confirmed that Hutchinson was indeed the man in question, what then? All that would have been established was that Hutchinson was there, at that particular moment, when he said he was. It would not have confirmed any other aspect of his story than that.

The reality, of course, is that no connection was made between Lewis's man and Hutchinson, and if anyone thinks that points to "idiocy" on the part of the police, perhaps they could explain why not a single member of the press inferred a connection either.

[GUT]

What "basics" are you talking about, GUT? And what "theory", for that matter?

Do you mean that Abberline ought to have registered that Hutchinson must have been the "wideawake" man from Lewis's account, and engineered a "viewing" session accordingly? What would it have achieved, though; that's the more important consideration. If she had confirmed that Hutchinson was indeed the man in question, what then? All that would have been established was that Hutchinson was there, at that particular moment, when he said he was. It would not have confirmed any other aspect of his story than that.

The reality, of course, is that no connection was made between Lewis's man and Hutchinson, and if anyone thinks that points to "idiocy" on the part of the police, perhaps they could explain why not a single member of the press inferred a connection either.

The theory Abby puts forward.

[Wickerman]

Nobody has suggested that it was "important" for him to have come forward "at" the inquest. If he was a genuine witness and a genuine three-year acquaintance of the deceased, the overwhelming likelihood is that he would have come forward as soon as he learned of the murder,...

Oh, like Lawende did you mean? - oh wait, the police had to find him didn't they, Lawende didn't even come forward late, he didn't bother coming at all!

So Lawende may not have been an honest witness either, by your sense of logic?

Where do you get this idea that honest witnesses must be jostling for position, like boxing-day at Harrods, to get in the police station to tell their story?
Agatha Christie, perhaps?
The real world isn't like that, quite often "joe" witness doesn't want to get involved.

The "actual timing of him coming forward" would most assuredly have "mattered" to the police, since it had a direct and unavoidable bearing on his credibility.

"He had reasons", so we are told, for not coming forward.
Whatever that reason was it didn't perturb Abberline any, which indicates it didn't matter, and in reality, coming forward late wouldn't matter.

"Not likely" according to whom?

Basic logic Ben.
Assuming Hutchinson avoided coming to the inquest for fear of being identified, he is obviously not going to tell the police that he was one of the unknown characters referred to at the inquest.

"Oh, I wasn't at the inquest because I didn't want them knowing I was there that night, so I went to the police and told them I was there instead!".

When we've all stopped laughing, perhaps you might explain the logic in that?

[Wickerman]

The reality, of course, is that no connection was made between Lewis's man and Hutchinson, and if anyone thinks that points to "idiocy" on the part of the police, perhaps they could explain why not a single member of the press inferred a connection either.

And, by extension, when we consider all the modern accusations and suspicions thrown at Hutchinson, not a single member of the contemporary press inferred the same - idiocy perhaps?

Due to police records being no longer available "we" (or specifically, you) have "no business" declaring the police did not make the connection.

What is for certain, as "we" (all of us) are able to do it today, the police of the time were equally capable of making the same basic connection between Lewis's "loiterer", and Hutchinson's "loitering".

[Ben]

“Oh, like Lawende did you mean? - oh wait, the police had to find him didn't they, Lawende didn't even come forward late, he didn't bother coming at all!”!

I’ve dealt with this embarrassment of an argument already, just a few posts ago.

Lawende was traced before the inquest into Eddowes' murder. We are therefore in no position to speculate as to whether or not he would have come forward of his own volition, had he not been tracked down first. He doesn’t compare in the slightest with Hutchinson, who lived a few hundred yards away from the crime scene, claimed to have known the victim for three years, and yet failed to come forward for three whole days – only deciding to end his silence as soon as the inquest terminated. Your crass and inappropriate attempt to draw a parallel between a Boxing Day shopper and a murder witness, alerting the police at the earliest opportunity, is deeply disturbing. The former is acting out of pure self-interest, whereas we might imagine that an honest witness, conscious that he might have seen something of vital importance in connection with his friend’s brutal murder, would wish to alert the police as soon as possible.

“"He had reasons", so we are told, for not coming forward.”

Some inaccurate dog-turd error-strewn article "told" us that, yes, but according to more reputable sources, it was “not” ascertained why he did not put himself immediately in communication with the police.

"Oh, I wasn't at the inquest because I didn't want them knowing I was there that night, so I went to the police and told them I was there instead!".

When we've all stopped laughing, perhaps you might explain the logic in that?”

Who’s this “all” you’ve conjured up? That same imaginary chorus of supporters who supposedly egged you on all the way through your “Isaacstrakhan” nonsense, right up to the moment you finally abandoned the idea after proving it impossible? If this is going to be another tiresome year of you wading into every Hutchinson thread available, you might do your fellow debaters the courtesy of paying attention: my suggestion was that Hutchinson did not come forward until after he learned what was divulged at the inquest, or rather who was intending to divulge it. Prior to the inquest, before he could possibly have been aware that Lewis was due to appear there, I’m quite sure he had no intention of attending it in person, being at that time relatively secure in the assumption that nobody had seen him at the murder scene.

And, by extension, when we consider all the modern accusations and suspicions thrown at Hutchinson, not a single member of the contemporary press inferred the same

Oh, but they did, remember? The articles you kept trying to dismiss on flimsier and flimsier grounds, inconvenient as they were to your outdated "theories".

Due to police records being no longer available "we" (or specifically, you) have "no business" declaring the police did not make the connection

So why would the police have made the connection and not a single member of the press? Virtually every newspaper had access to both Lewis's inquest evidence and Hutchinson's press interview, and yet in none of them do we see any suggestion that Lewis's man might have been Hutchinson. That crap "lost records" excuse won't avail you with this one, I'm afraid. If the press made the connection, it would most certainly have appeared "on record", and yet not a squeak.

[nicole]

Hi all,

Posted by Harry D

If the man Sarah Lewis witnessed was George Hutchinson, and his version of events seems to corroborate that, then he would definitely take precedent over Lechmere, since:
* He allegedly knew the victim (many theorize that MJK's killer was known to her).
* He was staking out the crime scene.
* He didn't come forward until AFTER the inquest.
* He came up with an implausible suspect description.

Hutchinson and Lechmere have always been persons that need more scrutinizing IMHO, but there is one other character who places himself at the exact site of a murder, very close to the time of the murder and with a knife in his hand. That is John Richardson, who claims to have sat on the back step of 29 Hanbury Street.

There are several interesting characters that need a second look.

Nicole

[Wickerman]

I’ve dealt with this embarrassment of an argument already, just a few posts ago.

Lawende was traced before the inquest into Eddowes' murder.

Let me jog your short-term memory...

....the overwhelming likelihood is that he would have come forward as soon as he learned of the murder, i.e. well in advance of the inquest.

Well, Lawende did neither.
Being "found" before the inquest is not "coming forward" before the inquest.
Here's a suggestion Ben, when you attempt to "deal" with an argument, try make sure you understand the argument first.

Some inaccurate dog-turd error-strewn article "told" us that, yes,..

Pure class Ben, not sure what class, but.... true to form at least.

Hutchinson did not come forward until after he learned what was divulged at the inquest, or rather who was intending to divulge it.

Where does it say this, where are we told that Hutchinson learned anything in the hour or so between the inquest terminating and his appearance at Commercial St.?
I take this is another one of your assumptions that you have now cast in stone?

I’m quite sure he had no intention of attending it in person, being at that time relatively secure in the assumption that nobody had seen him at the murder scene.

Ah, you are "quite sure", not that this is anything to be relied on then. It's just you who has convinced yourself.

Oh, but they did, remember? The articles you kept trying to dismiss on flimsier and flimsier grounds, inconvenient as they were to your outdated "theories".

Well, please refresh my memory, where do the press accuse Hutchinson of being a liar, time-waster, or an accomplice, or even the murderer?
If it was so obvious Ben, where is it written?

So why would the police have made the connection and not a single member of the press? Virtually every newspaper had access to both Lewis's inquest evidence and Hutchinson's press interview, and yet in none of them do we see any suggestion that Lewis's man might have been Hutchinson.

Quite simple, we have both accounts and "we" made the connection, or is this another side-swipe of yours at the idiocy of the police?

That crap "lost records" excuse won't avail you with this one, I'm afraid. If the press made the connection, it would most certainly have appeared "on record", and yet not a squeak.

According to who?
You cannot find any press speculation that Hutchinson was a liar, or an accomplice, nor even the murderer himself, yet you insist the press should have speculated on him being Lewis's loiterer.

Seems to me you are attempting to play both sides of the argument.
Either the press were capable of speculating on Hutchinson's role, or they weren't.
As it happens, the truth is, they did neither.

[Abby Normal]

Hi all,

Posted by Harry D


Hutchinson and Lechmere have always been persons that need more scrutinizing IMHO, but there is one other character who places himself at the exact site of a murder, very close to the time of the murder and with a knife in his hand. That is John Richardson, who claims to have sat on the back step of 29 Hanbury Street.

There are several interesting characters that need a second look.

Nicole

Totally agree. Very similar to hutch and lech. Out of all the witnesses, these three are the only ones to consider.

[Fisherman]

Hi all,

Hutchinson and Lechmere have always been persons that need more scrutinizing IMHO, but there is one other character who places himself at the exact site of a murder, very close to the time of the murder and with a knife in his hand. That is John Richardson, who claims to have sat on the back step of 29 Hanbury Street.

Nicole

Not only that - there is very good reason to believe that Chapman was also there at that stage!
However, Richardson was in place at 4.45, and Dr Phillips was adamant that Chapman had been dead AT LEAST two hours at 6.30 - and probably more. So Richardson is not the man we are looking for.
It also needs pointing out that there was no witness to Richardsons exploits in the backyard, and therefore, if he was the killer, it would be utterly stupid of him to place himself at the crime scene by his own volition. And the knife he supposedly wielded fiercely at his boot was not sharp enough to cut into leather, and so it was not the knife that dissected Chapman.a

On the whole, Richardsons testimony points to a man from whom IŽd never buy a used car. But that would not be due to any feeling that heŽd cut my throat and eviscerate me.

[c.d.]

"It seems a common thread a,ong theories, the police were too dumb to find their bum with a mirror in a stick."

Now that is an expression! Don't really get the stick part of it but I like it nonetheless and will try to work it into my vocabulary.

And now I am going to have to exit this thread as I suspect it is going to get ugly. Actually I KNOW it is going to get ugly. Don't know what it is about Hutchinson that brings out the worst in posters.

Have at it, boys.

c.d.

[John G]

Not only that - there is very good reason to believe that Chapman was also there at that stage!
However, Richardson was in place at 4.45, and Dr Phillips was adamant that Chapman had been dead AT LEAST two hours at 6.30 - and probably more. So Richardson is not the man we are looking for.
It also needs pointing out that there was no witness to Richardsons exploits in the backyard, and therefore, if he was the killer, it would be utterly stupid of him to place himself at the crime scene by his own volition. And the knife he supposedly wielded fiercely at his boot was not sharp enough to cut into leather, and so it was not the knife that dissected Chapman.a

On the whole, Richardsons testimony points to a man from whom IŽd never buy a used car. But that would not be due to any feeling that heŽd cut my throat and eviscerate me.

Hi Fisherman,

In light of Dr Biggs' observations I don't believe Dr Phillips' estimate of time of death can stand. In fact, the Forensic Science Regulator states that modern pathologists shouldn't even attempt to estimate the post mortem interval, as there are presumably too many variables: see Marriott, 2013.

[Ben]

Well, Lawende did neither.
Being "found" before the inquest is not "coming forward" before the inquest.

Did Lawende live a couple of yards away from the scene of the crime? No. Did he claim to have known the victim for three years? No. So I suggest you read what I wrote again, and more carefully this time: He doesn’t compare in the slightest with Hutchinson, who lived a few hundred yards away from the crime scene, claimed to have known the victim for three years, and yet failed to come forward for three whole days – only deciding to end his silence as soon as the inquest terminated.

Well, please refresh my memory, where do the press accuse Hutchinson of being a liar, time-waster, or an accomplice, or even the murderer?
If it was so obvious Ben, where is it written?

I do hope you're not deliberately misrepresenting me, Jon, although I can't imagine why else you would truncate the quote. What I actually wrote was this: "my suggestion was that Hutchinson did not come forward until after he learned what was divulged at the inquest, or rather who was intending to divulge it." A mere suggestion can hardly be "cast in stone", although based on the timing of events - with Hutchinson coming forward so soon after the release of Lewis's evidence - I think we can upgrade that "suggestion" to a "strong likelihood".

Quite simple, we have both accounts and "we" made the connection

"We" might have done 120 years later in our armchairs and at our desks, with endless leisure time to examine the sources, and with the hobbyist's fervour that impels us to obsess over one particular aspect of the case, but I'm asking if we have a single recorded instance of the comparison being made in 1888, or at any time prior to the 1990s, for that matter?

You cannot find any press speculation that Hutchinson was a liar, or an accomplice, nor even the murderer himself

Speak for yourself.

I've found several, thanks. If you remember, they were the same articles you spent years trying to invalidate, without any success.

Now, as much as I'd love another interminable debate with you exclusively on the subject of Hutchinson, here is not the place for it. Persist if you like - you usually do - but we would only be alienating decent folk like c.d., who understandably wish to avoid an ugly and repetitive rehashing of previous "debates".

[c.d.]

Why thank you, Ben. That was considerate of you.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

In light of Dr Biggs' observations I don't believe Dr Phillips' estimate of time of death can stand. In fact, the Forensic Science Regulator states that modern pathologists shouldn't even attempt to estimate the post mortem interval, as there are presumably too many variables: see Marriott, 2013.

If you want me to listen carefully to what you say, John, you may want to avoid trying to impress me with anything signed "Marriott"...

The idea that a contemporary medico had no idea when somebody had died is a bit too rich for my taste. Of course, one must realize that we are dealing with estimations, but overall, the rigor and the coldness of Chapmans body, is in line with somebody who died well before 4.45.
What it is not in line with at all is a death that sits well with the information from Long, Cadosch and Richardson.
As I am sure you noticed, the TOD was only one of the points I made - there is more too, that equally makes Richardson a very improbable bid for the killerŽs role.