Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[babybird67]

sometimes this place gets so surreal...

I wonder if I am losing my sanity.

So Lewis is now being discredited because she mentions the wideawake man was stout when she didn't in another source?

What about Hutchinson who brought in a whole barrowfull of different details in press reports that weren't mentioned in his official statement?

How does one example of this discredit one source, and yet leave the other a seeming 'pillar of the community'?

[Ben]

Good points, Phil and Ruby.

I agree that a tailor’s dummy seems a plausible source of inspiration for the creation of Astrakhan man. And Ruby, my advice would be not to take to heart that ludicrous playground taunt about creative writing.

Meanwhile, the embarrassingly disastrous attempt to discredit Sarah Lewis continues apace:

“Be a little bit realistic - she went from asserting the police that she could not describe the man in any manner whatsoever to suddenly knowing that he was shortish, stout, wore a wideawake - she could even tell that it was a black one, for Christ´s sake!”

Gosh, yes how amazing for her to have discerned that he had a black hat!

Wow. Superwitness.

Of course, the sighting occurred in darkness in Victorian London, and no doubt the majority of hats would have been black, but what astonishing attention to detail! Seriously, though, I’m glad Ruby appreciated the comedy value behind the faintly ludicrous suggestion that this in any way constitutes a “180 degree turn” from Sarah Lewis. Look, Fisherman, it has been pointed out to you before that the differences between her statement and inquest testimony are not only minor, they are trivial in comparison to Hutchinson’s statement, which besides containing a nigh on impossible description, was discredited owing to doubts about the credibility of the source, unlike Lewis’ evidence, for which there is not the slightest shred of evidence of doubt from any contemporary police source.

It cannot have escaped your notice that I am clearly not alone in this view, and yet despite this, you seem to have convinced yourself that you are the only one being “realistic”. The reality, however, is that the Echo articles provided here cast serious doubt on the validity of your article’s conclusions, and it seems you’re trying to obfuscate this with a doomed-to-failure attempt to pour scorn on Lewis’ testimony.

“I have said before and will say again that the police must have pressed Lewis, over and over again, for any possible detail she could provide”

There is no need for you to “say again” what you’ve said before, especially when it’s yet another zero-evidence assertion of the “must have” variety. No, there is not the slightest indication that any particular pressure was exerted on Lewis to expand on her sighting of the wideawake man. It is likely that her attention was at that time focussed on the “scarier” man in her own mind, whom she had passed on Commercial Street, and this preoccupation may well have distracted attention away from the seemingly innocuous loiterer in Dorset Street. Hence, when she said she couldn’t describe him, she probably couldn’t, but then as the anxiety subsided and she was able to distance herself from the event, she was subsequently able to recall to memory that the man was stout, not tall, and wore a black wideawake. That’s three very basic observations, unlike discredited Hutchinson’s 39 or so intricate details, most of which he couldn’t even have seen let alone memorized.

Another very conspicuous absence in this misguided quest to discredit the evidence of Sarah Lewis is a logical motive for her to lie about these mundane details. Mimicking Cox we can forget immediately. There’s no rationale for her to have done so, and Lewis would have known full well that Cox specified a blotchy face, carroty moustache and a billycock hat. A copycat attempt would at least have incorporated these elements and used “billycock” in preference to “wideawake”. In short, there is no logical reason for Lewis to have lied. She clearly didn’t lie, and equally clearly, there’s no evidence that anyone at the time thought she did.

“The time has come to say farewell to the industrious Mrs Lewis and her loiterer, and instead bid an unidentified man of whom we can say nothing - appearancewise or actionwise - welcome back into the discussion.”

You can do whatever you like, but don’t expect it ever to receive mainstream support. I suspect I speak for the vast majority when I say that Lewis’ description of the wideawake-wearing loiterer has always been, and will hereafter be, treated as reliable if non-sensational evidence. It doesn’t go “totally against the original statement” because, as Frank has already made clear, the nature of the discrepancy is so small. She was not “ridiculed by the press” either. One journalist made pointlessly disparaging remarks about her appearance (which frankly reflects more poorly on him), but even then there was no insinuation that she lied in her account.

“If it was not, you must - MUST! - be able to provide evidence that PROVES that Sarah Lewis´testimony did not suffer that diminution of importance after her turnaround”

It wasn’t a turnaround.

And no, I don’t have to prove an absence. You’re obviously another one who doesn’t understand about null hypotheses. Do you think “guilty unless proven innocent” is a laudable stance? Thought not. So don’t apply it here, please. You have made the claim that Lewis’ account was doubted and discredited by the police, and the onus of proof thus falls squarely on you. Obviously I know full well that you have no such proof, just I know there isn't the slightest indication that doubt was ever attached to her testimony.

“I would also point to the fact that we have nothing at all showing that Hutchinson suffered any such diminution himself!”

Whoops, there’s that unnecessary repetition of previously challenged dogma again, which means I’ll have to go back through the thread and discover where I addressed it previously. Here we go:

One of the main reasons cited for the discrediting of Hutchinson’s account was his failure to attend the inquest where he could have been quizzed “under oath”, and for failing to provide his evidence until three days after the murder. This reason is inextricably linked to the question of Hutchinson’s integrity. How can it not be? Quite simply, you do not “discount” a witness statement because of the failure of its originator to come forward prior to the inquest unless you entertain doubts about his credibility and/or motivation for coming forward.

This information was obtained directly from the Commercial Street police station in order to clarify some of the confusion created by other newspapers, and amounts to clear evidence of doubt on the part of the police as to Hutchinson’s credibility. That is unless, of course, we want to resist the obvious and inescapable inference expounded above.

As I’m prepared to reiterate until the pages of this thread number in their millions.

It’s thumbs down for Hutchinson, whose demonstrably implausible three-day late story was discredited by the police on the grounds of doubt as to his credibility, and thumbs down for Dew’s speculative 1938 musings, which despite being known about for many decades, has never been revived as a credible explanation (for understandable reasons) until you showed up. Did you really just say that Hutchinson was described as a “pillar of society”, or am I having terrible nightmares?

"We’ve already discussed the 19th November Echo report of a Birmingham suspect, whose “gentlemanly” appearance resembled a description supplied at “the late inquest”. This could only be a reference to Lewis"

No, it could not. You know full well that when this was expanded on, it was said that the gentleman in question was in company with Kelly.”

No, you’re wrong, and don't tell me what I "know full well".

Here’s what the Echo reported on 19th November:

“He was of gentlemanly appearance and manners and somewhat resembled the description given by witnesses at the late inquest”

No reference to the man being seen “in company with Kelly”. Clearly, the article was referring to Sarah Lewis’ evidence, and thus serving as a strong indication that her evidence was still being taken seriously at that stage. Thumbs up, then, for Sarah Lewis, whose testimony appears never to have been doubted by the police. The people who champion discredited Hutchinson over Lewis can be counted, to my knowledge, on two fingers – you, and some other bloke from Scandinavia who no longer posts here. The idea amounts to hastily conceived contemptible nonsense with no evidential support.

Regards,
Ben

[Phil H]

With respect, Mary may have associated with many men who escaped notice. It must all have depended on who was around.

We know a Joe (not Barnett but often assumed to be Fleming) visited her, but we don't have detailed accounts of when and where. Joe B visited her earlier that night, but we don't have loads of locals verifying that fact - and he would/should have been known to them!

My objections to Astrkhan man are essentially the unlikelihood of his dress in that neighbourhood and at that time of day; and the minute detail of Hutchinson's description (which seems incredible). Incidentally, I like the idea that he was describing a tailor's dummy!!

As for Hutch himself, I have no view. I always assumed he was who he said he was - the "Topping" hypothesis arose during my long absence from Casebook and I have never really got my head around the issues.

To me, much depends on how we read his (claimed) relationship with MJK. I don't see him as close enough to gain access to her room, but if the name were false and he was actually (say) Fleming - assuming the latter was not the tallest man in the world - things might be different.

Phil

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Fish -I asked about the colour only because black was surely the most common colour, and there is not anything strange about the hat being black."

Whoever inferred that a black hat would be strange? Why make the point? Do you not realize that the oddity in it all lies in Sarah Lewis goes from not being able to say a frickin´thing about her man, to suddenly being able to pinpoint even the colour of a hat she formerly did not even know was there? And if that hat was polka-dot, yellow or green does not belong to the discussion - the only thing that is of interest here is that Lewis suddenly was quite exact about a hat, sitting on top of the head of a man who she had emphatically professed to not being able to describe.

"You still haven't commented on my post 225."

Then let´s take care of that immediately, shall we! Here´s a snippet of your enjoyable text:

"It only took a few minutes really : Mrs Lewis kept the biggest distance between her and the Man, she didn't look at him and she scurried down the passage to Miller's Court, forcing herself not to look back..Hutchinson let her pass, stepping back into the shadows, expecting any minute for her to turn and greet him , but relieved and
astonished when she looked fixedly elsewhere -anywhere actually, rather than at him.
Which is why, when later, the policeman asked her again " what did this man look like ? " she had to say "I don't know , Sir -I couldn't get a good look at him".
Of course, later, when they'd asked her again, with questions like " tall ?" she could say " No, short " , " thin?" she said " no, stout rather" and what was he wearing ? " why -he was wearing what all the blokes wear round here Sir -one of them 'Wideawake' hats"..

Now, combine this with your latest post, where it says:

"I presume that she was not a professional police witness, and didn't think
that such a mundane thing as a black hat was worth mentioning at first..."

... and we arrive at a suggestion on your behalf that the police may not have asked Lewis to elaborate on the description of the man she saw. They apparently just resigned to her initial statement that she could not describe the man, and left her, satisfied that not asking a single question was the best way to go about interviewing a potentially very crucial witness in the Ripper investigation.

Is that it? Is that what you believe??

I can accept that Lewis may not have been "a professional witness", Ruby. But THE POLICE sure as hell were professional! They would NOT settle for waiting until the inquest in hope for more information about a man that stood twenty meters away from Kelly on the murder night! Lewis would have been quizzed very thoroughly about the man´s features and behavior in connection with the police interview, there can be no other option. And if she at that stage had been in possession of the information she later magically offered at the inquest, then it would have been in the police report!
If you do not realize this, you may need to look for another hobby. Creative writing, perhaps?

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Fish -I asked about the colour only because black was surely the most common colour, and there is not anything strange about the hat being black.

Opposed to A Man's red handkerchief, the colour of which Hutch wouldn't be able to see in the dark, Mrs Lewis could easily have seen that a hat was black
from a distance.

I presume that she was not a professional police witness, and didn't think
that such a mundane thing as a black hat was worth mentioning at first, since when she saw the wideawake hat in her mind, she felt black was 'understood' in her description.

I am guessing that if any of us were given some coloured pencils and asked to
draw a victorian man in a wideawake hat, the vast majority would colour the hat black. That is because in photographic crowd scenes we've viewed, there are lots of black hats.

If Mrs Lewis had wanted to invent W Man as a Ripper suspct, she would surely have made him closer to A Man (we know the type of man she thought the Ripper was, because of her fear of BG Man) -he would carry a bag full of knives.

If she had wanted to base her description on Blotchy, then he would have had red hair and blotchy skin.

You still haven't commented on my post 225.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"By the way -how many colours were wideawake hats made in ?"

Presumably a number of colours: black, grey, brown at the very least. So you see, it IS quite strange that Lewis was able to provide the ghost from her police testimony with a black wideawake.
I am not sure why you asked about the variety of colours. And I do hope you did not so so because you felt that the hat MUST have been black and Sarah Lewis made that guess. Such a thing would not improve upon her as a witness in any fashion, you see.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;175198]Ben:

"Sarah Lewis did not make a “180 degree turn” in her testimony. She went from a non-description in her police statement to a very minimal description in her inquest testimony."

So it´s almost no change at all ...? Be a little bit realistic - she went from asserting the police that she could not describe the man in any manner whatsoever to suddenly knowing that he was shortish, stout, wore a wideawake - she could even tell that it was a black one, for Christ´s sake! - and that he was looking up the court as if waiting for someone.

Fisherman -I refer you to post 225

By the way -how many colours were wideawake hats made in ? red ?
blue ? yellow ? polkadot ?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Sarah Lewis did not make a “180 degree turn” in her testimony. She went from a non-description in her police statement to a very minimal description in her inquest testimony."

So it´s almost no change at all ...? Be a little bit realistic - she went from asserting the police that she could not describe the man in any manner whatsoever to suddenly knowing that he was shortish, stout, wore a wideawake - she could even tell that it was a black one, for Christ´s sake! - and that he was looking up the court as if waiting for someone.

Height and bodily construction, type of hat, the colour of that hat, and even a description of what he was doing AND WITH WHAT INTENT, thus - that is not a 179 degrees change or a 181 one in my book - it is an exact 180 degrees turn!!

I have said before and will say again that the police must have pressed Lewis, over and over again, for any possible detail she could provide: Was the man tall or short? Did he seem old or young? How was he clad? Did he seem respectable? Did she feel intimidated by the man? Could she say something, anything, about what he did as he stood there?

Does anybody have any objections against this? Is it not the only reasonable thing to argue? Lewis MUST have been quizzed intensely.

And for all of these efforts, the police drew a complete blank. Nothing, rien, nada - Lewis could not provide them with a single feature.

This, Ben, is her original statement. This is what the police, extremely eager to get any little piece of information to work with, got from Lewis. How do you propose that she suddenly was able to speak of hat fashions and colours and pin down the man´s actions and intents at the inquest? And why is it that the construction she comes up with tallies with Cox´s man, down to the hat?

The time has come to say farewell to the industrious Mrs Lewis and her loiterer, and instead bid an unidentified man of whom we can say nothing - appearancewise or actionwise - welcome back into the discussion.
If we are to conduct a discussion along the lines that it was more or less impossible for a man in an astrakhan coat and some fineries to have walked the streets of the East end, then why in the whole world would we swallow a man who we KNOW took shape between police report and inquest, who we KNOW goes totally against the original statement of the witness that offered him at that inquest, and who we KNOW may have been the figment of imagination of a witness that was ridiculed by the press?
What has it come to if we were to do our homework in this fashion?

"it is clear that Lewis suffered no diminution of importance on account of this minor discrepancy, in sharp contrast to Hutchinson."

This is demonstrably wrong and you must know it, Ben. If it was not, you must - MUST! - be able to provide evidence that PROVES that Sarah Lewis´testimony did not suffer that diminution of importance after her turnaround. Please do so, or refrain from stating things like this completely out of the blue.

I would also point to the fact that we have nothing at all showing that Hutchinson suffered any such diminution himself! His STORY was in all probability questioned and found to be lacking in some manner, but as I have shown over and over again, it seems that this did not tarnish Hutchinson himself in the least. And once again, we have Dew telling us fifty years later that Hutchinson was never disrespected, but instead honestly mistaken.
Who is there to tell us that Lewis was regarded as a honest witness? Noone.
Does something point to the opposite? Yes, the fact that she totally changed her testimony and that she was weighed and found way too light by members of the contemporary press. And it was not just her looks and demeanor that ensured this, for we can clearly see that the paper actually points to the evidence itself: "the evidence must be taken with the reserve that should attach to all such testimony".

So it´s all thumbs up for Hutchinson, who was never at any stage castigated for being a bad or unreliable witness, and thumbs down for Lewis, of whom we have only one judgement - and it spells catastrophy for her.

"We’ve already discussed the 19th November Echo report of a Birmingham suspect, whose “gentlemanly” appearance resembled a description supplied at “the late inquest”. This could only be a reference to Lewis"

No, it could not. You know full well that when this was expanded on, it was said that the gentleman in question was in company with Kelly. And that is all we need to question the veracity of your claim. Something is amiss, and none of us will be able to prove what it is. Meaning that any efforts along those lines are spelt pure speculation, no matter if it is you or I that perform it.

"There’s no evidence that Lewis was ever doubted, and very strong indications to the contrary."

You are backing down here a bit, aren´t you Ben? Some lines further up you boldly claimed that "it is clear that Lewis suffered no diminution of importance on account of this minor discrepancy", something that is not true. Once again, changing your testimony from white to black GETS you doubted. You don´t have to be Einstein to conclude that. To deny it, though, you really COULD NOT be Einstein.

For the longest time, George Hutchinson has been described as a liar who may or may not also have been a killer. Those have been the options offered. And for that same longish time, it has been laid down as a truth that his testimony more or less proved that he had been in Dorset Street on the murder night, since there was corroboration to be had from Sarah Lewis, pointing to a man watching Millers Court at the same time Hutchinson was there.

So Hutchinson, described more or less as a pillar of society and a totally honest man, and with a policeman involved in the investigation verifying this fifty years after the killings, has been called a liar and a potential Ripper.

Lewis, on the other hand, changing her testimony totally between police report and inquest to fit the description given by Cox, and delivering testimony at the inquest that was very much put in doubt by contemporary journalists who more or less mocked her, has not for a minute been questioned as to her veracity!

Anybody who fails to see the skewed perspective this has provided Ripperology with will be at great peril to draw all the wrong conclusions.
This is not to say that Lewis could not have been right, nor is it to deny that Hutchinson may have been a liar and a killer - we have too little evidence to go by to be absolutely certain - but it is to point to the dire need of a reassessment of the bits and pieces involved.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Wickerman, which of these statements don't you agree with ?

-Mrs Lewis's main concern was to get to where she was going without being attacked in the street

-Mrs Lewis would be wary of passing any lone man in a dark quiet street, at this hour, and baring in mind the recent murders

-Mrs Lewis had an image of how she imagined the Ripper to look, in her mind
(more like Bethnal Green Man than Hutch)

-Mrs Lewis would look very hard at the lone man in Dorset Street, before
passing him to ascertain that he did not fit her image of the Ripper, and that his body language did not suggest that he was waiting to leap out on an unsuspecting passer by. She would try to see if there was a plausible innocent explanation for the man to be loitering there.

-If a person finds themselves in a dark lonely street with a strange man who could possibly be a threat, they will signal with their body language that they want no contact, they are minding their own business, and they will not look
directly at the person when they are within a distance to see facial expressions. This is because they will not want to meet the other person's eyes which could open the way for verbal communication, but also because they would not want to signal with their own expression fear, nosiness, or
complicity. They would try to keep at a safe distance.

-Because someone has not seen another person close up, and can't give more than a sketchy description, does not mean necessarily that they woudn't be able to recognise that person again from their way of standing moving, height, and corpulence. You may believe that you see a friend at the end of the street, before you are close enough to see their face, and
even if there is nothing noteworthy about their clothes.

- The man in Dorset Street would not be afraid to look at the woman approaching as he was in a physical position of power over her, and he wasn't doing anything illegal. No crime had yet been committed, and the man could still change his mind about murdering anyone. He would see that the woman was not showing any interest in him. He had ample opportunity to recognise Mrs Lewis, if he knew her.

-Once the murder had been committed, the woman has unwittingly changed status from a passerby to a possible witness to the crime.

[Wickerman]

......There was a lone man standing in the dark street, just at the point where she wanted to turn into the Court. Briefly, she considered turning back....

Actually, turning back was the last thought on her mind.

Ruby, you appear to have forgotten what Sarah's principal concern was that night, where her true attention was focused,...what did frighten her...

You must remember Sarah Lewis provided more of a description of the Bethnal Green Stalker than she did of Hutch...

"...I passed by them and looked back at the man - I was frightened - I looked again when I got to the corner of Dorset St. I have not seen the man since, I should know him if I did...."

Strikes me as obvious where her attention was that night.

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

Somtimes you're so much engaged and hot in ripper-related debates....
Sometimes you forget them...
Then when you come back with such a simple and relevant question to answer, you simply think : no, of course not, Astrakhan Man did not exist.
That is SO obvious.
Even to the Toppy-clan, I hope.

[DVV]

Smooth my dear.

[Rubyretro]

Fish -since you keep repeating yourself, I'll do the same.
Here is a reconsreuction of Lewis/Wideawake/Hutch

Mrs Lewis saw the top of Dorset Street and breathed a sigh of relief -soon she would be safe and off the bleak wet streets. Maybe a fire would be lit, and a chair awaiting her ? Most of all though, there would be friends and a welcome ; she started to walk faster then faster, turning the corner of the road. And then she slowed right down.

There was a lone man standing in the dark street, just at the point where she wanted to turn into the Court. Briefly, she considered turning back ; it was frightening enough being a lone woman of her ilk, out at this time in the morning , what with the terrible murders that seemed to have happened just recently so very near here..she strained her eyes to try and get a good look at the man, all the while walking forward (she was unwilling to brave those deserted streets again, not so near
safety).

Besides -the man didn't seem interested in her -she squinted her eyes (were they getting worse ?). He must hear her hollow footsteps now -but he didn't turn to look at her. He was gazing intently down Millers Court, as if waiting for someone there to come out..she felt a bit calmer..looking at his hands ; He didn't have a bag ! He looked -well just like everyone else.. Not a lunatic. No big knife. No leather apron.. She had learned some semblences of self preservation living in this area, and the foremost was not to attract attention and not to act like a victim. Just to firmly carry on doing what you were going to do anyway. Carry on walking with a purpose filled step to where you are going ; never turn back and never look worried and never look directly at the person. Don't engage eyecontact as it will encourage them to speak to you, and then you will have to reply, and next it will be a conversation..and once you are in a conversation WELL then you are in a situation.

But Hutchinson, standing there wet and intent, his hand finguring the knife in his pocket, was not thinking uppermost of conversation. Of course he saw the shabby, unattractrive creature marching down the street, and at first he hardly gave her a thought. Afterall, the beauty of this game was that until the moment that he'd got the nerve and slashed their throats, he was innocent of anything. Anyone could pass him and what could they say ? Usually they never said anything after the bodies were found anyhow. Or got it all wrong. So why should he care about them ?

There was something about this one though..her walk..her silhouette..the rags that were on her..and as she drew closer a name flashed into his head : Lewis.
**** ! He knew her. Not very well it's true, but still he'd spoken to her before...down the Princess Alice..She didn't live here, but she hung about talking to people he knew -people that could put a name to him and finish his little game properly..

Good job that he was a quick thinker then ! What should he decide ? To toddle off, round the block, before Lewis drew abreast ? Nah ! Because then Mary Kelly might go out, or worse, one of her mates or Joe go into the room when he wasn't watching, and he didn't want to give up now. He could kill Lewis, she deserved it ! (he fingured his knife again), but the excitement just wasn't there. It would just be like that Chapman -if she'd go quietly- which wasn't sure. There was nowhere silent and dark here either -
too exposed in the street and too risky in the Court, and the bloke from the shop in and out all the time...and it would be such a poor show after that Kate. Not fit for knocking the Lord Mayor's Show off the front pages, for sure. He was cold and he was wet and he fancied a roof , too. So somehow, his feet just rooted to the spot, so to speak.

It only took a few minutes really : Mrs Lewis kept the biggest distance between her and the Man, she didn't look at him and she scurried down the passage to Miller's Court, forcing herself not to look back..Hutchinson let her pass, stepping back into the shadows, expecting any minute for her to turn and greet him , but relieved and
astonished when she looked fixedly elsewhere -anywhere actually, rather than at him.

Which is why, when later, the policeman asked her again " what did this man look like ? " she had to say "I don't know , Sir -I couldn't get a good look at him".
Of course, later, when they'd asked her again, with questions like " tall ?" she could say " No, short " , " thin?" she said " no, stout rather" and what was he wearing ? " why -he was wearing what all the blokes wear round here Sir -one of them 'Wideawake' hats"..

And Hutchinson, thinking back, reliving each moment of the most exciting moment of his life, found his mind atarding on Mrs Lewis. She hadn't looked at him so as he'd seen, and she hadn't greeted him, for sure. But he was bound to find him up close to her again..and what ? Would she recognise him then and go to the coppers ?
How much had she'd seen ? Would she recognise his way of standing ? The way he unconciously moved ? Wouldn't it be ironic if that ugly biddy turned out to be the one who got him hung ? He had to watch her .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...........................





Here is a ' reconstruction' of Lewis/Hutch/Wideawake :

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

I’m afraid all that you’ve posted about the Wheeling Register, payments etc is still deeply, deeply wrong, and I’ve explained why here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=91319&postcount=31

And here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=160082&postcount=356

Let’s try to confine Toppy-talk to the many threads devoted to that particular subject.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“And that kind of had me thinking that you may prefer if I do not post at all.”

It’s not that. I’d just rather you didn’t keep reigniting arguments we’ve had many times, especially when you know full well what my opinion is, as it just breeds repetition. Walter Dew and Hutchinson’s non-reference to Lewis both belong in the “done-to-death” category, which is why I tend to provide URLs to earlier threads whenever those subjects are broached. I didn’t enter this thread with the intention of discussing the “nefarious ways of George Hutchinson”, and if I touched upon it during the course of the thread, it was purely reactive.

Sarah Lewis did not make a “180 degree turn” in her testimony. She went from a non-description in her police statement to a very minimal description in her inquest testimony. As Frank observed, “going from nothing to short, stout and wideawake hat, is rather a small step in the bigger picture of things”. Moreover, the minor discrepancies in the various other witness statements seem especially trivial when compared to the demonstrably tall tales of three-day late, discredited, horseshoe-pin spotting Hutchinson. Besides which, it is clear that Lewis suffered no diminution of importance on account of this minor discrepancy, in sharp contrast to Hutchinson.

You’re free to speculate as much as you want about what the police “may well have entertained” regarding Lewis, but in terms of actual evidence, there’s nothing whatsoever to indicate that either her statement or testimony were ever doubted by the police, whereas there are compelling indications to the contrary. We’ve already discussed the 19th November Echo report of a Birmingham suspect, whose “gentlemanly” appearance resembled a description supplied at “the late inquest”. This could only be a reference to Lewis, and we know full well that the Echo were very much au fait with police opinion, which is more than can be said for the Daily News, who simply expressed their own frankly irrelevant opinion.

We may thus conclude that Lewis' evidence was still considered significant a week after the inquest. It is, of course, hugely unrealistic to expect any report announcing: “It’s official – we still think Lewis’ evidence important!”, but this is the overwhelmingly obvious inference.

“My impression is that the first part of the text, where Lewis is scrutinized and found a not very reliable witness”

But there wasn’t any doubt cast on her reliability. The journalist simply made his own prediction that “not much importance” would be attached to her testimony concerning the Wednesday encounter with a man on Bethnal Green Road would. It is difficult not to have some sympathy with this prediction. Personally speaking, I don’t consider it particularly important either. It happened on the Wednesday prior to the murder, it didn’t relate to an actual crime scene, and the man clearly wasn’t the ripper. It was sufficient to spook a defenceless woman at the height of the “Autumn of Terror”, however, which is why she included it in her testimony. That doesn’t mean for one moment that she was lying about it, or that anyone at the time thought she was.

Despite the journalist’s apparent fixation with the appearance and mannerisms of the female witnesses, he was not “attacking” the reliability of either Prater or Lewis. On the contrary, he observed that they provided mutually supportive testimony, and further, that:

“though the evidence must be taken with the reserve that should attach to all such testimony, the time at which she believes she heard the cry would tally very well with all the circumstances of the case”.

There’s no evidence that Lewis was ever doubted, and very strong indications to the contrary.

Incidentally, there are at least three contributors to this thread who subscribe to the opinion that Hutchinson deliberately avoided any reference to Lewis’ presence to avoid making it appear obvious that he was motivated into coming forward by her evidence pertaining to the wideawake man. You may be of a contrary opinion, but that’s certainly not because you’re the only person who has “really, really thought this over”…!

Best regards,
Ben