Did Astrakhan Man exist?

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I have mentioned many times before it all depends who George Hutchinson was, if he was a unknown man, using a alias, not only could he be literally anyone, but his moral character could be of the worst kind, allowing all these threads to be fair play.
But we have a identification of the witness George Hutchinson, by his own son, who recalled that his father knew one of the victims, and made a statement, ie Topping.
Toppings brother, also heard of the story, and also some members of the Hutchinson family, so why do we doubt that GWTH was not the witness, and why do we doubt, the sincerity of a man that gave a signed statement to the police?
A character reference of GWTH, clearly portrays a man of good moral standards with a eye for detail, which would describe the witness Hutchinson would it not?
Whenever the Topping was Hutch suggestion rears its head, many of us say ''well that was a lot of bull, Reg or his father were fibbing''
I say go over all the tale , told by GWTH, and ask yourself how did he know this, how did he know that, if a imposter, and the payment mentioned.
I have said [ as many know[ that no UK newspaper mentioned a payment , only the obscure'' Wheeling report'', and this only came to light in the last couple of years or so.
I have also mentioned that Five times a average salary [ according to 1887 estimates] was approx five pounds [ wheeling article].
And low and behold that is the exact figure Reg said his father received[ but did not say where from]
Some may say Fairclough had access to that report in 1992[ Ripper and the Royals]...possibly, but unlikely.
At last but not least[ sorry folks] but in the mid 70s there still lurks that 'elusive ' radio show , 18 years previous to the Ripper and the Royals, which mentions the payment of five pounds/hundred shillings.
I guess that the entire Casebook empire,were not priviliged to gain that report, but Fairclough, and a unknown BBC researcher were? the latter some 37 years ago.
Is it not easier to have a bit of faith in someone who has informed Ripperology the identity of a very important witness, then to accuse that person of being everything from a stalker-killer.?
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Ben!

"So here we have the paper very much attacking the value of testimony about the Sunday, delivered by Mrs Prater. "

should of course read:

So here we have the paper very much attacking the value of testimony about the FRIDAY, delivered by Mrs Prater.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Frank:

"Because we do not have it on record, Fish, it becomes a question of: how likely is it that he didn’t and how likely is it that (the result of) whatever steps he took didn't end up in one or more official documents?"

How likely? How likely is it that a witness with a good reputation turns out to be a liar? How likely is it that a punter turns out to be looking for a uterus instead of sex? I think we need to realize that not all the occurences in the Ripper saga would have gone down in the "likeliest" way. Some of them would have, others not. And at the end of the day, if we are to present a theory that covers the full picture, any such theory will contain elements that tell us that the science of mathematics does not hold the clue to this riddle.
At any rate, who says that the incident as such was NOT recorded? Maybe it was. But you as well as me know that not all records are available to us. And you as well as I know that in the records that have been lost, vital information must have been offered.
The PC we are talking about was stationed at Petticoat Lane market, it would seem. Who knows how many people approached him that morning, telling him that they had information to offer on the Ripper case? Who can tell if Hutchinson stood out more than any other person? Maybe ten people claimed that they knew who the ripper was and twenty offered information that they knew Kelly?
Context is sometimes everything, Frank - and we have not got it in this case.

"Another example, a bit bigger, is the very thick gold chain and the open coat. There were 2 very good reasons to keep the coat well buttoned up: the weather and the fact that the man was in what was probably the worst neighbourhood in the East End. Yet, he kept it open. "

Ah, but what if we can dismiss one of these factors? The weather, namely? What if astrakhan man was seen on THURSDAY morning, when the weather was quite nice and dry? How odd would it be for him to open his coat in that case?

"Agreed. I don’t know why this difference is there and don’t intend to try and explain. The only thing I’d like to mention about it is that such differences seem to have been quite common."

Some differences, yes - but this is truly glaring. I can buy it when somebody says "gray coat" once and then "blue coat" the second time over. But when somebody takes shape from nothing at all, I get very suspicious. And I feel quite convinced that this would have applied to the ones who investigated the case too!

"I don’t see why she would want to spice her testimony up with this bit"

Because it gave the impression that far from having noted what seemed an an unimportant man, she could/would actually have seen the short, stout man in the billycock that was to become the hottest bet in the Ripper hunt. But I´ve already explained that!

"He learned that this person was Lewis, so he didn’t mention her, as he didn’t want the police to think that he had only come forward because of her. "

No. I´m sorry, but no. Have you really, really thought this over, Frank? I am sorry that I have to ask, but since I regard you as a very logically reasoning person, this flies in the face of what I would have expected. The police KNEW that if Hutchinson had been standing at Crossinghams, watching the court, then there would be no way at all that he could have missed Lewis. It would have been physically impossible if his story was true. Likewise, if Hutchinson had been there, the he KNEW that the police was in possession of information that told them that a man had been posted outside Crossingham´s at 2.30 - it was this very piece of information that made him go to the police if we are to go by your reasoning! Hutchinson was not banking on no connection being made after his appearance at the station - he made his visit to PRESENT this connection, and thus explain it, remember!
So what do we have? Ah, yes: We have a police force, that knew about the loiterer. We have a man that goes to the police to corroborate the presence of that loiterer, KNOWING full well that the police had this loiterer on record. And STILL this man does not profess to having seen the woman that passed into the court, the one and only person in the whole world that could put his testimony beyond questioning? And he does so not to give away that she was his initial reason for coming forward? No, no, no and emphatically no again. There are scenarios in which leaving out details in order not to be obvious about your reasons for doing things functions - but this is not such a scenario. This somehow resembles what the dying Frank Gusenberg said to the police in Bugsy Moran´s garage on Valentine´s Day, when the coppers asked him who had shot him and his friends: "Nobody shot".
There was one thing and one thing only to gain from ommitting to mention Lewis: distrust. And that was manifested in a belief that Hutchinson was one day off, as witnessed about by Dew.

"But these elements not in the same league as the actual elements mentioned by Lewis."

No, but then again, Cox´s description did not offer all that much either. And if Lewis wanted to stand a chance of being at least slightly relied upon, blabbering about a carroty moustache would have seemed extremely strange after her police report. But short and stout and with a wideawake did the trick anyway - it´s Blotchy she describes, apparently. And mind you, if Lewis had heard about Cox´s man before the inquest, then maybe short, stout and with a billycock/wideawake may have been all she heard.

Which is why I don´t agree with "going from nothing to short, stout and a wideawake hat, is a rather small step in the bigger picture of things", because when the information tallies with Cox´s, we really need to pay attention and ask ourselves what was going on. And you forget the perhaps most interesting part, for there were not three but FOUR elements added. Lewis also said that the man seemed to watch the court at the inquest, and this was something she did NOT offer the police either. But it did polish up quite a lot on the man she could not describe, clothing- or actionwise, admittedly...

Maybe the time has come for us to simply disagree, Frank? I will gladly comment on whatever questions or reflections you may have by now otherwise! I´ll leave it up to you.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I never said I wanted you to stop posting."

You could have fooled me. Whenever I say the word "Dew" - regardless of who I say it to - it seems that you pop up and tell me that I should stay away from repeating myself. And that kind of had me thinking that you may prefer if I do not post at all. Of course, you may instead want me to post OTHER material than Dew-related stuff, but since you have been posting about the nefarious ways of George Hutchinson since the kingdom of the Aztecs fell, I cannot see why I should be disallowed to post on whatever I like to.
But we´ve been over this before, methinks ...?

"We do know that the Daily Echo were wrong to predict that Lewis’ testimony would not be accorded “much importance”. Her very attendance at the inquest is effective proof that the police did consider her evidence important."

That all sounds terribly relevant up til the moment you consider the timeline. The decision on behalf of the police to summon her to the inquest came PRIOR to the article in the Daily News. It also came PRIOR to Lewis making a 180 degree turn in her testimony. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the police´s view of Lewis differed in any way from that of the Daily News AFTER the inquest. They may well have entertained a, how shall we put it, questioning attitude towards her testimony even before the inquest, but given that Lewis was the only witness at hand who told a story of passing down Dorset Street at the time of the murder, and given that it would have been very hard to disprove what she said in the police report, the police would have committed professional suicide by not allowing her at the inquest. And at that stage, your reasoning still had something going for it. That, however, was dramatically cut short the moment Lewis started to "remember" the loiterer´s appearance and actions. After that, I fail to see that we have any single instance speaking up on behalf of Mrs Lewis credibility. And understandably so. After that, why would we think that the police still considered her evidence important?

" After dismissing the “doleful looking body”, they then referred to the cry of “murder” heard by Mrs. Prater and observed that this is supported by Lewis!:
“Some confirmation is added to this supposition by the evidence of another witness, Sarah Lewis, who lived a short distance off, but had had some falling out at home, and went to stay the night with a friend in Miller's-court, where she sat and dozed in a chair. She woke up about 3.30 by Spitalfields church clock, and a little before four o'clock-agreeing in this with the other witness-she also heard one cry of "Murder!"
Far from dismissing Lewis’ evidence as unimportant, the Daily News was observing that her evidence is mutually supportive with that of Prater. This makes me wonder if we’ve misread their earlier comments:
“One doleful-looking little body, with a negress-type of features, told how she and another had been frightened by a mysterious stranger who had tried to lure them by the offer of money into a retired spot; but they both took to their heels and ran away. Not much importance was to be attached to this testimony, probably”
This testimony, i.e. this particular bit of it, and not the totality of her evidence. It makes rather more sense to predict that this encounter would probably not be treated as important considering that it didn’t even occur on the night of the murder but rather the previous Wednesday afternoon. Clearly the Daily News weren't dismissing the entirety of her statement as unreliable"

We have not "misread" any of it, I think. My impression is that the first part of the text, where Lewis is scrutinized and found a not very reliable witness, was written by another journalist than the second part, that simply reported what was said at the inquest in a very dispassionate manner. In this text, no evaluations of the qualities of the witnesses are made. Just as nothing derogatory is said about Lewis here, in the same manner is nothing positive added. It is a text that does not make those kinds of calls. You may notice that the same applies to Prater, who was also pointed out as perhaps not the best of witnesses. And that is where this gets interesting in relation to your proposal of a belief on behalf of the paper when it comes to the bits from Friday and a disbelief attaching to the Wednesday part. Here´s the text on Prater:
"Perhaps the most sensational bit of evidence tendered was that of a garrulous young woman who, with some dramatic force, imitated by voice and action a sort of nightmare cry of "Oh! murder!" which she declared she had heard just after she had been woke up by her kitten rubbing its nose against her face about half-past three or four o'clock on the morning of the murder. It was a faintish cry, she said, as though somebody had woke up with the nightmare, and though the evidence must be taken with the reserve that should attach to all such testimony..."
So here we have the paper very much attacking the value of testimony about the Sunday, delivered by Mrs Prater. Apparently, evidence attaching to Friday morning was something they felt free to scorn too. But in the second part of the papers text, the part reporting from the inquest, no derogatory remarks are made about Prater at all. So that´s how it goes, and I suggest that this holds true for Lewis too.

"there’s not the slightest scrap of evidence that the police revised their view of Lewis at any stage."

You are correct, there is not! On the other hand, there is not a iota telling us that the police did NOT think Lewis´ testimony more or less useless after the inquest, is there? So none of us can lean against proof in this case. And what do we do when we have no proof? Exactly, we look at how the police normally regard people who say one thing in the police report, and then suddenly a completely different thing at an inquest. And I´m afraid that it is standard procedure to be very wary against witnesses who resort to this.

"So you’re suggesting I secretly think..."

Good heavens, no. Your secret thinking is something that I would not speculate about! I was simply pointing out that none of the parameters built into my theory can be in any way disproven, something that you seem to have severe problems accepting. Or admitting.

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

Do you think that Hutchinson may have exhibited psychopathic traits?

All of us exhibit degrees of psychopathy, Sally. The issue from a diagnostic perspective is whether a specific range of behaviours and psychodynamics co-exist in a single individual consistently and over an extended period of time. Unfortunately, the data relating to Hutchinson are so sparse that it is impossible to tell one way or the other. In mentioning data I refer not to Hutchinson's own claims, but rather the independent observations recorded by those with whom he came into contact. Thus any further speculation would be foolhardy on my part.

Sorry I couldn't be of more help.

[FrankO]

As for the steps the PC took, we do not have it on record, no do we have any certainty that we would have had, if steps WERE taken. It´s another void.

Because we do not have it on record, Fish, it becomes a question of: how likely is it that he didn’t and how likely is it that (the result of) whatever steps he took didn't end up in one or more official documents?

As to the first, I have read quite a bunch of instances in which a PC on the street was approached, with similar or sometimes even less important accounts, in which the PC’s in question always took action. For instance, on 1 October 1888 Thomas Coram beckoned PC Drage, because he had just found a bloody knife. Drage accompanied Coram to the police station. On 17 November, Richard Watson approached a PC in the street because he thought Oliver Mathews answered the description of the Whitechapel murderer. He had been sitting next to him in the ‘Trevor’ Music Hall and Mathews had a small black bag. The PC accompanied the 2 men to Walton Street Police Station (south of Hyde Park). I have some other examples, but I’m guessing there are lots more.

Another thing is that witnesses were of the utmost importance in solving cases back in those days. The police had to catch the culprit in the act (or fleeing the crime scene), had to rely on witness accounts or had to wait for the culprit to come forward himself. Otherwise the chances were slim that they would catch them.

In this case, I think we can be quite sure that Hutchinson would have been called for the inquest had he come forward before Monday. And the thing is that, on Saturday, the date and time for the inquest were fixed for Monday at 11 am. The police would have known this and my guess is that they would have been very interested in getting Hutchinson to testify there. The fact that he didn’t suggests that the PC did nothing with what Hutchinson told him.

Mmm, but at this stage, he may well have entertained a suspicion that the well-clad man was the Ripper, and he may have taken a close look out of a sense of responsibility for Kelly, his friend.

My point was that he took active effort to look the man in the face, which enabled him to remember details about him. He did not necessarily do this in order to remember more details, but he certainly took the active effort. The fact that the action he took was quite rude and intrusive, even makes this clearer.

But who says the man did not turn his head at that stage? Who can describe the light conditions that were about? How do we know that the bushy eyebrows were recorded at that exact stage? We do know that Hutchinson claimed that he believed that man lived in the neighborhood. Why did he think this? Because, perhaps, he had seen him before? I often think that this may partly lie behind the elaborate description he furnished - he may have seen him before in them parts, and therefore KNEW about his features to some extent.
I can see your reasoning, of course, but I don´t think it very damning.

Like I said, Fish, it’s just one small example. Following Hutchinson’s account (we have to if we assume he didn’t lie), there was no other opportunity where he saw the man’s face from so close, even though the man had “his hat over his eyes” and, as can be gleaned from articles about that era and area, the lighting conditions were poor to very bad. If Hutchinson had known the man (if only by sight) or had seen him before, then it’s very odd indeed that he didn’t mention that and if he did, it’s very odd that that didn’t end up in his statements.

Another example, a bit bigger, is the very thick gold chain and the open coat. There were 2 very good reasons to keep the coat well buttoned up: the weather and the fact that the man was in what was probably the worst neighbourhood in the East End. Yet, he kept it open. Very odd. But that’s just another example.

But it’s not about all those individual examples. Like I suggested earlier, it’s the whole story, all the oddities, conveniences, etc. taken together that make me believe it didn’t contain the truth and nothing but the truth.

Not in the police report, Frank - and that is a huge obstacle to anybody who wants to read credibility into Mrs Lewis second and radically changed description.

Agreed. I don’t know why this difference is there and don’t intend to try and explain. The only thing I’d like to mention about it is that such differences seem to have been quite common.

Having said that, the fact remains that, at the inquest, she did say that she saw the loiterer standing there, looking up the court as if waiting to come out and this does fit with Hutchinson’s account, even though she seems to not have told this to the police. I don’t see why she would want to spice her testimony up with this bit, unless she cooked it up together with Hutchinson. But that seems a lost bet in my book.

I read that passage three times. It did not help. I fail to see how you reason here, Frank! But I agree that it would not have been a smart move on Hutchinson´s behalf to totally rule out Lewis.

My reasoning is this, Fish: I’m assuming that Hutchinson didn’t intend to come forward at all, unless he’d learn that somebody had noticed a man (him) standing across the court and that he could expect this information to be in the hands of the police. He learned that this person was Lewis, so he didn’t mention her, as he didn’t want the police to think that he had only come forward because of her. That wouldn’t add to the image of an upstanding citizen and, as we say in Holland, he wouldn’t want to wake sleeping dogs.

Because the lodger and the PC apparently hadn’t appeared at the inquest or come forward in any other way to tell that the'd seen him, the police could never get the idea that Hutchinson had come forward because of them. Therefore, he could mention them.

There you are, three elements added - and you may now see what I am talking about, and perhaps even see the relevance in it!

Can't argue with your maths, Fish, so, yes, 3 elements are added. But these elements not in the same league as the actual elements mentioned by Lewis. Those mentioned by you are actually quite outstanding elements, and outstanding elements are the ones that have the far better chance of being noticed and remembered.

In other words, going from nothing to short, stout and a wideawake hat, is a rather small step in the bigger picture of things that might be described about a person, while going from nothing to 3 rather outstanding treats is quite another, and would probably have triggered my suspicions.

Thanks! And I am quite impressed by your afterthought and thoroughness. We should make a great team, Frank!

Thanks again, Fish, and on this I agree for a change!

The best!
Frank

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
Well I declare..., all I can say is poor old Hutchinson, whoever he was, he has certainly felt the fury of Casebook, he is not a ''nice person ''So say all of us''..
I have always seen him as a totally honest witness, who was reluctant to come forward for reasons of being concerned that he was placing himself, not only as having verbal contact with the victim on the morning of her death, but actually standing opposite the murder site.
Full credit to the man, it must have took a lot of courage.
I grew up with Ripperology appreciating that Hutchinsons statement was elaborate, but that can be explained by a eye for detail.
We all can remember details if we choose to I can recall clothing certain people wore on certain occasions nearly fifty years ago.
I believe we are on the wrong track with all the Hutchinson threads.but thats just a personal opinion.
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

Yes, Sally I agree..

And another thing..don't you think that Hutch was showing off about that policeman looking down the street, but not walking down it ?(" I got away with it under the policeman's very nose ! And I can remember the times of the
policeman's beat ) ?

Hi Ruby - I hadn't considered that, I admit. I agree that Hutchinson must have known the policeman's beat - in fact, he claims to have seen two policemen, doesn't he (including the Sunday one). I don't know if Hutch was the Ripper or not - jury's out for me; but I do think that Jack, whoever he was, must have observed and known the beats. The window of opportunity that he had for his kill in some cases seems to have been so small that I think he would have been caught if he hadn't. Nobody's that lucky.

[Sally]

Interesting idea Sally and excellent post Garry. If we suppose Hutch a psychopath we might make the following observations characteristic of the anti-social/psychopathic/sociopathic personality.

1) Injecting himself into the case: Grandiose sense of self
2) Description of Astrakhan man: Pathological Liar
3) Persuading Official of his sincerity: Glib and persuasive

One might make other similar observations. Then again, if Hutch was a regular Joe (or George in this case), the above may have perfectly natural explanations.


Greg

I think those are interesting observations Greg. My initial thoughts on this were concerned with what I perceive as the general lack of empathy in Hutchinson's account. I find his account of the Kelly/Astrakhan conversation unfeasible - something that might be imagined by somebody who had a limited understanding of how men and women interact. I find Hutchinson's account of his conversation with Kelly even less plausible considering he claimed to have known her well for the last three years. I think it is fair to say that there is no indication in any surviving source regarding Hutchinson which indicates any personal sense of loss in his part; and for me, at least, he appears curiously detached from the entire affair.

Then again, since several key details of his alleged relationship with Kelly are a remarkably close match to those reported regarding Kelly's relationship with Joseph Fleming; perhaps Hutchinson didn't know Kelly at all and simply 'borrowed ' the relationship to flesh out his story.

Just my take on it. I don't suppose we'll ever know for certain - and yes, there are other explanations to be fair.

[Rubyretro]

Yes, Sally I agree..

And another thing..don't you think that Hutch was showing off about that policeman looking down the street, but not walking down it ?(" I got away with it under the policeman's very nose ! And I can remember the times of the
policeman's beat ) ?

[Sally]

the conversations between Kelly and Hutchinson; and Hutchinson and Astrakhan particularly.

Obviously that should have read: 'the conversations between Kelly and Astrakhan particularly'

[GregBaron]

Psycho characteristics...

Interesting idea Sally and excellent post Garry. If we suppose Hutch a psychopath we might make the following observations characteristic of the anti-social/psychopathic/sociopathic personality.

1) Injecting himself into the case: Grandiose sense of self
2) Description of Astrakhan man: Pathological Liar
3) Persuading Official of his sincerity: Glib and persuasive

One might make other similar observations. Then again, if Hutch was a regular Joe (or George in this case), the above may have perfectly natural explanations.


Greg

[Sally]

Garry..

Thank you for your informative reply to my question. Do you think that Hutchinson may have exhibited psychopathic traits? (I'm sorry if I sound ignorant - I'm sure I am!).

I only ask because the encounter between Astrakhan and Kelly alleged by him sound preposterous to me - the conversations between Kelly and Hutchinson; and Hutchinson and Astrakhan particularly. To me, at least, they sound artificial. I just wondered whether he might have had a poor grasp of human relationships?

Then again, his account was good enough for the police I suppose - at first at least; so maybe its just me.

All the best

Sally

[Sally]

so let's start with 'Jack'. He seems to have been a killer with a 'show off', attention seeking bent; Afterall, he never made any attempt to drag his victims to a corner, leave their faces covered or pull their skirts down. There is (I think) a strong case for thinking that part off him was getting off on imagining the reactions of the police and public, and the press attention, to the extensive mutilations of Mary's body. You could say that she was almost theatrically posed for maximum horric effect. Yet (and I discount the letters and the GSG as being Jack's) frustratingly (for him), JTR was unable to enjoy any of the direct attention himself since he was forced to remain anonymous.

Hi Ruby. I agree with what you say entirely. I believe 'Jack' was compelled to compete - to 'outperform' if you like - at times of mass public engagement: so yes, you could say I think he was a show off!

Thanks for your reply

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“Why do you conclusively state "wrongly" about something you do not know? If you really want to see me stop posting, then don´t do things like this.”

I never said I wanted you to stop posting.

We do know that the Daily Echo were wrong to predict that Lewis’ testimony would not be accorded “much importance”. Her very attendance at the inquest is effective proof that the police did consider her evidence important. Lewis’ account had clearly been pinched by other women who sought attention through their attempts to pass of the account as their own, a phenomenon that neatly accounts for “Mrs. Kennedy’s” non-appearance at the inquest. The inference being that by the time the inquest opened, the police had managed to flush out the “Chinese whisperers” and were left with the genuine originator of the account – Sarah Lewis.

The Daily News were expressing their own opinions, which carry considerably less weight than the Echo's report of direct communication with the police. I was criticising the former rag, not you personally, for snobbery in association with their ludicrous remarks about Lewis’ presentation of her evidence. There is also a distinct lack of cohesion to their reporting. After dismissing the “doleful looking body”, they then referred to the cry of “murder” heard by Mrs. Prater and observed that this is supported by Lewis!:

“Some confirmation is added to this supposition by the evidence of another witness, Sarah Lewis, who lived a short distance off, but had had some falling out at home, and went to stay the night with a friend in Miller's-court, where she sat and dozed in a chair. She woke up about 3.30 by Spitalfields church clock, and a little before four o'clock-agreeing in this with the other witness-she also heard one cry of "Murder!"

Far from dismissing Lewis’ evidence as unimportant, the Daily News was observing that her evidence is mutually supportive with that of Prater. This makes me wonder if we’ve misread their earlier comments:

“One doleful-looking little body, with a negress-type of features, told how she and another had been frightened by a mysterious stranger who had tried to lure them by the offer of money into a retired spot; but they both took to their heels and ran away. Not much importance was to be attached to this testimony, probably”

This testimony, i.e. this particular bit of it, and not the totality of her evidence. It makes rather more sense to predict that this encounter would probably not be treated as important considering that it didn’t even occur on the night of the murder but rather the previous Wednesday afternoon. Clearly the Daily News weren't dismissing the entirety of her statement as unreliable, but unfortunately, even when viewed in this more favourable light, they were still offering personal commentary as opposed to police opinions. I don’t know why you call it the “bolstering article in the Daily News” since it doesn’t bolster anything else of evidential value.

“When she CHANGED that testimony, though, I think a lot was changed as relates to the trust the police put in her. “

No, there’s not the slightest scrap of evidence that the police revised their view of Lewis at any stage. It is understandable for those who wish to uphold Hutchinson as honest or honestly mistaken (!) to attempt to discredit or cast doubt on Lewis. Unfortunately, the attempt is doomed to failure, because as it’s overwhelmingly obvious that the police continued to invest significant in her evidence well after the inquest.

“On the contrary, they are very much so. It´s another thing altogether that YOU don´t admit this”

Admit?

Wow.

So you’re suggesting I secretly think that all the evidence supports honestly mistaken date-flummoxing Hutchinson, but I’m just not prepared to say so?

I’m afraid that’s a rather worrying, if not entirely unamusing, delusion on your part.