Let's narrow down some Ripper 'facts'

[harry]

Too true Heinrich,yet the description of the person seen with Kelly about midnight,prevails,when a close study of Cox's testimony reveals she had only a rear view from a distance,in poor lighting,in inclement weather.

[Heinrich]

So-called "eye witnesses" are next to useless for identification purposes unless the suspect is already known to the person. Countless innocent people have been jailed on faulty eye witness identifications.

[Wickerman]

Except, Jon, that Abberline is insistent that Hutch "can identify the man", which echoes the statement ("can be identified"), and that "an arrangement was at once made for two officers to accompany him round the district for a few hours tonight with the view of finding the man if possible".

You're not thinking this through Dave.
They have a very complete description, yes?, do you think for one minute that the police are not capable of finding a man in a coat trimmed with Astrachan?
Why do they need Hutchinson?

The reason they need Hutchinson, especially at this time of night, is because Abberline knows this is not evening wear. Abberline is not prepared to wait for the next Sunday market, he needs Hutchinson for facial recognition.

They are about to hit the streets looking for a man, aged 34-35, 5ft 6in, pale complexion, dark hair & moustache, slightly curled, of which there must be dozens of them.
In order to not arrest the wrong man they need Hutchinson for facial recognition.

Savy?, comprende? verstehen Sie?
Regards, Jon S.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Garry,

You're like a breath of fresh air.

Mister Astrakhan was certainly fiction, but who was his creator?

Regards,

Simon

[Garry Wroe]

hard work isn't it Garry !

It is, Malcolm. But it will pay off in the end. Eventually the traditional beliefs relating to Kelly's death will give way to the new, and we'll be done with the spurious notion of Kelly parading about Commercial Street at 2:00am and her fictitious Astrakhan encounter. But I'm not holding my breath.

[Malcolm X]

but what you say is quite interesting..... GH leaves at 3am, which like Broadshoulders, is way too early to say...... ``he's JTR``.

Yes exactly, when are you going to realise that this is his tactic, he's left at 3am knowing that she has finally fallen asleep, with Blotchy Face probably leaving 15 mins earlier.

whatever the case, GH was definitely waiting there for someone to leave, be this Blotchy face, or heaven forbid; LA DE DA !!!!

[Malcolm X]

GH never said that he saw SL ..... because according to you he should have done!

plus in her initial statement, SL said that she only saw GH outside.... or maybe someone else.... she saw nobody in the court/passageway!

finally, we know GH went up the court, because he said so, well what this means nothing special.

[Ben]

Fact: Sarah Lewis DID NOT see anyone pass up the Miller's Court passage.

Fact: Sarah Lewis DID NOT see anyone standing outside Kelly's doorway.

These things never happened. They are simply false reports that were refuted and nullified by her police statement and genuine inquest testimony.

If you're looking for an accurate report on the evidence of Sarah Lewis, pulp or burn the Daily News first.

[DVV]

Jon, use Hutch's statement and Lewis testimony and you'll understand your mistake.

[Wickerman]

I do not ignore Lewis’s words. On the contrary. I simply do not accept that Sarah Lewis’s testimony confirms Hutchinson’s claim that he met and spoke to Mary Kelly at two o’clock.

Garry, you are ignoring Lewis's words.

If we only use the Inquest testimony we get three points of confirmation between Lewis & Hutchinsons police report.

1-Lewis claims to see a man standing opposite Millers Court in Dorset St. between 2:00-2:30am.
1-Hutchinson claims to stand opposite Millers Court between 2:00-2:30am.

2-Lewis claims the man is not just standing but, “looking up the Court”.
2-Hutchinson claims to be not just standing but, “looking up the Court”.

3-Lewis claims to have seen another couple in the vicinity.
3-Hutchinson claims to have been following a couple.

Three points of confirmation:
1- time & location,
2- posture & focus.
3- Man & woman observed by both.

Sarah Lewis's testimony has confirmed this portion of Hutchinson's claim.

If we need to go any further we must consult the press.


Lewis saw a man & woman pass up the court (passage), Hutchinson said the same.

Lewis:
“ I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court.” (Daily News, 13 Nov.)

Hutchinson: “...and they both went up the court together.” (Star, 14 Nov)

4th point of confirmation!


After the couple ascended the passage, was there anyone in the Court?

Lewis:
“Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink. There was nobody in the court.” (Daily Telegraph, 13 Nov.)

Hutchinson: “ I went to look up the court to see if I could see them,” (Star, 14 Nov)

Hutchinson walked up the passage to view the Court, obviously there was no-one in the court or he would have seen them. Confirmed by Lewis who also claimed there was no-one in the Court.

5th point of confirmation!


Hutchinson claimed to have walked up the passage himself.

Hutchinson:
"I went to look up the court to see if I could see them,” (Star, 14 Nov)

Lewis claimed:
“In the doorway of the deceased's house I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing.” (Daily News, 13 Nov.)

Hutchinson claimed to walk up the Court, Lewis confirms seeing the loiterer stand outside Kelly's door.

Now we know, Hutchinson walked up the passage to look into the “court” at the end of the passage. He could see no-one standing outside in the cold, within the court, therefore, this couple must have gone indoors.
Hutchinson walked up the passage himself.

6th point of confirmation!


How many points of confirmation do you need?

There is no doubt about it, Lewis and Hutchinson both witnessed the same six occurances with respect to events at Millers Court.

I don't particularly care about the appearance of Hutchinsons suspect, the man, whatever he looked like, existed. Therefore, with respect to this sequence of events alone, Hutchinson was not lying, he is confirmed.

Unlike, by way of example, Mary Ann Cox, who's sighting of Blotchy is confirmed by no-one at any time of the night, yet still accepted.

Likewise, I’m baffled as to your conclusion that Lewis’s account and Anderson’s exclusion of Hutchinson as a stellar witness are mutually incompatible. They are not.

No, you are not baffled, you just refuse to accept that Anderson could not put any faith in a witness who left the murder scene a full hour before the murder took place.

How strong would Lawende's evidence be if he had seen Eddowes earlier at 12:30 instead of 1:30 am?
It wouldn't, and you know it.

Even the evidence of PC Smith was relegated to that of Schwartz because of a difference of only 15 minutes. PC Smith was not Anderson's witness because that 15 minutes was too far removed from events (Smith at 12:30 as opposed to Schwartz at 12:45).

That one hour's absence by Hutchinson after he left Millers Court means he may not have seen Kelly's murderer at all, and Anderson had to have known that. You know that and I know that.
But I don't need Anderson's memoirs to bolster a failing hypothesis.

Regards, Jon S.

[Malcolm X]

hard work isn't it Garry !

SL saw someone outside Millers court, there's no proof that this was GH, but likewise not much proof that it wasn't, it could be that GH simply failed to mention her in his statement, after all; his focus of attention was MJK.

but it would be extremely foolish going to Abberline, if you were never there, and realising at the same time, that SL saw somebody lurking around outside that wasn't you...... this would be really dumb ass !

you notice GH does not mention this in his next statement either, because by now ( if he's smart) he should know that SL saw him, yet he still doesn't mention her, only another bloke and the copper; this is a little bit odd !

GH only has to be careful from 2 to 2.15 am, this is when absolutely nobody must be around... after this, the more people that see him the better.

realising this why is GH distancing himself from SL, unless of course he told all of this to Abberline after the statement was taken, and he couldn't be bothered to re do it all.

it is impossible for GH not to see her, unless of course she sneaked home while he was strolling away from Millers Court, only to turn around and come back 20 seconds later, after all; it must be extremely boring standing fixed in one place for an hour.

.

[Garry Wroe]

The Inquest testimony of Sarah Lewis is the mainstay of this issue. The fact Lewis confirms Hutchinson implies very strongly that Kelly was indeed out after midnight.

It does nothing of the kind, Jon. This is muddled thinking of the first order.

The fact you choose to ignore her words in favour of 30 year old memoirs (Anderson) recalling a Jewish witness as opposed to Hutchinson being the principal witness is laughable.

I do not ignore Lewis’s words. On the contrary. I simply do not accept that Sarah Lewis’s testimony confirms Hutchinson’s claim that he met and spoke to Mary Kelly at two o’clock. And nor in my view would any objective, rational person.

Likewise, I’m baffled as to your conclusion that Lewis’s account and Anderson’s exclusion of Hutchinson as a stellar witness are mutually incompatible. They are not. The problem lies not with these two conditions, but rather with your dogmatic insistence that Hutchinson continued to be regarded as a reliable informant. He didn’t. The evidence for such is overwhelming. But you ignore it because it doesn’t accord your own preconceived notions. That is what’s laughable, Jon.

But then again your selective acceptance of what suits your theory and what contests it might have something to do with your preferential treatment of the evidence.

I’m guessing that the irony of this statement was lost on you, Jon.

And I have never "asserted" Lewis's Britannia-man & Astrachan were the same, only that they might have been.

Really? Well, I’ll leave that for other posters to review your previous contributions and draw their own conclusions.

Lewis saw a loiterer watching a couple "pass up the court". Hutchinson was a loiterer watching a couple "pass up the court", both sightings at the same location and same time …

This would be the same Sarah Lewis who asserted that the court was empty as she entered it? And the same Hutchinson who explicitly stated that no-one entered or left the interconnecting passage whilst he maintained his watch on the court from his position on Dorset Street?

… Hutchinson is confirmed, he was telling the truth, and Kelly was outside Millers Court after midnight, regardless of whether you accept newspaper stories.

This is fantasy of Trenouthian proportions. It’s right up there with alien abductions and Creationism. My advice, Jon, is that you rethink your position before embarrassing yourself further.

[DVV]

We don't know everything they talked about, only what he saw leading up to the murder was important for this statement.

Except, Jon, that Abberline is insistent that Hutch "can identify the man", which echoes the statement ("can be identified"), and that "an arrangement was at once made for two officers to accompany him round the district for a few hours tonight with the view of finding the man if possible".
As you can notice, Abberline is quite articulate about this promising possible identification, but not a word on the hilarious Sunday sighting.

[Wickerman]

We don't know everything they talked about, only what he saw leading up to the murder was important for this statement. Likewise, what he did after is not recorded.

[DVV]

It's really cute that some posters believe in the Sunday sighting.
I'm sure they can explain why Hutch made no mention of such an important encounter to Abberline. hahahahaha. nuts.