Let's narrow down some Ripper 'facts'

[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.

[DVV]

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

[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.

[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.

[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 !!!!

[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.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Garry,

You're like a breath of fresh air.

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

Regards,

Simon

[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.

[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.

[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.

[DVV]

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.

This post has nothing to do with my comment, Jon.

You said they might have talked of the Sunday sighting, but that Abberline didn't bother mention it in his report, which I found completely unlikely, since Abberline report is precisely all about identification. Pretty clear.

And report aside, the Sunday sighting should have been mentioned in the statement already. Fact is that it only appears in the press, later on.

If you can't accept a simple and obvious point like that, well, there is no need to respond to your posts anymore on this thread.
But I'm sure you can.

Once again, it's well and good to argue against Hutch-the-Ripper, but believing anything he said is sheer and biased credulity. The Sunday sighting is a joke, and to begin with, Hutch should have never talked to the press at the moment he did. It might have something to do with his subsequent discredit, by the way.

[Garry Wroe]

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

Well, Simon, possibly not a man named George Hutchinson if the inconsistency of his police statement signatures is duly considered.

Probably not an attention-seeker given that he would have attracted a great deal more attention had he come forward prior to the inquest.

Certainly a man whose story came to be disbelieved by investigators.

Almost certainly the man who was seen behaving oddly close to a crime scene at a time critical to a Ripper murder.

Beyond this, your guess is as good as mine.

[Garry Wroe]

… 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.

The paradox, though, Harry, is that Mrs Cox was able to describe this man’s whiskers and complexion. Thus, unless she fabricated this element of her narrative, she must have seen his face.

[DVV]

Cox certainly saw Blotchy as she said good night to Mary. Mary and Blotchy were walking in front of Cox in the street, but that doesn't mean the man kept standing with his back to Cox when they were in the court.
Had he done so, he would make a better suspect, and we would call him anything but Blotchy.

[Malcolm X]

Blotchy looked strait at her and gave her a filthy look, well; according to the gutter press that is !

no idea which date.... but i expect Wickerman does, it's on the same page beside the headline that sais, ``B52 Bomber found on the moon``