Hutchinsons statement....

[Sam Flynn]

How many other witnesses mentioned the rain that night?

Mrs Cox mentions it raining at 1:00, when she returned home to warm up for a while, and it was raining harder still when she went out again around 3:00; and the weather reports for London would seem to back her up. During this period, Hutchinson apears to have been standing around in the open for the best part of 45 minutes, to which we must add the time of his having "tailed" Kelly and Astrakhan before they reached Miller's Court. He must have been pretty wet, to put it mildly, to say nothing of the extra moisture from perspiration (and rain?) that would have accumulated about his person on his long walk from Romford.

[Abby Normal]

How many other witnesses mentioned the rain that night?

a better question would be-how many other witnesses that night, or in the whole case, mention the amount of detail that hutch did.

[Joshua Rogan]

Mrs Cox mentions it raining at 1:00, when she returned home to warm up for a while, and it was raining harder still when she went out again around 3:00; and the weather reports for London would seem to back her up. During this period, Hutchinson apears to have been standing around in the open for the best part of 45 minutes, to which we must add the time of his having "tailed" Kelly and Astrakhan before they reached Miller's Court. He must have been pretty wet, to put it mildly, to say nothing of the extra moisture from perspiration (and rain?) that would have accumulated about his person on his long walk from Romford.

Yes, I believe she's the only one that mentioned the rain, but that was only in court, not in her police statement. Both Liz Prater and Sarah Lewis are silent on the matter. So it seems a little harsh to hold Hutch's own silence on that point against him.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, I believe she's the only one that mentioned the rain, but that was only in court, not in her police statement. So it seems a little harsh to hold Hutch's own silence on that point against him.

But he's so detailed about everything else, and illustrates his narrative with all kinds of information.

Both Liz Prater and Sarah Lewis are silent on the matter

Yes, but their statements are very short. Hutchinson's goes on, and on, and on.

[Varqm]

"Seems to me that Hutchinson came in after Sarah had been on the stand"
Michael Richards

That also to me go against Hutchinson's credibility since he had a few hours,an opportunity,to learn what was said in the inquest,adding the fact the murders was big news.But we do not know how far and quick the inquest info spread.The police probably knew.

[Wickerman]

I don't believe that he knew her that well, certainly not for three years, and certainly not to have given her a "few shillings" from time to time. I believe he had to come up with the "familiarity" bit as a means to explain his completely OTT interest in what Kelly and Astrakhan got up to. ("Oh, yeah, we were really, really good friends. I've known her since I was 18, and I used to help her out by sharing a fair chunk of my wages with her whenever she was desperate. That's how good a friend I was and that's why I followed her so closely the other night, and made sure I gave the geezer a good once-over.")

Hi Gareth.
But isn't it true that the above is based largely on your belief that "Topping" was Hutchinson?
Given that we cannot determine this possibility, how would your view (above) change if it turned out that Hutchinson was older, and someone else entirely?

[Wickerman]

I'm not pretending anything, Jon, and I'm certainly not about to pretend that there's nothing suspicious about Hutchinson's statement; it's hugely suspicous. Its details, and the sheer level of detail it contains, are so self-evidently improbable that I honestly can't see how one could argue to the contrary.

Ok, so you know it is quite possible then, the fact you are reluctant to accept it is another matter. Suffice to say, the detail offered by Hutchinson is unique, but not impossible.

By the way, I bought Stephen Senise's recently-published book Jewbaiter last night, and I'm halfway through it. His exposition of the flaws in Hutchinson's account, to say nothing of the apparent echoes/borrowings from then-current (and not-so-recent) press reports, is quite fascinating. The fact that Senise's book is so very well written is an added bonus. Wholeheartedly recommended.

Senise was able to expose flaws not found by Phil Sugden, really?

[Wickerman]

How many other witnesses mentioned the rain that night?

This being England, I'd expect mention to be made, if it wasn't raining.

[c.d.]

Certainly Hutchinson could not have been the first witness that Abberline ever questioned. And I seriously doubt that Abberline would not have picked up on the extraordinary detail in Hutch's statement. I suppose that it could be argued that he was willing to overlook it as being suspicious in and of itself thinking that this might be the lead that would break the case. However, it would seem that at some point Hutchinson got a clean bill of health as far as possible involvement in Kelly's murder his level of detail recall notwithstanding.

And again, this was not Abberline acting in a vacuum but related to everyone at Scotland Yard involved with Hutchinson.

c.d.

P.S. I have often wondered if a suspicious Abberline said something like damn George that is a remarkable ability that you have there to remember so much detail and Hutch replying that it was a hobby with him or some such thing. Abberline says do you think you could turn your back and describe Sergeant so and so to me? And Hutch giving him a spot on description. Just a thought.

[Wickerman]

"Seems to me that Hutchinson came in after Sarah had been on the stand"
Michael Richards

That also to me go against Hutchinson's credibility since he had a few hours,an opportunity,to learn what was said in the inquest,adding the fact the murders was big news.But we do not know how far and quick the inquest info spread.The police probably knew.

Given that the time the inquest terminated was not published I am surprised to read you say Hutch "had a few hours", to learn what was said.
There is no way anyone can know that, he may have had as little as 30 minutes.

Sarah Lewis is one witness who is never quoted in the press, she never gave an interview either before the inquest, or after. This suggests Lewis was not a gossiper like other women might be.
So, on what grounds are we supposed to believe Hutchinson obtained his information?

[Wickerman]

P.S. I have often wondered if a suspicious Abberline said something like damn George that is a remarkable ability that you have there to remember so much detail and Hutch replying that it was a hobby with him or some such thing. Abberline says do you think you could turn your back and describe Sergeant so and so to me? And Hutch giving him a spot on description. Just a thought.

Hutchinson was a Groom, so we are told.

Among the skills you need to be a good Groom, we read:

You’ll need:

- good observational skills
- patience
- good communication skills
- competence in riding

https://nationalcareersservice.direct.gov.uk/job-profiles/horse-groom

A Groom is also responsible for the presentation of the horse at shows - every little detail....

[Abby Normal]

Hutchinson was a Groom, so we are told.

Among the skills you need to be a good Groom, we read:

You’ll need:

- good observational skills
- patience
- good communication skills
- competence in riding

https://nationalcareersservice.direct.gov.uk/job-profiles/horse-groom

A Groom is also responsible for the presentation of the horse at shows - every little detail....

They're also known to be excellent shite slingers

[Wickerman]

Good one

[Varqm]

Given that the time the inquest terminated was not published I am surprised to read you say Hutch "had a few hours", to learn what was said.
There is no way anyone can know that, he may have had as little as 30 minutes.

Sarah Lewis is one witness who is never quoted in the press, she never gave an interview either before the inquest, or after. This suggests Lewis was not a gossiper like other women might be.
So, on what grounds are we supposed to believe Hutchinson obtained his information?

I really don't know.The inquest started in the morning.How long did the inquest last?Judging from the questions asked from the witnesses not long.Let' s say 3-4 hours.Let's say it started at 11:00 A.M -could be earlier, finished,generously, at 3:00 PM? 4:00 PM?.You don't know either, I'm estimating.
You don't know if Hutchinson heard,from any source,either.But he had an opportunity.
But the bigger point is we do not know for "sure" if Hutchinson was lying or not -you could argue that all decade long, even though I think it is has some quality of being made up.
But if somebody says something it is true?.Somebody said the earth is flat.
We have to go outside of the testimony to help determine if Hutchinson is lying or not ,not necessarily the content of his testimony.
As I've said in previous posts,credibility,comparing to Sarah Lewis,who testified matter-of-factly,Hutch omitting Sarah in his testimony,Sarah was in the inquest,Hutch had an opportunity to hear what was said in the inquest and the police's subsequent actions on the witnesses they chose or omission of Hutchinson (potentially the biggest witness) on their subsequent writings/memoirs - as I've said in previous posts.

[Wickerman]

I really don't know.The inquest started in the morning.How long did the inquest last?Judging from the questions asked from the witnesses not long.Let' s say 3-4 hours.Let's say it started at 11:00 A.M -could be earlier, finished,generously, at 3:00 PM? 4:00 PM?.You don't know either, I'm estimating.
You don't know if Hutchinson heard,from any source,either.But he had an opportunity.
But the bigger point is we do not know for "sure" if Hutchinson was lying or not -you could argue that all decade long, even though I think it is has some quality of being made up.
But if somebody says something it is true?.Somebody said the earth is flat.
We have to go outside of the testimony to help determine if Hutchinson is lying or not ,not necessarily the content of his testimony.
As I've said in previous posts,credibility,comparing to Sarah Lewis,who testified matter-of-factly,Hutch omitting Sarah in his testimony,Sarah was in the inquest,Hutch had an opportunity to hear what was said in the inquest and the police's subsequent actions on the witnesses they chose or omission of Hutchinson (potentially the biggest witness) on their subsequent writings/memoirs - as I've said in previous posts.

Look at what you wrote.

You admit "we do not know", correct. Yet you offer a theory.
Theories come from evidence, not from speculation.
All you have is speculation, there is no evidence for your theory.

You ask: "if somebody says something, it is true?".
What someone said is part of the historical record, that is why it matters.

I use what is regarded as evidence, whether it is in police documents, or newspapers. What we read is part of the historical record.
As opposed to the accusations against Hutchinson which are modern speculations not supported by any evidence.

That, is the difference.