Hutchinsons statement....

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Perhaps they checked up on his story.

Let´s skip the "perhaps", Gareth.

Indeed so. And, if his story didn't check out, the story was indeed "discredited".... doesn't mean that he wasn't either, but the Star strictly refers to his story only.

Weighing all the sources together, it seems clear that Hutchinson himself was never discredited at all. Dew is instrumental in telling us about the veracity of the man and how it remained. And bear in mind that the story was LARGELY discredited - but not totally!

I wouldn't place too much weight on Dew's account, as there are distinct signs in his biography that that he was exaggerating his closeness to the case. For one thing, Dew claims to have been the first into 13 Miller's Court and to have slipped in the blood and guts, when we know the blood was largely confined to the bed and the guts to the mattress and bedside table; For another, Dew said that Bowyer was a bulging-eyed youth, when we know him to have been a middle-aged ex-soldier.

If there had been some source contradicting him, it would be another matter, methinks - but there is no such source. All the information we have about Hutchinson tells the same story: cannot be rocked, gives an honest impression, not to be reflected upon. What we have is what we work with - if Hutchinson had been proven to be a liar or an attention-seeker, I personally believe that there is no way we would not have this recorded. His was a piece of testimony that was a very promising lead, he was of the utmost interest, he surfaced very late in the case when the interest and efforts on behalf of all actors involved peaked - if he was a simple liar, we would know.

Possibly, although it's hard to see how a simple mistake could have given rise to the elaborate narrative that Hutchinson came forward with.

It is nigh on impossible, yes. And if it was the elaborative narrative in itself that was disbelieved, then where is the information telling us that this was so? Why is Hutchinson not described as a fabulator in the papers, why does not Dew echo the sentiments of the police that would have prevailed in such a case?
Because it never happened, that´s why. He could not be rocked, it was said, and that means that they went over him like a tank, doing all they could to see if there was anything wrong. There was not. He was not to be reflected upon, meaning that he did what he could and did so in good faith - but was wrong neverthless IN SOME RESPECT.

They checked it out and found it to be wanting in some way?

Yes, they did. Can you give me an example of what you think it may have been that spoke against the narrative not being what it seemed to be? Something? Anything? If he was confirmed as Lewis´ loiterer?

At least, as Jon has pointed out, and if the Echo is 100% correct, at least some of the police no longer favoured it within the week.

They did not favour it as a functioning lead, no. But if that was because Hutchinson had been found out as a liar or attention-seeker, then NOBODY would favour it and NOONE would pursue the trail of Astrakhan man. And still we know that they did. So what can have caused this? Are we to believe that there was one fraction of the police who put trust in Hutchonson and one who did not? In an organization that is ruled from the top and where nobody is allowed to freelance, acting against the orders from the top?
I think not. I think they were all acting along the exact same lines and that they were all following orders, and I think those orders involved a very diminished belief in Hutchinsons story on account of an honest mistake on his behalf. Consequently they did not prioritize finding Astrakhan man - but they nevertheless kept an eye out for him. So they believed he existed and they believed he was knit to the case, and they believed that he had spoken to Kelly, and they knew he had gone with her to her room, and they wanted to question him - but they knew that he was not a hot lead and a very possible culprit.
What can have made them realize that?

[Abby Normal]

Sam Flynn: Perhaps they checked up on his story.

Let´s skip the "perhaps", Gareth.

Indeed so. And, if his story didn't check out, the story was indeed "discredited".... doesn't mean that he wasn't either, but the Star strictly refers to his story only.

Weighing all the sources together, it seems clear that Hutchinson himself was never discredited at all. Dew is instrumental in telling us about the veracity of the man and how it remained. And bear in mind that the story was LARGELY discredited - but not totally!

I wouldn't place too much weight on Dew's account, as there are distinct signs in his biography that that he was exaggerating his closeness to the case. For one thing, Dew claims to have been the first into 13 Miller's Court and to have slipped in the blood and guts, when we know the blood was largely confined to the bed and the guts to the mattress and bedside table; For another, Dew said that Bowyer was a bulging-eyed youth, when we know him to have been a middle-aged ex-soldier.

If there had been some source contradicting him, it would be another matter, methinks - but there is no such source. All the information we have about Hutchinson tells the same story: cannot be rocked, gives an honest impression, not to be reflected upon. What we have is what we work with - if Hutchinson had been proven to be a liar or an attention-seeker, I personally believe that there is no way we would not have this recorded. His was a piece of testimony that was a very promising lead, he was of the utmost interest, he surfaced very late in the case when the interest and efforts on behalf of all actors involved peaked - if he was a simple liar, we would know.

Possibly, although it's hard to see how a simple mistake could have given rise to the elaborate narrative that Hutchinson came forward with.

It is nigh on impossible, yes. And if it was the elaborative narrative in itself that was disbelieved, then where is the information telling us that this was so? Why is Hutchinson not described as a fabulator in the papers, why does not Dew echo the sentiments of the police that would have prevailed in such a case?
Because it never happened, that´s why. He could not be rocked, it was said, and that means that they went over him like a tank, doing all they could to see if there was anything wrong. There was not. He was not to be reflected upon, meaning that he did what he could and did so in good faith - but was wrong neverthless IN SOME RESPECT.

They checked it out and found it to be wanting in some way?

Yes, they did. Can you give me an example of what you think it may have been that spoke against the narrative not being what it seemed to be? Something? Anything? If he was confirmed as Lewis´ loiterer?

At least, as Jon has pointed out, and if the Echo is 100% correct, at least some of the police no longer favoured it within the week.

They did not favour it as a functioning lead, no. But if that was because Hutchinson had been found out as a liar or attention-seeker, then NOBODY would favour it and NOONE would pursue the trail of Astrakhan man. And still we know that they did. So what can have caused this? Are we to believe that there was one fraction of the police who put trust in Hutchonson and one who did not? In an organization that is ruled from the top and where nobody is allowed to freelance, acting against the orders from the top?
I think not. I think they were all acting along the exact same lines and that they were all following orders, and I think those orders involved a very diminished belief in Hutchinsons story on account of an honest mistake on his behalf. Consequently they did not prioritize finding Astrakhan man - but they nevertheless kept an eye out for him. So they believed he existed and they believed he was knit to the case, and they believed that he had spoken to Kelly, and they knew he had gone with her to her room, and they wanted to question him - but they knew that he was not a hot lead and a very possible culprit.
What can have made them realize that?

stop beating around the bush fish, everyone knows your theory is that hutch was mistaken on the date.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;416627]

All the information we have about Hutchinson tells the same story: cannot be rocked, gives an honest impression, not to be reflected upon. What we have is what we work with - if Hutchinson had been proven to be a liar or an attention-seeker, I personally believe that there is no way we would not have this recorded. His was a piece of testimony that was a very promising lead, he was of the utmost interest, he surfaced very late in the case when the interest and efforts on behalf of all actors involved peaked - if he was a simple liar, we would know.

I.e. too good to be true.

Pierre

[Sam Flynn]

Sam Flynn: Perhaps they checked up on his story.

Fisherman: Let´s skip the "perhaps", Gareth

Why? I rather hope they would have checked it up.

Dew is instrumental in telling us about the veracity of the man and how it remained.

Problem is, Fish, I'm not convinced of Dew's veracity - at least not in terms of his involvement in the Kelly case.

Yes, they did. Can you give me an example of what you think it may have been that spoke against the narrative not being what it seemed to be? Something? Anything?

I'm sure you can think of some examples, Fish. You have a splendid imagination, of that I have no doubt

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Sam Flynn;416633]

I'm not convinced of Dew's veracity - at least not in terms of his involvement in the Kelly case.

Why is that, Sam?

Pierre

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Pierre

I'm not convinced of Dew's veracity - at least not in terms of his involvement in the Kelly case.

Why is that, Sam?

I explain why in my earlier post, quoted below for convenience:

I wouldn't place too much weight on Dew's account, as there are distinct signs in his biography that that he was exaggerating his closeness to the case. For one thing, Dew claims to have been the first into 13 Miller's Court and to have slipped in the blood and guts, when we know the blood was largely confined to the bed and the guts to the mattress and bedside table; For another, Dew said that Bowyer was a bulging-eyed youth, when we know him to have been a middle-aged ex-soldier.

There are other reasons for doubting Dew's reliability in terms of the Kelly case, but those are two good ones.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Why? I rather hope they would have checked it up.

Because it is inconceivable that they did not. Besides, they found out that the story could not be trusted more than to a much diminished degree - and such things come from checking. There is therefore ne need for any source saying "we checked it out". We may rest assured that they did.

Problem is, Fish, I'm not convinced of Dew's veracity - at least not in terms of his involvement in the Kelly case.

You are still left with the same outcome: not a living soul was saying that Hutchinson was anything but honest.

I'm sure you can think of some examples, Fish. You have a splendid imagination, of that I have no doubt

If only you had the same, Gareth. The one logical solution is that Hutchinson mistook the days. Like Dew said. It explains all the factors involved. It clarifies why Astrakhan man was sought for, while he was not sought for as a suspect: because he could offer information about what Kelly had said and done on the night BEFORE the murder night. It explains why the police would not doubt Hutchinsons good will. It explains why there were seemingly two fractions within the police: Those who followed the main leads and those who looked for Astrakhan man to ask him about the night before the murder night.
It does not take much imagination too see that - it is more a question of siompla mathematics (1+1=2) and the ability to read. And I know you master both disciplines - but I also know that you are more intent on trying to imply that I am a phantasist than on taking in the basics.

That´s your problem, not mine. Leading horses to water and all that.

[Fisherman]

stop beating around the bush fish, everyone knows your theory is that hutch was mistaken on the date.

Not everyone, Abby, which is why I try to make sure that we draw closer to a fuller tally.

Most people will also know what the main (and only, actually) criticism of the theory is:

"Nah, he would not do that, would he...?"

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

[Fisherman]

If Hutchinson was a liar or an attention seeker, who thinks that it would have been kept a secret within a limited selection of policemen, who all kept silent about it? And who kept it from the press?

Exactly why would such a thing happen? What was there to gain or loose in the affair?

Is it not much more likely that Dew reflects a well known truth when it comes to Hutchinsons veracity? And if not, why?

Answers, anybody?

[Fisherman]

Off to bed now. Let´s hope Gareth can debate without resorting to petty arguments about splendid fantasy capacities tomorrow.

[Sam Flynn]

Off to bed now. Let´s hope Gareth can debate without resorting to petty arguments about splendid fantasy capacities tomorrow.

Well, I thought your asking me for examples of why Hutchinson's statement could have been dismissed was fairly pointless to begin with. Both of us can come up with umpteen possible reasons why, but I don't see what that would achieve.

PS: I said that your imagination (not your capacity for fantasy) was splendid, which it is

[Sam Flynn]

You are still left with the same outcome: not a living soul was saying that Hutchinson was anything but honest.

All we can say is that no extant report states that Hutchinson was dishonest, but that doesn't mean much. Point me to the newspaper articles - or police memos, for that matter - that say that Matthew Packer was dishonest, or that Caroline Maxwell or Maurice Lewis were deluded, and I might agree with your point.

[Wickerman]

She did give a statement on the 9th to police:

Statement of Sarah Lewis No 34 Great Pearl Street Spitalfields, a laundress:-

Between 2 and 3 o’clock this morning I came to stop with the Keylers, at No 2 Miller’s Court as I had had a few words with my husband, when I came up the Court there was a man standing over against the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset Street (talking to a female - deleted) but I cannot describe him. Shortly before 4 o’clock I heard a scream like that of a young woman, and seemed to be not far away, she screamed out murder, I only heard it once. I did not look out at the window. I did not know the deceased.

Marginal note - I left the Keylers at 5.30pm.

Sarah Lewis further said that when in company with another female on Wednesday evening last at Bethnal Green, a suspicious man accosted her, he carried a black bag.

I'm well aware of what she gave to police, but I didn't expect anyone would suggest the police gave Hutchinson a copy of her statement.

If you recall, the issue was, where could Hutchinson have obtained the details.

[Wickerman]

As I've said, Jon, the "Wearside Jack" tape and letters were discredited by some of those working on the Yorkshire Ripper case, but George Oldfield remained (erroneously) convinced by them.

So where do we read that the Tapes were discredited?
We don't, and the reason we don't is because as long as Oldfield accepted them, then that is the official opinion.

The Star did not announce that "some authorities have discredited Hutchinson's story". The wording they chose did not suggest a partial dismissal - whatever that would mean.
Besides, even if only half of the police officials dismiss it, the other half didn't, so the story is still not discredite.

All the officials involved must reject the story for it to be totally discredited.

We don't know that, besides, the Star is pretty clear-cut in stating that Hutchinson's story was discredited. Maybe that hadn't filtered through to the Echo's sources yet?

How do you mean "clear cut", there is no source. Why don't you object to the fact they provided no source for this outrageous claim?
Especially, as no other newspaper made the same comment.

The Echo & the Star are both evening papers, in fact where they carry the same story it can be seen the Star is the one who copied from the Echo.

[Wickerman]

How does that follow from what I posted, Jon? Those elements to which I referred were all featured in early press reports and, furthermore, versions of these stories were apparently circulating by word of mouth as well.

Yes, but the story as given by Hutchinson & Lewis carry certain commonalities, so if you don't accept that both these people saw the same thing, then you must think Hutchinson obtained those same details from press accounts of local gossip.

Like I said, those details do not appear in print. So that option is false.

Alternately, you now choose "by word of mouth", how convenient to choose a method that cannot be tested.
Why make this more complicated than it needs to be?

Hutch was there, he saw the same details, why can't it be just that simple?