Hutchinsons statement....

[Wickerman]

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

All memoirs are unreliable in certain details, but the Star and Pall Mall Gazette, were the lowest of the low with respect to accuracy and credibility.

You choose to put your faith in the Star, but dismiss a policeman like Insp. Dew?

[Wickerman]

Is it likely that the police sat on this evidence that there was another witness/suspect (i.e. Wideawake Man) to the events in Miller's Court, or that they immediately started asking around as to who he might have been? I'll bet it's the latter, otherwise they'd have been somewhat remiss in their duties. If so, it could have been the police themselves who "leaked" this part of Lewis's story ahead of the inquest.

Any detectives would be sensitive to the potential role this loiterer may have had in the events that night. Any further questions they ask would be neutralized so as not to give anything away.
They wouldn't ask "did you see a man over the street", but a very generic "did you see anyone else about".
So, the police themselves as a source for Hutchinson's details is extremely unlikely.

Not that I doubt that Lewis and/or the Keylers weren't capable of doing so - as already observed, there were other stories (e.g. "Kennedy") that contained echoes of Lewis's account, and they made it into the papers very early on.

None of the important details were contained in Kennedy's account.
I love the way you whitewash Kennedy's story being careful not to get too specific because you know Kennedy had no specific information which paralleled the story by Lewis.

Kennedy's story began at 3:00, included Mary Kelly but did not include a loiterer, then you try to suggest she got her details from Lewis, who's story began at 2:30, and did see the loiterer, but made no mention of seeing Kelly (as she didn't know her by sight).

I find ducking and weaving so entertaining at times.

[Wickerman]

And yes, the report of the 15th said discredited, whether you agree with the source or not.

I don't have to do anything, especially when the Echo, on the 19th, are reporting the police are still pursuing the Hutchinson suspect.

Is that what being discredited means, you still hunt them down regardless?

[Fisherman]

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

I really don´t think that umpteen reasonable suggestions can be made for why the story was largely but not fully dismissed. I would like to hear a few such suggestions from your side, therefore.

[Fisherman]

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.

Point me to any illegitimate reason Dew may have had for asserting that Hutchinson was honest, Gareth, and I may be a little more inclined to listen to such a suggestion.

Did it spice up his story? Did it sell more copies? Or what? Did he just make it up for no reason at all? Are there any proven instances where we know that he made anything at all up in his book, or is it generally regarded as quite a feat memorywise?

[harry]

Dew's was not a declaration that he believed Hutchinson had the days wrong.His was a 'What if' Hutchinson had the day's wrong.Quite different.Dew also made the same comment about another witness.
The term is used,as is evident,without a scrap of evidence or stated reason as to why Hutchinson might be wrong.Funny that the two persons most vocal about the need for evidence,should now rely on a 'What if",which require no substanciation. or evidence.

[Fisherman]

Dew's was not a declaration that he believed Hutchinson had the days wrong.His was a 'What if' Hutchinson had the day's wrong.Quite different.Dew also made the same comment about another witness.
The term is used,as is evident,without a scrap of evidence or stated reason as to why Hutchinson might be wrong.Funny that the two persons most vocal about the need for evidence,should now rely on a 'What if",which require no substanciation. or evidence.

"I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken, not necessarily as to a person, but as to date and time. And I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were wrong. "

Well, Harry, it seems to me that what Dew says that he can see no other explanation. I have tried to find where he wrote "what if Hutchinson had the days wrong?", but I can find no such passage at all. Maybe you can help out?

You write about the two people most vocal about the need for evidence, and how it is funny that we should accept no evidence at all.

That is of course a barrel full of horseshit and nothing else. Dew was a serving officer during the Ripper scare and what he says IS evidence, although it is of course evidence of lesser value than, say, a police report from 1888 - 50 years had passed and we know that there are elements in his book that can be questioned. But it represents evidence nevertheless.

What there is absolutely no evidence for is instead that Hutchinson would have lied, that he would have been regarded as a timewaster, and that anybody at all looked upon him as anything but honest. These are all unsubstantiated matters, thrown forward by latter-day conjurers who would have Hutchinson as the culprit.

Can you see the difference?
Hutchinson truthful and honest and his story never fully dismissed - in some little evidence.
Hutchinson a liar, his story totally dismissed - in no evidence whatsoever.

[harry]

Nowhere have I stated he wrote those words,but as Dew failed to supply evidence of a failure of memory on the part of Hutchinson,it does indeed become a 'What if' situation.
Yes Fisherman,and I know just as many people who can recall a series of da ylong experiences,without such a loss of memory, 3 days after the events. Dew 's words are opinion,not fact or evidence when applied to Hutchinson.
Of course if you have evidence a man was standing outside Crossingham's,about 2.30 on the morning prior to that stated by Hutchinson,you and Dew would have a starting point,but you havn't,
And I see your old habit of personnel abuse is use d to cover your ignorance.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Pierre
I explain why in my earlier post, quoted below for convenience:
There are other reasons for doubting Dew's reliability in terms of the Kelly case, but those are two good ones.

Fairly recent testing of a sample of Victorian skin proved that he erred in his most famous case as well Sam.

[Pierre]

Hello Pierre
I explain why in my earlier post, quoted below for convenience:
There are other reasons for doubting Dew's reliability in terms of the Kelly case, but those are two good ones.

Hi Sam,

I see what you mean. And what do you think about these statements by Dew:

"The Miller's Court murder made it more obvious than ever that the murderer was being shielded."

and (about offering the pardon):

"The step was taken after careful consideration with the definite object of securing vital information which the police were convinced existed."

(Source: http://casebook.org/ripper_media/rps.walterdew.html)

How could it be "obvious"?

How could the police be "convinced"?

Cheers, Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

I don't have to do anything, especially when the Echo, on the 19th, are reporting the police are still pursuing the Hutchinson suspect.

Is that what being discredited means, you still hunt them down regardless?

So your excuse for backing the idea that as of the 19th they were still looking for Astrakhan man is because you favor that press release over the one that took place 4 days earlier? I see. Discriminating tastes I suppose.

I also suppose that Mary Cusins report to the police about her Astrakan coated tenant had nothing at all to do with any clinging hopes that Hutch brought in a viable lead?

[Fisherman]

Nowhere have I stated he wrote those words,but as Dew failed to supply evidence of a failure of memory on the part of Hutchinson,it does indeed become a 'What if' situation.
Yes Fisherman,and I know just as many people who can recall a series of da ylong experiences,without such a loss of memory, 3 days after the events. Dew 's words are opinion,not fact or evidence when applied to Hutchinson.
Of course if you have evidence a man was standing outside Crossingham's,about 2.30 on the morning prior to that stated by Hutchinson,you and Dew would have a starting point,but you havn't,
And I see your old habit of personnel abuse is use d to cover your ignorance.

Harry, it does not matter a iot that you know people who can recall sequences of days. It is totally uninteresting, because we know that there are other that will fail in this respect. That is all we have to keep tab on - people WILL mix up the days from time to time. End of story.

Personnel abuse should read "personal abuse" - and YOU should read your own posts, where you tried to make yourself funny about my approach to evidence. That is the only abuse there has been - an abuse of the facts. On your behalf.

I really should not make the effort to answer you, since I know that the only thing it will fetch is either total ignorance or a flat out denial of the facts from your side. That´s the one and only suspension point involved when exchanging with you - which is it gonna be this time, sort of.

[David Orsam]

Hi Sam,

I see what you mean. And what do you think about these statements by Dew:

"The Miller's Court murder made it more obvious than ever that the murderer was being shielded."

and (about offering the pardon):

"The step was taken after careful consideration with the definite object of securing vital information which the police were convinced existed."

(Source: http://casebook.org/ripper_media/rps.walterdew.html)

How could it be "obvious"?

How could the police be "convinced"?

Cheers, Pierre

I would like to take a crack at this.

Can I suggest that Dew, then a lowly detective constable, thought it was obvious that a family member must have been shielding the murderer because he thought he would have been covered in blood and it basically must have been obvious to anyone who was close to him or living with him that he had been out doing some murdering that morning, as on the other mornings when women were killed.

He may have been right he may have been wrong but that surely explains his thinking.

Similarly, it would appear that, according to Dew, the police were convinced that the murderer had an accomplice which enabled him to evade justice. Dew obviously had no real inside information as to why a pardon was offered to anyone who had aided the killer but that is clearly what he thought. Certainly, a pardon is unlikely to have been offered unless the authorities thought it would have a reasonable chance of influencing someone to report the murderer to the police.

So those are the mundane, very boring answers to Pierre's questions.

[Abby Normal]

I would like to take a crack at this.

Can I suggest that Dew, then a lowly detective constable, thought it was obvious that a family member must have been shielding the murderer because he thought he would have been covered in blood and it basically must have been obvious to anyone who was close to him or living with him that he had been out doing some murdering that morning, as on the other mornings when women were killed.

He may have been right he may have been wrong but that surely explains his thinking.

Similarly, it would appear that, according to Dew, the police were convinced that the murderer had an accomplice which enabled him to evade justice. Dew obviously had no real inside information as to why a pardon was offered to anyone who had aided the killer but that is clearly what he thought. Certainly, a pardon is unlikely to have been offered unless the authorities thought it would have a reasonable chance of influencing someone to report the murderer to the police.

So those are the mundane, very boring answers to Pierre's questions.

and more than likely correct

[Sam Flynn]

You choose to put your faith in the Star, but dismiss a policeman like Insp. Dew?

In this instance, there is clear evidence that Dew at the very least mis-remembered key facts, and there remains the possibility that he exaggerated his involvement in the Kelly case. His account should not be accepted uncritically - and neither should the Star, or the Echo for that matter.