Hutchinsons statement....

[Sam Flynn]

Did he remember correctly that Thursday was the day he went to Romford,that he was late back,that he saw Kelly and Aman, and that somewhere between then and Dorset Street become so confused in memory,that the next 45 minutes is replced by what happened 24 hours before?

Very well put. It is highly unlikely that Hutchinson was mistaken about the date, given that he had such useful hooks on which to hang the Kelly/Astrakhan event in his memory.

[Fisherman]

Very well put. It is highly unlikely that Hutchinson was mistaken about the date, given that he had such useful hooks on which to hang the Kelly/Astrakhan event in his memory.

It is always highly unlikely that people will muddle the days. Invariably so, unless we are dealing with people with a seriously defect sequential memory, like people with dementia.

Nevertheless, people DO muddle the days. I would suggest that we all do that, from time to time, with the possible exception of Harry.

And people living vagrant´s lives - like Hutchinson did - are much more prone to do so than others.

The "useful hooks" you speak of are not useful if the reasoning is wrong from the outset. It is that easy, really.

[Fisherman]

Varqm: Yeah I think Hutch missing to mention Lewis greatly changes him from an honest-to-goodness witness- to a questionable one.

How does that work - if he was there the day before...?

For somebody who did not miss a lot of details of the couple he allegedly saw,I think he wouldn't have forgotten after 4 days or Lewis.

I have stated this numerous times before, but I´m happy to do so again: We have two types of memories, a detail memory and a sequential memory. One can be good and the other worthless. The best example of this lies with people suffering from dementia, who can often describe the clothes a person wore in detail fifty years after the event - but who think that it happened yesterday. They can recall exactly what was said in a conversation, decades after the person they had the conversation with has died - but they think he or she is still alive.
Sequential memory and detail memory are not connected at all. So we cannot say that since Hutch remembered the details in Astrakhan man´s dress, he should have remembered the day he saw him too. Once again, these are different matters altogether and they do not employ the same part of the brain.
I concur about Lewis, though - she was part of his detail memory. Or she should have been. But the man who remembered all those details about Astrakhan man seems to have forgotten Lewis totally. Conclusion: He never saw her, so he was not there at the time she passed into the court.

There would be a finality,perhaps only, if there is a report on the police's check of Hutchinson and/or his statement.I conjecture that whatever the result of that report was made them choose Lawende instead of Hutch.It's almost clear to me Hutchinson was not there where/when he said he was.I have not heard any good argument to the contrary.

Nor have I. But to me, the fact that the police pursued their search for Astrakhan man and the fact that Dew wrote that Hutchinson was not to be reflected upon, and the fact that Hutch never mentioned Lewis all boils down to the compelling conclusion that he was simply out on the dates - as per Dew. And if so, the police would have had a very good reason to keep searching for Astrakhan man.

[Varqm]

Varqm: Yeah I think Hutch missing to mention Lewis greatly changes him from an honest-to-goodness witness- to a questionable one.

How does that work - if he was there the day before...?

For somebody who did not miss a lot of details of the couple he allegedly saw,I think he wouldn't have forgotten after 4 days or Lewis.

I have stated this numerous times before, but I´m happy to do so again: We have two types of memories, a detial memory and a sequential memory. One can be good and the other worthless. The best example of this lies with people suffering from dementia, who can often describe the clothes a person wore in detail fifty years after the event - but who think that it happened yesterday. They can recall exactly what was said in a conversation, decades after the person they had the conversation with has died - but they think he or she is still alive.
Sequential memory and detail memory are not connected at all. So we cannot say that since Hutch remembered the details in Astrakhan man´s dress, he would have remembered the day he saw him too. Once again, these are different matters altogether and they do not employ the same part of the brain.

There would be a finality,perhaps only, if there is a report on the police's check of Hutchinson and/or his statement.I conjecture that whatever the result of that report was made them choose Lawende instead of Hutch.It's almost clear to me Hutchinson was not there where/when he said he was.I have not heard any good argument to the contrary.

Nor have I. But to me, the fact that the police pursued their search for Astrakhan man and the fact that Dew wrote that Hutchinson was not to be reflected upon, and the fact that Hutch never mentioned Lewis all boils down to the compelling conclusion that he was out on the dates - as per Dew.

I kinda agree to a degree that they lived vagrant lives which would mean they would have disorder in their day/s and was used to it.And so to would be their memory.But four days after an eventful day is less likely to me but if it was weeks or a month it would be different.

The search for Astrakhan man to me would have been reasonable ,and that's what the police I think did, because of the chance it might have been true and otherwise let the lead get cold but at the same time a check on Hutchinson and his story would have commenced. But at some point Hutch was discredited.

I also suggested that Hutch may have actually seen Kelly and a client dressed like Astrakhan or even another couple where the man was dressed like Astrakhan and used that memory in his story - it would be more descriptive and more recallable than just having read from a paper.A half-truth or a deliberate honest mistake for money.

But yes an honest mistake was possible.

[Varqm]

To add, a check on Hutchinson would have been done because if they just believe a witness and it turns out to be false they would be wasting a lot of time and work.

[Wickerman]

.....I don't know or have read of any widespread practice by the police of not allowing witnesses to talk to people....

I can offer you an example if you are prepared to read through the links & quotes.

Mrs Prater, if you recall, slept that night until about 3:30, when she was woken by a cry of "Oh, murder!'

Well, Mrs Prater was interviewed on Friday afternoon and gave her statement to police. It is here for the first time we read that she was wakened at 3:30 by "screams of murder, about two or three times, in a female voice".

Yet, the very next morning, the 10th, we read in the Daily News....

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_news/18881110.html

...that Mrs Prater had only met Kelly Thursday morning and they had a chat together.
Prater told the press nothing about hearing a cry of murder.

She was also interviewed on Saturday by the Star....

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881110.html

...and strangely, Prater unloads all manner of gossip on the Star, but makes no mention of the cry of murder she heard at 3:30 am.

Prater was also interviewed by the Daily Telegraph Friday evening, for the Saturday morning edition...

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_telegraph/dt881110.html

...and here we actually read her denial to hearing anything during the night:
"She had heard nothing during the night, and was out betimes in the morning, and her attention was not attracted to any circumstances of an unusual character."

Police did insist that witnesses speak to no-one about what they saw/heard/said, but this restriction did not extend to peripheral gossip about knowing or meeting Kelly hours before the incident.

Unless you can come up with another explanation it seems quite reasonable to accept these reports as an indication that the police requested Prater to withhold critical information from the press & her friends.

Which is why we read nothing in the press about what Sarah Lewis saw, and that nothing Lewis saw was the subject of gossip on the streets (Gareth).

[Sam Flynn]

Which is why we read nothing in the press about what Sarah Lewis saw, and that nothing Lewis saw was the subject of gossip on the streets (Gareth).

Really? Don't think so, Jon. There are contemporary reports that people were recounting stories they'd heard about the events that night and claiming them as their own. Make no mistake, gossip would have been rife.

Besides, as I've already pointed out, there were certain elements of Hutchinson's account that can be plausibly linked to press reports relating to Kelly's and earlier murders.

[David Orsam]

Well, Mrs Prater was interviewed on Friday afternoon and gave her statement to police. It is here for the first time we read that she was wakened at 3:30 by "screams of murder, about two or three times, in a female voice".

For the first time and the last time?

[Wickerman]

Really? Don't think so, Jon. There are contemporary reports that people were recounting stories they'd heard about the events that night and claiming them as their own. Make no mistake, gossip would have been rife.

Perhaps a refresher?
Here is the account from the Star, Nov. 10th.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881110.html

It was Mrs Kennedy who said she heard a cry of "murder" (she is the one who lived in the court), and then we read:
"This story soon became popular, until at least half a dozen women were retailing it as their own personal experience."

Kennedy Gareth, not Lewis, it was Mrs Kennedy.
Sarah Lewis is not heard of in the press until her statement on Monday 12th.

Besides, as I've already pointed out, there were certain elements of Hutchinson's account that can be plausibly linked to press reports relating to Kelly's and earlier murders.

Too vague....

[Wickerman]

For the first time and the last time?

I speak to what evidence we have.

[Wickerman]

Sorry, Jon, but I won't respond to those points individually. Suffice to say that all of them could have been gleaned from a combination of the newspapers and a little imagination. The jungle grapevine was, as I've said, another perfectly realistic potential source.

I was not intending to illicit a response Gareth, no response is required. You merely asked what the list consisted of.
These are factual points taken from inquest testimony, not conjecture, and as a result these points constitute evidence.

However, your position in contesting this is to fall back on conjecture (could have heard....etc.), not evidence.
As I tried to explain earlier, from conjecture we get evidence, from the evidence we form a theory. But many on Casebook jump straight from conjecture to theory, completely ignoring the fact their theory carries no evidence.
Which is the case with your position.

[Wickerman]

Yeah I think Hutch missing to mention Lewis greatly changes him from an honest-to-goodness witness- to a questionable one.

Women were like non-citizens in 19th century England, they did not get to vote until 1918. Even then they had to be 30 years old.
Women were like background noise in the East End they were always coming and going around the streets; midwives, cleaners, nurses, home-help, and such like. Not mentioning one woman coming down Dorset street when women were coming and going everywhere at all hours of the day and night means nothing.
Beside, like I said earlier, Sgt. Badham only took down the information that the police could make use of. What use is mention of "an unknown woman in Dorset St."?

There would be a finality,perhaps only, if there is a report on the police's check of Hutchinson and/or his statement.I conjecture that whatever the result of that report was made them choose Lawende instead of Hutch.It's almost clear to me Hutchinson was not there where/when he said he was.I have not heard any good argument to the contrary.

What should they do if they cannot locate George Hutchinson - tell me.

[David Orsam]

I speak to what evidence we have.

If that's the case, why can't you answer my question?

It was the first and last time we read of Prater speaking of two or three screams of murder wasn't it?

[harry]

Fisherman,
Not so long back you were backing the honest George Topping Hutchinson group,who had George as a somewhat respectable person ,and perfect when it came to memory recall.Now he is George the vagrant, who can't remember one day from another,flitting about from one sleeping place to another,all sleepy eyed and muddle headed.
But answer my questions,and, disregarding my ,or your, or the man in the moon's memory,what evidence do you have that Hutchinson was not the person seen by Sarah Lewis.

[Wickerman]

If that's the case, why can't you answer my question?

It was the first and last time we read of Prater speaking of two or three screams of murder wasn't it?

Maybe if you had reworded your question.
It struck me you were asking a rhetorical question where we both know the answer was "yes". What I was not clear on was the point you may have been trying to make.