Hutchinsons statement....

[caz]

His attire is not unusual, not even for that time of night.
No amount of huffing & puffing will ever change that. It's just that posters who understand this rarely speak up.

Hi Jon,

Just attempting to catch up with this thread and reached the above post of yours. I haven't yet read the responses, if any, but I will 'speak up' now. Much of the attire Hutch described would not have been unusual at all for the area or the period. If Hutch had been the killer, he'd have also been pretty simple to come forward in the first place, never mind try and deflect suspicion onto an impossible A.N. Other.

Petticoat Lane was also known locally at the time as the Jews' Market, and most people, however poor, would like to have dressed as well as their means allowed (best on Sunday, pawned on Monday, redeemed on payday, sound familiar?), which often meant scouting round the market stalls for old clothes, cast orf by the better orf; fur collars that could be stitched onto worn coats and jackets to give them a new lease of life; imitation jewellery and so on, if one wanted to look a bit flash on the cheap.

If Hutch could not have seen that a hankie was red in the dark (which I and others have disputed in the past), would he have noticed if a man was wearing second hand 'posh' clobber with tarted up trimmings, and would that have made a difference anyway to how he described this particular man? Compared with Kelly and the people she usually hung around with, including the unemployed Hutch himself, he could still have appeared 'a cut above', merely on account of choosing to wear flashy gear he'd picked up for very little outlay.

Besides, whenever it's trotted out that no self respecting killer, armed with a lethally sharp blade, would dare be seen out on those streets in smart clobber for fear of muggers or worse, I always think of the Krays and their ilk, and go hmmmm, right...

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Something that puts Hutchinsons statement through the value filter is the fact that Blotchy has not been accounted for since 11:45 when he entered the room. The statements that have people seen out and about near the court entrance after that should have, for all intent and purpose, seen someone leaving that courtyard. If Hutchinson was indeed Wideawake, as his statement seems to lead to that conclusion, then we have a viable reason for a Pardon offer issuance. Wideawake would almost certainly been perceived as a lookout.

Astrakan man is by default here the 3rd most interesting man in this story.

[Varqm]

Fisherman,
I have plenty of time to waste.I was merely drawing attention to the claim of 3am as interesting,as if true,it places several people in or near Millers Court at that time,certainly the victim,and possibly the murderer.

True.Its unclear in Hutchinson's initial testimony when he left.He could have left at 2:55 AM.and missed Cox.Hutch also missed to mention Lewis's couple "further on". Hutch had or could have missed 4 things (post #915).

[harry]

Fisherman,
I have plenty of time to waste.I was merely drawing attention to the claim of 3am as interesting,as if true,it places several people in or near Millers Court at that time,certainly the victim,and possibly the murderer.

[Wickerman]

So what happened to the famous police instruction to potential witnesses not to reveal the contents of their statements?

I forgot to reply to this challenge...

"Mrs. M'Carthy, the landlady, might easily have seen the murderer as he passed out of the court, but she observes a strict reticence, having apparently been cautioned by the police."

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/morning_advertiser/18881110.html?printer=true

I was interested in what led you to believe the police did not have the authority to caution a witness?

[John Wheat]

Neither thing matters. Hutchinson heard the clock chime, and he stayed for 45 minutes.

Cox said not a iot about being there between 2 and 2.45, so no, we should not think it odd that the two did not see each other - we should accept that the reason that neither party does mention the other is on account of them not having met on the night. All extremely simple and basic, of course.

You really should not waste any more time trying to lead on that they should have met, Harry. The suggestion is going absolutely nowhere.

Agreed Fisherman Hutchinson was a witness like Lechmere.

[Fisherman]

Roughly? Didn't he claim he timed his departure by the sound of a church clock? What was Cox's explanation for a time of 3am?

Neither thing matters. Hutchinson heard the clock chime, and he stayed for 45 minutes.

Cox said not a iot about being there between 2 and 2.45, so no, we should not think it odd that the two did not see each other - we should accept that the reason that neither party does mention the other is on account of them not having met on the night. All extremely simple and basic, of course.

You really should not waste any more time trying to lead on that they should have met, Harry. The suggestion is going absolutely nowhere.

[harry]

Roughly? Didn't he claim he timed his departure by the sound of a church clock? What was Cox's explanation for a time of 3am?

[Fisherman]

Perhaps Cox was the most observant.Clouğ cover for that period,as reported, was complete.

Cox was there at 1 AM and 3 AM. Hutchinson was in place between 2 and 2.45, roughly.

That is why I wonder why Cox should have stumbled over him. Or why anybody would reason that she should have.

[Varqm]

[QUOTE=Pierre;417780]

No, you are not discussing "reality", you are discussing old sources left to us from the past.

The sources are pieces of reality from the past, but the sources do not at all always provide you with the whole reality or even pieces of reality of the past.

The past is gone.

Reality is gone.

What is left to us are the sources.

Sources are pieces from reality constructed by the court, by journalists, by editors.

They are not "reality". Do remember this.

And this does not mean that the sources are useless or hopeless.

It means that you must use historical methods when you examine them.

Yes but we are still dealing with humans/persons,and partly their motivations and limitations.
Don't forget, words syntax is different from actions syntax.

[harry]

Perhaps Cox was the most observant.Clouğ cover for that period,as reported, was complete.

[Wickerman]

People who claim to have been out overnight on Friday morning; Cox, Bowyer, Kennedy, Lewis & Hutchinson, and Mrs McCarthy who spoke to someone who just stepped into her shop.
No-one else mentions rain, only Cox.

The London Evening Standard took rainfall measurements daily at 7.00 pm. Rainfall between 7.00 pm Thurs, to 7.00 pm Friday, was of no significance "--" (no measurement).

[Robert]

Blimey!!

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Pierre;417780]

No, you are not discussing "reality", you are discussing old sources left to us from the past.

The sources are pieces of reality from the past, but the sources do not at all always provide you with the whole reality or even pieces of reality of the past.

The past is gone.

Reality is gone.
[/B]

I have a pretty good idea about what is really gone here...

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;417769]

what we are discussing out here is the reality, and in that reality, the coroner was somewhat sparse about these matters - as is well known.

No, you are not discussing "reality", you are discussing old sources left to us from the past.

The sources are pieces of reality from the past, but the sources do not at all always provide you with the whole reality or even pieces of reality of the past.

The past is gone.

Reality is gone.

What is left to us are the sources.

Sources are pieces from reality constructed by the court, by journalists, by editors.

They are not "reality". Do remember this.

And this does not mean that the sources are useless or hopeless.

It means that you must use historical methods when you examine them.