Hutchinsons statement....

[Wickerman]

Not if he could come up with an even "better" suspect than Mrs Kennedy, Sarah Roney and various unnamed acquaintance of the deceased, all of whose stories were reported by the popular press on the 10th November.

Hi Gareth.

What you seem to propose is that Hutchinson read a few stories from the newspapers at the Victoria home over the weekend, then decided to use Kennedy's story as his template.
Mrs Kennedy saw no-one in Dorset St.

So, then he added himself in Dorset St. right opposite Millers Court (but amazingly, so did Lewis), and added a couple walking passed him and up the court (but amazingly, so did Lewis), and also added that the woman was slightly drunk (again, amazingly, so did Lewis).
How did both Hutch & Lewis manage to get those particular details the same if Hutch was never really there?

Then, he included a fictitious waiting period of 30-45? minutes, to have him leave Millers court about 3:00 am. Leaving himself wide open for criticism from any number of people who may have come up Dorset St. and told police there was nobody there at that time.

Are you comfortable with all this Gareth?

[Varqm]

The result of the police checking out Hutchinson's story,whatever they did (no records) - maybe took many weeks,months - is they choose a Jewish witness rather than Hutch.Unless they were that dumb they would have chosen Hutch.It must have been that Hutch was not telling the truth.

[Wickerman]

They chose the Jewish witness because Lawende had a permanent address, and could be found quite easily. All the other witnesses were transient.

[harry]

Hutchinson was reported as a resident of the Victoria Home,which means his occupancy could have been for an extended time.

[Abby Normal]

They chose the Jewish witness because Lawende had a permanent address, and could be found quite easily. All the other witnesses were transient.

Agree, but I would also suggest that it was because he was a "respectable" witness, and had corroboration of his sighting by his companions.

[Michael W Richards]

I'm wondering whether anyone has made anything of the fact that Daniel Barnett and Georgie boy were both residents of the Victorian Home at that time, if of course the man identifying himself as George did in fact reside there. The ability to easily assume a new name during that period was certainly present. There were few documents that the average person would have to prove they were who they said they were.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Jon

What you seem to propose is that Hutchinson read a few stories from the newspapers at the Victoria home over the weekend, then decided to use Kennedy's story as his template.

Not just Kennedy's story, indeed not solely based on the coverage of Kelly's murder, but a collage of reports from previous Ripper murders, too.

So, then he added himself in Dorset St. right opposite Millers Court

As I said previously, he had to place himself there in Dorset Street to add verisimilitude to his claim that he'd tailed Kelly/Astakhan all the way home, and to add weight to his claim the suspect stayed in there with her for some time.

[John G]

They chose the Jewish witness because Lawende had a permanent address, and could be found quite easily. All the other witnesses were transient.

Also proximity of sighting to estimated time of death.

[Wickerman]

Jon, And what evidence was available? Evidence that supports or distracts from Hutchinson's? How can something that is missing,of which there is no knowledge,ever be proved to have existed. Straying a little it seems,from your oft repeated claims of only dealing with known evidence.

The police had no plans to conduct any door-to-door search of the Victoria home after the inquest.How do you know that? How could Hutchinson know that,to the extent that would influence him in staying or leaving,if the need was there.

Glad you admit you do not know what was done,neither do I,but what I do know is that some law enforcement officers,believe a good knowledge of the informant Is as vital as the information they impart,and that opinion only,
does not prove much.

I only focuss on A man when discussing Hutchinson.I do not consider the others you mention,as being part of his story.

What I do not get is your preoccupation with whether Hutchinson's story was verified.
You maintain he could have lied. Fine, but I challenged all comers on Casebook to come up with anything that we can honestly say Hutchinson lied about.

To date, no-one has come up with anything - the belief he lied is fantasy.

A few even went so far as to claim it was 'proven' Hutchinson lied, but when challenged all voices went quiet, why - because it is rubbish.
There is absolutely no indication Hutchinson lied about anything, so why do you keep flogging a dead horse?

[harry]

Jon,
Fine,but you have also been challenged to provide evidence Hutchinson told the truth,and you hav'nt done so.
Obviously, a claim has to be proven before it can be accepted as being known to be true.You place great trust in evidence so you keep repeating,so why shouldn't I ask you for evidence.
Where is the evidence that A man existed,that Hutchinson went to Romford,that Kelly was seen by Hutchinson in Commercial Street about 2am ,that there were no plans to conduct enquiries at the Victoria Home.

The preoccupation as you call it,is because you keep repeating your belief that those claims are true, because a policeman at the time,had an opinion Hutchinson was telling the truth.

So to stop my preoccupation,submit your evidence.

[Wickerman]

Jon,
Fine,but you have also been challenged to provide evidence Hutchinson told the truth,and you hav'nt done so.

I produced Sarah Lewis who claimed to see not only a lurker (Hutch?), but a man & woman walk up the passage - just as Hutch claimed. The female was "the worse for drink" - just like Hutch claimed. Apparently the woman was hatless, just as Mary Cox claimed.
In a court of law that would be sufficient to verify at least that part of his story.
Maybe you have not read this, but that is as near as proof as we are likely to get. Ignoring Lewis does not make her go away.

The trip to Romford is not directly impact the murder story, even if he didn't go there this does not mean he wasn't in Dorset St. as he claimed.

[harry]

Jon,
Are you arguing that because two persons at different times saw a hatless female,that is evidence that it must have been the same female?

Lewis does not report seeing a female present in or around the court,about 2.30,which is the time she claims she saw a male standing outside Crossinghams.

Hutchinson does not report a female at that time,and I have never claimed Hutchinson lied about being there.

That being so,one truth does not support all of his claims be true.
If the trip to Romford is not important,why was it included?.It had a meaning to Hutchinson apparently.To Badham? to Aberline?

[Michael W Richards]

What I do not get is your preoccupation with whether Hutchinson's story was verified.
You maintain he could have lied. Fine, but I challenged all comers on Casebook to come up with anything that we can honestly say Hutchinson lied about.

To date, no-one has come up with anything - the belief he lied is fantasy.

A few even went so far as to claim it was 'proven' Hutchinson lied, but when challenged all voices went quiet, why - because it is rubbish.
There is absolutely no indication Hutchinson lied about anything, so why do you keep flogging a dead horse?

Jon,

Don't be ridiculous, there is no way to prove anything about Hutchinsons story now, as there is no way to disprove any of it. What we do know is that he claimed to somewhere at a time when another witness saw someone, he came forward on Monday night...4 days after the fact...and that he offered up what can only be described as incredibly specific details about the mans appearance. We also know his story is later discredited.

The safe side of that bet is that some or all of his story was invalid.

[Wickerman]

Jon,
Are you arguing that because two persons at different times saw a hatless female,that is evidence that it must have been the same female?

Lewis does not report seeing a female present in or around the court,about 2.30,which is the time she claims she saw a male standing outside Crossinghams.

Hutchinson does not report a female at that time,and I have never claimed Hutchinson lied about being there.

That being so,one truth does not support all of his claims be true.
If the trip to Romford is not important,why was it included?.It had a meaning to Hutchinson apparently.To Badham? to Aberline?

I already clarified what the three points were, none of which were reflected in what you said above.

Had we read in the press that another resident of the Vic. Home told a reporter that Hutchinson was here all Thursday (ie, he never went to Romford), you and a few others would have been shouting it from the roof tops.
There wouldn't be any claims of 'press tittle-tattle', or 'untrustworthy uncorroborated press reports', oh no, you and others would be claiming it is proven he lied.

Here, the shoe is on the other foot, Lewis saw what Hutchinson saw, that is corroboration.

[Wickerman]

Jon,

Don't be ridiculous, there is no way to prove anything about Hutchinsons story now, as there is no way to disprove any of it. What we do know is that he claimed to somewhere at a time when another witness saw someone, he came forward on Monday night...4 days after the fact...and that he offered up what can only be described as incredibly specific details about the mans appearance. We also know his story is later discredited.

To quote someone recently..."Don't be ridiculous"

We do not KNOW that the story was later discredited.
(How many times do we have to go over this?)
Try following the facts Michael, leave emotion aside.

We do KNOW the Star published false and inflammatory stories from time to time THAT has been proven.
The Star, being a new newspaper, was intent on making provocative claims to get sales.