Hutchinsons statement....

[Sam Flynn]

So where do we read that the Tapes were discredited?

This is referred to in at least one documentary I can remember, Jon. I believe it's about Wearside Jack himself, but there may be others.

We don't, and the reason we don't is because as long as Oldfield accepted them, then that is the official opinion.

And his opinion proved to be horribly and tragically wrong.

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

Indeed, but I never suggested it was totally discredited. Anyhow, the corollary from both the Star and the Echo is that Hutchinson's story was not totally accepted - that much is clear.

How do you mean "clear cut", there is no source.

I said that the newspaper article is clear-cut, which it is.

Why don't you object to the fact they provided no source for this outrageous claim?

It's no more outrageous than the "now largely discredited" witness testimony to which it refers.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

It would help if you'd specify which commonalities you're referring to.

Alternately, you now choose "by word of mouth", how convenient to choose a method that cannot be tested.

Please don't try to make it look like I'm shifting the goalposts, because I'm not. The "word of mouth" dimension plus newspaper reports plus Hutch's imagination would clearly play a part, and I've long said so.

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

Because he didn't just see the same details; he saw a truck-load more, and then some. That's precisely the issue.

[Fisherman]

Since you are on here now, Gareth, how about taking a stab at my question: Precisely what could have been one of the umpteen reasons for largely - but not fully! - disbelieving Hutchinsons story, while not doubting the man himself?

[Sam Flynn]

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.

I'm not going to do that, Fish, because (a) it would be a pointless waste of time and (b) it would only result in an even more pointless game of ping-pong.

[Sam Flynn]

Since you are on here now, Gareth, how about taking a stab at my question: Precisely what could have been one of the umpteen reasons for largely - but not fully! - disbelieving Hutchinsons story, while not doubting the man himself?

No thanks. See my previous answer.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

My point is that Dew's memoirs are demonstrably erroneous with regard to certain key facts of the Kelly case, and that, on this basis, his account should be treated with great caution.

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?

It could have been any of those reasons or none of them - we will just never know what Dew's motivations were, because they are not part of the historical record. It might be amusing to speculate on such things, but it won't get us anywhere.

[Fisherman]

I'm not going to do that, Fish, because (a) it would be a pointless waste of time and (b) it would only result in an even more pointless game of ping-pong.

Much as I dislike that attitude, it is of course your prerogative to claim things without substantiating them when asked. Not that I think it is what the boards are meant for, though, but one can only do so much.

For the record, I don´t think many reasonable suggestions can be made along the lines I asked for, and I invite any poster actually interested in discussing matters to exemplify on Gareth´s behalf. I think it would be a healthy and enlightening exercise.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: My point is that Dew's memoirs are demonstrably erroneous with regard to certain key facts of the Kelly case, and that, on this basis, his account should be treated with great caution.

If you are referring to the incident about slipping and falling on the floor, or to the "youth", it must be said that there is no proof at all that Dew did NOT fall on the floor, just as it has been suggested that a young messenger boy may have been the person he refers to instead of Bowyer.
So in those respects, we are speaking not of proven matters, but instead of matters he may have gotten wrong. There are other things in the memoirs that are better examples of errors, but it would be strange if there were no errors at all in a fifty year old book. That, at least, is my take on it. And much as the blood slipping may have been a spicing up on Dews behalf - but we cannot know that for sure - there is no spice at all involved in dubbing a man honestly mistaken. Calling him a bald-faced liar involves a lot more spice. Dew is more likely to be correct than wrong, seeing as more than ninety per cent of what he recounts is correct.

It could have been any of those reasons or none of them - we will just never know what Dew's motivations were, because they are not part of the historical record. It might be amusing to speculate on such things, but it won't get us anywhere.

It certainly got ME somewhere - it opened up the very likely suggestion that Hutchinson was mistaken on the days. If it gets you nowhere, that´s a private problem of yours, I would say. If you only mean that Dew cannot be proven right, you are following as fruitless a line of research as can be found; very little CAN be proven, but much of it can be put to the test of logic and cohesion just the same. If it is not for you, then that´s another prerogative of yours.

[Sam Flynn]

Much as I dislike that attitude, it is of course your prerogative to claim things without substantiating them when asked.

How very generous of you, Fish. Besides, I don't need to "substantiate" a statement that I myself made. I said that there might be umpteen reasons why Hutchinson's story was largely/fully dismissed, and that's all there is to it. My trotting out half a dozen speculative scenarios isn't going to help the discussion one iota.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam Flynn: My point is that Dew's memoirs are demonstrably erroneous with regard to certain key facts of the Kelly case, and that, on this basis, his account should be treated with great caution.

If you are referring to the incident about slipping and falling on the floor, or to the "youth", it must be said that there is no proof at all that Dew did NOT fall on the floor, just as it has been suggested that a young messenger boy may have been the person he refers to instead of Bowyer.
So in those respects, we are speaking not of proven matters, but instead of matters he may have gotten wrong. There are other things in the memoirs that are better examples of errors, but it would be strange if there were no errors at all in a fifty year old book. That, at least, is my take on it. And much as the blood slipping may have been a spicing up on Dews behalf - but we cannot know that for sure - there is no spice at all involved in dubbing a man honestly mistaken. Calling him a bald-faced liar involves a lot more spice. Dew is more likely to be correct than wrong, seeing as more than ninety per cent of what he recounts is correct.

It could have been any of those reasons or none of them - we will just never know what Dew's motivations were, because they are not part of the historical record. It might be amusing to speculate on such things, but it won't get us anywhere.

It certainly got ME somewhere - it opened up the very likely suggestion that Hutchinson was mistaken on the days. If it gets you nowhere, that´s a private problem of yours, I would say. If you only mean that Dew cannot be proven right, you are following as fruitless a line of research as can be found; very little CAN be proven, but much of it can be put to the test of logic and cohesion just the same. If it is not for you, then that´s another prerogative of yours.

Sorry, Fish, I'm not going to engage with you further. Your hectoring and often ad hominem style is more than my (genuinely) delicate constitution can take these days.

Edit:

Sorry, Fish - What I wrote there was an over-reaction on my part, and I apologise. I'm a bit hypersensitive at the moment!

[Flower and Dean]

There was a bit of a debate a few pages back about whether Lewis and Cox contradicted each other... not so. Mrs. Cox's testimony leaves a gap between 1 (when she last heard Kelly singing) and 3 (when she goes home and Kelly's room is dark and quiet). Lewis describes her events as taking place at or around 2:30. That's a time not even covered in Mrs. Cox's testimony, so it doesn't contradict anything. I'm not sure what the debate is where that's concerned because the testimonies make this clear.

[Wickerman]

There was a bit of a debate a few pages back about whether Lewis and Cox contradicted each other... not so. Mrs. Cox's testimony leaves a gap between 1 (when she last heard Kelly singing) and 3 (when she goes home and Kelly's room is dark and quiet). Lewis describes her events as taking place at or around 2:30. That's a time not even covered in Mrs. Cox's testimony, so it doesn't contradict anything. I'm not sure what the debate is where that's concerned because the testimonies make this clear.

Are you sure it wasn't between Prater and Cox?

[Wickerman]

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 favor consistency, the Echo's report of the 19th is consistent with their earlier report on the 13th, saying that the police are divided between the Cox suspect and the "dark foreign-looking man" suspect.
Isolated, unsourced comments by disreputable 'tabloids' concerning the story being "discredited" can be safely discarded as what we might class today as 'fake news'.

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?

Not Cusins, it was Abberline (on Dec. 6th) who believed the Astrachan attired, middle-aged Jew - Joseph Isaacs might be the man he's been hunting for the past three weeks.
Apparently, Abberline had not dismissed Hutchinson's story.

[Wickerman]

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.

Mis-remembering appears to be a common flaw with memoirs on this case.
What I was alluding to is at least Dew's source was legitimate and can hardly be questioned.
The same cannot be said for the Star, a newspaper which had been rebuffed numerous times by Scotland Yard, so the Star's sources are questionable.

A slightly confused memory can be accepted of Dew after about 50? years, but as the Star wrote their story three days after the event - what is their excuse?

(Scotland Yard persist in telling us nothing - The Star.)

[Wickerman]

It would help if you'd specify which commonalities you're referring to.

Ok, I just thought I had listed them too many times already.

The commonalities are:
- Both Hutch and Lewis saw a couple, a man & woman walk up the court.
- Both Hutch and Lewis identify a man (Hutch - himself) watching Millers Court passage from Dorset Street.
- Both Hutch and Lewis make it clear this couple did not stay in the court, they went indoors.
- Hutch said Kelly was "a little bit spreeish", while Lewis said the woman was "the worse for drink".
- Lewis said the woman was hat-less, whereas Cox had said earlier that night that Kelly was out without her hat.
- Hutch implied the time at around 2:15 am, and Lewis said she was at the Keylers when the clock struck 2:30, after her sighting.

These are the common details which suggest Hutch and Lewis saw the same event.
Also, and more importantly, none of these details appeared in the press over the weekend.

Because he didn't just see the same details; he saw a truck-load more, and then some. That's precisely the issue.

Ok, so your premise must be that witnesses should in general see the same amount of detail - why, because everyone is the same?

One person cannot be expected to pay attention to detail, especially when he may be just a little annoyed?
While the other witness only noticed some details in passing, because to her this was a non-event, just a man & woman passing in the night.
Why pay a great deal of attention to that?