Possible reason for Hutch coming forward

[Wickerman]

Didn’t think so

And that's the main problem.

[Abby Normal]

As Lewis is describing this couple doing the same as Hutchinson said, then what is there to explain?
Both stories complement each other, Abberline knew both stories, and he concluded Hutchinson told the truth.
It's a done deal, regardless how many choose to see it otherwise.




It's your "before Sarah Lewis appeared" that I don't get. It isn't possible to decide where Lewis was from what Hutchinson said. We can only guess where Lewis was from what she said.



It couldn't be much simpler.

Didn’t think so

[Varqm]

Where is the timeline? On this one without it it's nonsense.

[Wickerman]

Sorry wick,
There is no way you can pound Kelly and aman being followed and seen by Lewis going up the court into the scenario if hutch’s story is true.

As Lewis is describing this couple doing the same as Hutchinson said, then what is there to explain?
Both stories complement each other, Abberline knew both stories, and he concluded Hutchinson told the truth.
It's a done deal, regardless how many choose to see it otherwise.

Because like I’ve said a million times he had already followed them to the court and watched them go into the court and taken up his watching and waiting man position before Sarah Lewis appeared.

It's your "before Sarah Lewis appeared" that I don't get. It isn't possible to decide where Lewis was from what Hutchinson said. We can only guess where Lewis was from what she said.

Instead of a long winded confusing response, per usual, why don’t you try to explain, step by step, the positions of Mary and aman, hutch and Sarah Lewis in your scenario so everyone can clearly see how it could have happened?

It couldn't be much simpler.

[Abby Normal]

There's nothing in Hutchinson's statement to indicate that - you are making that assumption.
1 - Due to the fact Hutch makes no mention of Lewis, we have no independent view of where Lewis was on Dorset St.
2 - Because Hutch makes no mention of Lewis does not mean he did not see Lewis.




Not "at the same time", but sometime in his 45 minute vigil.

From the above, it is clear to me you have adopted certain assumptions, and it is those assumptions that lead you to make incorrect conclusions.

From both statements by Lewis & Hutch it seems Lewis was following on behind this couple as they walked west along Dorset st. Therefore, this couple was "further on", but as they came to Millers Court, they stopped, then walked up the passage. As Lewis herself approached the court she then noticed a man standing opposite looking up the court.
Lewis entered the passage and noticed that the court was empty - there was no-one in the court. Which suggests this couple she saw must have gone indoors.
There is no reason to invent another "couple" to the couple (Astrachan & Kelly) seen by Hutch, as some have chosen to do.
Neither is there any cause to say Lewis's "couple" walked passed Millers Court - especially when Lewis clearly said they entered the court.

How you arrive at that convoluted interpretation you tried to explain is beyond me, but then you have no intention of accepting Hutchinson's story was true - that much is pretty obvious.

There is far too much ducking & weaving in attempts to avoid accepting the obvious, that Hutch seems to have been telling the truth - and as Abberline did see it that way then contrary views are the views which need justifying.
From what I've read, apart from a continuous barrage of misinformation, none of these anti-Hutchinson arguments stand up to scrutiny.

Second guessing the man in charge of this case, the man who interviewed Hutchinson, is not getting you guys anywhere - it never will.

Sorry wick,
There is no way you can pound Kelly and aman being followed and seen by Lewis going up the court into the scenario if hutch’s story is true. Because like I’ve said a million times he had already followed them to the court and watched them go into the court and taken up his watching and waiting man position before Sarah Lewis appeared.

Instead of a long winded confusing response, per usual, why don’t you try to explain, step by step, the positions of Mary and aman, hutch and Sarah Lewis in your scenario so everyone can clearly see how it could have happened?

[Michael W Richards]

Jon,..Jon,

This is coming from the guy who believes in the Berner Street conspiracy among all the members at the Working Mans Club, and that Schwartz was just a decoy? And, (drum-roll please!)..... that Mrs Mortimer is the only reliable witness that night? People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

As I said, understanding human nature provides us with insight into the alleged events and timings. EVERY witness that stated Louis arrived after 1am and that they saw nothing until then had alliances to that club, and paychecks linked with its open or close status. PC Smith, Fanny Mortimer and Edward Spooner did not. Club members, not a staffer, also agreed with those earlier arrival accounts. Fanny saw and heard nothing on the street between 12:35 and 12:50am, during her intermittent visits to the door, and only Goldstein between 12:50 and 1am. She did not see or hear any approaching cart and horse, which according to Louis, arrived at precisely 1am. Israel Schwartz has been linked by friendship with Wolff Wess.

I don't know what you've determined by the above, but Ive determined that people lie to protect friends and jobs, that the club was already deemed a respite for "low men", and that no-one credible saw or heard anything of Israel's story.

The importance of Blotchy only came out at the inquest. So you seem to be saying on the cab ride back to Scotland Yard - Blotchy was the prime suspect among those in the cab, yet come 6:00 pm, when Hutchinson walked in to Commercial St., Astrachan became the prime suspect.
That is about as childish as you can get.

You would have to have a learning deficiency to claim Blotchy was not the working primary suspect, whether a warrant had or had not been released or the press had confirmed it. He was the last person seen by credible witnesses with the victim. That's Investigation SOP. Hard to imagine you wouldn't know that.

No official 'suspect' release was issued by Scotland Yard concerning Blotchy. The first 'suspect' was Astrachan, and published first thing Tuesday morning. Grow up Michael. All you are doing is circling the wagons (desperately) to defend a theory - you have no interest in what actually happened.

Ive addressed that incredibly naïve and uninformed standpoint above.

YOU, want the constable to have erred - yet YOU choose to ignore the Echo (19th Nov.) who reported that both Blotchy & Astrachan are equally being pursued by the authorities.
Why the silence on this, oh - silly me, of course, because this report SHOWS the Star were WRONG! Cherry-picking again!

You ignoring the fact that a suspect who preceded AMan to fame was still being considered as a suspect also diminishes your argument as to the actual importance of Hutch's story after the 15th is cherry picking, is it not? And your little article doesn't negate the one on the 15th, it is a single report...that by your own standards, we shouldnt accept, right?

You weren't very "humble" when trying to promote Mrs Mortimer as the only reliable witness - why the change?

I dont have to be humble when making a statement that is based on the facts and is eminently reasonable and logical. She is unbiased, she was at the site and the ONLY one who saw the street off and on throughout the vital period of 12:30 to 1, and she didn't see or hear Liz Stride or see or hear Morris Eagle or anything Israel said happened, or Louis's arrival "precisely" at 1.

As far as your condescending manner, I can assure you that Ive dealt with far brighter and far better informed posters here for years. Your opinion of your own intellect isn't all that relevant to the discussions.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon,

I find that your arguments in many cases lack the insight into human nature and the logical reasoning that takes raw data and makes it into something readable, intelligible, and believable.

Hello Michael.
This is coming from the guy who believes in the Berner Street conspiracy among all the members at the Working Mans Club, and that Schwartz was just a decoy?
And, (drum-roll please!)..... that Mrs Mortimer is the only reliable witness that night?

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Take for instance the assumption you made that Blotchy was never a suspect because we have no press issuance to that effect. Reason should tell you that as of Monday afternoon the ONLY suspect they had was the man last seen with Mary entering her room.

The importance of Blotchy only came out at the inquest. So you seem to be saying on the cab ride back to Scotland Yard - Blotchy was the prime suspect among those in the cab, yet come 6:00 pm, when Hutchinson walked in to Commercial St., Astrachan became the prime suspect.
That is about as childish as you can get.

No official 'suspect' release was issued by Scotland Yard concerning Blotchy. The first 'suspect' was Astrachan, and published first thing Tuesday morning.
Grow up Michael. All you are doing is circling the wagons (desperately) to defend a theory - you have no interest in what actually happened.

That is briefly superseded by the story given by Hutchinson later that day. The officer who dismissed Galloway erred, and he erred based on the statement given Monday night which by the 15th, was then discredited.

YOU, want the constable to have erred - yet YOU choose to ignore the Echo (19th Nov.) who reported that both Blotchy & Astrachan are equally being pursued by the authorities.
Why the silence on this, oh - silly me, of course, because this report SHOWS the Star were WRONG!
Cherry-picking again!

In my humble, untrained and inexperienced point of view, that is.

You weren't very "humble" when trying to promote Mrs Mortimer as the only reliable witness - why the change?

[Wickerman]

Hi wick
Sure no problem.

Lewis couldn’t have seen Mary and aman “pass up the court” if hutch’s story is true because they had already done that long before she arrived because hutch had already taken up his post waiting and watching when she saw him.

There's nothing in Hutchinson's statement to indicate that - you are making that assumption.
1 - Due to the fact Hutch makes no mention of Lewis, we have no independent view of where Lewis was on Dorset St.
2 - Because Hutch makes no mention of Lewis does not mean he did not see Lewis.

Nor could he have been outside Mary’s door at the same time unless he’s in two places at the same time.

Not "at the same time", but sometime in his 45 minute vigil.

From the above, it is clear to me you have adopted certain assumptions, and it is those assumptions that lead you to make incorrect conclusions.

From both statements by Lewis & Hutch it seems Lewis was following on behind this couple as they walked west along Dorset st. Therefore, this couple was "further on", but as they came to Millers Court, they stopped, then walked up the passage. As Lewis herself approached the court she then noticed a man standing opposite looking up the court.
Lewis entered the passage and noticed that the court was empty - there was no-one in the court. Which suggests this couple she saw must have gone indoors.
There is no reason to invent another "couple" to the couple (Astrachan & Kelly) seen by Hutch, as some have chosen to do.
Neither is there any cause to say Lewis's "couple" walked passed Millers Court - especially when Lewis clearly said they entered the court.

How you arrive at that convoluted interpretation you tried to explain is beyond me, but then you have no intention of accepting Hutchinson's story was true - that much is pretty obvious.

There is far too much ducking & weaving in attempts to avoid accepting the obvious, that Hutch seems to have been telling the truth - and as Abberline did see it that way then contrary views are the views which need justifying.
From what I've read, apart from a continuous barrage of misinformation, none of these anti-Hutchinson arguments stand up to scrutiny.

Second guessing the man in charge of this case, the man who interviewed Hutchinson, is not getting you guys anywhere - it never will.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Jon,

It isn't that my view is the obvious one. What I am trying to impress on you is there is a right way and a wrong way to view the historical record.

The primary point I was making was that there needn't be any press confirmation about who was the primary suspect in the investigation up until 6pm on Monday, it would be of course the person last seen with her. Records are words on a page, the story comes from logical and reasonable consideration of them.

Your approach is not the approach adopted by serious researchers.
There is not one account of the inquest which is superior to another, and I explained the reasons why - all to no avail it seems.
It's like they say, 'you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink'.

I'm afraid that the first line is for me a relief. Ive found some that seem to feel they have a superior perspective on the issues based on accumulated research, but they often lack the vital step of digesting and processing it.

I've been trying to get a bunch of you to understand this for years, but as is always the case collectively you refuse to understand anything that shows your theories to be wrong.

I don't have a theory after all these years, in fact I find myself almost 30 years in and I'm still bewildered by what people choose to believe. Maybe if you've been arguing your point with a "bunch" of us then the real issue is your own inflexibility.

In all other cases, the experienced researcher looks to the press coverage of an inquest AS WELL AS the court record, because it is in the press where we can obtain the most detail. It isn't just "my view", that is just the professional the way to do it.

Ive done all that Jon, and you often try to tell me that you see something that I, and a "bunch" of others, don't. That makes us bad, inexperienced researchers I suppose?

Once all the accounts are obtained the entire record is reviewed as a whole, and an attempt is made to sequence out the events, and if there are any contradicting points of detail they need to be identified.
This is all I'm saying.

I find that interesting when considering the Stride case for example. There is absolutely no way to reconcile the timings provided by the witnesses, therefore any sequencing approach wouldn't work. That's when the logical review comes in Jon. What witnesses are most trustworthy based on the circumstantial evidence. If you believe the answer is just the words on paper that's your call.

I don't expect you to understand, all I can do is explain why these myopic views show a lack of experience in research, which subsequently leads you down the wrong path.

Again with the condescension.

I find that your arguments in many cases lack the insight into human nature and the logical reasoning that takes raw data and makes it into something readable, intelligible, and believable.

Take for instance the assumption you made that Blotchy was never a suspect because we have no press issuance to that effect. Reason should tell you that as of Monday afternoon the ONLY suspect they had was the man last seen with Mary entering her room. That is briefly superseded by the story given by Hutchinson later that day. The officer who dismissed Galloway erred, and he erred based on the statement given Monday night which by the 15th, was then discredited.

Blotchy was the suspect at the beginning, and to this day based on the most believable accounts of that night....(a rating bestowed by their historical prior contacts with Mary and their proximity to her physically on that street and night)...he remains the greatest person of interest.

In my humble, untrained and inexperienced point of view, that is.

[Varqm]

3:00 am (he said he went home) - 45 (minutes he waited) = 2:15 am (kelly/astra went in the court).The calculator almost broke.

[Abby Normal]

It's easy to say it was physically impossible, and then not explain why - that is taking the easy way out.
Care to complete your sentence by explaining why, in your view, it is physically impossible?

Hi wick
Sure no problem.

Lewis couldn’t have seen Mary and aman “pass up the court” if hutch’s story is true because they had already done that long before she arrived because hutch had already taken up his post waiting and watching when she saw him. Nor could he have been outside Mary’s door at the same time unless he’s in two places at the same time. So unless you would have us believe that time travel, a person being in two places at the same time and wormholes spontaneously opening up in Victorian England white chapel then I am sure your scenario is physically impossible.

And I’m not even including the phantom “ Kennedy”.

Tolkien would be impressed though I’m sure.

[Wickerman]

But the Daily News is demonstrably garbled in its reportage of Lewis's testimony. It's not good having more detail in a press report, when the press report in question is clearly in error on a number of points.

Plus, as I've repeatedly observed, it's odd that the remarkable and hugely significant fact that Lewis saw a couple directly proceed her into Miller's Court is only picked up by one paper. Unless, of course, it wasn't a "fact" at all, but a journalistic balls-up... which it almost certainly was.

There are errors in all reports, which in no way invalidates the entire report - which is what you seem to be saying. That is just plain and simply wrong.
The reason it is necessary to collate ALL the press reports is precisely to allow us to identify errors. But, because one press account reports that "they pass up the court", does not mean it is an error. There would be an error if another report said "they walked to the end of Dorset St".
Now you would have a direct contradiction.

From what I understand you have been trying to argue that because Lewis said this couple were "further on", means in your view "further on" passed Millers Court. Which it doesn't, that is what you are preferring to read, but as I explained, Lewis is behind this couple as both her & this couple are walking west along Dorset St., then clearly this couple are "further on" than Lewis was, until they turn into Millers Court.
These two remarks, that the couple were "further on", and they "they passed up the court", do not contradict each other.
They are simply two different observations from an edited record of her testimony. Not one record is complete.

[Wickerman]

Jon, why do you insist on posting nonsense and acting as if your perspective is the obvious one.

It isn't that my view is the obvious one. What I am trying to impress on you is there is a right way and a wrong way to view the historical record.
Your approach is not the approach adopted by serious researchers.
There is not one account of the inquest which is superior to another, and I explained the reasons why - all to no avail it seems.
It's like they say, 'you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink'.
I've been trying to get a bunch of you to understand this for years, but as is always the case collectively you refuse to understand anything that shows your theories to be wrong.

In all other cases, the experienced researcher looks to the press coverage of an inquest AS WELL AS the court record, because it is in the press where we can obtain the most detail.
It isn't just "my view", that is just the professional the way to do it.

Once all the accounts are obtained the entire record is reviewed as a whole, and an attempt is made to sequence out the events, and if there are any contradicting points of detail they need to be identified.
This is all I'm saying.

What I'm hearing from some of you is there is a preferred source, and there are sources to be dismissed - which is totally wrong, and typically the approach adopted by those who have a theory to defend rather than showing a genuine interest to find the truth.

I don't expect you to understand, all I can do is explain why these myopic views show a lack of experience in research, which subsequently leads you down the wrong path.

[Wickerman]

That’s quite a little dance you’ve got Lewis, hutch, Aman and Mary doing wick.
Unfortunately it’s physically impossible.

It's easy to say it was physically impossible, and then not explain why - that is taking the easy way out.
Care to complete your sentence by explaining why, in your view, it is physically impossible?

[Sam Flynn]

The press coverage IS her official testimony, which is better detailed that the court version.

But the Daily News is demonstrably garbled in its reportage of Lewis's testimony. It's not good having more detail in a press report, when the press report in question is clearly in error on a number of points.

Plus, as I've repeatedly observed, it's odd that the remarkable and hugely significant fact that Lewis saw a couple directly proceed her into Miller's Court is only picked up by one paper. Unless, of course, it wasn't a "fact" at all, but a journalistic balls-up... which it almost certainly was.