Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Trevor Marriott]

As I said to Trevor.
Abberline's, "I am of the opinion his statement is true", was intended to mean Hutchinson needs to be taken seriously. That the story he told is not one of mistaken identity, nor one intended to mislead the authorities.
There was no direct implication that Hutchinson was a suspect who turned out to be innocent in Abberline's mind, that is not what he meant by that comment.

When Abberline assessed the statement, his opinion was that it was the truth. But as stated it was simply an opinion, and at that time he could not prove or disprove it.

As I have stated previously he had no choice other than to say he believed it to be genuine, because this was potentially the first major lead the police had in the case, and for the police to come out and reject it without proof would have caused a public outcry.

Once the press got wind of Hutchinson the police had to accept it as genuine certainly in the first instance, whether through their subsequent inquiries they were able to cast a doubt about it is another matter, but there is nothing recorded to say that was the case.

So you way up what Hutchinson said against what the other witnesses of that night said, and form your own opinion. Of course when doing that we should also bear in mind that many of the witnesses throughout the whole series of murders gave conflicting evidence, and I know that a coroners court is different from a criminal court, but again throughout the many inquests many ambiguities material to the cases arose via witness testimony, which in my opinion should have been clarified and were not, and if they had have been we all might be that much more wiser about these murders.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

"I am of the opinion his statement is true."

For all you know, Abberline could have been gullible.

We are led to believe Abberline had gained the respect of his fellow officers & superiors due to his abilities with the grass roots people of the East End.

Yet nobody noticed he was gullible?

[Sam Flynn]

We are led to believe Abberline had gained the respect of his fellow officers & superiors due to his abilities with the grass roots people of the East End.

Yet nobody noticed he was gullible?

An alternative, and kinder, way of looking at it is that Hutchinson was plausible.

[Trevor Marriott]

We are led to believe Abberline had gained the respect of his fellow officers & superiors due to his abilities with the grass roots people of the East End.

Yet nobody noticed he was gullible?

I think the term "misled" is more appropriate than gullible.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Darryl Kenyon]

An alternative, and kinder, way of looking at it is that Hutchinson was plausible.

Yes, especially if the first part of his story, not being at his lodging house that night and coming in early morning checks out.

[Michael W Richards]

I think Abberline felt a deeper connection with the people in these districts than any other investigating officer, and felt an obligation to solve these murders quickly. Its his successes and the relationships he had with the locals that made him a perfect candidate for his position during these crimes.

If he wasn't intentionally putting out a falsehood, I just think he wanted to believe Hutch's statement. He needed to give some hope to the locals.

[Trevor Marriott]

I think Abberline felt a deeper connection with the people in these districts than any other investigating officer, and felt an obligation to solve these murders quickly. Its his successes and the relationships he had with the locals that made him a perfect candidate for his position during these crimes.

If he wasn't intentionally putting out a falsehood, I just think he wanted to believe Hutch's statement. He needed to give some hope to the locals.

To many people want to portray Abberline as some kind of supercop. He was just an ordinary police man doing his job and working with that facts and evidence available to him, and good at his job. There is no such person as a supercop, even in the 21st century. Murders are solved by teamwork and not by one individual.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Bridewell]

When Abberline assessed the statement, his opinion was that it was the truth. But as stated it was simply an opinion, and at that time he could not prove or disprove it.www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Just so. It was though, the opinion of an experienced detective who knew the local area and its lighting conditions. Some (not including you I suspect) dismiss his opinion too quickly.

As I have stated previously he had no choice other than to say he believed it to be genuine, because this was potentially the first major lead the police had in the case, and for the police to come out and reject it without proof would have caused a public outcry.www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It's not the police coming out and rejecting it though. It's his opinion, expressed in an internal police report. How could that cause a public outcry?

[Wickerman]

If he wasn't intentionally putting out a falsehood, I just think he wanted to believe Hutch's statement. He needed to give some hope to the locals.

To his superiors?
This report was not released to the press, it was an internal report.

[Wickerman]

Except to “theorise” that Senise’s proposed identification of Hutchinson is an erroneous one, apparently; but on the basis of what actual “research” are these rejections of Aussie George based?

It isn't "theorising" to point out that the suggested identification failed.
An identification depends on certain criteria, when it is found to be lacking, then what other conclusion is available?

You seem oddly and obstinately averse to expanding your knowledge the good old fashioned way; by reading a book. Why is that? At the moment you’re clutching at every lame excuse under the sun for not reading a book on the very subject matter you purport an avid interest in. You write disparagingly about “theorists who dabble in research”, and yet that precisely describes your approach to Senise’s work, minus the “research” bit. You post a good deal more than you read, and it ought to be the other way round.

Thats funny, I like your sarcasm.
You're not secretly promoting Mr Senise's book by any chance are you?

You seem to be going to great lengths to avoid my point.
Mr Senise attempted to make the connection between the Able Seaman and the Witness, and the attempt failed.
And, because it failed, and because this issue in his book is all I would be interested in, then I see no reason to buy the book.
It's as simple as that.

There is a great deal of useful, factual information to be found in Stephen’s book quite apart from his overall theory and proposed identification of Hutchinson.

Then I am happy you think it was money well spent.
I would not have felt the same.

The ones that had already responded in the affirmative to that very same question when it was put to then during initial police questioning; Lewis, Cox, and Maxwell. Bowyer was not asked that question at the inquest because he had already made clear to the police that he had not seen any suspicious strangers that night or morning.

"he had already made it clear"?
Where do we read this Ben?
In fact, where does Bowyer even mention any overnight occurrences?

As I’ve made very clear already, if it only occurred to the police after the initial period of statement-taking that Kelly was murdered in the small hours, there was still ample opportunity, pre-inquest, to ask Bowyer if he had seen any suspicious men around that time.

They already had one suspect identified by Cox, yet Abberline never asked Bowyer to confirm her story. So on what basis do you assert he would have done so for a suspect around 3:00, or around the time of the cry of murder?
Both issues were known by Abberline "pre-inquest" so, where is the question to Bowyer?
If he didn't ask then, why should he ask about a man at 3:00?

He didn't, so now when Hutchinson came forward on the 12th, the police returned to Millers Court on the 13th and Bowyers story then appears in the press on the 14th.
It's all very reasonable.

Well, lots apparently.

Otherwise why would the coroner caution Maxwell to be careful with her evidence because it was “different” to other witnesses’?

Yes, I know the coroner said that, but "who's" testimony was contradicted by Maxwell?
Take a moment to think about that.

And why was Maurice Lewis excluded altogether?

We don't know if that is true. We do know evidence was expected to be produced at a future adjournment, which never happened. So we don't know how many witnesses were still to be heard.
Aside from that, why would the coroner pay for two witnesses to offer the same story?
It doesn't happen.

The 9.00am theory lost traction well in advance of the inquest,....

It would have to be current thinking for the coroner to summons Maxwell to appear, so what you appear to "believe" is demonstrably wrong.

[Trevor Marriott]

Just so. It was though, the opinion of an experienced detective who knew the local area and its lighting conditions. Some (not including you I suspect) dismiss his opinion too quickly.

It's not the police coming out and rejecting it though. It's his opinion, expressed in an internal police report. How could that cause a public outcry?

Yes, and when Hutchinson`s description of the man seen with Kelly was released to the press, would he or any other officer have said its a load of old tosh?

No, as stated it was potentially their only major lead to perhaps the identity of the killer so of course it could not be rejected unless proven to be false.

I personally am inclined to believe Hutchinson as there is some corroboration to what he says via other witness testimony.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Bridewell]

Yes, and when Hutchinson`s description of the man seen with Kelly was released to the press, would he or any other officer have said its a load of old tosh?

No, as stated it was potentially their only major lead to perhaps the identity of the killer so of course it could not be rejected unless proven to be false.

I personally am inclined to believe Hutchinson as there is some corroboration to what he says via other witness testimony.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So am I. I don't see a loitering killer coming to a police station and trying to bluff his way out of a situation he wasn't actually in. The likelihood is that, had he not come forward, nobody would ever have accused him of anything.

[Abby Normal]

Yes, and when Hutchinson`s description of the man seen with Kelly was released to the press, would he or any other officer have said its a load of old tosh?

No, as stated it was potentially their only major lead to perhaps the identity of the killer so of course it could not be rejected unless proven to be false.

I personally am inclined to believe Hutchinson as there is some corroboration to what he says via other witness testimony.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And what is that praytell?

[Varqm]

When Abberline assessed the statement, his opinion was that it was the truth. But as stated it was simply an opinion, and at that time he could not prove or disprove it.

As I have stated previously he had no choice other than to say he believed it to be genuine, because this was potentially the first major lead the police had in the case, and for the police to come out and reject it without proof would have caused a public outcry.

Once the press got wind of Hutchinson the police had to accept it as genuine certainly in the first instance, whether through their subsequent inquiries they were able to cast a doubt about it is another matter, but there is nothing recorded to say that was the case.

So you way up what Hutchinson said against what the other witnesses of that night said, and form your own opinion. Of course when doing that we should also bear in mind that many of the witnesses throughout the whole series of murders gave conflicting evidence, and I know that a coroners court is different from a criminal court, but again throughout the many inquests many ambiguities material to the cases arose via witness testimony, which in my opinion should have been clarified and were not, and if they had have been we all might be that much more wiser about these murders.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Agreed.As posted before Hutch was the most significant witness.Hutch could identify the possible "suspect",unlike Lawende,Long, and his sighting
was 15 minutes long compared to 10-30 sec for Lawende,Long,Schwartz.If Hutch was the most significant witness and subsequent inquiries proved
to be positive why then did not the police used him as a witness in the Sadler case and the seaside home identification? Lawende used in the Sadler case instead did not make sense since he "doubt he could identify the man again".Why then it's not clear in police documents/memoirs throughout the years that Astrakhan man was the killer they were looking for as seen by the most significant witness.
Speaking for myself,to me it's clear there was a resounding "no" to Hutch's testimony.If they just cast him aside even though he was the most significant witness, it does/didn't not make sense.

--

[harry]

Had Hutchinson not come forward,there would still have been a potential witness/person of interest,due to the testomony of Lewis.Could Hutchinson,if he was that person,and an aquaintance of Kelly,chance that he would not be found and questioned? Would the same story then carry an opinion of honesty?