Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Trevor Marriott]

And what is that praytell?

Sara Lewis and Thomas Bowyer

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Of course what we dont appear to know is what Hutchinson was wearing that night. In police witness statement today in cases like this a description of the witness and what they were wearing would be included.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

It isn't "theorising" to point out that the suggested identification failed.

If you had read the book you would be in a position to state whether or not the suggested identification succeeded or failed, but you haven’t, so you aren’t.

An identification depends on certain criteria, when it is found to be lacking, then what other conclusion is available?

But you haven’t “found” it to be “lacking”, because you haven’t read the book and are therefore totally unfamiliar with the details. Keep digging, Jon.

You're not secretly promoting Mr Senise's book by any chance are you?

No, I’m not secretly promoting Mr. Senise’s book; I’m actively promoting it, because it’s a cracking good read with excellent original research, regardless of what you think of Hutchinson as a suspect or his proposed identification.

Mr Senise attempted to make the connection between the Able Seaman and the Witness, and the attempt failed.

According to whom? Not you, obviously, because you haven’t read the book. So that’s your critique utterly nullified. Or are you still talking about outdated message board reactions to an article the author wrote in 2015? If you were expecting “proof” that Aussie George was the 1888 witness, you had grossly unrealistic expectations from the outset, and it’s beyond ludicrous that you should refuse to buy a book on that basis; as ludicrous as not buying a book unless it offers proof positive that the case is solved.

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

You couldn’t possibly know because you haven’t read it.

"he had already made it clear"?
Where do we read this Ben?

We don’t.

We assume, logically, that this issue was cleared up beyond question when Bowyer was first interviewed. Or we can accept that the police were plonkers who never thought to ask this most crucial of questions, in which case feck knows how we’re supposed to trust their initial opinion of Hutchinson’s statement.

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?

The police were not, and are not, in the business of asking fresh witnesses to “confirm” events related by others. They would ask a witness what he saw and then determine whether or not his story correlated with others. As soon as the police were alerted to the likelihood that the murder occurred in the small hours of the morning, i.e. well in advance of the inquest, they would have asked Bowyer if he had seen any suspicious persons in or around the court at that time; definitely and irrefutably.

The fact that no mention was made by Bowyer at the inquest of any 3.00am stranger is a certain indication that he responded in the negative to an earlier, pre-inquest police question along those very lines.

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

It’s all total excrement.

The police were alerted to the probability of an early morning murder way in advance of Hutchinson coming forward. So the reason Abberline didn’t ask Bowyer before then if he had seen anyone or anything suspicious at that time was...?

Aside from that, why would the coroner pay for two witnesses to offer the same story?

Not this nonsense again, I beseech you, Jon. You did much the same with Lewis/Kennedy to much horrified incredulity. It wasn’t the “same story”; it was two entirely separate witnesses offering apparent corroboration for a specific version of events; namely that Kelly was alive at 9.00am on Friday. If two separate witnesses report the same events, it becomes all the more essential to include both at the inquest; all the more essential to demonstrate that crucial corroboration there and then, as opposed to keeping one in reserve for this mythical “second sitting” you’re forever talking about.

I meant “lost traction” in the sense that the “Maxwelliam” version was not considered the most popular or likely by the 12th November, unless the police were quite happy to ride roughshod over the views of the doctors and mutually corroborative witnesses.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Bridewell,

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.

But what you personally see or don’t see is not nearly as valuable, with sincere respect, as that which has proved to have occurred in other serial cases, such as offenders approaching the police voluntarily and attempting to “bluff” their way out of a perceived situation.

In reality, there is no evidence of any particular police interest in the Wideawake man, nor is it likely that Lewis was able to recognise the man again, but Hutchinson could not have known either of these things.

Hi Trevor,

Like Abby, I’m a little confused as to which other witness(es) you believe confirmed Hutchinson’s story. Do you mean Sarah Lewis’s sighting of the man at around 2.30? I certainly agree that this “corroborates” Hutchinson’s likely presence at that particular time, but it does nothing to confirm his alleged reason for being there.

All the best,
Ben

[Michael W Richards]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I was really referring to the fact that his relationship with these locals was deeper than any other officers Trevor, he knew all the dangerous ones, he knew the snitches, street folk, he knew the local business people. I don't intend to portray him as "super" in any way, just emotionally tied to some kind of an explanation for these crimes.

But since you raise that point, don't we have sort of an elite task force in the Abberline posse at that time? As I recall he had about 4 or 5 men who he had working the streets and they were also there Saturday morning after the other investigators had essentially abandoned the murder scene, re-sieving ashes?

[Abby Normal]

Sara Lewis and Thomas Bowyer

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

sarah lewis only corroborates his stalking behavior.
Bowyer corroborates nothing
no one corroborates Mary out at that time or Aman.

[Abby Normal]

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.

--

bingo
hutch was (or should have been)the most significant witness-BY FAR!

if his story was true-then almost certainly Aman would have been suspect number one and hutch witness number one. no question.
yet he drops like a stone, never to be heard of again.

[Sam Flynn]

Like Abby, I’m a little confused as to which other witness(es) you believe confirmed Hutchinson’s story. Do you mean Sarah Lewis’s sighting of the man at around 2.30? I certainly agree that this “corroborates” Hutchinson’s likely presence at that particular time

However, Hutchinson does't mention her. If he'd wanted to reinforce his credibility - as if to say, "I must have been the man seen by Lewis, because I saw her enter the Court" - surely he'd have gone out of his way to do so, yet he didn't mention seeing her at all. (Before Jon chips in, I really don't buy the idea that Hutchinson or Badham wouldn't have been interested in reporting having seen a female.)

[Paddy]

I was reading a report from Swanson regarding informants recently and wondered could Hutch or whoever identified Jack (according to Anderson) have been an informer? Swanson stated that informers could not be called as witnesses because the detectives pay them for information.
Pat.....

[Trevor Marriott]

sarah lewis only corroborates his stalking behavior.

You really will have to keep up with posts on here, this all has been posted before but for your benefit I will post again and allow for your memory lapse due to old age

Stalking or not, it potentially puts him where he says he was at the time he said he was there.

Bowyer corroborates nothing

If thats what you think. Try this for size!

The Echo, 14th November, reported him going “out at different times up Millers Court on the Thursday night for the purposes of getting water from a tap there—the only available supply. Indeed, Bowyer visited that spot as late—or, rather, as early—as three o'clock on the morning of the murder. This early visit to the water tap is by no means an infrequent (sic) thing, as Mr. McCarthy’s shop, which supplies the wants of a very poor and wretched locality, whose denizens are out at all “hours, late and early, does not at times close until three o’clock in the morning, while occasionally it is open all night. Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer. Bowyer has, he says, described this man to Inspector Abberline and Inspector Reid.”

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

If thats what you think. Try this for size!

The Echo, 14th November, reported him going “out at different times up Millers Court on the Thursday night for the purposes of getting water from a tap there—the only available supply. Indeed, Bowyer visited that spot as late—or, rather, as early—as three o'clock on the morning of the murder. This early visit to the water tap is by no means an infrequent (sic) thing, as Mr. McCarthy’s shop, which supplies the wants of a very poor and wretched locality, whose denizens are out at all “hours, late and early, does not at times close until three o’clock in the morning, while occasionally it is open all night. Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer. Bowyer has, he says, described this man to Inspector Abberline and Inspector Reid.”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

why dosnt he mention it in his inquest statement?

[Abby Normal]

However, Hutchinson does't mention her. If he'd wanted to reinforce his credibility - as if to say, "I must have been the man seen by Lewis, because I saw her enter the Court" - surely he'd have gone out of his way to do so, yet he didn't mention seeing her at all. (Before Jon chips in, I really don't buy the idea that Hutchinson or Badham wouldn't have been interested in reporting having seen a female.)

Hi Sam
which is odd. so either he:

1. wasnt there-which I doubt-she cooroborates he was there.
2. missedher/ forgot to mention: which seems strange, seeming as he had such a great memory
3. intentionally left her out-If he came forward because he thought she saw him there, and he was making up the story about Aman, I could see why he left her out. I go with this.

[Trevor Marriott]

why dosnt he mention it in his inquest statement?

I have no idea.

However, I would suggest that his inquest testimony was only focused on him finding the body.He was second behind Barnett to give evidence. At that time nothing else was before the jury, and he was not asked any questions other than those related to finding the body.

And not forgetting at the time of the inquest Hutchinson had not gone to the police

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

I have no idea.

However, I would suggest that his inquest testimony was only focused on him finding the body.He was second behind Barnett to give evidence. At that time nothing else was before the jury, and he was not asked any questions other than those related to finding the body.

And not forgetting at the time of the inquest Hutchinson had not gone to the police

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thanks trevor

I remember Debs a few years back finding an article in a paper (ibeleive different from the one you mentioned) that has a direct quote from Bowyer saying he was in the court around 3ish and NOT seeing anyone. and saying something to the effect that the killer was maybe in her room at the time and regretting he could have caught him.

do you remember?


so, that story dosnt corroborate Hutchs Aman, and to my mind cast a bit of suspicion on Bowyer.

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks trevor

I remember Debs a few years back finding an article in a paper (ibeleive different from the one you mentioned) that has a direct quote from Bowyer saying he was in the court around 3ish and NOT seeing anyone. and saying something to the effect that the killer was maybe in her room at the time and regretting he could have caught him.

do you remember?


so, that story dosnt corroborate Hutchs Aman, and to my mind cast a bit of suspicion on Bowyer.

I dont remember the previous article, But if true, this Echo report I do believe does corroborate in away Hutchinson's statement.

but I will reiterate two other important issues, when assesing and evaluating witness testimony

1.It has been proven that all throughout these murders there is conflicting statements from witnesses involved in all the murders, that makes them unsafe to totally rely on them. Many of these conflcits were identified at the inquests but for some reason they were not expanded upon or clarified.

2. The reliability of newspaper reports, and to that we get back to primary and secondary sources, and what is and what isnt a primary and secondary source. It is not right for anyone to readily accept what a newspaper publishes in 1888, unless its source can be proven.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk