Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[rjpalmer]

the bearded over-fifty Sadler did not resemble Lawende’s man in the slightest

Being Scotland Yard men, they probably realized a man can grow a beard in under two-and-a-half years.

[Ben]

Returning to the issue of the Lawende identification(s), it’s worth pointing out that the bearded over-fifty Sadler did not resemble Lawende’s man in the slightest. He was no better a fit in that regard than he was for Hutchinson’s Astrakhan man, but the police went ahead with the attempted identification anyway, if only to follow proper police procedure and tick another official box.

It wasn’t just the aforementioned identify parades that provide additional evidence of Hutchinson’s reported discrediting; it was the actual remarks on the subject from senior police officials that hammer home the final nails in that particular coffin. Unless they all suffered from very selective amnesia on the subject, the collective observations of Anderson, Swanson, Macnaghten and Abberline, when remarking on the subject of eyewitness evidence, all make very clear that the early press reports of Hutchinson’s “considerable discounting” were perfectly accurate.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Wicker or trevor
Both you have said bowyer corroborates hutches story by somehow also mentioning aman or someone who looked like him. Balderdash.

Please provide a direct quote and source of bowyer that includes a description of a man that fits the description if Aman.

Where are your direct quotes from anyone who accuses Hutchinson of lying?

I guess it doesn't matter now....right.

[Bridewell]

But hutch didnt have funds, and quickly got dumped for another man, classic circs for a stalking situation. Which IMHO hutch then does, following her around, waiting in the middle of the night watching for her, and in his press account, even going next to her door to see if he could here anything.

Man without funds hangs around in the hope that, when A-Man leaves, MJK might take pity on him. If that's a one-off then it's not stalking which is a course of conduct over a significant period of time. It might be creepy and prurient but, as a one-off, it's not stalking. That's assuming that it was MJK he wanted and not A-Man's thick gold chain of course.

Re your second point. Hutch lying to mizen about being wanted in bucks row dosnt mean Neil lied about it too. Not sure of your reasoning there at all.

I presume you mean my point that if Lechmere (not Hutch) was lying then Neil must have been too? I concede that my line of reasoning is somewhat convoluted (for which I apologise) but it runs something like this:-

Mizen said that the two men had told him that he was wanted by a PC in Bucks Row. Pc Neill said that, as he was passing along Bucks Row, he "didn't notice anyone about" - so he didn't see or speak to two men as Mizen claimed. It follows that, as they were supposedly looking for a policeman, they didn't see him either; had they done so they would have reported the body to Neil rather than continuing their search for a policeman. Neil didn't see them and they didn't see him. So either Neil did see and speak to them and Mizen was right about that, in which case Neil must have lied when he said he didn't see them. Robert Paul couldn't be clearer about it - they looked to see if there was a constable but one was not to be seen.

Much more likely that Neil was right in saying that he didn't see Lechmere & Paul and that Mizen was justifying a delay in his response by inventing a report that the police were already in attendance.

I suspect you may not agree but I thought I should at least explain why I'm thinking as I do.

[Bridewell]

But hutch didnt have funds, and quickly got dumped for another man, classic circs for a stalking situation. Which IMHO hutch then does, following her around, waiting in the middle of the night watching for her, and in his press account, even going next to her door to see if he could here anything.

Man without funds hangs around in the hope that, when A-Man leaves, MJK might take pity on him. If that's a one-off then it's not stalking which is a course of conduct over a significant period of time. It might be creepy and prurient but, as a one-off, it's not stalking. That's assuming that it was MJK he wanted and not A-Man's thick gold chain of course.

Re your second point. Hutch lying to mizen about being wanted in bucks row dosnt mean Neil lied about it too. Not sure of your reasoning there at all.

I concede that my line of reasoning is somewhat convoluted (for which I apologise) but it runs something like this:-

Mizen said that the two men had told him that he was wanted by a PC in Bucks Row. Pc Neill says he as he was passing along Bucks Row he "didn't notice anyone about" - so he didn't see or speak to two men. It follows that, as they were supposedly looking for a policeman, they didn't see him either; had they done so they would have reported the body to Neil rather than continuing their search. Neil didn't see them and they didn't see him. So either Neill did see and speak to them and Mizen was right about that or Neill didn't see and speak to them, in which case Mizen was lying and Neil must have been too. Much more likely though that Neil was right in saying that he didn't see Lechmere & Paul and that Mizen was justifying a delay in his response.

I suspect you may not agree but I thought I should at least explain why I'm thinking as I do.

[Ben]

if I had known he was there" - meaning if he had known the killer was "there", in this court...

My point exactly, Jon.

“If I had known the killer was there, I would have stopped him” was what he was saying in essence, whereas if he had seen an actual man in the court, he would have said “If I had known that the man I saw was the killer, I would have stopped him.

Regardless of the hearsay attributed to him, his actual quoted words make quite clear that he saw nobody in the court at 3.00am.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Exactly, Abby.

Whatever “sighting” may have been bogusly attributed to Bowyer in the form of second-hand hearsay, it is quite clear from his actual quoted words that he saw nobody in the court at 3.00, and was instead somewhat rueful that he didn’t.

Hi Bridewell,

Speaking strictly for myself, I make no presupposition that Hutchinson was a murderer, nor have I ever insisted that he was one. I don’t even recall ever starting a Hutchinson discussion or opening a new thread on the subject. I have merely responded reactively to various claims along the lines that “if Hutchinson was the killer, he would have gone about things in this way rather than that way” or “If he lied, he would have told a better lie, therefore he didn’t lie at all”. That sort of thing.

It tends to be those with a paranoid aversion to the notion of Hutchinson as a suspect - and he is an irrefutably reasonable one from a criminological perspective - who go out of their way to pick the fights, from my experience.

You accept uncritically Hutchinson’s claim to have been out of pocket. Why then did he walk 13 miles in the small hours when he knew he couldn’t gain access to his “usual” lodgings or any other? You also say he had “nothing to do” upon arrival in the district; how about seeking to remedy his homeless predicament as soon as possible, as opposed to engaging in fruitless voyeurism for the best part of an hour followed by more fruitless “walking about”?

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Researchers who DID read the book provided that conclusion.
Where is this going?

Into a very deep hole of your own digging, as you continue to provide one bad excuse after another for not reading that which you’re critiquing. It’s a Hutchinson book, Jon, and you have a monomaniacal attitude towards all things Hutchinson, remember? It ought to be right up your street. The suggested identification was not proved, but merely hypothesised. Your criticisms of that hypothesis are based on outdated and thus inaccurate message board reactions to a three year old article, which don’t relate to the book under discussion.

The day of his statement the only prevalent theory was Kelly was murdered in the late morning. There was no cause to ask about men coming and going through the night, and his statement basically testifies to that.

Firstly, experienced detectives are not generally so stupid as to only ask questions pursuant to whatever “prevalent theory” they happen to subscribe to. They are interested in ALL evidence that may have a bearing on an investigation. Secondly, even if they were the ninnies you’re anxious to depict them as, there was ample opportunity to reinterview Bowyer before the inquest, once this supposedly “prevalent theory” had subsided.

If you think it happened before the inquest then show me the report - prove your assertion

Two doctors, attesting to a death that occurred hours before the Maxwell sighting, and two mutually corroborative witnesses who recalled a cry of “murder” in the small hours. Assertion proved. Thanks for coming.

Cries of "murder" were common place, many testified to that, and the police knew it from experience, so that was no firm indication

Many? What, all two of them? Where is the evidence that the police knew from experience that cries of “murder” were common? I’m sure cries in general were common, but cries of that specific word “murder” emanating from the very same court in which an actual murder takes place shortly thereafter? I hardly think it coincidence somehow.

Blotchy’s description was published in the press along with the other inquest details; there was no sense in publishing it beforehand. How long after the Eddowes murder was the Lawende description published in the Police Gazzette?

if you know a case where two witnesses are brought to an inquest to make the same statements, then show me.

I’ve told you already; Lewis and Prater.

They made very different statements, but both testified to a cry of “murder” in the small hours; just so with Maurice Lewis and Maxwell.

The coroner is not charging anyone with murder, he only needs to know if the victim was alive after 9:00 am. Only one witness is necessary

This is frightening nonsense.

If the coroner “needs to know if the victim was alive after 9.00am”, it was absolutely essential to obtain as much corroboration as possible. It would therefore have been absolute gold to find more than one witness to that version of events, and put them on the stand accordingly.

It’s as though the very concept of corroboration, and the obvious value it entails, is a completely alien one to you.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

The Western Mail was not a London paper, and the article conflicts with the Echo article, so which is the more likely to be an accurate?

They both had access to press agency reports, which is almost certainly where the WM got its story from.

The Stride murder was six weeks before. Is Bowyer likely to remember a description as given by Packer after that length of time?

The comparison was made by the journalist, not Bowyer.

Researchers should perhaps stop believing all they read in newspapers

Who said I believed it? I was just pointing out what was said in the press.

[Sam Flynn]

Can we keep discussion of Mizen etc for the Lechmere threads, please?

[Abby Normal]

Thanks, Abby.

By Hutchinson's account she tried to tap him up for sixpence. Given her line of work, that suggests he might have found a bed for the night if he'd been in funds, doesn't it?



If Lechmere lied then so did the 'J' Division Pc John Neill, who claimed not to have seen or spoken to him. Why would he do that?

But hutch didnt have funds, and quickly got dumped for another man, classic circs for a stalking situation. Which IMHO hutch then does, following her around, waiting in the middle of the night watching for her, and in his press account, even going next to her door to see if he could here anything.


Re your second point. Hutch lying to mizen about being wanted in bucks row dosnt mean Neil lied about it too. Not sure of your reasoning there at all.

[Abby Normal]

Wicker or trevor
Both you have said bowyer corroborates hutches story by somehow also mentioning aman or someone who looked like him. Balderdash.

Please provide a direct quote and source of bowyer that includes a description of a man that fits the description if Aman.

[Abby Normal]

In the case of Sadler, who ya gonna call? The man who saw a 'sailor like' man chatting up Kate 10 minutes before her body was found, or the man who saw an overdressed Jewish toff with Mary perhaps HOURS before she died?

It's a no-brainer. If your suspect is Sadler, and you're seeking to charge him, you go with Lawende.

And this tells us exactly zip about what the police thought of Hutchinson.

And anyway, some here clearly have amazingly flexible pretzel logic. Hutchinson is supposedly in Australia in 1889 on his way to sexually exposing himself to school children, but the fact that the police don't use him in London as a witness in 1891 shows that he was debunked.

Talk about wanting it both ways...

Not really rj. Hutch was apparently debunked shortly after his story. Long before he made his way to australia.

[Wickerman]

Hypothetically,it's 1888,with no DNA/fingerprints/confession,if you are in charge,this witness Hutchinson was truthful,would you lose contact with him when the case has not yet been closed.What if you find a suspect,what are you going to do,coerce a confession.You need a witness,the only hope,exactly what they did with Lawende using him as that witness..And if the witness had doubts in identifying the "suspect" would you use him instead of a witness who can identify the "suspect" and saw him for 15 minutes.I understand you would use the former.At the very least both are needed.
The police had to be very dumb to lose contact with this witness/Hutch.But his testimony was bad,they were forced to choose the witness who had doubts in identifying the "suspect" .

----

You say they would have to be dumb.
The reality is, the police have no authority to do what you say.

[Varqm]

How do you mean "just like Lawende"?
Are you saying he was required to keep in touch with the police?

I think you will have a hard time substantiating this supposed requirement.

Hypothetically,it's 1888,with no DNA/fingerprints/confession,if you are in charge,this witness Hutchinson was truthful,would you lose contact with him when the case has not yet been closed.What if you find a suspect,what are you going to do,coerce a confession.You need a witness,the only hope,exactly what they did with Lawende using him as that witness..And if the witness had doubts in identifying the "suspect" would you use him instead of a witness who can identify the "suspect" and saw him for 15 minutes.I understand you would use the former.At the very least both are needed.
The police had to be very dumb to lose contact with this witness/Hutch.But his testimony was bad,they were forced to choose the witness who had doubts in identifying the "suspect" .

----