Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[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" .

----

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
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.

I didn't.

Researchers who DID read the book provided that conclusion.
Where is this going?, you seem to be taking the position that Senise did provide the necessary evidence.
If he did (in your opinion), why don't you say so, but if he didn't, then why are you arguing?

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.

I never said it wasn't a good read, no-one has said that to my knowledge.
A well written book is no substitute for failing to prove the connection.

We assume, logically, that this issue was cleared up beyond question when Bowyer was first interviewed.

On what basis?
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.

The police were not, and are not, in the business of asking fresh witnesses to “confirm” events related by others.

It happens all the time, which goes to show how much you really know.

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,....

And that happened on the evening of the 12th, the day of the inquest.
If you think it happened before the inquest then show me the report - prove your assertion.

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.

Who asked him that at the inquest?

The police were alerted to the probability of an early morning murder way in advance of Hutchinson coming forward.

Like I said, show me...
The description of Blotchy was never published as a suspect, and they knew about him from the 9th.
Cries of "murder" were common place, many testified to that, and the police knew it from experience, so that was no firm indication.
So what are you left with, Dr Bond's report?
Shame it doesn't support a murder at 3:00 am.
I think your pockets are empty Ben, you have nothing.

Not this nonsense again, I beseech you, Jon. You did much the same with Lewis/Kennedy to much horrified incredulity.

Gesticulating changes nothing, if you know a case where two witnesses are brought to an inquest to make the same statements, then show me.
Complaining doesn't change the fact it doesn't happen.

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.

You're thinking about a trial, not an inquest.
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

[Wickerman]

With "5" murdered/mutilated victims yes.Years just like Lawende.1892 at least.

---

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.

[Wickerman]

The Stride murder was six weeks before. Is Bowyer likely to remember a description as given by Packer after that length of time? I think the Western Mail has got the facts wrong, and we just cant get away from primary and secondary can we

Trevor.

The comparison just might be being made by the journalist, not Bowyer.

"Harry Bowyer states that on Wednesday night he saw a man speaking to Kelly who resembled the description given by the fruiterer of the supposed Berner Street murderer."

[rjpalmer]

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...

[Varqm]

This was at least 2 and a half years after the Kelly murder. You seriously think witnesses are expected to keep in touch with police for the rest of their lives?

With "5" murdered/mutilated victims yes.Years just like Lawende.1892 at least.

---

[Wickerman]

That makes it a second-hand account. If any account - whether first, second or third hand - appeared in a contemporary newspaper for the first time, then it's a primary source as defined by historians. Call it a "second-hand account" by all means, but don't call it a secondary source, because that's a term which means something very specific when one is dealing with historical materials. A secondary source would be a book or newspaper article produced after the event which quotes or interprets one or more primary sources.

I used this source where it says once "interpretation" is used, the account is a secondary source.

https://sccollege.edu/Library/Pages/primarysources.aspx

[Wickerman]

Any witness statement from a civilian witness contains the witness's account, but in the statement taker's words. If it were otherwise Hutchinson's statement might have read something along the lines of "I saw Mary on the night she died. She was with a dodgy-looking bloke in a fur-trimmed coat". A witness statement is a primary source paraphrase notwithstanding.

All the witness statements taken by Abberline on 9 Nov. in Millers Court were taken in first-hand, except that of Bowyer.
Bowyer's appears to have been the first statement taken by Abberline, after which he changed to first-hand recording.

[Trevor Marriott]

Is this the same story reported in the Western Mail of 12th November? In which case, it says the man Bowyer saw matched resembled the description given by the untrustworthy Matthew Packer:

"Harry Bowyer states that on Wednesday night he saw a man speaking to Kelly who resembled the description given by the fruiterer of the supposed Berner Street murderer."

Packer estimated the age of the man he allegedly saw at around 35, and he said that he looked like a clerk. Bowyer described a "rather smart" man in his late 20s, sporting white collar and cuffs and a black coat. It doesn't strike me that either was describing an Astrakhan-type figure, but a clerical worker.

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?

The Stride murder was six weeks before. Is Bowyer likely to remember a description as given by Packer after that length of time? I think the Western Mail has got the facts wrong, and we just cant get away from primary and secondary can we

Bowyers story appeared in the Echo article dated Nov 14th

The Bowyer article did not appear in The Echo until after the inquest which was on Nov 12

Researchers should perhaps stop believing all they read in newspapers

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

If the police were keystone cops.If not this kind of witness,his importance,if his account is true, will be retained.This was the big lead.
Have him notify police if he moved,give him rewards.Have him walk around the district more to spot the man.Use him in the Sadler case.
The case closed in 1892.But it did not happen because his testimony was dropped,forcing them to use a witness/Lawende who doubt he
could identify the "suspect" again.

---

This was at least 2 and a half years after the Kelly murder. You seriously think witnesses are expected to keep in touch with police for the rest of their lives?

[Bridewell]

Hi bridewell
I agree. I think more than likely he was just looking for a place to crash. However, he followed mary around and then waited outside her place for almost an hour in the middle of the night on his own accord. Just happens on the night of her murder. Creepy or maybe bad luck? I dont know but to me its stalking behaviour, especially since theres no indication mary wanted anything to do with him, and basically blew him off so theres could be jeolousy in the mix too.

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?

Re mizen. Probably mistaken, the other option lech lied. Its certainly not a fact mizen was lying or mistaken.

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?

[Wickerman]

Indeed Ben
and in Bowyers official statement to authorities the only mention of seeing any kind of stranger was several days before the night of her murder.


This press story is probably a garbled account of that.

This you mean?

"Harry Bowyer states that on Wednesday night he saw a man speaking to Kelly who resembled the description given by the fruiterer of the supposed Berner Street murderer. He was, perhaps, 27 or 28 and had a dark moustache and very peculiar eyes. His appearance was rather smart and attention was drawn to him by showing very white cuffs and a rather long white collar, the ends of which came down in front over a black coat. He did not carry a bag."
Western Mail, 12 Nov. 1888.

What was official about that?

[Sam Flynn]

Once interpretation by a third party enters the story, that makes it a secondary source.

That makes it a second-hand account. If any account - whether first, second or third hand - appeared in a contemporary newspaper for the first time, then it's a primary source as defined by historians. Call it a "second-hand account" by all means, but don't call it a secondary source, because that's a term which means something very specific when one is dealing with historical materials. A secondary source would be a book or newspaper article produced after the event which quotes or interprets one or more primary sources.

[Wickerman]

Not at all.

Quite the opposite, apparently.

He was expressing regret that he didn’t see anyone in the court at that time, and that if he had seen someone, he might have noticed bloodstains on his person and been in a position to thwart his escape.

Honestly Ben, I don't know what you are talking about.

This is more of the article - he saw the man in question, he just wasn't aware at the time that this man would be viewed as the killer.

"Bowyer vistited 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 unfrequent thing, as Mr. Mccarthy's shop, which supplies the wants of a very poor and wretched locality, whose denziens are out at all hours, late and early, does not at times close until three o'clock in the morning,while occassionally 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." Bowyer, who is known as "Indian Harry" has travelled a great deal, and formerly lived in India. He said to an Echo reporter this morning. "The murderer couldn't have come to a worse place (for escaping) than this court. There is only this narrow entrance, and If I had known he was there when I went to the water tap at three o'clock, I reckon he wouldn't have got off."

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

[Bridewell]

Bowyer's police statement to Abberline was taken down in third-hand, so we cannot be absolutely sure whether it contains paraphrase by Abberline, which means the source should not be viewed as 'primary'. Yet, few would argue that it can be deemed reliable.

Any witness statement from a civilian witness contains the witness's account, but in the statement taker's words. If it were otherwise Hutchinson's statement might have read something along the lines of "I saw Mary on the night she died. She was with a dodgy-looking bloke in a fur-trimmed coat". A witness statement is a primary source paraphrase notwithstanding.