Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Wickerman]

As an example, if a witness gives a first hand account to a newspaper in person and the paper prints that, it is a primary source. If that newspaper sells the same account to a second newspaper and that account when published differs from the original it becomes a secondary source, because that paper was not a direct party to the original account, and not present when it was given, and what is contained in that cannot be totally relied on.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, in general I agree, but I'm not altogether sure about your secondary example.
If the original newspaper sold a story that was edited down by the end user that doesn't make it a secondary source, in my opinion.
However, if words are changed, or the story is paraphrased in whole or in part then certainly the story is now a secondary source.
Once interpretation by a third party enters the story, that makes it a secondary source.

One related issue maybe somewhat misleading. Sometimes the term 'secondary' is used to indicate that a story is not trustworthy.
That is misleading, a paraphrased account is not necessarily unreliable.
Any statement whether primary or secondary still requires to be judged on the facts it contains, not how it was recorded.

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.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

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.

[John Wheat]

The only red flags there are, are those created by researchers who think to much, and want to see what is not there to be seen

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I agree Trevor. Also on the subject of Lechmere. Proponents of the Lechmere theory blither on about how Police procedure should make Lechmere a prime candidate and how because he found a body he needs to be cleared. However I've noted that you a former Policeman regard Lechmere as a terrible suspect. This is at odds with what proponents of the Lechmere theory are saying. I also regard Lechmere as a terrible suspect and can only conclude that proponents of the Lechmere Theory are full of bullshit.

[Varqm]

What do they do, put a Wanted add in the papers for Mr George Hutchinson to come to the station?
It's not like we haven't been over that before.

Lawende had a business, the police knew where to find him.

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.

---

[Bridewell]

Hutch-engaged in stalking behavior.

Hutchinson had nowhere else to go and nothing else to do. He had to be somewhere and probably thought his best chance of a bed for the night was with MJK. That's not stalking behaviour unless there is evidence that he was doing the same thing every night - which there isn't.

Lech-has a disceprepency with a cop about what was said

Mizen claimed that Lechmere & Paul had told him another constable needed him in Bucks Row. The constable concerned denied even seeing them, never mind speaking to them. No discrepancy - Mizen was either mistaken or lying about what was said.

[Abby Normal]

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.

Here at least is a direct quote from Bowyer. Why is there no such quote regarding his alleged sighting of a stranger? Because it never happened.

All the best,
Ben

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hutch-engaged in stalking behavior

How does his behavior amount to stalking?

Lech-has a disceprepency with a cop about what was said

Richardson- lied about the knife he had on him

As I have said previous there were many conflicts in witness testimony which were never clarified. Such conflicts in themselves do in my opinion not amount to red flags, because there was every opportunity for these to be clarified when identified, and clearly having been identified the court and the police would seem to have not regarded them as red flags.

These are red flags and although may have innocent explanations, are still de facto issues that need to be cleared up or explained away.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Ben]

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."

It's part of the same article quoted by Trevor & myself.
All he is saying is that he hadn't realised that man he saw had been the killer.

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.

Here at least is a direct quote from Bowyer. Why is there no such quote regarding his alleged sighting of a stranger? Because it never happened.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

The only red flags there are, are those created by researchers who think to much, and want to see what is not there to be seen

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hutch-engaged in stalking behavior

Lech-has a disceprepency with a cop about what was said

Richardson- lied about the knife he had on him

These are red flags and although may have innocent explanations, are still de facto issues that need to be cleared up or explained away.

[Trevor Marriott]

It's not really a question of whether a newspaper is a primary or secondary source. Such a statement is misleading.

It is the stories that are either primary or secondary.
A newspaper provides both primary & secondary stories.

I agree in part with what you say, but it is the secondary stories, which I have a problem with because researchers continually cite many of these stories as primary sources, and clearly they are not when closely scrutinized.

I can see where historians suggest that all such stories which are documented are classed as primary sources on paper, but the reality is that it cannot be the same for secondary stories emenating from that original source, which differ from the original.

As an example, if a witness gives a first hand account to a newspaper in person and the paper prints that, it is a primary source. If that newspaper sells the same account to a second newspaper and that account when published differs from the original it becomes a secondary source, because that paper was not a direct party to the original account, and not present when it was given, and what is contained in that cannot be totally relied on.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi bridewell
The difference being there really are no red flags with those witnesses.

Hutch, lech, and some extent richardson all have have red flags with there stories.

The only red flags there are, are those created by researchers who think to much, and want to see what is not there to be seen

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I have the same problem with Hutchinson as I do with Cross aka Lechmere. If an assumption is made that the individual is a serial killer and then his evidence is examined retrospectively, with that assumption in mind, his every action can be viewed in a sinister light. Thus Crossmere does what any right-thinking individual would have done in the same circumstances and is accused of being JtR. Ditto Hutchinson. Several of the witnesses could have been JtR. Cadosch lived next door to a crime scene and gives himself an alibi for the time when (if Mrs Long is right) Chapman was killed. Schwartz places himself at the scene of the Stride murder and provides an account which conveniently covers the possible need to explain why he might have been seen running away.

Those who claim that Lechmere was JtR accept that Hutchinson wasn't. Those who claim that Hutchinson was JtR accept that Lechmere wasn't. So why should those of us without a horse in that particular race accept that either of them was anything more than they claimed to be? One or other of the witnesses could have been JtR but I see no evidence that any of them actually was - just supposition and theory.

I totally agree

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Trevor, a contemporary newspaper report is a primary source:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source

It's not really a question of whether a newspaper is a primary or secondary source. Such a statement is misleading.

It is the stories that are either primary or secondary.
A newspaper provides both primary & secondary stories.

[Wickerman]

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.

This must be what you are referring to.

"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."

It's part of the same article quoted by Trevor & myself.
All he is saying is that he hadn't realised that man he saw had been the killer.

[Wickerman]

why dosnt he mention it in his inquest statement?

Bowyer's was only questioned about his discovery of the body, not what he was doing seven hours before.