Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Ben

If Hutchinson was indeed there that night, but not for the “innocent” reasons he would later relate, it made every sense not to mention Lewis; otherwise there was a heightened risk of the police putting two and two together and realising that he only came forward after discovering he had been seen.

But he'd put himself on the spot anyway and, having done so, mentioning Lewis's arrival could only have bolstered his credentials as an honest witness. Indeed, failing to do so could have opened up an unwelcome can of worms by alerting the police to this glaring omission in his story.

[rjpalmer]

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.

It makes perfect sense; you and Abby are simply looking at it wrong. Look at it from the perspective of a prosecutor.

In cases like this--where the victim is a street prostitute--the most important factor is time of death. If the time of death is in dispute or unknown, it doesn't matter how detailed the witness's description is; the defense will make mincemeat of it. The victim willingly goes with any number of strangers, so why are you picking on my client? The client was seen with her, but she could have had 2 or 3 other customers after he left.

Hutchinson's description may have been fantastic from an investigative point of view, but it had considerably less value from a legal point of view.

In the case of Kelly, the time of death was in great dispute. There were even witnesses willing to swear she was alive and well HOURS after Hutchinson saw the man with her. This puts Hutch's testimony on very shaky grounds if he was ever brought into a court room.

Ditto Mrs. Long. It is entirely possible that Long and only Long saw the actual murderer, but her testimony is completely undercut by the police surgeon's estimate time of death.

In the case of Schwartz, we see Swanson musing in his internal report about the possibility of Stride having picked up a second client after the alleged assault---Swanson was clearly wondering about the value of Schwartz as a witness in the case of a prosecution.

Only in the case of Kate Eddowes was there little or no doubt about the time of death, so Lawende was given a status as the most important witness. It has nothing to do with the detail of his description; it has to do with circumstances under which he saw the suspect. Rightly or wrongly, Scotland Yard was convinced that he saw the murderer. The same cannot be said of Long, Schwartz, or Hutchinson. This is why Lawende became Anderson's super witness. It in no way, shape, or form implies that Hutchinson, Long, or Schwartz were dismissed as potential witnesses.

Robert Anderson was first and foremost a lawyer...in fact, Scotland Yard specifically wanted a lawyer at the head of the C.I.D. so he would be sensitive to the legal aspects of an investigation.

Anderson is why Lawende is at the top of the heap and remained there.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

If Hutchinson was indeed there that night, but not for the “innocent” reasons he would later relate, it made every sense not to mention Lewis; otherwise there was a heightened risk of the police putting two and two together and realising that he only came forward after discovering he had been seen.

If he had been there for nefarious purposes, the “not mentioning Lewis” gamble certainly paid off as he was ultimately discredited as a timewaster, which he obviously would/could not have been if he was identified as Lewis’s loiterer.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

It is not right for anyone to readily accept what a newspaper publishes in 1888, unless its source can be proven.

I couldn’t agree more, Trevor; which is why it would be such a grave mistake to accept uncritically the alleged Bowyer sighting of a man in the court, given that it only appeared in one single newspaper. Bowyer mentioned nothing of this sighting prior to or at the inquest, which seems a curious omission unless the police didn’t bother to ask him, which is curiouser still!

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

A primary source as you describe when found to be incorrect becomes a secondary source, and many newspaper reports in 1888 were found to be incorrect, and misleading, and therefore they become secondary sources

If a primary source is incorrect, it's simply an "incorrect primary source", and we should describe it as such. What we can't do is claim that a contemporary newspaper report morphs into a secondary source simply because it's wrong - it's a "deficient primary source", and that's all we can, and should, say about it.

which people like you have wrongly been referring to as primary sources.

I posted the definition, which is used universally not just by "people like me", but by historians the world over. If ripperology is to be taken seriously, then we should be aware of such terminology and we should use it appropriately; if we don't, then "people like us" will continue to be looked upon as a bit of a joke in some quarters.

[Trevor Marriott]

Newspaper reports and official reports may differ in terms of authoritativeness, but they are both nonetheless "primary sources" as defined for the purposes of historical research.

A primary source as you describe when found to be incorrect becomes a secondary source, and many newspaper reports in 1888 were found to be incorrect, and misleading, and therefore they become secondary sources, which people like you have wrongly been referring to as primary sources.

Or are you trying to say that a primary source that is wrong and conflicts with the original source still remains a primary source?

Its not rocket science !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Thank you, but I am not going to get into another argument over this issue save to say there is an obvious difference.

Newspaper reports and official reports may differ in terms of authoritativeness, but they are both nonetheless "primary sources" as defined for the purposes of historical research.

[Abby Normal]

The problem with the latter (point 3) is... why would he leave her out, when mentioning her would only have reinforced his narrative?

It's for that reason that I'm more inclined to believe that he was never there at all. Lewis only saw SOMEONE opposite Miller's Court, but it need not have been Hutch. And, if it was, why didn't he mention HER, because it would only have backed up his story to do so?

because he may not wanted the police to make the Lewis/hutch connection, because it may have led to her blowing a hole in his Aman/Mary story( among other things) as she was in the area at the time that supposedly Mary and Aman were.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, a contemporary newspaper report is a primary source:

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

Thank you, but I am not going to get into another argument over this issue save to say there is an obvious difference.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Trevor, a contemporary newspaper report is a primary source:

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

[Sam Flynn]

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.

The problem with the latter (point 3) is... why would he leave her out, when mentioning her would only have reinforced his narrative?

It's for that reason that I'm more inclined to believe that he was never there at all. Lewis only saw SOMEONE opposite Miller's Court, but it need not have been Hutch. And, if it was, why didn't he mention HER, because it would only have backed up his story to do so?

[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

[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]

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]

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.