Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[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

[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.....

[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.)

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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

[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

[Trevor Marriott]

And what is that praytell?

Sara Lewis and Thomas Bowyer

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Had Hutchinson not come forward,there would still have been a potential witness/person of interest,due to the testomony of Lewis.Could Hutchinson,if he was that person,and an aquaintance of Kelly,chance that he would not be found and questioned? Would the same story then carry an opinion of honesty?

[Varqm]

When Abberline assessed the statement, his opinion was that it was the truth. But as stated it was simply an opinion, and at that time he could not prove or disprove it.

As I have stated previously he had no choice other than to say he believed it to be genuine, because this was potentially the first major lead the police had in the case, and for the police to come out and reject it without proof would have caused a public outcry.

Once the press got wind of Hutchinson the police had to accept it as genuine certainly in the first instance, whether through their subsequent inquiries they were able to cast a doubt about it is another matter, but there is nothing recorded to say that was the case.

So you way up what Hutchinson said against what the other witnesses of that night said, and form your own opinion. Of course when doing that we should also bear in mind that many of the witnesses throughout the whole series of murders gave conflicting evidence, and I know that a coroners court is different from a criminal court, but again throughout the many inquests many ambiguities material to the cases arose via witness testimony, which in my opinion should have been clarified and were not, and if they had have been we all might be that much more wiser about these murders.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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.

--

[Abby Normal]

Yes, and when Hutchinson`s description of the man seen with Kelly was released to the press, would he or any other officer have said its a load of old tosh?

No, as stated it was potentially their only major lead to perhaps the identity of the killer so of course it could not be rejected unless proven to be false.

I personally am inclined to believe Hutchinson as there is some corroboration to what he says via other witness testimony.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And what is that praytell?

[Bridewell]

Yes, and when Hutchinson`s description of the man seen with Kelly was released to the press, would he or any other officer have said its a load of old tosh?

No, as stated it was potentially their only major lead to perhaps the identity of the killer so of course it could not be rejected unless proven to be false.

I personally am inclined to believe Hutchinson as there is some corroboration to what he says via other witness testimony.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

Just so. It was though, the opinion of an experienced detective who knew the local area and its lighting conditions. Some (not including you I suspect) dismiss his opinion too quickly.

It's not the police coming out and rejecting it though. It's his opinion, expressed in an internal police report. How could that cause a public outcry?

Yes, and when Hutchinson`s description of the man seen with Kelly was released to the press, would he or any other officer have said its a load of old tosh?

No, as stated it was potentially their only major lead to perhaps the identity of the killer so of course it could not be rejected unless proven to be false.

I personally am inclined to believe Hutchinson as there is some corroboration to what he says via other witness testimony.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk