Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Wickerman]

Except to “theorise” that Senise’s proposed identification of Hutchinson is an erroneous one, apparently; but on the basis of what actual “research” are these rejections of Aussie George based?

It isn't "theorising" to point out that the suggested identification failed.
An identification depends on certain criteria, when it is found to be lacking, then what other conclusion is available?

You seem oddly and obstinately averse to expanding your knowledge the good old fashioned way; by reading a book. Why is that? At the moment you’re clutching at every lame excuse under the sun for not reading a book on the very subject matter you purport an avid interest in. You write disparagingly about “theorists who dabble in research”, and yet that precisely describes your approach to Senise’s work, minus the “research” bit. You post a good deal more than you read, and it ought to be the other way round.

Thats funny, I like your sarcasm.
You're not secretly promoting Mr Senise's book by any chance are you?

You seem to be going to great lengths to avoid my point.
Mr Senise attempted to make the connection between the Able Seaman and the Witness, and the attempt failed.
And, because it failed, and because this issue in his book is all I would be interested in, then I see no reason to buy the book.
It's as simple as that.

There is a great deal of useful, factual information to be found in Stephen’s book quite apart from his overall theory and proposed identification of Hutchinson.

Then I am happy you think it was money well spent.
I would not have felt the same.

The ones that had already responded in the affirmative to that very same question when it was put to then during initial police questioning; Lewis, Cox, and Maxwell. Bowyer was not asked that question at the inquest because he had already made clear to the police that he had not seen any suspicious strangers that night or morning.

"he had already made it clear"?
Where do we read this Ben?
In fact, where does Bowyer even mention any overnight occurrences?

As I’ve made very clear already, if it only occurred to the police after the initial period of statement-taking that Kelly was murdered in the small hours, there was still ample opportunity, pre-inquest, to ask Bowyer if he had seen any suspicious men around that time.

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?
Both issues were known by Abberline "pre-inquest" so, where is the question to Bowyer?
If he didn't ask then, why should he ask about a man at 3:00?

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.

Well, lots apparently.

Otherwise why would the coroner caution Maxwell to be careful with her evidence because it was “different” to other witnesses’?

Yes, I know the coroner said that, but "who's" testimony was contradicted by Maxwell?
Take a moment to think about that.

And why was Maurice Lewis excluded altogether?

We don't know if that is true. We do know evidence was expected to be produced at a future adjournment, which never happened. So we don't know how many witnesses were still to be heard.
Aside from that, why would the coroner pay for two witnesses to offer the same story?
It doesn't happen.

The 9.00am theory lost traction well in advance of the inquest,....

It would have to be current thinking for the coroner to summons Maxwell to appear, so what you appear to "believe" is demonstrably wrong.

[Wickerman]

If he wasn't intentionally putting out a falsehood, I just think he wanted to believe Hutch's statement. He needed to give some hope to the locals.

To his superiors?
This report was not released to the press, it was an internal report.

[Bridewell]

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.www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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.

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.www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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?

[Trevor Marriott]

I think Abberline felt a deeper connection with the people in these districts than any other investigating officer, and felt an obligation to solve these murders quickly. Its his successes and the relationships he had with the locals that made him a perfect candidate for his position during these crimes.

If he wasn't intentionally putting out a falsehood, I just think he wanted to believe Hutch's statement. He needed to give some hope to the locals.

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

I think Abberline felt a deeper connection with the people in these districts than any other investigating officer, and felt an obligation to solve these murders quickly. Its his successes and the relationships he had with the locals that made him a perfect candidate for his position during these crimes.

If he wasn't intentionally putting out a falsehood, I just think he wanted to believe Hutch's statement. He needed to give some hope to the locals.

[Darryl Kenyon]

An alternative, and kinder, way of looking at it is that Hutchinson was plausible.

Yes, especially if the first part of his story, not being at his lodging house that night and coming in early morning checks out.

[Trevor Marriott]

We are led to believe Abberline had gained the respect of his fellow officers & superiors due to his abilities with the grass roots people of the East End.

Yet nobody noticed he was gullible?

I think the term "misled" is more appropriate than gullible.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

We are led to believe Abberline had gained the respect of his fellow officers & superiors due to his abilities with the grass roots people of the East End.

Yet nobody noticed he was gullible?

An alternative, and kinder, way of looking at it is that Hutchinson was plausible.

[Wickerman]

"I am of the opinion his statement is true."

For all you know, Abberline could have been gullible.

We are led to believe Abberline had gained the respect of his fellow officers & superiors due to his abilities with the grass roots people of the East End.

Yet nobody noticed he was gullible?

[Trevor Marriott]

As I said to Trevor.
Abberline's, "I am of the opinion his statement is true", was intended to mean Hutchinson needs to be taken seriously. That the story he told is not one of mistaken identity, nor one intended to mislead the authorities.
There was no direct implication that Hutchinson was a suspect who turned out to be innocent in Abberline's mind, that is not what he meant by that comment.

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

"I am of the opinion his statement is true."

For all you know, Abberline could have been gullible.

Exactly.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Simon Wood]

"I am of the opinion his statement is true."

For all you know, Abberline could have been gullible.

[Wickerman]

Jon,
I would say that Aberline forwarded an opinion because he felt obliged to.Who else was there that could inform his superiers of the information presented by Hutchinson.In the abscence of evidence available at the time,opinion appears the only recourse.Suspicion in whatever form, was secondry to the presumption of innocence,hence an opinion of honesty was the proper expression,but not neccessarily the correct one.

As I said to Trevor.
Abberline's, "I am of the opinion his statement is true", was intended to mean Hutchinson needs to be taken seriously. That the story he told is not one of mistaken identity, nor one intended to mislead the authorities.
There was no direct implication that Hutchinson was a suspect who turned out to be innocent in Abberline's mind, that is not what he meant by that comment.

[Wickerman]

As an investigating officer the difficulty you have is that unless you can disprove what a witness is saying, then what the witness says has to be accepted,....

Agreed, the witness is given the benefit of the doubt. They are not treated as liars, they are not dismissed without a valid cause. The police take what they say on trust, until or unless something surfaces to say otherwise.
This is how we should treat Hutchinson, Bowyer, Kennedy, etc., just as the police did.

But of course the witness testimony when given at court is open to be accepted or rejected by a jury.

At a trial yes, but some on Casebook confuse the inquest with a trial, and expect the coroner to investigate the case as the police would have.
The coroner is not interested in solving a murder, that is not his job. The Who, Where, When & By what means the victim died is the purview of the coroner.

Personal opinions count for nothing in the real world of policing, and do not solve cases, and do not eliminate a suspect or prove a suspects guilt.

True, but Abberline was only expressing his opinion in an internal report to his superior. Basically he was telling his boss, this witness needs to be taken seriously.

[richardnunweek]

Hi
We can safely say that Mary Kelly was visited by a man who was not all there , the only unnamed person who saw that was a customer of McCarthys who told Mrs M , she saw a 'strange looking man, up the court this morning'.
I have never gone with the convenient T.O.D,which the Doctors aligned with the Cry as being the most likely.
I believe there are similarities between Annie Chapman and Mary Kelly.
It was said that Annie was in a pub early morning, when a man beckoned her out.
Rather similar to the alleged occurrence , that happened on the morning of the 9th. when it is claimed Kelly was beckoned out of Ringers by a man, and she went off with him, about a hour before she was found
Regards Richard.