Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[harry]

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.

[Ben]

I'm not talking about theorists who dabble in research.
Those I had in mind rarely theorise about anything

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?

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.

If you had actually read the book, you would know, for instance, that at no point was “Shadwell GH” suggested as being identical with the Ormuz crew member, and that the latter was almost certainly not a genuine “able seaman”. In fact, you are quoting initial reactions, posted on a message board, to an article written in 2015, as opposed to an updated book written by the same author three years later.

A lot can change and develop in three years.

Three years ago you thought Astrakhan man was Joseph Isaacs, remember?

There's probably a half-dozen books that are really necessary for anyone to hold their own in any casebook debate.

We read books to expand our knowledge, Jon, not so we can “hold our own” in internet debates. 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. What “details” are you accusing this particular author of “misrepresenting”, bearing in mind you don’t even know what those details are because you haven’t read the book?

You think so? - go ahead then, tell us all exactly how many witnesses were asked that very important question at the inquest.

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.

The police statement originated on the Friday, the police statement forms the basis for the questions posed by the coroner at the inquest - or didn't you know this?

I’ve spend the last paragraphing explaining as much, on the assumption that you didn’t. 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.

Where are these questions in the inquest record?

Nowhere. The question had already been asked of all witnesses by the police when the initial statements were taken; that it how the information regarding Blotchy, Wideawake and the Bethnal Green botherer was extracted in the first place.

A police statement is not the same as inquest testimony. The former is the result of a mostly continuous narrative, with occasional questions

Wrong. A police statement is the result of a “mostly continuous narrative” followed by lots of questions, chief amongst which would have been “did you see any suspicious strangers?”. If there was no mention of any stranger, as was the case with Bowyer, it means he was asked the question but hadn’t seen any. Or Abberline was an incompetent bellend who didn’t bother to ask at all. Take your pick.

What value was there in a common cry of murder in the middle of the night when two quite separate witnesses were convinced they saw Kelly around 9:00 in the morning?

Well, lots apparently.

Otherwise why would the coroner caution Maxwell to be careful with her evidence because it was “different” to other witnesses’? And why was Maurice Lewis excluded altogether? The 9.00am theory lost traction well in advance of the inquest, and the police had oodles of time and opportunity beforehand to realise the significance of a stranger in the court at 3.00am. So if any of the inquest witnesses had made such a sighting, it would certainly have been aired there and then.

All the best,
Ben

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm not talking about theorists who dabble in research.
Those I had in mind rarely theorise about anything.




My view stems from reliable sources who have offered opinions like these:

"....I thought everyone had been sucked in to this from comments made so far.
As I said on FB, no one knows GH's age and Shadwell GH was living in Croydon in 1911.
The Oz GH had a previous conviction according to police records but I couldn't find what that was, perhaps it will be in the article.
There is absolutely nothing to link this convicted criminal to GH the witness, so far, unless there is something more concrete in the full article."

And...

"The article contains no evidence to suggest that the George Hutchinson who was found guilty in New South Wales in 1896 for indecent exposure was from London or had ever lived in London. The prisoner was clearly the same man as the Able Seaman –but that he held that rank pretty much precludes him from being the witness George Hutchinson."




You seem to have this unenviable ability for repeating that which was never said.

There's probably a half-dozen books that are really necessary for anyone to hold their own in any casebook debate. Much of the relevant information is available in the newspapers.
While some books by theorists can include an occasional factual jewel here and there, they often misrepresent details to make their theory appear more factual.




Thankyou for that, you appear to have proved my point.





You think so? - go ahead then, tell us all exactly how many witnesses were asked that very important question at the inquest.




Keep your eye on the ball Ben, we were talking about Abberline's questions to Bowyer, this was Friday. The police statement originated on the Friday, the police statement forms the basis for the questions posed by the coroner at the inquest - or didn't you know this?

On Friday there was no belief that Kelly had been murdered over night, as available sources claimed to have seen her alive in the late morning.




Where are these questions in the inquest record?




Why do you have difficulty understanding this?
A police statement is not the same as inquest testimony.
The former is the result of a mostly continuous narrative, with occasional questions, the latter is the result of questions alone.
The witness is in control of the narrative in the police statement, the coroner is in control of the narrative at the inquest.
That is the difference.




Cries of murder were common place, as voiced by many at the time.
What value was there in a common cry of murder in the middle of the night when two quite separate witnesses were convinced they saw Kelly around 9:00 in the morning?

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

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Had no suspicion been evident on the part of someone that evening,then there would have been no reason for Aberline to have formed an opinion.To have made that choice,he must also have considered the alternative that Hutchinson was lying.On what grounds? I suppose the same grounds that so many have written of since.

I would say the reason for Abberline expressing an opinion was to make it clear to his superiors this was not another mistaken sighting. The police were inundated with false claims, this one was not of that class, in his opinion.
The possibility also exists in any situation like this that this witness had been involved in the murder. An interrogating officer keeps an open mind.

[Wickerman]

....But that’s such an obviously unfair and irrational criticism, given how subjective an entity “researcher capability” is. A “capable researcher” in your mind is presumably one who agrees with the conclusions you jumped to years ago regarding Hutchinson.

I'm not talking about theorists who dabble in research.
Those I had in mind rarely theorise about anything.

No, that’s not my actual stance on my debating opponents as I’m sure you appreciate, but it’s a pretty accurate satirisation of your own logic for dismissing Senise’s identification.

My view stems from reliable sources who have offered opinions like these:

"....I thought everyone had been sucked in to this from comments made so far.
As I said on FB, no one knows GH's age and Shadwell GH was living in Croydon in 1911.
The Oz GH had a previous conviction according to police records but I couldn't find what that was, perhaps it will be in the article.
There is absolutely nothing to link this convicted criminal to GH the witness, so far, unless there is something more concrete in the full article."

And...

"The article contains no evidence to suggest that the George Hutchinson who was found guilty in New South Wales in 1896 for indecent exposure was from London or had ever lived in London. The prisoner was clearly the same man as the Able Seaman –but that he held that rank pretty much precludes him from being the witness George Hutchinson."

You mean your strategy of never reading a single ripper book until you’ve had it on the good authority of a “capable researcher” that the author in question has definitely solved the Jack the Ripper mystery? Yep, it’s clearly working wonders for you, Jon.

You seem to have this unenviable ability for repeating that which was never said.

There's probably a half-dozen books that are really necessary for anyone to hold their own in any casebook debate. Much of the relevant information is available in the newspapers.
While some books by theorists can include an occasional factual jewel here and there, they often misrepresent details to make their theory appear more factual.

Never have I encountered a theory so dependent on irrational collective stupidity on the part of so many. Stupid Abberline (and the rest of the police, inferentially) for failing to ask Bowyer if he had seen anyone suspicious on the night in question, stupid coroner for not bothering to ask either, and stupid Bowyer for not thinking to volunteer such obviously critical information.

Thankyou for that, you appear to have proved my point.

Yeah. Like “did you see any suspicious persons?”, which is an ever-so-slightly important question to ask in the context of an unsolved brutal murder and an uncaught serial killer. No “narrative of their life” required; just an answer to that utterly pertinent question.

You think so? - go ahead then, tell us all exactly how many witnesses were asked that very important question at the inquest.

The inquest didn’t happen on Friday; it happened on Monday, three days later, by which time it was understood that Kelly was probably murdered in the early morning, in common with previous victims.....

Keep your eye on the ball Ben, we were talking about Abberline's questions to Bowyer, this was Friday. The police statement originated on the Friday, the police statement forms the basis for the questions posed by the coroner at the inquest - or didn't you know this?

On Friday there was no belief that Kelly had been murdered over night, as available sources claimed to have seen her alive in the late morning.

You’re the one constantly reminding us that witnesses were interrogated in “question and answer” format. What makes you think anything different occurred with the Millers Court witnesses? How do you know that Lewis and Cox didn’t mention Wideawake and Blotchy (respectively) in response to the specific question “did you see any strange men that night?”.

Where are these questions in the inquest record?

You’re forever waxing lyrical about proper interrogation techniques, but you don’t apply your spiel with any sort of consistency. It’s one rule for Hutchinson (“everything he said was the result of a Q&A session”) but quite another for the inquest attendees when they were questioned by police (“they gave a continuous narrative without being interrupted by police questions”). I’m obviously paraphrasing here, but I think it captures the essence of your inconsistency.

Why do you have difficulty understanding this?
A police statement is not the same as inquest testimony.
The former is the result of a mostly continuous narrative, with occasional questions, the latter is the result of questions alone.
The witness is in control of the narrative in the police statement, the coroner is in control of the narrative at the inquest.
That is the difference.

They had a “particular time in mind” well in advance of the inquest - the one inferred from the Lewis/Prater-reported cry of “murder”, which any sighting of a 3.00am stranger would have been extremely relevant to, and yet Bowyer mentioned nothing of such a sighting. I wonder why?

Cries of murder were common place, as voiced by many at the time.
What value was there in a common cry of murder in the middle of the night when two quite separate witnesses were convinced they saw Kelly around 9:00 in the morning?

[harry]

Technically you may be correct Jon,but my lawenforcement experience was that Interrogation was reserved for cases in which suspicion existed.

Had no suspicion been evident on the part of someone that evening,then there would have been no reason for Aberline to have formed an opinion.To have made that choice,he must also have considered the alternative that Hutchinson was lying.On what grounds? I suppose the same grounds that so many have written of since.

[Abby Normal]

A witness can be interrogated without being under suspicion.

And vice versus?

[Wickerman]

What information is it Jon,pertinent to the case,that we do not have,but Aberline might have?
How Kelly was dressed when accosting Hutchinson? Does it matter?.Hutchinson's identification of Kelly was of a person with whom he had been aquainted over a period of time,and gave money to.

The weather? Seeing as she (Kelly) was killed indoor's,I see little relevance in including that particular item.Any patrol officer could have supplied that information had it been needed.

What Hutchinson did in coming forward was to provide an alibi for himself and the midnight companion."Couldn't have been us mr Aberline,cause she met a stranger at 2AM and took him to her room". Didn't need to say that of course,only imply that was the situation.

Did it work.Maybe,but the need for an interrogation,and an opinion based declaration of honesty,hardly conveys a real belief that Hutchinson was beyond suspicion.

A witness can be interrogated without being under suspicion.

[Wickerman]

An hour or two,expand on his history/relationship with Kelly.That's it,it's what the letter said.Then they were going to spend "few hours tonight" to see if Hutch could spot the suspect.I interpret "tonight" as before midnight,not including the early mornings,although it could have.
----

That's more like it

The report to which you refer merely lists a few hi-lites from Abberline's day, an interrogation report is a detailed document. The two are very different.
An interrogation report does not leave the investigation team, it gets filed.

[harry]

What information is it Jon,pertinent to the case,that we do not have,but Aberline might have?
How Kelly was dressed when accosting Hutchinson? Does it matter?.Hutchinson's identification of Kelly was of a person with whom he had been aquainted over a period of time,and gave money to.

The weather? Seeing as she (Kelly) was killed indoor's,I see little relevance in including that particular item.Any patrol officer could have supplied that information had it been needed.

What Hutchinson did in coming forward was to provide an alibi for himself and the midnight companion."Couldn't have been us mr Aberline,cause she met a stranger at 2AM and took him to her room". Didn't need to say that of course,only imply that was the situation.

Did it work.Maybe,but the need for an interrogation,and an opinion based declaration of honesty,hardly conveys a real belief that Hutchinson was beyond suspicion.

[Varqm]

And also,in the interview/interrogation Hutch "telling about himself". It could not have been 2 minutes.

--

[Varqm]

So, you think this interrogation lasted all of maybe two minutes?
Really?

An hour or two,expand on his history/relationship with Kelly.That's it,it's what the letter said.Then they were going to spend "few hours tonight" to see if Hutch could spot the suspect.I interpret "tonight" as before midnight,not including the early mornings,although it could have.
2 minutes to know Hutch's history/relationship with Kelly through the years? They must have been robots downloading data..

----

[Wickerman]

I think the bulk of Abberline's interview/interrogation with Hutch was contained in the "I'm of the opinion" letter,Hutch's relationship with Kelly.He was updating his colleagues.

----

So, you think this interrogation lasted all of maybe two minutes?
Really?

[Varqm]

I think the bulk of Abberline's interview/interrogation with Hutch was contained in the "I'm of the opinion" letter,Hutch's relationship with Kelly.He was updating his colleagues.

----

[Ben]

No problem about the delay, Jon. I assumed you’d moved onto other topics. I hope you managed to resolve the connection issue.

My criticism was that no capable researcher has endorsed the theory of Mr Senise.

But that’s such an obviously unfair and irrational criticism, given how subjective an entity “researcher capability” is. A “capable researcher” in your mind is presumably one who agrees with the conclusions you jumped to years ago regarding Hutchinson. We can all play that fun game:

“All those who disagree with my opinion on Hutchinson’s credibility are toff-fanciers who are stuck in the dark ages of ripper studies...

...and are titillated by the idea of an exotic suspect...

...and smell of wee.”

No, that’s not my actual stance on my debating opponents as I’m sure you appreciate, but it’s a pretty accurate satirisation of your own logic for dismissing Senise’s identification.

The author did not set out to “prove” that Aussie George was the 1888 informant, any more than he sought to prove that Hutchinson was the murderer; he simply offered a hypothesis. If you wish to challenge that hypothesis, you first need to familiarise yourself with it, and I’m afraid that usually involves reading the book in which it is presented.

Clearly, it has worked for me so far.

You mean your strategy of never reading a single ripper book until you’ve had it on the good authority of a “capable researcher” that the author in question has definitely solved the Jack the Ripper mystery? Yep, it’s clearly working wonders for you, Jon.

Rather than persistently objecting you really need to attend a court to understand the role of the witness.

I have attended a court, and nothing even remotely resembling what you describe occurred on my watch, nor has it happened in any court in history, or anywhere on this planet, ever, for that matter.

Never have I encountered a theory so dependent on irrational collective stupidity on the part of so many. Stupid Abberline (and the rest of the police, inferentially) for failing to ask Bowyer if he had seen anyone suspicious on the night in question, stupid coroner for not bothering to ask either, and stupid Bowyer for not thinking to volunteer such obviously critical information.

But brilliant, astute, eagle-eyed journo for doing what the authorities failed so inexplicably to do and finally asking Bowyer just the right question - “did you see anyone suspicious” - and finally eliciting the information about a stranger in the court at 3.00am.

Witnesses did not provide a continuous narrative of their life leading up to the murder.
They are there to answer specific questions.

Yeah. Like “did you see any suspicious persons?”, which is an ever-so-slightly important question to ask in the context of an unsolved brutal murder and an uncaught serial killer. No “narrative of their life” required; just an answer to that utterly pertinent question.

As for what Abberline may have asked, you seem to forget this court was a nest of prostitutes, strange men coming and going was quite comon.
We have Prater's comment in evidence of this:

"It was a common thing for the women living in these tenements to bring men home with them. They could do so as they pleased.”

Yes, and there was good reason to suspect that one of them could have been the killer, which was why particular attention was paid to any stranger soliciting prostitutes in that court, especially considering that one of those prostitutes became the most brutalised murder victim in London’s history.

There was no belief on the Friday that Kelly had been killed over night, she was seen alive in the late morning

The inquest didn’t happen on Friday; it happened on Monday, three days later, by which time it was understood that Kelly was probably murdered in the early morning, in common with previous victims. That afforded the police ample time to appreciate the significance of any sighting of a stranger reported to have occurred at that pivotal time, and quiz their assembled witnesses accordingly.

How many witnesses were asked if they saw Kelly with a man in the court around midnight? - None! (re: Cox's statement)

How do you know?

You’re the one constantly reminding us that witnesses were interrogated in “question and answer” format. What makes you think anything different occurred with the Millers Court witnesses? How do you know that Lewis and Cox didn’t mention Wideawake and Blotchy (respectively) in response to the specific question “did you see any strange men that night?”. Moreover, how do you know that the absence of any suspicious men from Bowyer’s evidence wasn’t attributable to a negative response to precisely the same question? “Did you see anyone?” “No.”

You’re forever waxing lyrical about proper interrogation techniques, but you don’t apply your spiel with any sort of consistency. It’s one rule for Hutchinson (“everything he said was the result of a Q&A session”) but quite another for the inquest attendees when they were questioned by police (“they gave a continuous narrative without being interrupted by police questions”). I’m obviously paraphrasing here, but I think it captures the essence of your inconsistency.

They returned to Millers court (as reported on the 14th), and re-interviewed the tenants with a particular time in mind.

Nonsense.

They had a “particular time in mind” well in advance of the inquest - the one inferred from the Lewis/Prater-reported cry of “murder”, which any sighting of a 3.00am stranger would have been extremely relevant to, and yet Bowyer mentioned nothing of such a sighting. I wonder why?

All the best,
Ben