Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Darryl Kenyon]

another very sensible post DK!

Thank you, Abby

[Darryl Kenyon]

Hutchinson will sign the statement provided he is happy it presents his story as he offered it.

Ermm I think that is my point, Wick.

[Trevor Marriott]

Neil is likely gritting his teeth and musing, "why don't they read the book?"

"Witness statements were commonly taken down in writing by a policeman, either upon special report form No.6 (the divisional form, blue in colour) or No.7 (the Central Office form, buff in colour); or within the policeman's pocketbook, and later transcribed word for word upon the relevant form. The policeman, with the witness dictating, must include the witness's words only, and not any of his own. The taking of statements has evolved over the years, due to the huge significance of witness testimony in trials - the sanctity of the process by which information is obtained can be the deciding factor between guilt and innocence."
Capturing Jack the Ripper, Neil Bell, 2014, p.208.

This, if accurate (re: must include the witness's words only, and not any of his own.), is in conflict with later police opinion.
The above also does not address the 'description' part of the witness statement. Which although will use the same adjectives provided by the witness, is published in point by point format typical of police.


Description age about 34 or 35. height 5ft6 complexion pale, dark eyes and eye lashes slight moustache, curled up each end, and hair dark, very surley looking dress long dark coat, collar and cuffs trimmed astracan. And a dark jacket under. Light waistcoat dark trousers dark felt hat turned down in the middle. Button boots and gaiters with white buttons. Wore a very thick gold chain white linen collar. Black tie with horse shoe pin. Respectable appearance walked very sharp. Jewish appearance. Can be identified.

With reference to the quote from Neil's book. If we look at the witness statements taken by Abberline on 9 Nov. at Millers Court, we can see those notes were taken in his pocketbook (note size & shape of paper). Not on a special form like with Hutchinson.

I am sure Hutchinson did not reel of verbatim his statement as it now stands. He must have been assisted, after all the police were taking a statement from one of the only witnesses who may have seen the killer, they would have wanted as much information, and detail as possible. You have obviously never sat down with a witness and said "tell me what happened" the result is at times nothing more than a few sentences, so it has to be expanded upon. A police officer can assist the witness in expanding on what he first says, doesnt mean that the final words in the statement are the police officers. After all at the conclusion the witness is asked to sign the statement as being correct and at that point can make alterations.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

I am sure Hutchinson did not reel of verbatim his statement as it now stands. He must have been assisted, after all the police were taking a statement from one of the only witnesses who may have seen the killer, they would have wanted as much information, and detail as possible.

I totally agree, though the extent of the questions are limited to clarifying what has already been stated - in my opinion.

You have obviously never sat down with a witness and said "tell me what happened".....

No, I was on the other end, actually

......the result is at times nothing more than a few sentences, so it has to be expanded upon.

A point I made earlier, given that the public generally do not think like a policeman. They don't always appreciate what is important.

A police officer can assist the witness in expanding on what he first says, doesnt mean that the final words in the statement are the police officers.

My point has been that the words are the same (by the witness), but the structure of the phrase may be improved by the officer.
I think this is what we see in the statement by Hutchinson.

[packers stem]

Sadly it doesnt work that way with an experienced statement taker. The idea is to include as much information as is possible, and in as much detail as is possible. i.e if the witness stated that a suspect was wearing a hat, it would be important to describe what type and colour hat it was.

The reason being that if a suspect were arrested and his house searched the police would know what type of hat they were looking for to connect the suspect to the crime.

Why should it change from 1888 ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

This shows even more the issues with Sarah Lewis in that in the statement she made no mention of the appearance of the person she saw watching the court other than that she wouldn't recognise him.
Yet three days later she could remember he was 'stout and not tall' and she not only remembered that he was wearing a hat but even plucked from somewhere the style and colour , quite miraculous .
Now if she was going to be pushed at any point for this info then , as you say Trevor , it would have been at the interview and it wasn't forthcoming .
Her statement and testimony must be regarded as unreliable

[packers stem]

Would also love to know where the 'talking to a female' came from if it wasn't her natural recollection..... if so then why would she change her mind .Seems a ridiculously odd aspect to change your mind about

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Has anyone yet demonstrated that Mrs. Kennedy was, in fact, Sarah Lewis, the woman who experienced an uncannily similar experience on Bethnal Green Road, and who, previously unannounced, appeared at the inquest in her stead?

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

I think any research along those lines is looking for the original Mrs Kennedy.
No-one is going to find that two different women were actually the same woman, how could they?

[packers stem]

Hi All,

Has anyone yet demonstrated that Mrs. Kennedy was, in fact, Sarah Lewis, the woman who experienced an uncannily similar experience on Bethnal Green Road, and who, previously unannounced, appeared at the inquest in her stead?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon

The evening news on the 10th asserted that she had been interviewed by a member of the press association .This type of statement , it was put to me on these boards , was proof of existence of George Hutchinson so by such statements then all we can say with any degree of certainty is that she was as real as curious George 😊


A representative of the Press Association has interviewed a woman named Kennedy, who was on the night of the murder staying with her parents at a house situate in the court immediately opposite the room in which the body of Mary Kelly was found. This woman's statement, if true - and there is very little reason for doubting its veracity - establishes the time at which the murderer commenced his operations. She states that about three o'clock on Friday morning she entered Dorset street on her way to her parents' house, which is immediately opposite that in which the murder was committed. She noticed three persons at the corner of the street, near the Britannia public house. There was a man - a young man, respectably dressed, and with a dark moustache, talking to a woman whom she did not know, and also a female poorly clad and without any headgear. The man and woman appeared to be the worse for liquor, and she heard the man ask, "Are you coming," whereupon the woman, who appeared to be obstinate turned in an opposite direction to which the man apparently wished her to go.

Nick

[Wickerman]

Can you explain the connection between Kennedy & Hutchinson, I don't see one.

[packers stem]

Can you explain the connection between Kennedy & Hutchinson, I don't see one.

No personal connection between the two that I'm aware of .
But there again , the existence of neither is proven yet so any personal connection could be a long way off

[harry]

Jon,in reply to your last post to me.
I a m not mixing anything up.The sequence is not the Item I have been referring to.It all began With Hutchinson arriving at the police station,on 12-11-1888, with a prepared statement, and ends with us today able to read the result of a written witness statement,made in the first person,and written down on paper by a policeman.

A phrase in that statement,a statement signed by Hutchinson ,contains the words,"Can be identified".You claim those words were the invention of the police officer,and not the actual words spoken by Hutchinson.You further claim a whole paragraph was so altered.You show no evidence to back that claim.Instead you attempt to back your claim by suggesting such alterations were common practice by police officers,and that departmental guides,in format appearance,assisted police officers to do this.Or words to that effect.

[DJA]

Any textual differences are down to sub-editors on the various newspapers.

See The Pall Mall Gazette and St. James' Gazette introductions. Both said the same thing, the latter adding the "of a news agency" detail.

As to differences of detail in the reporting of GH's story—

[ATTACH]18706[/ATTACH]

As mentioned earlier,Astrakhan Man bore similarities to Lord Randolph Churchill who was 39 at the time.

Apart from he and his son's like of Astrakhan trimmed coats,Randolph was Chancellor of the Exchequer two years earlier.
The package carried could be a reference to the Budget Box.
That office is sometimes confused with Lord Chancellor,custodian of the Great Seal of the Realm.

L'Abbesse de Jouarre was one of his racehorses and won the 1889 Epsom Oaks at 20/1. Co owner was the Earl of Dunraven. She won three races during the 1888 season.
The breeder,James Snarry,was the son of Sir Tatton Syke's stud groom.

Churchill was rumored to have syphilis.

Already dealt with a next door neighbor in Brook Street.

William Crossingham of Romford has already been mentioned.

[RedBundy13]

I've just finished False Flag and I must say, Stephen has me sold. Out of all the other suspects I'm thinking George Hutchinson should be tops on the list! Don't get me wrong, I'm not buying everything he's selling (I think there might possibly be a few more victims than he lists for one thing and I'm not 100% on The Victorian Home being his sole residence) but overall, he makes some excellent, indisputable points. At least IMO, they're indisputable. That mainly being the Jewish Connection. I just don't see how anyone can look at that kind of evidence and not see that someone (JtR) is trying to point the finger at the Jews. Especially after the Double Event! I mean just count how many times something relating to the Jews comes up;
1: International Working Mens Society, Dutfield's Yard & their Yiddish Language Newspaper 'Arbeter Fraint' also printed from a building in Dutfield's Yard.
2: According to Israel Schwartz, he was called the derogatory name of "Lipski", which of course was a sort of racist term used against the Jews at that time.
3: Mitre Square, where the victim was last seen talking to a man in Church Passage which just so happens to bump up against The Great Synagogue.
4: Goulston Street Graphito written on the wall of The Wentworth Dwellings which were predominantly inhabited by Jews (some estimates as high as 95-100% Jewish).
5: And finally the Graphito itself: "The Juwes are the men..."

I know there is quite a few people who believe that all this evidence points to Jack as BEING Jewish. Really? Do you really think that ANY foreign Jew was able to get within 10' of a prostitute at that time? With that kind of hysteria and media attention going on against the jews? Let alone getting one to come down a dark passage? But I guess who knows? Maybe they were so drunk they couldn't tell if he was Jewish or not?? Maybe...

[Michael W Richards]

In this case, as it is in almost all the others, we are let with statements by witnesses we cannot prove were actually there when they said they were, let alone that they saw what they claim they saw. Hutchinson and Israel Schwartz are 2 glaring examples,... critical data if true, and possibly intentionally misleading if not.

IMHO, Hutchinson reveals himself as a fraud by virtue of the elapsed time from the murder until he finally came forward. I cannot imagine that anyone who knew Mary Jane and saw her that night would not be outraged at what happened to her. Even to the extent of organizing vigilantes.

Which makes me think Wideawake is probably our boogey man here. Or one of 2. Cue the Pardon offer.