Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Wickerman]

I wasn’t even disagreeing with you on the census issue; I was simply requesting a source, because last time I researched the issue I could only find a handful of George Hutchinsons recorded as London residents in 1891, more in the region of 50 than 500.

I understand that Ben, and I was not pushing the numbers, it was more of an example. It's been years since I had the list, the actual numbers do not matter, it's the argument that needs to be addressed.

So tell me, why does only 50 George Hutchinson's (there's more than 50 in the press), make the random selection of just one as our witness any more reliable?

[Wickerman]

Jon,who was writing about the criminality of Hutchinson lying?The point I made as you well understand,and bearing in mind the nature of the document Hutchinson was signing,is that if Hutchinson was using a false name at that police station,.....

The point I am making Harry is, when a person adopts another name, it isn't a false name. For whatever reason, he/she has changed their name, and it is perfectly legal.
This is their new identity, with no connection to any birth records, or possibly census, marriage, tenancy, medical or criminal records either.
We can't seem to find any viable records of George Hutchinson the witness, nor Mary Kelly the victim, just to name two. Yet we have a short list of people who have yet to appear on any records in this case.

[Wickerman]

When writing about Miller Court what does Dew say?

“The thing of which I am about to write happened nearly fifty years ago. Yet my mental picture of it remains as shockingly clear as though it were but yesterday”....

Did Dew write something that was not published in the press?

When looking at what some of those police officers then said many years later years later we also have to look at DI Reid and what he said in the NOW interview in 1896, only 8 years after the murders, when his memory would have been even much more clearer.

This is the interview where Reid claimed that the same hand was responsible for nine murders, and that the killer was not seen by any witness, so they never had a description of the killer.
And this, only eight years after the murders.

[Wickerman]

I see the concept of basic chronology is still defeating you, Jon.

Abberline expressed an initial face-value, faith-based opinion a couple of hours after first meeting the man, before any verification of his story could possibly have occurred.

Yes, lets look at the continued chronology. On the 19th the Echo basically repeated a story they originally reported on the 13th, that the authorities were still investigating the Hutchinson suspect.
Demonstrating, no real change in their opinion of the direction the investigation was going.

...and in light of “later investigations”, Hutchinson’s story suffered a “very reduced importance” for reasons that related directly to his credibility, or perceived lack thereof.

Can I repeat a recent response I received from you, by asking for a quote from this source at the police station - if you deem it so reliable?
Given the widely published criticisms by the press that the police will tell them nothing, it seems quite obvious they will use a bit of creative journalism to make it appear they have one-up on their contemporaries.

[Sam Flynn]

Ok, can you list all the residents of Millers court in the census data please?
Any year will do.

What's that got to do with the number of George Hutchinsons in London?

[Wickerman]

Ok, can you list all the residents of Millers court in the census data please?
Any year will do.

[Ben]

Thnks for confirming that, Gareth. Thought I was going bonkers for a moment.

I recall it being only double figures too. The actual figure probably lies buried within the “Hutch in the 1911 census” thread, and with only 10,000 posts to search, it should be a doddle to track down!

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Ben

When last I looked at the census data, the number of George Hutchinsons in London was, from memory, only in double figures. ISTR that I excluded children and old buggers, but even with them, the figure wasn't particularly high. (The actual results of my research should still be here on Casebook, albeit going back a good few years.)

[Ben]

Abberline's opinion is the only official opinion, and his story was not "unbelievable" to the only one who's opinion mattered.

I see the concept of basic chronology is still defeating you, Jon.

Abberline expressed an initial face-value, faith-based opinion a couple of hours after first meeting the man, before any verification of his story could possibly have occurred.

But afterwards...

Later...

Subsequently...

...and in light of “later investigations”, Hutchinson’s story suffered a “very reduced importance” for reasons that related directly to his credibility, or perceived lack thereof. If the two events occurred concurrently, and with were thus competing against each other, with Abberline repudiating the Echo and Star reports, you would have a more persuasive case.

But as it stands, the two events - Abberline’s thumbs-up and Hutchinson’s discrediting - happened in succession. As I say, it’s simple chronology - Hutchinson was believed and then he wasn’t, and the interviews and reports of senior police officials in later years fully demonstrate that this “discrediting” was sustained.

Ben, never once have you decided to agree with anything I say

That’s not true, Jon. You know I’ve got your back all day long in your assessment that Hutchinson was the man Lewis saw that night, and you may well be right suggesting that Lewis’s femininity might be at the root of Hutchinson’s failure to mention her.

I wasn’t even disagreeing with you on the census issue; I was simply requesting a source, because last time I researched the issue I could only find a handful of George Hutchinsons recorded as London residents in 1891, more in the region of 50 than 500.

Perhaps Debs or Gareth can back me up on this, as my memory is a little hazy?

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hutch would have been questioned,""lead" him in any way" ,for ex. on Lewis,i.e. what side of the street was the woman walking,how fast was she walking,did she walked nearer the pavement or buildings,did she stop/pause before she reached the court's archway,was she wearing a dress or pants,was she wearing a hat,did she pause before entering the archway,did she go to the left or right of the court

Bit confused here, Varqm.

Why would Hutchinson have been asked any of these questions if he didn’t mention Lewis?

[harry]

Jon,who was writing about the criminality of Hutchinson lying?The point I made as you well understand,and bearing in mind the nature of the document Hutchinson was signing,is that if Hutchinson was using a false name at that police station,then it would not be a case of protecting the family's honour,and it would lead a person to believe that other lies could have been given.
IT would have been a criminal offence,in that instance,if the intention was to deceive,and if deception cannot be proven,what else is there to suggest George Hutchinson was not a real name?
What proves Kelly and Hutchinson were living as someone else?

Or that Santa Claus,the Easter Bunny,and the tooth fairy aren't real.

[Trevor Marriott]

We have examples in memoirs from officials who relate an event while they were not even present. What confirmation do we have that Dew was present at Millers Court?



Lewis not seeing Hutch (in your view), but still seeing a man standing where Hutch stood, at the time Hutch stood there, in the act of doing what Hutch claimed to be doing, is what doesn't help your "wrong day" argument.


Lewis also saw a couple walk up the passage, where the female was "the worse for drink", just like Hutch claimed.

If it walks like a duck...etc...etc.

When writing about Miller Court what does Dew say?

“The thing of which I am about to write happened nearly fifty years ago. Yet my mental picture of it remains as shockingly clear as though it were but yesterday”

On this statement I can concur because as a police officer now retired, I myself can remember in detail many important and interesting cases I dealt with personally, or was directly involved in. I am not saying my memory would stretch to every minute detail but certainly many aspects of murders I was directly involved in.

As to whether Dew attended Miller Court, this is what he says which confirms he did

“Inspector Beck pushed the coat to one side and peered through the aperture. A moment later he staggered back with his face as white as a sheet.

"For God's sake, Dew," he cried. " Don't look."

I ignored the order, and took my place at the window.
When my eyes had become accustomed to the dim light I saw a sight which I shall never forget to my dying day.

The whole horror of that room will only be known to those of us whose duty it was to enter it. The full details are unprintable.

There was a table just beneath the window. On the bed, which was drawn obliquely across the small room, was all that remained of a good-looking and buxom young woman.

There was little left of her, not much more than a skeleton. Her face was terribly scarred and mutilated.

All this was horrifying enough, but the mental picture of that sight which remains most vividly with me is the poor woman's eyes. They were wide open, and seemed to be staring straight at me with a look of terror.

When looking at what some of those police officers then said many years later years later we also have to look at DI Reid and what he said in the NOW interview in 1896, only 8 years after the murders, when his memory would have been even much more clearer. He was directly involved in the Kelly murder, and not so involved in some of the others, and it is with regards to some of those others that there are errors in what he stated in the interview, but only one minor error in the part of the interview re Kelly.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Lewis also saw a couple walk up the passage...

No, she didn't.

[Fisherman]

I thought so too, which made me wonder why you wrote this:
"It nevertheless remains the one suggestion that we have from those in charge and at the scene, Jon".

I took it you meant Dew, but we both know there is no confirmation he was ever at the scene (Millers Court), yet he was the only source for a "wrong day" argument.
Dew may have investigated Hutchinson's story, or been part of the search for Astrachan. But we have no clue that his "wrong day" argument was current at the time of the investigation.



Police opinion taken at the time is invaluable, but police opinion offered decades later has been demonstrated to be flawed, more than once.




I don't remember you explaining that before, and I do find it hard to understand.



I hope you are not believing he could hear their exchange at the court, from the end of the street.



Theories should never come between friends, we don't have to agree on everything, in fact on some things I'm sure we never will
Have a good weekend Christer.

My pointing out of Dew stating that he believed Hutchinson mistook the days was in response to your speaking of conjuring up stories. You have since expanded on this, saying that you were not referring to my ideas only, which is a bit of a comfort, I guess. But the fact remains that Dew DOES put himself on the spot, he WAS involved in the investigation and he DID say that to the best of his belief, Hutchinson mistook the days.
This puts him in the position of being the only person involved in the investigation who ever provided an explanation for the partial dismissal of Hutchinsons story - and thus, I think I can safely say that my concurring with him is LESS of conjecture than any other suggestion made about why the story did suffer a lowered interest from the police.

Yes, it can be discussed whether Dew was on the money or not, but no, it cannot be discussed that he played a role in the investigation and his word is therefore of some magnitude.

That´s about it, Jon. I am not disallowing doubt, but I am proposing that regardless if we consider a source shaky, when that source has the provenance this source has and is not gainsaid by any other source, then we must lend it an ear.

[Wickerman]

Harry, people used different names for a variety of reason's.
Sure it's lying, but so is talking about Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny & the tooth fairy.
Adopting a different name to the one you were born with is not so criminal as you are trying to make out, in fact its quite legal. It's the intent behind the name change that determines whether it is criminal or not.

If the witness used the name George Hutchinson because his real family name carried too much baggage, is that criminal?
If the victim murdered in room 13 used the name Mary Kelly because she didn't want to cause embarrassment for her family, is that criminal?
Are they both to be deemed liars because of their decision to live as someone else?