Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Wickerman]

None, and we both know that, Jon.

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.

We must choose to either rely on him being truthful or to discard him.

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

Lewis SAID she saw a man. It is not proven that she did, and I have questioned her veracity before. To me, her story reeks of having latched onto Cox´s testimony, shaping her loiterer retrospectively after having been unable to describe him inititally.

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

I don´t think that Lewis placed her loiterer where Hutch placed himself, furthermore - the distance between the places may be small, but it may equally be crucial. Lewis had him on the opposite pavement, but Hutchinson himself said that he stood at the corner of the court. And that he left from there!

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

Not that it will change your view - or mine. Or? Hopefully, it won´t change our ability to debate it friendly fortwith, anyways.

All the very best, Jon!

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.

[harry]

If the proper name of the person on the police witness statement was not George Hutchinson,then the person signing to that name was stating a lie.In that case why should he be believed on any other claims?
The wrong day scenario,does not rule out a possibility that Hutchinson was outside Crossinghams on both the Thursday and Friday mornings.Or that Thursday was a possible choice of the killerr,but that circumstances dictated a postponement.

[Fisherman]

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?

None, and we both know that, Jon. We must choose to either rely on him being truthful or to discard him. In both instances on no proof. In the end, he did not need to be there to form his opinion about Hutchinson, though. And historically, Dew remains a figure of great stature and a distinguihed carreer. And his opinion must be looked upon against that background, I feel.
You are free to disagree, of course!

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.

Lewis SAID she saw a man. It is not proven that she did, and I have questioned her veracity before. To me, her story reeks of having latched onto Cox´s testimony, shaping her loiterer retrospectively after having been unable to describe him inititally.
I don´t think that Lewis placed her loiterer where Hutch placed himself, furthermore - the distance between the places may be small, but it may equally be crucial. Lewis had him on the opposite pavement, but Hutchinson himself said that he stood at the corner of the court. And that he left from there!
To me, these are straws in the wind that ought not be swept under the carpet. And all we need to have Lewis being on the money is a lodger outside Crossinghams - how odd would that be? And if he peered across the street, how odd would THAT be? Lewis did no describe his face, so how did she know that he DID look across, into the court?
You see, it is not a clear cut business at all, although it has been treated as such for the longest time. I genuinely feel that Hutchinson was not the man Lewis saw, and that Hutchinsons neglection to mention her - and effectively deny her by saying that "no one else" was to be seen - cements the case.

Not that it will change your view - or mine. Or? Hopefully, it won´t change our ability to debate it friendly fortwith, anyways.

All the very best, Jon!

[Scott Nelson]

What confirmation do we have that Dew was present at Millers Court?

I don't think he was before the body was removed, although he was involved in her murder investigation.

[Varqm]

A-hah! Well, then I of course agree with you. But I would prefer if you worded yourself "It´s not your suggestion" instead of "It´s not just your suggestion" - because my suggestion has very little to do with any conjuring at all. There is but one effort made by the participants of the drama left to us, when it comes to finding an explanation to Hutchinsons lowered impact as a witness, and that is Dew´s mentioning that he believed Hutchinson got the days wrong. Following that lead is - in my view - travelling as far as possible from the paths of conjure.



It nevertheless remains the one suggestion that we have from those in charge and at the scene, Jon. What I think we are looking at is a Dew who, fifty years on, was still somewhat flummoxed by the affair. I believe that Hutchinson was asked about whether he saw any woman passing down the passage and denied it, and I believe that he quite possibly was also asked about where he had stood, and told the police that he never left the corner of the court. And I think that this was what made the police decide that he had not been in place when he said he had, partly because he should have seen Lewis if he was, and partly because Lewis was adamant that HER guy was on the other side of the street. But I also think that Hutchinson pressed the point that he was absolutely certain that he had the right day, and that Dew accordingly could not say that it was a certain thing that Hutchinson mistook the days - but that he always felt that this was the only logical solution. and I think it is precisely that.

I fail to see, by the way, how Lewis not seeing Hutchinson in Dorset Street stands in the way of "my wrong day argument". I would have thought that it was something that was of the essence for it...?

I agree with the logical conclusion,it was not Friday early morning at the very least.I believe Hutch would/should have been questioned about the woman.

Just like Lawende,a relatively trustworthy witness,told Smith he could not identify the "sailor man" again,Smith did not accept it upfront/immediately.

"Smith also commented on Lawende's demeanour when being interviewed by the police: "I think the German spoke the truth, because I could not "lead" him in any way. "You will easily recognize him, then," I said. "Oh no!" he replied ; "I only had a short look at him." "

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,did you hear a door open or close.If a significant amount of the answers did not match Lewis 's testimony then this witness is "inventing things up",was not there, and his testimony was useless as to the early morning of Kelly's death.
If their "notes" from Friday's interrogation of Miller's court 's residents was not enough to match Hutch's answers to Lewis's testimony,which I doubt they asked those detailed questions and they were still unaware of Hutch to recognize their significance,they then have to re-interview Lewis which makes Abberline's too-soon opinion/letter incomplete and almost worthless.
Abberline did not mention it in the letter meant he did not deem grilling Hutch fundamental/crucial to support his opinion "his statement is true" at the time of it's writing.

In any case enough of Hutch.


--

[Wickerman]

It nevertheless remains the one suggestion that we have from those in charge and at the scene, Jon.

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?

I fail to see, by the way, how Lewis not seeing Hutchinson in Dorset Street stands in the way of "my wrong day argument"...

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.

[Wickerman]

Can you provide some sources for these figures, Jon? They seem astronomically high to me, and in the absence of an “1888 census” I don’t see how you could have ascertained the number of George Hutchinsons living in London in that year.

Ben, never once have you decided to agree with anything I say, so lets not pretend you are prepared to do so this time. I went through that exercise a good many years ago. The actual numbers do not matter, the point remains unchanged.
If you want to look up a number for yourself just do a search on "George Hutchinson" in the B.N.A. always accepting the fact there are considerably more men with that name than ever get their names in the papers.

As I do it this minute we see 1,249 articles containing the name George Hutchinson, and yes, some are obviously duplicate.
In London alone in 1888 there are 192 articles, including classifieds, advertisements, crime, B.M.D's (aka Hatch, Match & Dispatch).
Different numbers, but the argument remains the same.

Add to this the number of George Hutchinson's who never got their name in the newspapers.
The actual numbers do not matter; 1000 or 500 or 100, the only fact that does matter is there was many, many more than one.
First, the correct George Hutchinson must be found before anyone decides to incriminate the witness of the same name.
I'm sure even Garry Wroe would now agree with that conclusion.

Which is a bit like saying “why bother” writing a suspect book unless the author can first “prove” that his man was Jack the Ripper.

Not anything like the same.
We know in advance there is no evidence to identify Jack the Ripper. Whereas due to available records it is expected that the identity of a prime witness must be demonstrated with evidence, otherwise the proposed association has no value.
We don't even know if George Hutchinson was the real name of the witness.

[DJA]

Abberline was as useless apprehending Jack the Ripper as he was in the Cleveland Street Scandal.

After leaving the force he spent three seasons at Monte Carlo.

Why was he at Nichols inquest the day after her murder?

[Wickerman]

Just out of curiosity how important do we feel the point is?

After all, just because Abberline believed Hutchinson, it doesn’t make his statement true. Likewise, if Abberline had doubted his honesty, Hutchinson might still have been telling the truth.

It is important to avoid a modern biased opinion being offered as the official opinion. What modern theorists think today are mostly the result of their own theories of the case. They interpret the evidence to suit the theory, they don't even address ALL the evidence, just what suites them.
Whereas legitimate researchers always interpret their theory to suit the evidence - ALL the evidence.

[DJA]

Reckon they were both lying.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just out of curiosity how important do we feel the point is?

After all, just because Abberline believed Hutchinson, it doesn’t make his statement true. Likewise, if Abberline had doubted his honesty, Hutchinson might still have been telling the truth.

[Wickerman]

Slightly iffy logic there, Leighton.

If a story seems “ridiculous” and “unbelievable” the simplest explanation is that it’s false - Occam’s Razor and all that.....

But it didn't, that's the whole point!

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

The fact several modern theorists choose to not believe it, mostly due to ignorance in what they "believe" was suitable attire for the time & place, is irrelevant.
Modern ill-informed theory does not change the fact his story was believed at the time.

[Ben]

These details are easy to overplay, especially by theorists who do not want to accept that she could have gone out again.

It’s not a question of “overplaying”, Jon, but one of simple acceptance of Cox’s evidence, which described Kelly’s condition as “very much intoxicated”, which, to anyone who has ever conducted any field research on the subject, need not imply that she was staggering around and slurring her words like a bad “drunk” actor. Also, as her close neighbour and one who actually knew her, it would be sensible to defer to her own interpretation of Kelly’s extreme intoxication rather than ours.

Kelly’s subsequent activity, singing for several hours and remaining put, paints a picture of someone who had very much settled down for the evening, resigned to her stupefied state; as opposed to someone alert and compos mentis, anxious to remedy her financial situation in time for the rent collection.

It would be decidedly odd if Blotchy refused to share his ale pot - unless he was paying for hours of sex and serenading, Kelly would have given him the heave-ho if any such stinginess had taken place.

[Ben]

If he took great stock on what Abberline or Anderson for that matter believed, he would discount Alice, or at least be cautious of including her because both Abberline and Anderson believed the killings stopped with Mary. Seems to me he is including Hutchinson's description because of the likeness towards the known photo's of Chapman.

Good spot, Darryl. Entirely agreed.

[Ben]

One common result of picking up an unfortunate was that she would lead the client to a dark alley where accomplices would jump the client and rob him of all his possessions

Indeed, Jon, and Astrakhan must have been doubly wary of that outcome considering that Stoopy McStoop-Face had brazenly gawped at his mug a couple of minutes earlier. What would have assured him that no robbery was intended? I can’t imagine “you will be comfortable” would have done the trick.

(Strictly hypothetical, of course. In reality, Astrakhan man would certainly have been accosted if sauntering the district at that hour, dressed as Hutchinson described)

All the best,
Ben