Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    Hi Darryl and Sam
    wow you guys have me confused now.

    Didn't hutch say he stood there waiting to see if they came out again(aman and mary) at the same time lewis said she saw a man standing in the same place (wide awake hat man-who was certainly hutch) as if waiting and watching for someone to come out?
    More-or-less, Abby. The problem is that Hutch did say that whilst he stood on his vigil, he saw a policeman walk past the junction of Dorset/Commercial Street and a single lodger enter a lodging-house, but no-one else. So, he didn't see Lewis, which would be nigh-on impossible if he was indeed the man whom Lewis saw opposite Miller's Court.
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
      I really don't get why most people are certain Sarah Lewis saw Hutchinson.
      "One policeman went by the Commercial-street end of Dorset-street while I was standing there, but no one came down Dorset-street. I saw one man go into a lodging-house in Dorset-street, and no one else"
      That statement in itself is enough to cast doubt on it being Hutchinson. If he had seen Sarah go up the court he would surely have said so.
      Yeah,as has been said,by not mentioning Lewis his credibility was kaput, plus not going to the inquest to tell his story under threat of a fine like most of the "see it tell it" witnessess.Plus Dew's simple recollection/opinion he was lying/mistaken of the day he saw Kelly (although the higher officials was not telling the lower ranking officers their official view as Dew did not allude to it - the press was in the dark too).Plus his story was too fantastic. Abberline/anyone did not initially knew the truth either,only Hutch did.There is nothing going for him being honest.Belief in Hutch is nothing but based on supposed trust of people.
      I'm on the side that the police did not found out much about Hutch,they just came to their senses.As there were too many false witnesses and no law against him they just left it at that.
      -
      Last edited by Varqm; 08-01-2018, 01:52 PM.
      Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
      M. Pacana

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
        More-or-less, Abby. The problem is that Hutch did say that whilst he stood on his vigil, he saw a policeman walk past the junction of Dorset/Commercial Street and a single lodger enter a lodging-house, but no-one else. So, he didn't see Lewis, which would be nigh-on impossible if he was indeed the man whom Lewis saw opposite Miller's Court.
        Ok gotcha Sam

        well IMHO Lewis spotting him was the reason he came forward. so I can see why he would want to omit her.
        "Is all that we see or seem
        but a dream within a dream?"

        -Edgar Allan Poe


        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

        -Frederick G. Abberline

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
          well IMHO Lewis spotting him was the reason he came forward. so I can see why he would want to omit her.
          I can't. He'd said that he stayed around Miller's Court for 45 minutes, but that was only on his say-so. By stating that he'd witnessed Lewis's arrival, he'd only have added more realism to his story, in effect corroborating it. By omitting to mention Lewis, the credibility of his story is weakened, and this would be true whether Lewis was the catalyst for his coming forward or not.
          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
            I can't. He'd said that he stayed around Miller's Court for 45 minutes, but that was only on his say-so. By stating that he'd witnessed Lewis's arrival, he'd only have added more realism to his story, in effect corroborating it. By omitting to mention Lewis, the credibility of his story is weakened, and this would be true whether Lewis was the catalyst for his coming forward or not.
            so what are you saying?

            that it wasn't hutch she saw?

            Hutch was lying about being there?
            "Is all that we see or seem
            but a dream within a dream?"

            -Edgar Allan Poe


            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

            -Frederick G. Abberline

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
              so what are you saying?

              A] that it wasn't hutch Lewis saw?

              B] Hutch was lying about being there?
              Yes to "A" and possibly "B" as well.
              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                Yes to "A" and possibly "B" as well.
                A- i dont see how it could have been somebody else. He was there standing for 45 minutes waiting watcing and diring this time she sees a man in the same place doing the same thing. So highly doubtful.

                B- then hutch was never there at all, had heard about lewis waiting man and places himself as that man? So a totally innocent man who was never there is going to go to police and fit himself up for not only a liar but possibly a killer?
                For what? Attention seeking? Even more doubtful.

                However i guess both are possible.
                "Is all that we see or seem
                but a dream within a dream?"

                -Edgar Allan Poe


                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                -Frederick G. Abberline

                Comment


                • I do find it noticeable that the interview with Hutchinson reported in the press is regarded with such derision by some, yet those same theorists often quote from it in order to cast doubt on Hutchinson.

                  - He only mentioned the PC in the press version - this detail is doubted by some.
                  - He explained how he went into Millers court in the press version, this is also doubted by some.
                  - He claimed to have stood at the corner of Dorset street, some say he couldn't have heard any talk between Kelly & Astrachan by Millers court. So this must be a lie.

                  Is this press version only used by his accusers when it suits them?
                  But if anyone else quotes from it, the whole thing is lies?


                  Ok, lets get to another point.
                  In the police version Hutchinson does not say he saw no-one else in Dorset street.
                  So, there is no cause to challenge that he should have seen Sarah Lewis.
                  He may well have, any sighting of Lewis not being mentioned does not mean it didn't happen. It's the old "Absence of evidence", thing again.

                  The claim by Hutchinson to not seeing "anyone" in Dorset street is from this so-called (by some) collection of lies.

                  Did he actually say that, or not?
                  As I have pointed out previously, the context of the final paragraph of the press version concerns itself with the suspect.

                  This is it...
                  "I believe that he lives in the neighborhood, and I fancied that I saw him in Petticoat-lane on Sunday morning, but I was not certain. Kelly did not seem to me to be drunk, but was a little bit spreeish. After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed. I am able to fix the time, as it was between ten and five minutes to two o'clock as I came by Whitechapel Church. When I left the corner of Miller's-court the clock struck three o'clock. One policeman went by the Commercial-street end of Dorset-street while I was standing there, but not one came down Dorset-street. I saw one man go into a lodging-house in Dorset-street, and no one else. I have been looking for the man all day."

                  With the exception of a reference to a policeman, the beginning and the end of the paragraph concern potential suspects.
                  So, he is talking about men, not women. No-one seriously believed a woman was the killer. Only men were detained, or arrested and questioned in connection with these crimes, not women.

                  So, the first point is - Hutchinson is not talking about no-one else in the street, but no other potential suspects - men, in other words.

                  The second point - women, especially the local poor are basically background noise. Women, in the 19th century were not even regarded as citizens. Women were possessions, they are there to serve men.
                  Very backward compared with today, nevertheless, quite true.
                  Women of status garnered more respect by men, but still a long way from today.
                  Therefore, not mentioning a poor woman does not mean she was not present.

                  Here is a bit of an example. It involves Cadoche, of the Chapman case.

                  When Cadoche finally left his address to go to work he is reported as saying:
                  "I did not see any man and woman in the street when I went out."
                  He was referring to Mrs Long's sighting of a man & woman together in Hanbury Street.

                  In another version we read:
                  "He saw no man or woman in Hanbury street, when he went out."

                  Which suggests there was no-one in the street at all.

                  Yet, another version which includes both question and answer reads:
                  The Coroner - Did you see a man or woman in the street?
                  Cadoche - No; I only saw workmen passing by to their work.


                  I hope you can see that when the witness does not write their own words, we cannot be sure exactly what they did say - word for word.
                  With the above, depending on which version we read will depend on whether we argue if there were no men & women in the street, or no man or women in the street. Or, just workmen.

                  Hutchinson did not write his own words either. The journalist wrote what he deemed of interest, not necessarily what Hutchinson said, word for word.

                  The most reliable version is still the police statement, which makes no mention of seeing anyone, male or female, and therefore cannot be used to question the testimony of Sarah Lewis.
                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • These two signatures are from Hutchinson-related documents.

                    Click image for larger version

Name:	SIGS.JPG
Views:	3
Size:	32.2 KB
ID:	667480
                    Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                    Comment


                    • I know that newspapers are a secondary source of evidence but I feel that the statement in the Times - "One policeman went by the Commercial-street end of Dorset-street while I was standing there, but no one came down Dorset-street. I saw one man go into a lodging-house in Dorset-street, and no one else"
                      Is a direct answer to a question did he see anyone else in Dorset st, or go into, or in Millers Court. Not, did he see any other dodgy looking men - I saw a policeman. Why mention just a man going into a lodging house. Did this man come out of Millers Court? almost certainly not or Hutch would have said. Was he hanging around suspiciously? Ditto. Sarah Lewis going into the court at the very time Hutch was stood there was of the utmost importance " I saw a woman go into the court I was watching" Surely the journalist would have included this detail.

                      Comment


                      • Thomas Bowyer throws hit hat in the ring for a second time

                        The Echo, 14th November, reported him going “out at different times up Millers Court on the Thursday night for the purposes of getting water from a tap there—the only available supply. Indeed, Bowyer visited that spot as late—or, rather, as early—as three o'clock on the morning of the murder. This early visit to the water tap is by no means an infrequent (sic) thing, as Mr. McCarthy’s shop, which supplies the wants of a very poor and wretched locality, whose denizens are out at all “hours, late and early, does not at times close until three o’clock in the morning, while occasionally it is open all night. Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer. Bowyer has, he says, described this man to Inspector Abberline and Inspector Reid.”

                        Why do we see so much conflicting witness testimony throughout the ripper murders?- A comment from Walter Dew confirms what some of us already know

                        "As always happens in such cases, so many people were eager to give information. The majority were well-meaning enough, but some notoriety seekers made statements which were patently untrue, with no other object than to get their names into the newspapers. I have never been able to understand the mentality of such people. Our job was big enough in all conscience without having to waste time exploring false clues

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                          A- i dont see how it could have been somebody else.
                          Lodging houses had many residents, who came and went all night, so it could have been anyone. Hutchinson himself said he saw one man entering a lodging house - perhaps this was the same one whom Lewis saw.
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                          Comment


                          • Hi Simon. I left a gaslight on for you down by the beach hut; just mind your step, it's pitch black down there.
                            Attached Files

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                              Lodging houses had many residents, who came and went all night, so it could have been anyone. Hutchinson himself said he saw one man entering a lodging house - perhaps this was the same one whom Lewis saw.
                              Indeed Sam, we know Crossingham's catered for scores of people and where they not generally open to 4 am. Begs the question why no one else saw Hutch stood there for 45 mins Not the Maxwells nor any of the residents.

                              Comment


                              • Hi RJ,

                                Far from being “mute” on the subject of Hutchinson’s motivation for waiting outside the court for as long he claimed, I did in fact address this very issue several pages ago:

                                ”In response to the questions you posed several pages ago regarding Hutchinson’s motivation for loitering outside Crossingan’s IF he was the murderer, one explanation is that he was waiting for the Blotchy man to emerge, assuming the latter had fallen into a drunken slumber with Kelly some time after 1.00am, which would be perfectly consistent with Cox’s recollections.

                                Alternatively, he may have been conducting a measure of pre-crime surveillance, in common with almost all serial killers who have targetted victims in their homes.

                                Militating against the argument that this would represent too significant a departure from his “usual” M.O. is the fact that other serial killers have varied their strategies when it came to encountering victims on the street, versus attacking them in their homes.

                                If we’re prepared to make allowances for change in the killer’s “MO” regarding his chosen venue type, indoor versus outdoor (as opposed to assuming that a different killer was responsible in the Kelly case), it is only fair and logical to make similar allowances for the type of pre-crime approach he adopted.”


                                Given the recent intensification of police and vigilance committee presence on the street, coupled with an increased wariness on the part his intended victims, it’s little wonder that the killer resorted to an alternative venue type.

                                If he had a prior knowledge of Kelly’s living arrangements, perhaps on a contractual basis, it would have required nothing more than a brief glimpse through the window to determine whether or not she had company. It would then have been a simple case of waiting for Blotchy to emerge, thus accounting for Sarah Lewis’s observation that the man she spotted at 2.30 was apparently “waiting for someone to come out”.

                                I don’t know where you’re getting “4 1/2 hours” from but if Hutchinson arrived on scene at 2.00am and the murder occurred at “half-past three o’clock or a quarter to four”, that would involve a wait of less than two hours. It’s completely illogical to claim that the killer was incapable of altering this element of his MO when he was demonstrably capable of altering the type of crime scene. You’re better off joining the club of those who dismiss Kelly as a ripper victim.

                                I think you’ll find that apart from the black bag belonging to Sarah Lewis’s Bethnal Green botherer (not a tightly grasped parcel of knife-shaped dimensions), there was nothing about the appearance of this man that suggested wealth, or that he belonged to a class above the majority local populace. There is certainly no evidence that he was festooned with fancy accessories and clothing, as Astrakhan clearly was.

                                I wasn’t remotely suggesting that the evidence against Hutchinson warranted a court case. I was exploring a strictly hypothetical scenario in which the scientific, factual data (which argues against Hutchinson’s red hanky claims) are pitted against the hearsay outdoor experiments preferred by his defenders, which typically rely on equipment and conditions which are in no way comparable to those available to Hutchinson in 1888..

                                All the best,
                                Ben
                                Last edited by Ben; 08-02-2018, 03:46 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X