Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Wickerman]

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

Dew, writing 50 years later is less reliable than Bowyer, who was actually present. We don't even know if Dew was present. We do know Dew made several errors.

[Wickerman]

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.

Where do we read that other people were asked if they saw Hutchinson?

[Scott Nelson]

These 954 arguments assume that George Hutchinson and Mr. Astrakhan were people who actually existed.

For a long time I thought Hutchinson may have been a police plant. Now I'm inclined to think he may not have existed at all.

Thanks Simon.

[Wickerman]

These 954 arguments assume that George Hutchinson and Mr. Astrakhan were people who actually existed.

There's no fooling you, is there Simon?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Scott,

Happy to oblige.

If the top signature [from Arnold's pension form] is the real deal, which of these two Hutchinson-related documents, created on the same day, did he not sign? And if he didn't, who did?




The answer carries implications.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

So we’re now finally agreed that there were indeed crowds outside the town hall on the morning of the inquest. Excellent; glad that’s finally sorted. You seem a little confused about my “theory” however, which was not necessarily that Hutchinson was waiting to see who emerged from the inquest after it had finished (he may have been, and we know nothing about the presence of crowds at that juncture).

I suggested instead that Hutchinson, lost in the reported crowds, may have registered which witnesses were due to appear at the inquest, noting Lewis among them.

Hi Ben.

You have suggested that Hutchinson obtained his information, for his story, from the testimony given at the inquest. At first you suggested from inside, but you changed that to him waiting outside.
Your reply above does not satisfy, or confirm where you think he obtained his information from.

But he didn’t “prefer to sleep on the streets”, otherwise he would have done precisely that in Romford, rather than walking 12 miles in horrible weather conditions to a place that you insist was unsanitary and choc full of “undesirables”.

Again, you put time and effort into guessing what someone else "would have done". We can't possibly know what caused him to leave, or what time he left Romford. So, why make an argument over it?

Now you’re suggesting he had no intention of trying to sleep anywhere until the lodging house opened in the morning, in which case what was wrong with a Romford lodging house? Clearly, by your reasoning, he had no intention of working the next morning; there no way a man in his impoverished circumstances would surrender fourpence for just a couple of hours’ kip.

There you go again.
What time did the Vic. open?
Was he out over night for two hours, or three?, and what does it matter?

Are you seriously suggesting that Hutchinson’s story found its way to “Scotland Yard” before Hutchinson himself found his way to the police station? That’s a new one, Jon, I’ll concede as much.

No Ben, that is not what I wrote.
Any note/report by the Sunday morning PC should have reached Scotland Yard before Hutchinson's police statement made after 6:00 pm, on Monday.
That is what I was saying.
Therefore, Abberline 'may' have already been familiar with the name Hutchinson before he sat down to interrogate him.
You have still to identify what 'fact' you are aware of that indicates no such note was made by the Sunday morning PC.

Why did this mysterious PC pass his notebook containing Hutchinson’s particulars onto Scotland Yard before first alerting senior officers “on the ground”, like Abberline himself, at either Commercial Street or Leman Street Station?

The PC's superiors will forward it to Scotland Yard, not the PC himself.
Procedures will be followed Ben.

But he had “sufficient cause” already in the form of his own experience and his own knowledge of Kelly being on the streets after Cox had seen her.

Which is why he spoke to the PC on Sunday morning.
Apparently, that didn't work (in his mind?) because of what he ultimately read in the Star following the inquest.
Now, he turns up in person, urged on by a fellow lodger.

Astrakhan’s coat being open would not have made any difference to the fact that a waistcoat handkerchief would have been concealed from view.

How does an open coat manage to conceal the jacket, waistcoat, watch chain & handkerchief?

[Trevor Marriott]

Dew, writing 50 years later is less reliable than Bowyer, who was actually present. We don't even know if Dew was present. We do know Dew made several errors.

What is un reliable about him saying what is fact, that there were many people who came forward as so called witnesses, who only wanted their 5 mins of fame, and were nothing more than time wasters.

Do you know what you have posted is another example of not wanting to believe a police officer who was involved in the investigation at the time on the ground.

We have seen it again with Inspector Reid in the NOW article in 1896.

How do you know that these officers didn't keep notes, and used them in later years for the articles and books they published?

I would suggest these officers and what they say in later years are far more reliable than what they are given credit for, and certainly far more reliable than many of the witnesses.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Dew, writing 50 years later is less reliable than Bowyer, who was actually present. We don't even know if Dew was present. We do know Dew made several errors.

Agreed, but he's hardly likely to be wrong in saying that "some notoriety seekers made statements which were patently untrue, with no other object than to get their names into the newspapers". We know that that kind of thing was going on from other sources.

[Sam Flynn]

For a long time I thought Hutchinson may have been a police plant. Now I'm inclined to think he may not have existed at all.

Hutchinson existed all right, never fear.

[rjpalmer]

What is un reliable about him saying what is fact, that there were many people who came forward as so called witnesses, who only wanted their 5 mins of fame, and were nothing more than time wasters.

Yes, but please bear in mind that Dew also stated that this did not apply to Mrs. Maxwell or to George Hutchison. Indeed, Dew directly states that Maxwell was not a 'sensation seeker,' and he also states, in the same breath, that Hutchinson gave his testimony 'with the best intentions,' and that he (Dew) did not wish to "reflect in any way on either witness."


Yet elsewhere on this thread we see Dew quoted out-of-context to imply that he was willing to dismiss Hutchinson as a publicity hound or even a liar, when, in fact, he stated the exact opposite. He merely felt Hutchinson was mistaken.


But Dew was wrong. Hutchinson wasn't mistaken.

[Wickerman]

Agreed, but he's hardly likely to be wrong in saying that "some notoriety seekers made statements which were patently untrue, with no other object than to get their names into the newspapers". We know that that kind of thing was going on from other sources.

Agreed, but what Trevor is doing is applying Dew's comment to Bowyer, as he will undoubtedly apply it to any witness statement he doesn't like, or that doesn't fit his own theory.
It's not like it isn't an obvious manipulation of a vague statement.

[Wickerman]

What is un reliable about him saying what is fact, that there were many people who came forward as so called witnesses, who only wanted their 5 mins of fame, and were nothing more than time wasters.

Do you know what you have posted is another example of not wanting to believe a police officer who was involved in the investigation at the time on the ground.

We have seen it again with Inspector Reid in the NOW article in 1896.

How do you know that these officers didn't keep notes, and used them in later years for the articles and books they published?

I would suggest these officers and what they say in later years are far more reliable than what they are given credit for, and certainly far more reliable than many of the witnesses.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We have a good idea they didn't keep notes by the gross errors they all make when writing memoirs in later years.
Any case notes should be handed in as part of the evidence, or on retirement at the very latest.

[harry]

Dew may have kept a personnel diary of his activities.As for evidence in the ripper crimes,what evidence did Dew possess?

A person calling himself George Hutchinson certainly existed,if the witness report is factual,and that report seemingly has an unbroken chain of proof.


As potential evidence,it is possibly the most valuable document associated with the Whitechapel murders.As I read it,the case revolves around three suspects,two of whom may have been the same person,the other a non existent product of a concerned killer.

[Wickerman]

If the Hutchinson suspect was too unbelievable to be real, then is this person also an invention?



A Correspondent telegraphs from the Borough:- About ten o'clock this morning a man, answering in every description the particulars furnished to the police by Hutchinson, attracted attention in Queen Victoria-street, Blackfriars. Finding that he was being watched, he immediately increased his pace, and, before any action could be taken, he entered the Underground Railway Station near at hand, and escaped. This story certainly needs confirmation.
Echo, 16 Nov. 1888.

[Abby Normal]

Im not sure what to make of dew. Hes all over the place.

One things for sure, hutch does not impress him as a viable witness.