Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Simon Wood]

Hiding under the blankets is no defense.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

You are wrong, I am doing no such thing. The Echo statement of Bowyer stands alone, and has nothing at all to do with Bowyer.

My other comments on what Dew says about time wasters also stands alone,and is not relative to Bowyers Echo statement. Once again you have failed to comprehend what is written.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Simon Wood]

One of the two Hutchinson-related documents has been forged with Arnold's signature.

Which one, by whom and why?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Hutch didn't say "no-one came down Dorset street", he said "not one came down, etc..." - check the original.
He was referring to not seeing a policeman come down Dorset street.

Hi Wick I was quoting the Times, [because I thought it to be reliable] verbatim. If it is not the original fair enough. But it does mention seeing someone else [not a policeman], so I don't think the statement was specifically meant about the police.

[Sam Flynn]

One of the two Hutchinson-related documents has been forged with Arnold's signature.

Which one, by whom and why?

How do you know it was forged?

[Darryl Kenyon]

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

Hello again Wick Perhaps the residents of Crossinghams where not interviewed by the police to see if they had any info [though I think the police would have been foolish, and I don't think they were], not to have made enquires.
Also if anyone from the lodging house saw Hutch loitering around outside, especially if they thought he was looking up the court [like Sarah Lewis], even going up the court as you think he did, then they would have come forward.

[harry]

in reply to post 974,the last line is most telling.Was it confirmed?

[Wickerman]

You are wrong, I am doing no such thing. The Echo statement of Bowyer stands alone, and has nothing at all to do with Bowyer.

Ok, how can the statement be about Bowyer, yet have nothing to do with Bowyer?

You said Bowyer's remark stands alone?
Yet the quote you referred to came from the Echo, 14th Nov. where Mrs McCarthy was reported to have had a similar observation.

"Mrs McCarthy herself gives a slight clue as to a person who was seen in the court early on Friday morning, as one of her customers remarked to her – before the murder was known - “I saw such a funny man up the court this morning”. Mrs McCarthy says she has been so worried by the shocking affair that she cannot now remember the customer who thus spoke to her."

That report backs up this earlier one from the 10th...
"Mrs. M'Carthy, the landlady, might easily have seen the murderer as he passed out of the court, but she observes a strict reticence, having apparently been cautioned by the police."
Morning Advertiser.

So, my question is, why are you representing what Bowyer said as consistent with Dew's general observation about false reports? - which I agree did happen. It just should not be applied to Bowyer.
In fact, some of the press were also diligent in sorting out false claims, they make passing mention of the fact (ie; the false cries of "murder"), yet do not report them.
So, the chances are that we do not even know which reports were found to be false, they are not mentioned in any detail.

You also wrote:

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.

I have no problem with what the police wrote at the time, in fact I rely on their opinions & observations.

My issue is what they write in their recollections many decades later.
Like Reid, writing about the farthings found beside Chapman's body?
Was that also true?

[Wickerman]

Hi Wick I was quoting the Times, [because I thought it to be reliable] verbatim. If it is not the original fair enough. But it does mention seeing someone else [not a policeman], so I don't think the statement was specifically meant about the police.

Fair enough Darryl.

Though I tried to draw attention to the fact this statement from Hutchinson was written by a journalist. This is why I posted about what Cadoche said. We see about three versions of what he told the inquest - all written by journalists.
In one account "there was no man or woman in the street" - which directly suggests no-one was in the street.
So I can imagine you might hold the same opinion about Cadoche as you do about Hutchinson - that they both saw no-one else in the street.
Yet, we fortunately have a more complete version by another journalist of Cadoche saying "no-one else, except workmen going to their work". Which is quite different to there being no-one at all in the street.

I was trying to show you that what the journalist wrote concerning Hutchinson may not be the whole story, we have no other versions to compare it to.

However, we do have contemporary reports of Crossingham's in Dorset street where it was common knowledge "that people loiter around the place all night".
"Opposite the court is a very large lodging-house, of a somewhat inferior character. This house is well lighted and people hang about it nearly all night."
Irish Times, 10 Nov. 1888.

That is why I think Hutchinson's observation was more specific. Not about seeing no-one in general, but concerning suspicious looking characters.

[Busy Beaver]

How much paper work from the original 1888 investigation on the Ripper is still safe and sound in archives- either Police or Public?

[Wickerman]

Hello again Wick Perhaps the residents of Crossinghams where not interviewed by the police to see if they had any info [though I think the police would have been foolish, and I don't think they were], not to have made enquires.
Also if anyone from the lodging house saw Hutch loitering around outside, especially if they thought he was looking up the court [like Sarah Lewis], even going up the court as you think he did, then they would have come forward.

Darryl.
The police made a house-to-house search of all premises in Dorset street over that first weekend. It is reported in various newspapers.

"During the whole of yesterday Sergeant Thicke, with other officers, was busily engaged in writing down the names, statements, and full particulars of persons staying at the various lodging-houses in Dorset-street. That this was no easy task will be imagined when it is known that in one house alone there are upwards of 260 persons, and that several houses accommodate over 200."
Times, 12 Nov.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

Both documents were signed within hours of each other on 12th November 1888.

The two signatures are wholly different.

One was not written by Arnold, but was meant to look like Arnold's signature.

"Forgery involves a false document, signature, or other imitation of an object of value used with the intent to deceive another."

If you have a better explanation I'd be very glad to hear it.

Regards,

Simon

[Robert St Devil]

Hi Jon. If, in fact, Hutchinson was compelled to come forward because he harboured a sinister ulterior motive, it would have been because of Sarah Lewis. His statement coattails around her statement and he indirectly makes himself the man who she saw across from Miller's Court. Hers is the only evidence (of the lot of witnesses) that he would be challenging (if that even be the case) based on his account of being in the neighborhood in the hour between 2 and 3 AM.

At the inquest, Sarah Lewis claims to have seen two men: her Wednesday accoster and the Wideawake man. Combined with Hutchinson's story, this means, at 2:30a, Aman/Jack the Ripper and her accoster were both active near to each other, which could just be a freak occurrence. However, if Hutch's story is fabricated baloney & there was no Aman, then (from Lewis' perspective), between her accoster and the wideawake man, there could be a resembling scenario similar to what Israel Schwartz claims to have seen on Berners Street - an accoster and (possibly) another man lurking across from the murder site. That's the best alternative I been able to come up with...

- - - - - -
If he's telling the truth, I dont think he waited for 45 minutes. I think he waited until the time chimed 3am, and that just happened to be 45 minutes.

[Wickerman]

in reply to post 974,the last line is most telling.Was it confirmed?

The last comment is very common with first reports. We read very similar wording appended to witness statements to the press all through the weekend following the murder.
It's just a caution in case future reports tend to contradict the story.

[Simon Wood]

Here's another Arnold signature specimen from November 1888—



Regards,

Simon