Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Wickerman]

Harry.
The point was being made that anyone who knew her address could have visited her after Hutchinson & Astrachan had left - assuming Hutch was telling the truth.
Her 10 pm visitor could have returned, as could Blotchy, or anyone else who had a previous liaison with her.

Finally, along with these hypotheticals is the Britannia-man standing at the end of the street. The man who was already reported as accosting loose women. He could have been Kelly's final client.
Kennedy claimed to have seen them standing together after Hutchinson claimed to have left.

[Varqm]

Read what Dew says on the subject Wick. In short his five minutes of fame.

We'll the bottom line,yes.But I think Dew's reasoning was simple,in a relatively barren early morning while waiting,he could not have missed Lewis.Simple enough,nothing to argue about.So it must have been a different day.Dew was polite.


--

[Varqm]

Thankyou Obs.

I think it is noteworthy that Dew does not weigh the statement of M.Lewis who also claimed to see Kelly, and the fact that Maxwell saw Kelly the same day as she gave her statement to police.
Dew appears to brush aside the possibility of mistaken identity.
However, confusing the day seems almost laughable under the circumstances.

Dew does not offer an explanation for a presumed error by Hutchinson, but leaves the reader with 'confusing the day' as more likely than mistaken identity.
Had Dew forgotten about the testimony of Sarah Lewis?

Dew doesn't seem too clear in his recollections of Blotchy, giving him a beard.

I can't see why anyone would put faith in 50 year old recollections, when we have statements & testimony from the actual time of the incident.
Was Dew even present at Millers Court?
Compare his claims with other well known claims of notoriety by figures in authority, which are also known to be false.

Wrong.He was remembering/offering his opinion of Hutchinson during his time in the force and at the time of writing the book.So he forgot/mis-remembered his opinion? He had privy to some talk in the force when he was active.

-

[rjpalmer]

Y'all must have read a different version of I Caught Crippen than I did.

Dew states that Hutchinson gave his testimony 'with the best intentions.'

Those aren't the words of someone who dismissed Hutchinson as a deliberate liar and publicity hound.

[Varqm]

But nevertheless.got his day wrong.

---

Abberline may have questioned Hutch on Lewis but maybe also not - he was focusing more on a suspect.But if he did would'nt that reminded Hutch his initial statement was incomplete and therefore add his Lewis sighting to his subsequent newspaper statement.,??


--

[Ben]

Not anywhere near detailed enough to cause him concern about being recognised.

But as I’ve explained so many times, Jon, “detail” and “recognition” are two entirely separate things. It is possible to provide a detailed description of an individual without necessarily being able recognise him again (take Lawende, for instance), and conversely, it is possible to acquire only very basic description of someone but still manage to recognise him again.

Why did he invent Astrakhan? To legitimise his presence outside - and apparent interest in - Miller’s Court, and also to create a false trail. Again, if he was purely interested in accounting for his presence in Dorset Street, he didn’t need to mention Kelly at all, but he did, which suggests to me that it was important to him to divert suspicion in a particular direction.

So, if "further on" meant way passed Hutchinson, then why did he make up a story where he is following this couple?

He didn’t.

Hutchinson made no reference whatsoever to the couple “in drink” mentioned by Lewis, and he certainly wasn’t “following” them. Remember that even if Hutchinson was telling the truth, Astrakhan and Kelly would already have been inside the room by 2.30, by which time was already about 15 minutes into his pointless vigil. Lewis’s couple were entirely unrelated.

A walk from Romford, if taken at the pace of a beat constable, would take 5 hours. So if we take his arrival time as 01:50 am (at the Whitechapel Church), then he could have left Romford around 8:50 in the evening.

Interesting, Jon. I’ll gladly take your word for those figures. Don’t you think it’s rather extraordinary, then, that Hutchinson embarked on a journey of that epic length when he knew full well that his intended lodgings would have closed by the time of his arrival, leaving him with all the other hundreds of doss houses that you insist he wouldn’t have touched with a barge pole? What’s wrong with dossing down in Romford if he had the cash?

“It wasn't "over night" though, it was already three o'clock when he left Dorset street. Just another two? hours before the Vic. opened. Saving his money for a more up-scale lodgings makes good sense”

You can’t seriously be suggesting that there was such a difference in quality between the Victoria Home and Romford’s offerings that it was worth walking five hours to Whitechapel, only to do yet more walking around for three more hours until his precious “usual” lodgings opened and allowed him to sleep there for a measly two hours. No sane person would go to such senseless extremes even for two free overnight hours at the Savoy.

Just how big and scary were these rats that managed to infest each and every one of hundreds of lodging houses between Romford and Whitechapel, with the single exception of the Victoria Home? And how did everyone else cope?

[Ben]

No Ben, it demonstrates that he didn't come forward in order to provide justification - he didn't have one, and he didn't give one

Let’s just set aside the rather loaded term “justification” for a moment. Why didn’t he have a basic reason for loitering outside a soon-to-be-murdered woman’s home for 45 minutes?

Once they entered the court the "watching" was over. Yet, he still claimed to "wait" for about 45 minutes - with no reason provided.

Exactly, Jon, which is rather suspicious. I’m glad you accept that he failed to to provide a credible explanation for his behaviour at this juncture.

Ah, so now you believe the press version?

Not in the slightest.

I don’t believe either his police or press account, but I DO believe he was responsible for the creation of both, and that the embellishments that appeared in the latter were entirely his own, as opposed to journalistic embroidery.

Recently Caz & RJ have been shooting them full of holes too, you must be feeling under siege.

Yeah, Jon, I’m seriously on the ropes here. I’m this close to giving up and hopping aboard the Tumblety train.

I didn’t realise that “legitimise” was all that fancy a word; it just means he provided a supposedly innocent reason for his loitering presence on Dorset Street, as observed by Lewis.

My point about the Friday press coverage is that it has never been addressed before, it is something new. And as such will take time to sink in.

You should give people more credit than that. It’s quite clear that everyone knows precisely what you’re arguing - they’re just not at all convinced of its validity as an explanation for Hutchinson’s late arrival. Normal people don’t spend a whole day collating other eyewitness evidence before making a decision as to whether or not their eyewitness evidence might be of value.

What earthly reason had Hutchinson to be “embarrassed” about providing a description of the last man seen in her company before she was murdered?

Finally, I do hope this thread isn’t going to become littered with lots of bogus accounts of scary-looking men who were seen in Miller’s Court or out and about with Kelly after midnight? As I’ve tried to impress upon you ad nauseam, there is a reason Bowyer never mentioned anything at the inquest about about a man in Miller’s Court at 3.00am - he never saw one.

Who is the actual first-hand source of the story? Not Bowyer himself or he would have been quoted directly.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Not only did the Echo “claim to have access to exclusive sources within the Met”, they actually proved as much by making “inquiry” at the Commercial Street police station” and ascertaining from them that both the 14th November press interview and the description that appeared the previous day (minus Hutchinson’s name) “proceed(ed) from the same source”; a fact that the police - and nobody else - were able to confirm.

There is no doubt, therefore, that the Echo were in contact with the police, and that when we read the following:

From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder.Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?

...it is clearly and similarly based on a direct communication with the police. The “very reduced importance” related to doubts about Hutchinson’s credibility and motivation for coming forward so late. This is spelt out even more clearly the following day when the same newspaper observed that the statement had been:

“...considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner”.

Notice that the reasons given for Hutchinson’s “discounting” don’t have the slightest thing to do with Cox’s evidence or Bond’s proffered time of death. On nobody’s planet does a witness’s account suffer such a reduction in importance purely because another witness saw her three hours earlier with a completely different looking man. If there were two clients seen with Kelly at different times, and both accounts were considered genuine, one doesn’t “cancel” the other out.

Where is your evidence, Jon, that a “good number of police remained behind the Astrakhan suspect”?. Can you name me one senior police official who was known to have done so, or provide any evidence that the hunt for that suspect continued after mid-November?

[Ben]

Hi Varqm,

If Hutch was discredited he was not there,the whole story was a lie,.It was a whole lie,so he did not have to worry about Lewis.If he was there then he was not discredited he was acting suspicious.

My suspicion is that Hutchinson was quickly discredited as a probably publicity-seeker, as Packer and Violenia had been before him, but it appears that neither the press nor the police ever made the connection between Hutchinson and Lewis’s wideawake man. Had they done so, it would have been trickier for them to lump him in the same category as the aforementioned bogus witnesses.

Hi Obs,

I certainly agree that the police quickly came to the conclusion that Hutchinson was probably lying, but were unable to prove it. I would be very surprised, however, if he was ever able to provide a “cast iron alibi”. Since no nightly record of names was kept at the Victoria Home, and the establishment could cater for around 500 men, it was quite a big haystack to become the proverbial needle in.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Wrong.He was remembering/offering his opinion of Hutchinson during his time in the force and at the time of writing the book.So he forgot/mis-remembered his opinion? He had privy to some talk in the force when he was active.

-

That's what is called a "swings and roundabouts" argument.
Wrong, by any other cause, is still wrong.

[Wickerman]

Abberline may have questioned Hutch on Lewis but maybe also not - he was focusing more on a suspect.But if he did would'nt that reminded Hutch his initial statement was incomplete and therefore add his Lewis sighting to his subsequent newspaper statement.,??

Hutchinson was not a suspect, he was not defending himself. No-one accused him of lying, he was not put in a position of "prove it, George".
The press merely wanted his story, not a list of people he saw throughout his almost hour-long vigil.

You are confusing his actual role at the time as a witness, with his more modern role as potential suspect. He was never in that position. As such, you seem think he had to offer details that justify every comment he made. That is simply not true.

Whatever Abberline asked him in the interrogation will never be known. Abberline already had Lewis's statement, and we are told Bowyer spoke to Abberline about the man in the court at 3:00, consistent with Hutchinson putting a man with Kelly around that time. It isn't necessary for Abberline to put G.H. in a line up in front of Lewis. Abberline is not required to prove the loiterer was G.H., he admitted that himself. G.H. is not on trial.
Plus, if Hutchinson had the day wrong, then they all got the day wrong - quite the coincidence that.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Hi Wick
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."
In another version we read:
"He saw no man or woman in Hanbury street, when he went out."
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.
Thank you for those reports but to me, the bottom one reads like a fuller account of what Cadoche said. So when he is replying he is saying what he saw in the street.
Following on from this Hutchinson's account in the Times [Nov 14] is probably a fuller account of what he saw - 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. No one came down Dorset St. If he saw Sarah Lewis surely it would be in this fuller account. Why mention, in the report the man going into the lodging house and not mention a woman going into the very court where the murder occurred. Either it is very lapse journalism or Hutch didn't see Lewis, [i very much doubt he wouldn't mention it]. And if for argument's sake Cadoche was only mentioning suspicious characters because like Hutch that's all the journalists were interested in. Why mention the workmen, let alone the paper print the info.

[Wickerman]

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

Thank you for those reports but to me, the bottom one reads like a fuller account of what Cadoche said. So when he is replying he is saying what he saw in the street.

Hi Darryl.

Yes, the last quote does appear the more complete version.
All three versions were written by a journalist, not by Cadoche.
All three journalists wrote down their own versions of what they thought was important.
Likewise, a journalist wrote HIS version of what Hutchinson told him.

How do you know whether Hutchinson's journalist did not edit or re-interpret his words, just like was done with Cadoche?
I had to show examples of how the press can re-word a witness statement so we can never assume Hutchinson's press statement is a verbatim example of what he told them.
What, if anything, did the journalist who interviewed Hutchinson leave out?

Following on from this Hutchinson's account in the Times [Nov 14] is probably a fuller account of what he saw...

I'm not sure what you are comparing the Times version with. This same story was purchased by telegram from the Central News. It is the same in all newspapers.
There is one exception, some include the "I came in when it opened", but that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
All published versions are the same.

[Abby Normal]

Y'all must have read a different version of I Caught Crippen than I did.

Dew states that Hutchinson gave his testimony 'with the best intentions.'

Those aren't the words of someone who dismissed Hutchinson as a deliberate liar and publicity hound.

Dew is not very reliable.
And at the very least his statement dosnt make it seem hutch saw the ripper thats for sure.
Abberline, despite the fact that his favored suspect, actually kind of resembled aman, does not ever mention hutch, despite a lengthy discussion which ncludes talkimg about witnesses.
Shortly after hutchs story appear, the papers are already saying its discredited.

At the very least hutch is a liar.

[Abby Normal]

Hutchinson was not a suspect, he was not defending himself. No-one accused him of lying, he was not put in a position of "prove it, George".
The press merely wanted his story, not a list of people he saw throughout his almost hour-long vigil.

You are confusing his actual role at the time as a witness, with his more modern role as potential suspect. He was never in that position. As such, you seem think he had to offer details that justify every comment he made. That is simply not true.

Whatever Abberline asked him in the interrogation will never be known. Abberline already had Lewis's statement, and we are told Bowyer spoke to Abberline about the man in the court at 3:00, consistent with Hutchinson putting a man with Kelly around that time. It isn't necessary for Abberline to put G.H. in a line up in front of Lewis. Abberline is not required to prove the loiterer was G.H., he admitted that himself. G.H. is not on trial.
Plus, if Hutchinson had the day wrong, then they all got the day wrong - quite the coincidence that.

Abberline initially seemed to have a bit of suspician, hence he “interogated” him.