Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Wickerman]

No, Ben assumes far too much; it's his Achilles heel, and that's why he seems to be eager to stay splashing around in the shallow end of the pool instead of making serious arguments.

Much like the assumption that the lighting was bad where Kelly and her client were standing, because the Hutchinson theory otherwise dies on the vine. Just assumptions and more assumptions.

Hi RJ.
"Assumptions" are the basis for all the ill-founded accusations against Hutchinson. There's no evidence or even contradictory statements that he was lying about anything. It's all "maybe this", or "maybe that", therefore he must be a liar.

Me? I try to operate on the principle that it is unwise to dismiss a witness merely because he or she is saying something inconvenient. I don't think knee-jerk dismissal is a particularly good attribute in a detective. Anyone can be called a liar. It's the easiest thing in the world.

It's a last restort for theorists who are all out of arguments. Label the witness a liar, or worse, claim the witness never existed. To me that is pretty juvenile, but tellingly desperate.

Wickerman - Sorry to hear about your traumatic run-in on the highway. It does, however, bring back a memory.

Yes, it's the same old story, you read about it in the news but you never think it will happen to you, and yet....

I can understand your frustration in your incident. Quite brave of you to hunt him down and confront him yourself. I might have done the same 40+ years ago but not today, not being as fit as I once was
It's good to hear it ended up in your favor.

I've talked with Ben about these witness statements before. I did provide one to police for a case of property damage when I was a teenager but couldn't remember the circumstances too clearly to say how it went.

In this case (the accident on Wednesday) the Sergeant who took my statement told me to retell it in my own words, but she will write it down.
She also said that when I finish she will ask me questions on specific points for necessary detail.

This is exactly how I viewed the taking of Hutchinson's statement by Badham. All in Hutchinson's own words, but in Badham's hand, then followed by specific questions on detail. No questions are asked during the taking of the statement - that could distract the witnesses train of thought.

My point? Just because Hutchinson told a constable on Sunday what he had seen, there is no guarantee the man would have informed his superiors. Maybe he was a slacker.

We know from the frequent turnover that some of those constables did not have their heart in the job. Then there were others who were transferred in from other districts, who just wanted to get back to their own division.
Having to pay your own expenses to get across London, to do a job in a part of town you have no interest in could be quite depressing.

[rjpalmer]

nor have I heard of anyone whose abdomen protrudes to such an extent that a watch chain seal can be on display on a dark street underneath two overcoats.

Robert Sagar looks relatively fit. Watch chain clearly visible, because he was wearing his jacket in one of the styles of the day: only the top button buttoned.
Throw an open astrachan on his back and he's Hutchinson's toff.

[rjpalmer]

We know from the frequent turnover that some of those constables did not have their heart in the job. Then there were others who were transferred in from other districts, who just wanted to get back to their own division.

Hi Wick - I once saw a letter an Irish laborer had sent back home in the 1880s. He was out of working and trying to find a job on the docks and was nearly starving. His last line was "if something doesn't turn up soon, I will try to join the police."

He clearly saw it as a last resort.

By the way, my hit-and-run driver? Didn't fit the profile. He was 'toff.' Home owner, quite well off, and scared silly that he had been found.

[Wickerman]

It doesn’t matter what the “public believed”. It matters only what the witness had seen in relation to the murdered woman’s last movements.

In this case the witness (Hutch) did not know what happened, or when it happened. So it matters greatly what information was available. The witness only saw Kelly with a client, but when did she meet her killer & who was that killer? Hutch had no way of knowing, so like everyone else he could listen to gossip, or read the papers.
And, on Friday the only theories available were the ones consistent with a late morning murder.
Even on Saturday those same theories were just as widespread, but now also mixed with a variety of claims as to cries of "murder" at different times of the night, but often c/w cautionary warnings that such cries are common place. But Hutchinson would have known that.

I didn’t notice Maxwell behave in such a fashion.

Correct, some people are stubborn in their beliefs (anyone come to mind? ), while others are more easily swayed by what is being reported.

“Running at the mouth” in the above case meant voluntarily providing crucial evidence to a murder investigation, something you insist Bowyer would not have done unless asked a specific question. In your view, then, the critical evidence of a man in Miller’s Court at 3.00am would have been lost to history were it not for one journalist from one newspaper asking the “right” question.

It wasn't critical at the inquest, it only became critical after Hutchinson came forward.
Really, if you think a witness in court can just talk about whatever they think is important you clearly have never been in a court of law.
It seems to me you have been nowhere near a court in session, so why are you trying to guess your way through this. Just listen to those who have actually been there, you might learn something.

No-one, not Lewis, not Bowyer, spoke unless they were spoken to. They only respond to questions.
On occasion a lawyer/solicitor will tell the witness, "In your own words, tell the court what happened...." Only then are they permitted to speak freely, but not about anything they want.
Bowyer is not going to say, ..."yeh, yeh, I know you want to hear how I found the body, but I saw this weird guy in the court around 3 o'clock that morning."
- Was he with anyone?
Bowyer - No.
- Was he doing anything?
Bowyer - no, I just thought you'd like to know.
- Is it unusual to see men coming and going through the court?
Bowyer - no.
- so why are we talking about this Mr Bowyer? Please, just answer the questions, then we can all get out of here today.

Even if there had been a similar exchange as that, it would have been struck from the record. Look at the fracas Mrs Harvey caused in the same court - reported by the Daily News (and only because it was funny).

In Maria Harvey, the woman who had been compassionately taken in by Kelly, the Court had its one amusing witness. She was the Mrs. Gamp of the day, and when she and the Coroner got at loggerheads over the question as to whether certain articles of apparel were two shirts belonging to one man or one man's two shirts, there was general laughter at Mrs. Harvey's decisive dogmatism of manner.

There is no account in the court record of the above exchange reported by the Daily News is there?
You know there isn't, so don't ever try to tell anyone here the court record is complete, it isn't.

You need to experience a court in session before you try to tell others who do know just how it should work. When you talk about something you have no experience with, you only embarrass yourself.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, Bowyer never mentioned a 3.00am man in Miller’s Court - in either his police or inquest statements - because he never saw one.

He described the man to Abberline. Which is consistent with one of those "others" in the Police Notice, who had seen a similar looking man to what Hutchinson later described.

[Wickerman]

..... - the police did not sanction the 14th November press interview with Hutchinson. This occurred entirely without the approval of the police, who were understandably anxious to avoid the witness’s name being released.

Correct, the police do not normally identify witnesses as they may be victimized. This is still true today.
Even the Police Notice (published on the 13th) is an internal circular between stations, not intended for public distribution. The fear was the suspect will be driven away, or change his appearance once he knows his description is being made public.
There fears appear to have been correct.

Abberline was not the sole police “authority”. The fact that he believed the statement for a short period does not mean his superiors were obliged to accept his judgement.

You have no evidence it was for a "short period", you just made that up.
The fact Abberline was reported as being excited at the Dec. 6th arrest of the Astrachan look-alike (Isaacs), shows he still held Hutchinson's story in high regard.

I ask again, where is your evidence that the police were still actively pursuing suspects based on Hutchinson’s description after mid-November? I didn’t ask for evidence that some of the police continued to wonder if a discredited statement might be valid after all.

That's double-dutch, a story is either discredited or it isn't. There are no half measures. As they are still investigating it 4 days later - then it was not discredited. It's really so obvious it doesn't need explaining.
Your source, the Star, released a bogus opinion, as they were known to do in other cases.

I've replied to the "theatrics" by the Echo, so we can leave it at that.

[Varqm]

Bogus.It would have taken a few seconds to say "I saw a woman passed across the street.She went inside the court.I don't know her and did not pay attention to what she was wearing."Just that is enough. And all those newspaper accounts Dew has learned or had heard partly or wholly,had to be it was the talk of the town, including talk inside the force/department but still no dice.

---

[harry]

Lies are frequent in crime cases.Memory tests show the average person is limited in the amount of information one can store and then recall.Time and circumstances play an important part.There is every reason for myself,having been subject to such tests,to believe that Hutchinson lied.My opinion is that Kelly never left her room after arriving there about midnight.Therefor Aman is a fabrication.

[Wickerman]

..... The following extract, which you also quote, most certainly did not refer to the Astrakhan man but rather Lawende’s suspect from Church Passage.

”The City police have been making inquiries for this man for weeks past, but without success”

So we’re still waiting on evidence for Hutchinson’s story being “investigated” after mid-November.

Is this the Royal "We"?

The City Police line you quoted is referring to the Lawende suspect, earlier in the paragraph. The report also groups three previous suspects as in keeping with the Astrachan suspect, namely, the report suggests - the Berner-street suspect, the Hanbury-street suspect, & a Bucks Row suspect.

It is of interest though that the Echo write one line to give a false impression. They wrote:
"The Metropolitan police, however, have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement."

This appears to suggest the Met. are not looking for the Astrachan suspect. Yet that flies in contradiction with the story given by Galloway on the 16th, where a Met. constable indicates he is looking for, "a man of a very different appearance", meaning Astrachan.

So what is the truth?

Maybe you should be aware that the story published by the Echo on the evening of the 13th, was a copy of an article first published in the morning press.
The Morning Post released that article first, the line referring to the Met. being "induced" to follow the Cox suspect, originally read differently.

This is the original wording:
"The Metropolitan Police, however, are satisfied that Cox's description is fairly accurate, and they will circulate it, and act upon it in the usual way".

There's no suggestion of preferences here, or being "induced".
What it does suggest is that the Met. police are merely investigating the Cox suspect as a matter of course.
Here is the Morning Post account.



It is necessary you know if an article has been tampered with in order to spin a different meaning than that which was originally intended.

So when the Echo do catch up with the real situation, on the 19th, they write about how the authorities are divided between the Cox suspect & the Hutchinson suspect and, that is how it should be.
The police will follow as many lines of inquiry as the evidence dictates.

The Met. police being divided between these two suspects is quite consistent with what we read about the medical evidence.
Dr. Bond's report offered a time of death consistent with Cox's statement, yet a report on Sunday 11th in Lloyds, purporting to come from the medical team, suggests a time of death between 2:00 - 3:00 am.



They can't rule out Astrachan on the basis of the medical evidence. Both reports taken together justify the division in the force observed by reporters.
The pieces of evidence which survive are consistent with the reports of the police still investigating both suspects, and the reasons why are clear.

So you can forget that bogus "discredited" claim, the evidence shows it was not true.

[Abby Normal]

Hutch doesn't say anything to rule out the Britannia-man, where did you get that idea?
Does Cox's story also rule out the Britannia-man?

Both Cox & Hutch see Kelly with another man, but no-body saw either man leave Millers court. How does that rule out a third client?

I say "no-body", except the statement by Bowyer that he saw a man who fit the published description in the court around 3:00 am.
As Bowyer didn't see Kelly, then it could be assumed this man was leaving.
The only published description of the Kelly murder was Astrachan.

As Kennedy reportedly saw Kelly at "about 3:00 am", with the Britannia-man. What has Hutchinson's story to do with what Kennedy saw?

From all the available reports it seems Hutchinson, Astrachan & Kelly all departed Millers Court within minutes of each other, around 3:00 am.

Are you really following this?

Nice try twisty

[DJA]

Charles Warren issued his Murder Pardon on Saturday 10th November, having resigned the previous day.
I believe that Dr Phillips had a significant hand in that pardon.
Hutchinson fronted the police very soon after the incomplete inquest ended on Monday 12th November.
Factor the weekend into that.
Anyone else smell a rat?

[Roy Corduroy]

Yes but the only rat I smell is a very domestic rodent, not the earthshaking "creature from the double feature" on which the sanctity of the British empire is dependent.

Local groom George Hutchinson came forward with sort of a made up story, half culled from news reports and the flotsam and jetsom that these murders had generated in terms of rumours and what not. And he got his 15 minutes of fame, had a walkabout with a policeman, received maybe a small retainer for his trouble and went on his merry way.

We, meanwhile are left pondering it to the nth degree. Go figure.

Roy

[Abby Normal]

Yes but the only rat I smell is a very domestic rodent, not the earthshaking "creature from the double feature" on which the sanctity of the British empire is dependent.

Local groom George Hutchinson came forward with sort of a made up story, half culled from news reports and the flotsam and jetsom that these murders had generated in terms of rumours and what not. And he got his 15 minutes of fame, had a walkabout with a policeman, received maybe a small retainer for his trouble and went on his merry way.

We, meanwhile are left pondering it to the nth degree. Go figure.

Roy

Hi Roy
Good to see you. I agree.. hutch was a liar.

Now stop chasing paul begg off the boards! Lol!

Btw.. you should change your pants maybe to levis. Hahahah. Now go scutlle back to jtr forums coward.

[Debra A]

Thanks, Jon. No wonder I didn't know it, as I haven't got that book. Is it definitely known that Mary Kelly's landlady in Breezer's Hill was the one with the Romford horsey connection, or is that merely a suggestion?

Gareth, you might find this interesting; there's a whole thread of research on Maywood and his connections to Romford and Pennington St, the Morgensterns, a Mrs McCarthy who lived at the same address and their group move to Limehouse, started a while back by Gary Barnett on JTRForums:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=27253

[MrBarnett]

Gareth, you might find this interesting; there's a whole thread of research on Maywood and his connections to Romford and Pennington St, the Morgensterns, a Mrs McCarthy who lived at the same address and their group move to Limehouse, started a while back by Gary Barnett on JTRForums:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=27253

Maywood is a fascinating character is his own right. Seemingly a brothel-keeper as well as a drover, and if he wasn't also an arsonist, then he and his family were very unlucky in that a number of their properties were destroyed by fire.

Living at 1, Breezers Hill and involved in some way in the sex trade, he must surely have known MJK.

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks Debs, Gary.