Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

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

  • Reckon they were both lying.
    My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
      Just out of curiosity how important do we feel the point is?

      After all, just because Abberline believed Hutchinson, it doesn’t make his statement true. Likewise, if Abberline had doubted his honesty, Hutchinson might still have been telling the truth.
      It is important to avoid a modern biased opinion being offered as the official opinion. What modern theorists think today are mostly the result of their own theories of the case. They interpret the evidence to suit the theory, they don't even address ALL the evidence, just what suites them.
      Whereas legitimate researchers always interpret their theory to suit the evidence - ALL the evidence.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Abberline was as useless apprehending Jack the Ripper as he was in the Cleveland Street Scandal.

        After leaving the force he spent three seasons at Monte Carlo.

        Why was he at Nichols inquest the day after her murder?
        My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Ben View Post
          Can you provide some sources for these figures, Jon? They seem astronomically high to me, and in the absence of an “1888 census” I don’t see how you could have ascertained the number of George Hutchinsons living in London in that year.
          Ben, never once have you decided to agree with anything I say, so lets not pretend you are prepared to do so this time. I went through that exercise a good many years ago. The actual numbers do not matter, the point remains unchanged.
          If you want to look up a number for yourself just do a search on "George Hutchinson" in the B.N.A. always accepting the fact there are considerably more men with that name than ever get their names in the papers.

          As I do it this minute we see 1,249 articles containing the name George Hutchinson, and yes, some are obviously duplicate.
          In London alone in 1888 there are 192 articles, including classifieds, advertisements, crime, B.M.D's (aka Hatch, Match & Dispatch).
          Different numbers, but the argument remains the same.

          Add to this the number of George Hutchinson's who never got their name in the newspapers.
          The actual numbers do not matter; 1000 or 500 or 100, the only fact that does matter is there was many, many more than one.
          First, the correct George Hutchinson must be found before anyone decides to incriminate the witness of the same name.
          I'm sure even Garry Wroe would now agree with that conclusion.


          Which is a bit like saying “why bother” writing a suspect book unless the author can first “prove” that his man was Jack the Ripper.
          Not anything like the same.
          We know in advance there is no evidence to identify Jack the Ripper. Whereas due to available records it is expected that the identity of a prime witness must be demonstrated with evidence, otherwise the proposed association has no value.
          We don't even know if George Hutchinson was the real name of the witness.
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            It nevertheless remains the one suggestion that we have from those in charge and at the scene, Jon.
            We have examples in memoirs from officials who relate an event while they were not even present. What confirmation do we have that Dew was present at Millers Court?

            I fail to see, by the way, how Lewis not seeing Hutchinson in Dorset Street stands in the way of "my wrong day argument"...
            Lewis not seeing Hutch (in your view), but still seeing a man standing where Hutch stood, at the time Hutch stood there, in the act of doing what Hutch claimed to be doing, is what doesn't help your "wrong day" argument.


            Lewis also saw a couple walk up the passage, where the female was "the worse for drink", just like Hutch claimed.

            If it walks like a duck...etc...etc.
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              A-hah! Well, then I of course agree with you. But I would prefer if you worded yourself "It´s not your suggestion" instead of "It´s not just your suggestion" - because my suggestion has very little to do with any conjuring at all. There is but one effort made by the participants of the drama left to us, when it comes to finding an explanation to Hutchinsons lowered impact as a witness, and that is Dew´s mentioning that he believed Hutchinson got the days wrong. Following that lead is - in my view - travelling as far as possible from the paths of conjure.



              It nevertheless remains the one suggestion that we have from those in charge and at the scene, Jon. What I think we are looking at is a Dew who, fifty years on, was still somewhat flummoxed by the affair. I believe that Hutchinson was asked about whether he saw any woman passing down the passage and denied it, and I believe that he quite possibly was also asked about where he had stood, and told the police that he never left the corner of the court. And I think that this was what made the police decide that he had not been in place when he said he had, partly because he should have seen Lewis if he was, and partly because Lewis was adamant that HER guy was on the other side of the street. But I also think that Hutchinson pressed the point that he was absolutely certain that he had the right day, and that Dew accordingly could not say that it was a certain thing that Hutchinson mistook the days - but that he always felt that this was the only logical solution. and I think it is precisely that.

              I fail to see, by the way, how Lewis not seeing Hutchinson in Dorset Street stands in the way of "my wrong day argument". I would have thought that it was something that was of the essence for it...?
              I agree with the logical conclusion,it was not Friday early morning at the very least.I believe Hutch would/should have been questioned about the woman.

              Just like Lawende,a relatively trustworthy witness,told Smith he could not identify the "sailor man" again,Smith did not accept it upfront/immediately.

              "Smith also commented on Lawende's demeanour when being interviewed by the police: "I think the German spoke the truth, because I could not "lead" him in any way. "You will easily recognize him, then," I said. "Oh no!" he replied ; "I only had a short look at him." "

              Hutch would have been questioned,""lead" him in any way" ,for ex. on Lewis,i.e. what side of the street was the woman walking,how fast was she walking,did she walked nearer the pavement or buildings,did she stop/pause before she reached the court's archway,was she wearing a dress or pants,was she wearing a hat,did she pause before entering the archway,did she go to the left or right of the court,did you hear a door open or close.If a significant amount of the answers did not match Lewis 's testimony then this witness is "inventing things up",was not there, and his testimony was useless as to the early morning of Kelly's death.
              If their "notes" from Friday's interrogation of Miller's court 's residents was not enough to match Hutch's answers to Lewis's testimony,which I doubt they asked those detailed questions and they were still unaware of Hutch to recognize their significance,they then have to re-interview Lewis which makes Abberline's too-soon opinion/letter incomplete and almost worthless.
              Abberline did not mention it in the letter meant he did not deem grilling Hutch fundamental/crucial to support his opinion "his statement is true" at the time of it's writing.

              In any case enough of Hutch.


              --
              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 Wickerman View Post
                What confirmation do we have that Dew was present at Millers Court?
                I don't think he was before the body was removed, although he was involved in her murder investigation.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                  We have examples in memoirs from officials who relate an event while they were not even present. What confirmation do we have that Dew was present at Millers Court?
                  None, and we both know that, Jon. We must choose to either rely on him being truthful or to discard him. In both instances on no proof. In the end, he did not need to be there to form his opinion about Hutchinson, though. And historically, Dew remains a figure of great stature and a distinguihed carreer. And his opinion must be looked upon against that background, I feel.
                  You are free to disagree, of course!

                  Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                  Lewis not seeing Hutch (in your view), but still seeing a man standing where Hutch stood, at the time Hutch stood there, in the act of doing what Hutch claimed to be doing, is what doesn't help your "wrong day" argument.


                  Lewis also saw a couple walk up the passage, where the female was "the worse for drink", just like Hutch claimed.

                  If it walks like a duck...etc...etc.
                  Lewis SAID she saw a man. It is not proven that she did, and I have questioned her veracity before. To me, her story reeks of having latched onto Cox´s testimony, shaping her loiterer retrospectively after having been unable to describe him inititally.
                  I don´t think that Lewis placed her loiterer where Hutch placed himself, furthermore - the distance between the places may be small, but it may equally be crucial. Lewis had him on the opposite pavement, but Hutchinson himself said that he stood at the corner of the court. And that he left from there!
                  To me, these are straws in the wind that ought not be swept under the carpet. And all we need to have Lewis being on the money is a lodger outside Crossinghams - how odd would that be? And if he peered across the street, how odd would THAT be? Lewis did no describe his face, so how did she know that he DID look across, into the court?
                  You see, it is not a clear cut business at all, although it has been treated as such for the longest time. I genuinely feel that Hutchinson was not the man Lewis saw, and that Hutchinsons neglection to mention her - and effectively deny her by saying that "no one else" was to be seen - cements the case.

                  Not that it will change your view - or mine. Or? Hopefully, it won´t change our ability to debate it friendly fortwith, anyways.

                  All the very best, Jon!
                  Last edited by Fisherman; 08-25-2018, 01:43 PM.

                  Comment


                  • If the proper name of the person on the police witness statement was not George Hutchinson,then the person signing to that name was stating a lie.In that case why should he be believed on any other claims?
                    The wrong day scenario,does not rule out a possibility that Hutchinson was outside Crossinghams on both the Thursday and Friday mornings.Or that Thursday was a possible choice of the killerr,but that circumstances dictated a postponement.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      None, and we both know that, Jon.
                      I thought so too, which made me wonder why you wrote this:
                      "It nevertheless remains the one suggestion that we have from those in charge and at the scene, Jon".

                      I took it you meant Dew, but we both know there is no confirmation he was ever at the scene (Millers Court), yet he was the only source for a "wrong day" argument.
                      Dew may have investigated Hutchinson's story, or been part of the search for Astrachan. But we have no clue that his "wrong day" argument was current at the time of the investigation.

                      We must choose to either rely on him being truthful or to discard him.
                      Police opinion taken at the time is invaluable, but police opinion offered decades later has been demonstrated to be flawed, more than once.


                      Lewis SAID she saw a man. It is not proven that she did, and I have questioned her veracity before. To me, her story reeks of having latched onto Cox´s testimony, shaping her loiterer retrospectively after having been unable to describe him inititally.
                      I don't remember you explaining that before, and I do find it hard to understand.

                      I don´t think that Lewis placed her loiterer where Hutch placed himself, furthermore - the distance between the places may be small, but it may equally be crucial. Lewis had him on the opposite pavement, but Hutchinson himself said that he stood at the corner of the court. And that he left from there!
                      I hope you are not believing he could hear their exchange at the court, from the end of the street.

                      Not that it will change your view - or mine. Or? Hopefully, it won´t change our ability to debate it friendly fortwith, anyways.

                      All the very best, Jon!
                      Theories should never come between friends, we don't have to agree on everything, in fact on some things I'm sure we never will
                      Have a good weekend Christer.
                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • Harry, people used different names for a variety of reason's.
                        Sure it's lying, but so is talking about Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny & the tooth fairy.
                        Adopting a different name to the one you were born with is not so criminal as you are trying to make out, in fact its quite legal. It's the intent behind the name change that determines whether it is criminal or not.

                        If the witness used the name George Hutchinson because his real family name carried too much baggage, is that criminal?
                        If the victim murdered in room 13 used the name Mary Kelly because she didn't want to cause embarrassment for her family, is that criminal?
                        Are they both to be deemed liars because of their decision to live as someone else?
                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                          I thought so too, which made me wonder why you wrote this:
                          "It nevertheless remains the one suggestion that we have from those in charge and at the scene, Jon".

                          I took it you meant Dew, but we both know there is no confirmation he was ever at the scene (Millers Court), yet he was the only source for a "wrong day" argument.
                          Dew may have investigated Hutchinson's story, or been part of the search for Astrachan. But we have no clue that his "wrong day" argument was current at the time of the investigation.



                          Police opinion taken at the time is invaluable, but police opinion offered decades later has been demonstrated to be flawed, more than once.




                          I don't remember you explaining that before, and I do find it hard to understand.



                          I hope you are not believing he could hear their exchange at the court, from the end of the street.



                          Theories should never come between friends, we don't have to agree on everything, in fact on some things I'm sure we never will
                          Have a good weekend Christer.
                          My pointing out of Dew stating that he believed Hutchinson mistook the days was in response to your speaking of conjuring up stories. You have since expanded on this, saying that you were not referring to my ideas only, which is a bit of a comfort, I guess. But the fact remains that Dew DOES put himself on the spot, he WAS involved in the investigation and he DID say that to the best of his belief, Hutchinson mistook the days.
                          This puts him in the position of being the only person involved in the investigation who ever provided an explanation for the partial dismissal of Hutchinsons story - and thus, I think I can safely say that my concurring with him is LESS of conjecture than any other suggestion made about why the story did suffer a lowered interest from the police.

                          Yes, it can be discussed whether Dew was on the money or not, but no, it cannot be discussed that he played a role in the investigation and his word is therefore of some magnitude.

                          That´s about it, Jon. I am not disallowing doubt, but I am proposing that regardless if we consider a source shaky, when that source has the provenance this source has and is not gainsaid by any other source, then we must lend it an ear.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                            Lewis also saw a couple walk up the passage...
                            No, she didn't.
                            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                              We have examples in memoirs from officials who relate an event while they were not even present. What confirmation do we have that Dew was present at Millers Court?



                              Lewis not seeing Hutch (in your view), but still seeing a man standing where Hutch stood, at the time Hutch stood there, in the act of doing what Hutch claimed to be doing, is what doesn't help your "wrong day" argument.


                              Lewis also saw a couple walk up the passage, where the female was "the worse for drink", just like Hutch claimed.

                              If it walks like a duck...etc...etc.
                              When writing about Miller Court what does Dew say?

                              “The thing of which I am about to write happened nearly fifty years ago. Yet my mental picture of it remains as shockingly clear as though it were but yesterday”

                              On this statement I can concur because as a police officer now retired, I myself can remember in detail many important and interesting cases I dealt with personally, or was directly involved in. I am not saying my memory would stretch to every minute detail but certainly many aspects of murders I was directly involved in.

                              As to whether Dew attended Miller Court, this is what he says which confirms he did

                              “Inspector Beck pushed the coat to one side and peered through the aperture. A moment later he staggered back with his face as white as a sheet.

                              "For God's sake, Dew," he cried. " Don't look."

                              I ignored the order, and took my place at the window.
                              When my eyes had become accustomed to the dim light I saw a sight which I shall never forget to my dying day.

                              The whole horror of that room will only be known to those of us whose duty it was to enter it. The full details are unprintable.

                              There was a table just beneath the window. On the bed, which was drawn obliquely across the small room, was all that remained of a good-looking and buxom young woman.

                              There was little left of her, not much more than a skeleton. Her face was terribly scarred and mutilated.

                              All this was horrifying enough, but the mental picture of that sight which remains most vividly with me is the poor woman's eyes. They were wide open, and seemed to be staring straight at me with a look of terror.


                              When looking at what some of those police officers then said many years later years later we also have to look at DI Reid and what he said in the NOW interview in 1896, only 8 years after the murders, when his memory would have been even much more clearer. He was directly involved in the Kelly murder, and not so involved in some of the others, and it is with regards to some of those others that there are errors in what he stated in the interview, but only one minor error in the part of the interview re Kelly.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • Jon,who was writing about the criminality of Hutchinson lying?The point I made as you well understand,and bearing in mind the nature of the document Hutchinson was signing,is that if Hutchinson was using a false name at that police station,then it would not be a case of protecting the family's honour,and it would lead a person to believe that other lies could have been given.
                                IT would have been a criminal offence,in that instance,if the intention was to deceive,and if deception cannot be proven,what else is there to suggest George Hutchinson was not a real name?
                                What proves Kelly and Hutchinson were living as someone else?

                                Or that Santa Claus,the Easter Bunny,and the tooth fairy aren't real.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X