Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Ben]

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

Bit confused here, Varqm.

Why would Hutchinson have been asked any of these questions if he didn’t mention Lewis?

[Ben]

Abberline's opinion is the only official opinion, and his story was not "unbelievable" to the only one who's opinion mattered.

I see the concept of basic chronology is still defeating you, Jon.

Abberline expressed an initial face-value, faith-based opinion a couple of hours after first meeting the man, before any verification of his story could possibly have occurred.

But afterwards...

Later...

Subsequently...

...and in light of “later investigations”, Hutchinson’s story suffered a “very reduced importance” for reasons that related directly to his credibility, or perceived lack thereof. If the two events occurred concurrently, and with were thus competing against each other, with Abberline repudiating the Echo and Star reports, you would have a more persuasive case.

But as it stands, the two events - Abberline’s thumbs-up and Hutchinson’s discrediting - happened in succession. As I say, it’s simple chronology - Hutchinson was believed and then he wasn’t, and the interviews and reports of senior police officials in later years fully demonstrate that this “discrediting” was sustained.

Ben, never once have you decided to agree with anything I say

That’s not true, Jon. You know I’ve got your back all day long in your assessment that Hutchinson was the man Lewis saw that night, and you may well be right suggesting that Lewis’s femininity might be at the root of Hutchinson’s failure to mention her.

I wasn’t even disagreeing with you on the census issue; I was simply requesting a source, because last time I researched the issue I could only find a handful of George Hutchinsons recorded as London residents in 1891, more in the region of 50 than 500.

Perhaps Debs or Gareth can back me up on this, as my memory is a little hazy?

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Ben

When last I looked at the census data, the number of George Hutchinsons in London was, from memory, only in double figures. ISTR that I excluded children and old buggers, but even with them, the figure wasn't particularly high. (The actual results of my research should still be here on Casebook, albeit going back a good few years.)

[Ben]

Thnks for confirming that, Gareth. Thought I was going bonkers for a moment.

I recall it being only double figures too. The actual figure probably lies buried within the “Hutch in the 1911 census” thread, and with only 10,000 posts to search, it should be a doddle to track down!

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Ok, can you list all the residents of Millers court in the census data please?
Any year will do.

[Sam Flynn]

Ok, can you list all the residents of Millers court in the census data please?
Any year will do.

What's that got to do with the number of George Hutchinsons in London?

[Wickerman]

I see the concept of basic chronology is still defeating you, Jon.

Abberline expressed an initial face-value, faith-based opinion a couple of hours after first meeting the man, before any verification of his story could possibly have occurred.

Yes, lets look at the continued chronology. On the 19th the Echo basically repeated a story they originally reported on the 13th, that the authorities were still investigating the Hutchinson suspect.
Demonstrating, no real change in their opinion of the direction the investigation was going.

...and in light of “later investigations”, Hutchinson’s story suffered a “very reduced importance” for reasons that related directly to his credibility, or perceived lack thereof.

Can I repeat a recent response I received from you, by asking for a quote from this source at the police station - if you deem it so reliable?
Given the widely published criticisms by the press that the police will tell them nothing, it seems quite obvious they will use a bit of creative journalism to make it appear they have one-up on their contemporaries.

[Wickerman]

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”....

Did Dew write something that was not published in the press?

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.

This is the interview where Reid claimed that the same hand was responsible for nine murders, and that the killer was not seen by any witness, so they never had a description of the killer.
And this, only eight years after the murders.

[Wickerman]

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,.....

The point I am making Harry is, when a person adopts another name, it isn't a false name. For whatever reason, he/she has changed their name, and it is perfectly legal.
This is their new identity, with no connection to any birth records, or possibly census, marriage, tenancy, medical or criminal records either.
We can't seem to find any viable records of George Hutchinson the witness, nor Mary Kelly the victim, just to name two. Yet we have a short list of people who have yet to appear on any records in this case.

[Wickerman]

I wasn’t even disagreeing with you on the census issue; I was simply requesting a source, because last time I researched the issue I could only find a handful of George Hutchinsons recorded as London residents in 1891, more in the region of 50 than 500.

I understand that Ben, and I was not pushing the numbers, it was more of an example. It's been years since I had the list, the actual numbers do not matter, it's the argument that needs to be addressed.

So tell me, why does only 50 George Hutchinson's (there's more than 50 in the press), make the random selection of just one as our witness any more reliable?

[Sam Flynn]

So tell me, why does only 50 George Hutchinson's (there's more than 50 in the press)

50+ separate George Hutchinsons, or 50+ mentions of somebody called George Hutchinson? Either way, what were their ages, social class/occupations and where in London did they live? And what year(s) do the press reports refer to? And do they all actually refer to a London George Hutchinson, or are they reporting stories of George Hutchinsons elsewhere?

[rjpalmer]

If the argument is whether or not the 'able seaman' aboard the RMS Ormuz is the same George Hutchinson as the witness we see in the MEPO files, it's rather stacking the deck to insist that he has to be a Londoner found a London census return, isn't it? Why can't this able seaman be from Glasgow or Plymouth or somewhere else?

[Wickerman]

50+ separate George Hutchinsons, or 50+ mentions of somebody called George Hutchinson? Either way, what were their ages, social class/occupations and where in London did they live? And what year(s) do the press reports refer to? And do they all actually refer to a London George Hutchinson, or are they reporting stories of George Hutchinsons elsewhere?

Lets pick a number that you feel is more accurate. Then provide a reason why one specific Hutchinson should be our witness, as opposed to any one of them.

What was the true age of our witness?
What was his true occupation at the time of the article or census?
What part of the country did our witness reside at the time of the article or census?
Was he even at home on the day of the census?

All these reason's, and possibly more, have prevented us from identifying the real witness.

[Sam Flynn]

Lets pick a number that you feel is more accurate. Then provide a reason why one specific Hutchinson should be our witness, as opposed to any one of them.

I personally have no need to do so, Jon, because the signature evidence alone makes me 100% certain that the witness was George Topping Hutchinson - no scintilla of doubt in my mind.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Sam.
We certainly agree on that.
Regards Richard.