Are the reports in the contempory newpapers sufficient to discredit Hutchinson?

[Wickerman]

Never changed his story? Did you read the link on Casebook I posted? It changed.

In light of these curious anomalies, I decided it would be worthwhile to examine Hutchinson’s original statement, (which is lodged at the Public Records Office). In doing so I came across a startling fact and one of paramount importance completely absent from the many books published on Jack the Ripper, which have included the statement of this labourer. For the long-held acceptance that Kelly and her client passed him at the ‘Queen’s Head’, is totally at odds with his original statement that he was standing outside another public house, one called the ‘Ten Bells’. And this particular public house we find, was sited at the corner of Church Street and Commercial Street, opposite Spitalfields Market. And this glaring discrepancy in Hutchinson’s testimony, we find was discovered only after his statement, labouriously taken down in longhand had been completed. However it was altered by a simple expediency: The wording of the ‘Ten Bells’ was struck through and substituted by that of the ‘Queen’s Head’. By such an act, the construction of Hutchinson’s account became more readily acceptable. Yet even this alteration cannot explain or dispel his flawed testimony. - http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...roo-hutch.html

You sound like Ben's protege. You don't want to go down that path

Seeing as how you have the Ultimate, check out the police statement by Sarah Lewis. In my original edition it is pg 366, it may be different in yours.

Lewis is giving Abberline her story and for some reason he wrote "talking to a female", then struck it out.
Lewis was telling him about seeing the loiterer, did she change her story?
Is she now branded a liar by such as yourself, untrustworthy, discredited?

In Julia Venturney's police statement the times were changed, it originally said, "I saw her last about 1:40 pm yesterday".
Then "1:40" is struck out and underneath is a correction which reads, "Thursday about 10 AM".

So we have another liar, untrustworthy, discredited herself?

Do you see the sillyness of this argument yet?

As has been pointed out in earlier threads, the error is more likely Badham's, the person writing the statement. There is no way we can say that this error "must" be Hutchinson's, and even if it was there is no way this has any bearing on his honesty.
A correction is not changing a story. The story is not established until it is completed and verified.
This is a good example of useless arguments, and there are no shortage of them in the Hutchinson case.

[The Good Michael]

You sound like Ben's protege. You don't want to go down that path

Lewis is giving Abberline her story and for some reason he wrote "talking to a female", then struck it out.
Lewis was telling him about seeing the loiterer, did she change her story?
Is she now branded a liar by such as yourself, untrustworthy, discredited?

In Julia Venturney's police statement the times were changed, it originally said, "I saw her last about 1:40 pm yesterday".
Then "1:40" is struck out and underneath is a correction which reads, "Thursday about 10 AM".

So we have another liar, untrustworthy, discredited herself?

Do you see the sillyness of this argument yet?

As has been pointed out in earlier threads, the error is more likely Badham's, the person writing the statement. There is no way we can say that this error "must" be Hutchinson's, and even if it was there is no way this has any bearing on his honesty.
A correction is not changing a story. The story is not established until it is completed and verified.
This is a good example of useless arguments, and there are no shortage of them in the Hutchinson case.

Jon,

Don't you see that something struck out has to have been an attempt at fabrication? People don't make mistakes and no one mishears anything. The fact is, had it been Badham's mistake, he'd have just gone to MS Word and corrected it. It seems to me that Hutch may have struck it out himself while Badham was dozing. He's that type of guy, years of plumbing aside.

Mike

[Wickerman]

What is the title of the Kennedy story in the Star - "...a doubtful story..." right?

The Star did not 'title' the Friday morning sightings as "doubtful", did they?
Kennedy's story looked doubtful to the Star, when compared with three witnesses who claimed to see Kelly late on Friday morning.
Could it be any clearer?

Lewis had given a statement to the police on the 9th but was also talking on the 9th orally to people about what she had seen.

Says who, where, when, with whom?
Come on, give up your sources.

In fact there is confusion today over if they are the same person or not because the stories are nearly the same, except Lewis gives more details and Kennedy makes ommisions and mistakes.

You may not have realized but Kennedy makes a remark that suggest the two women were soliciting the stranger.
"The stranger refused to stand Mrs. Kennedy and her sister a drink,.."
Lewis did not say this, but then she likely wouldn't admit that in court.

What mistakes are you talking about (I don't know why I bother asking).

A vacuum eh? So did the newspapers use a crystal ball when they published accounts of the events talked about at the inquest the day before?

If you had any idea, you would know nothing spoken by Lewis was in print before Hutchinson gave his statement.
Back to the drawing board I guess....

That there is no mention of police seeing Hutchinson? There is no report of it anywhere in the media. They reported these things.

No, they don't!
The record of a beat constable would be contained in the constables note book that is filled out at the end of his shift.
The press are not privy to such police paperwork.

What do you really know Batman?
You seem to be guessing your way through everything.

Lewende or Schwartz seem the favourites, but its not this man Hutchinson who got such a detailed view of JtR that he could describe down to the last detail (and yet forget seeing Lewis enter the court!). How can that be?

Ok, so if Abberline found out (or subsequently believed) that Astrachan was not the killer (due to further investigation), why would he need Hutchinson anymore?

THEE most important point that you, and every other one forgets (or perhaps do not realize), is that the statement we have today was a preliminary statement. This was sent to Scotland Yard, and Abberline returned to Commercial St. Station to interview Hutchinson.
WHAT EVER Hutchinson told Abberline at Commercial St. has not survived - we do not know the complete story.

Why don't you compare the police statements given to Abberline by each witness for the Inquest. Check pp. 363-367 in the Ultimate.
How much more information do you read in their court testimony, than they provided in their police statement?

If you now "get-it", then you will see the futility of creating theories based solely on Hutchinson statement to Badham. It naturally, and obviously, will not contain everything.
Just like the police statements by the various witnesses. They also do not contain everything they saw, said & did.

This should be part of Ripperology 101

[GUT]

You know there's another alternative, don't you? There would have been a standard description list as Jon suggests. But there would have been a final question like: Is there anything else about the person that would distinguish him from another. After that, a man would be free to embellish or to add real information depending upon what, if any motives he had, and there's where the narrative part comes into play.

Mike

In fact I'll bet my left boot that there was either such a question or it was a question the police asked. Logic tells us that, I doubt that the questionaire said "Dd he look like Elephant Man" but I bet if he did it would come out.

[GUT]

Just to weigh in on "Ten Bells" and striking out.

I have read literally 1000s of statements taken by police and by Solicitors, I guess less than 10% [if that] have no errors, some are corrected, some go through to the keeper.

[The Good Michael]

In fact I'll bet my left boot that there was either such a question or it was a question the police asked. Logic tells us that, I doubt that the questionaire said "Dd he look like Elephant Man" but I bet if he did it would come out.

I think there would have been a question list, but not a questionnaire, if that makes sense. And experienced officers wouldn't have had a need for a physical list, but could probably just ramble off the questions from memory.

Mike

[GUT]

I think there would have been a question list, but not a questionnaire, if that makes sense. And experienced officers wouldn't have had a need for a physical list, but could probably just ramble off the questions from memory.

Mike

Yep question list is a better term than questionnaire, no doubt.

[Batman]

You sound like Ben's protege. You don't want to go down that path

Seeing as how you have the Ultimate, check out the police statement by Sarah Lewis. In my original edition it is pg 366, it may be different in yours.

Lewis is giving Abberline her story and for some reason he wrote "talking to a female", then struck it out.
Lewis was telling him about seeing the loiterer, did she change her story?
Is she now branded a liar by such as yourself, untrustworthy, discredited?

In Julia Venturney's police statement the times were changed, it originally said, "I saw her last about 1:40 pm yesterday".
Then "1:40" is struck out and underneath is a correction which reads, "Thursday about 10 AM".

So we have another liar, untrustworthy, discredited herself?

Do you see the sillyness of this argument yet?

As has been pointed out in earlier threads, the error is more likely Badham's, the person writing the statement. There is no way we can say that this error "must" be Hutchinson's, and even if it was there is no way this has any bearing on his honesty.
A correction is not changing a story. The story is not established until it is completed and verified.
This is a good example of useless arguments, and there are no shortage of them in the Hutchinson case.

This is a goal post changing and making claims I never said. Your conclusion is that I said something like 'strikethroughs in notes = lies". Not at all.

Your claim was that Hutchinson never changed his story. I pointed out this was wrong and demonstrated the correction for you. It is you that suggested story changes infer lies. I never said this. You suggested it What I posted was a link to a casebook dissertation. In that dissertation it was concluded that Hutchinson changed where he claimed to be standing because it didn't make sense to his story. However having changed it, things still don't make sense - i.e, his superman hearing powers. Hearing conversations 120 yards away.

The most important question I asked was the one you omitted answering because of its implications, so I will ask it again.

My question to you "Did Hutchinson say he watched a man with Kelly near Thrawl Street, while he was standing outside the ‘Queen’s Head’? Didn't he claim to hear their conversation from his vantage point?" How is that possible?

I say. It's impossible. It's lies. Simple as that.

Nothing about strike-throughs in notes equally dishonesty. I only corrected the bit about where you said his story didn't change and then asking you to explain his special abilities.

[Batman]

The Star did not 'title' the Friday morning sightings as "doubtful", did they?

Yeah they did. http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881110.html quarter of the way down page...


A NEIGHBOR'S DOUBTFUL STORY.

A woman named Kennedy was on the night of the murder staying with her parents at a house situate in the court immediately opposite the room in which the body of Mary Kelly was found.

Kennedy's story looked doubtful to the Star, when compared with three witnesses who claimed to see Kelly late on Friday morning.
Could it be any clearer?

Do you have a source for that?

Here is another title for her story on the same page A STORY OF LITTLE VALUE.


My source is the A-Z. Kennedy never made the inquest. Lewis did. Their stories conflicted. Kennedy's story wasn't good enough. So yeah I agree with the Star. It was a doubtful story from the start and of little value.

Even Maxwell got into the inquest with her morning MJK meeting. So how much so more debunked was Kennedy's story????

You may not have realized but Kennedy makes a remark that suggest the two women were soliciting the stranger.
"The stranger refused to stand Mrs. Kennedy and her sister a drink,.."
Lewis did not say this, but then she likely wouldn't admit that in court.

Lewis isn't her sister.

The record of a beat constable would be contained in the constables note book that is filled out at the end of his shift.
The press are not privy to such police paperwork.

The PC is in the bottom left of the The Illustrated Police News "Portrait sketches of supposed Whitechapel Monster and incidents in the case". (Nov. 24th).


Anyway I look forward to reading your explanation of Hutchinson's abilities.

[GUT]

This is a goal post changing and making claims I never said. Your conclusion is that I said something like 'strikethroughs in notes = lies". Not at all.

Your claim was that Hutchinson never changed his story. I pointed out this was wrong and demonstrated the correction for you. It is you that suggested story changes infer lies. I never said this. You suggested it What I posted was a link to a casebook dissertation. In that dissertation it was concluded that Hutchinson changed where he claimed to be standing because it didn't make sense to his story. However having changed it, things still don't make sense - i.e, his superman hearing powers. Hearing conversations 120 yards away.

The most important question I asked was the one you omitted answering because of its implications, so I will ask it again.

My question to you "Did Hutchinson say he watched a man with Kelly near Thrawl Street, while he was standing outside the ‘Queen’s Head’? Didn't he claim to hear their conversation from his vantage point?" How is that possible?

I say. It's impossible. It's lies. Simple as that.

Nothing about strike-throughs in notes equally dishonesty. I only corrected the bit about where you said his story didn't change and then asking you to explain his special abilities.

Batman

You quote dissertations like they are gospel, remember that, like books, they are nothing more than the writer's opinion.

[Batman]

Gospel? The dissertation makes several points and asks a question I have repeated here about Hutchinson's special powers. If you can't answer it coherently either then that authors view scores points.

[Wickerman]

Jon,

Don't you see that something struck out has to have been an attempt at fabrication? People don't make mistakes and no one mishears anything. The fact is, had it been Badham's mistake, he'd have just gone to MS Word and corrected it. It seems to me that Hutch may have struck it out himself while Badham was dozing. He's that type of guy, years of plumbing aside.

Mike

Yes,...and if I recall, you did warn me some days ago, but did I listen?

[Wickerman]

This is a goal post changing and making claims I never said. Your conclusion is that I said something like 'strikethroughs in notes = lies". Not at all.

Your claim was that Hutchinson never changed his story. I pointed out this was wrong and demonstrated the correction for you.

You are comparing apples with oranges.
The comment I made was with reference to Packer telling the police he saw no-one in Berner St., then changing his story to seeing Stride with a man.
That....is changing your story!

Hutchinson never changed his story.

My question to you "Did Hutchinson say he watched a man with Kelly near Thrawl Street, while he was standing outside the ‘Queen’s Head’? Didn't he claim to hear their conversation from his vantage point?" How is that possible?

He said they walked towards him, he said they passed him. He said they were talking.
Why would you think he could not hear what they said?

Is this the piece you are talking about?

"She went away toward Thrawl Street. A man coming in the opposite direction to Kelly tapped her on the shoulder and said something to her. They both burst out laughing. I heard her say alright to him. And the man said you will be alright for what I have told you. He then placed his right hand around her shoulders. He also had a kind of a small parcel in his left hand with a kind of strap round it. I stood against the lamp of the Queen’s Head Public House and watched him. They both then came past me and the man hid down his head with his hat over his eyes. I stooped down and looked him in the face. He looked at me stern. They both went into Dorset Street I followed them."

I say. It's impossible. It's lies. Simple as that.

For Hutchinson to be at the Queens Head (Fashion St.), he must have walked ahead of Kelly & her client. Then as he came to a lamp, he stands there while they walk passed. The lamp gave him the opportunity to see who this man was.

What is impossible about that?

[Wickerman]

Yeah they did. http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881110.html quarter of the way down page...


A NEIGHBOR'S DOUBTFUL STORY.

No, no.
I said, "The Friday morning" sightings, they are given in the second paragraph under the sub-heading LAST SEEN ALIVE. Kelly was seen out Friday morning by three witnesses.
The Star did not cast doubt on those sightings, so did they believe them?
The Star then gives special emphasis to the fact that Kennedy's story establishes the time of the murder:
"This woman's statement, if true, establishes the time at which the MURDERER COMMENCED HIS OPERATIONS upon his victim."
This they suggest is doubtful?

Here is another title for her story on the same page A STORY OF LITTLE VALUE.

As pointed out earlier, a story about Wednesday night is of little value when 'we' are investigating a Friday morning murder.
That - is what they are saying.

My source is the A-Z. Kennedy never made the inquest. Lewis did. Their stories conflicted.

How can their stories conflict?
Two different people arriving at different times, what would be suspicious is if their stories were identical.

Lewis isn't her sister.

You know Emily Lewis was not "Mrs Kennedy" now do you?
Do you have proof of that?

[The Good Michael]

Yes,...and if I recall, you did warn me some days ago, but did I listen?

Ah yes! I did, didn't I? Now I only can see the posts incidentally. I feel brain cells actually growing back!

Mike