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

[Cogidubnus]

Hutchinsons claim to police that he never followed the couple into the court and subsequent claim to the press that he did and stood by her residence should be the major red flag for a change in his story.

THAT is a big deal. That is a huge difference. Its too big of a difference to be accounted for by saying the press embellished. Its too big of a difference to excuse it by saying hutch forgot to tell the police that part-not when he remembers the rest of the locations, who stood where when, who walked where when like some sort of script.

To me it smacks of someone who after telling a lie, realizes that someone may have seen them somewhere else and changes their story to account for it.
Classic guilty/lying behavior.

If I'm honest I tend to skim over the Hutch threads - it's probably a big weakness on my part, but generally the same old arguments seem to appear time and time again, until it becomes a cut and paste war...this, however, is an observation that seems really worth cutting and pasting over and over again...thanks Abby

All the best

Dave

[Abby Normal]

Hutchinsons claim to police that he never followed the couple into the court and subsequent claim to the press that he did and stood by her residence should be the major red flag for a change in his story.

THAT is a big deal. That is a huge difference. Its too big of a difference to be accounted for by saying the press embellished. Its too big of a difference to excuse it by saying hutch forgot to tell the police that part-not when he remembers the rest of the locations, who stood where when, who walked where when like some sort of script.

To me it smacks of someone who after telling a lie, realizes that someone may have seen them somewhere else and changes their story to account for it.
Classic guilty/lying behavior.

[Ben]

“Seeing as how he didn't know the guy, then he would not know he lived in the neighbourhood if he hadn't seen him in the neighbourhood.”

I think you’ll find that both Commercial Street and Petticoat Lane qualify as Hutchinson’s “neighbourhood”, Jon.

“Where does it say he was, "...wearing precisely the same unique clothes and accessories" ?”

Nowhere, but he needs to have done in order for your argument to work, remember? You have defended Hutchinson’s ability to notice and memorise key particulars of Astrakhan’s appearance on the grounds that he saw the man on more than one occasion (as per his press claim).

I notice we’ve returned to the topic of the crossed-out “Ten Bells” entry in the original statement, and I’ll repeat: the mistake was certainly not Badham’s. Badham would not have written down the name of a pub unless Hutchinson supplied him with one. I’m not insisting that Hutchinson’s original claim that he stood outside the Ten Bells must have a suspicious explanation (maybe he was “too tired to be bothered” to remember it properly?), but it was unquestionably Hutchinson who uttered the words “Ten Bells” in order for Badham to then commit then to paper.

Badham was responsible for recording what Hutchinson said, not for manipulating eyewitness evidence and taking presumptuous liberties with regard to what the witnesses in question "must have" meant. Unless Hutchinson said "Ten Bells", those two words would not have appeared in the Badham-recorded statement, crossed out or otherwise, and a local man like Hutchinson would obviously have been able to recount the names of his nearest pubs, as opposed to providing silly descriptions that are then misinterpreted by the supposedly hapless Badham.

If Hutchinson truly experienced an encounter with an Astrakhan-bedecked ponce outside the Queen's Head, the likelihood (and I stress: “likelihood”, not “only possibly explanation”) is that he would have said "Queen's Head", and Badham would have faithfully recorded the detail without further ado. If, on the other hand, Hutchinson invented the encounter, it's entirely possible that he muddled the pubs - not because he didn't know what they were called or where they were situated, but because invention carries the risk of such slip-ups. Again, as I’ve said, I'm not advocating this as the only possible explanation; if he told the truth and still muddled the pubs in the recounting of his tale, that's a possibility too, albeit a less likely one.

“The FACT the change WAS corrected is a STRONG indication of Hutchinson's honesty.”

I’m afraid that’s just a ludicrous inference.

It’s obvious that the entry would have been corrected eventually, irrespective of Hutchinson’s truthfulness or otherwise, unless we’re envisaging breath-taking incompetence on the part of the police.. It’s not as though it would have taken long for the police to figure out that that Ten Bells was not situated at the corner of Fashion Street.

I’d just like to clear correct some misunderstandings that have crept into your discussion with Batman.

“Kennedy's story looked doubtful to the Star, when compared with three witnesses who claimed to see Kelly late on Friday morning.”

Um…no.

If you’ve come away with the impression that the Star only considered Kennedy’s story “doubtful” because they preference a later morning time of death, then I strongly recommend revisiting that 10th November Star article where you’ll discover that no such preference is so much as hinted at, let alone exhibited. They expressed doubt over Kennedy’s story because they suspected, correctly, that it was bogus. There is absolutely no escaping the Star’s sceptical view of the veracity of Kennedy’s tale, and no, it most assuredly had nothing to do with the alleged Wednesday encounter with Mr. Bethnal Green being too long in advance of the murder. The woman she plagiarised – Sarah Lewis – recounted her genuine Wednesday episode at the inquest, and nobody expressed any doubt about that. Quite the reverse.

“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?”

“Found out” and “believed” are very different things. I’ve explained to you already the impossibility of Abberline “finding out” that a man last recorded as having been in Kelly’s room at 3.00am (shortly before the reported “murder” cry) was definitely not the killer; which leads us to “belief”, and there is no way that a competent detective would drop a witness purely on the basis of a “belief” (based on..?) that a supposedly genuine 2.00am companion of Kelly was not her killer.

“WHAT EVER Hutchinson told Abberline at Commercial St. has not survived - we do not know the complete story.”

What else of significance are you expecting?

Abberline submitted a report on Hutchinson AFTER his interview with Hutchinson; it was an internal, private police report, and it has survived. Are you suggesting that he deliberately withheld from his superiors details that had a direct bearing on Hutchinson’s credibility?

“Hutchinson never changed his story”

So you don’t accept that a polar opposite description equates to a change?

Wow.

“The description of Astrachan is extremely similar to a local confidence trickster & petty thief, Joseph Isaacs.
He was a foreign Jew in his 30's who had been arrested once impersonating a policeman, and wearing an imitation gold watch chain.”

No.

Astrakhan’s description is nothing like Joseph Isaacs, unless you think that being Jewish, possibly sporting a moustache, and being of the same age amounts to “extreme similarity”. In reality, Isaacs was dismissed as both Astrakhan and Jack the Ripper, and his connection to the Miller’s Court murder was adjudged to be non-existent, not least because he was in prison at the time. I don’t know where you got the idea that Isaacs was a “confidence trickster”, but there’s not a lot of evidence for that either.

As I’ve said elsewhere, I’m pleased to hear about your impending research into Isaacs’s convictions, but please don’t keep bringing him into every Hutchinson or Kelly thread going. My responses aren’t going to change, and it’ll only lead to a repetition war which I – having more stamina for endless repetition than you – will eventually outlast you in. Just hold off that subject for a bit pending further discoveries, and then if these bear fruit - which, thanks to your indefatigable efforts, I'm sure they will - I'd like to see more Isaacs threads.

All the best,
Ben

[Batman]

Hutchinson asks for faith in him, not evidence

The indications of a fabrication are there quite early on. Therefore if at the end of the list you say "Ah, now you actually do pose a legitimate question. Was the woman really Kelly?" it's a bit like claiming the Maybrick Diary is good until the last few pages. I see this as just a naturally following conclusion of fabrication like the rest of it.

The omission of any description of the woman being MJK by Hutchinson and just seeing the pair go down the court suggests not only didn't he know her but he didn't actually know if her house was on the left or right. Didn't even hear a door close (despite his excellent hearing). It doesn't even suggest he knows anything about Miller's Court at all except its a place people can go into and a dead woman was found there a few days before he decided to come forward, after the inquest.

The question I have is this. Does Hutchinson demonstrate that he was there? Does Hutchinson demonstrate that he has information that couldn't have been gleaned from others, be it news articles, oral news or the inquest?
Does he demostrate he knows MJK?

I say Hutchinson demonstrates nothing of the sort. I say to believe Hutchinson is just an act of 'faith' and not evidenced.

Whether Badham assumed he meant the Ten Bells, or Hutchinson just got the name wrong is unknown.

These are not coequal solutions. Badham is murder squad and has experience with prior JtR murders. This PC adding non-factual information to a note and then Hutchinson changing it after it being read back to him is slim. What is more likely is that this was added a later time because it was a problem with his statement, of which there are many more.

Packer told the police he saw no-one in the street - that was his story.
Days later he was asked the same question and said he saw two people - this was a change. It wasn't a signed correction, like Hutchinson.

Barnett also changes his story. He gives two different reasons why he left Kelly. These are changes. If one is concerned about Hutchinson's story and notices a problem with his location and that in his original statement that very location has a strikethrough, then we have reasons for concern.

I do know that you know the difference, but I also see that you are deliberately avoiding admitting that you know.
You have a theory to defend.

My hypothesis actually doesn't require Hutchinson to be omitted at all. As you can plainly read people like myself who suspect Blotchy can have Hutchinson there. It doesn't matter to us. There could be various people gathered out there at different times. Has no impact. This is because Hutchinson could have been there but made up the flawting rich Jew story to divert suspicion from himself.

I suspect Hutchinson is lying for several reasons that have to do with Hutchinson. There is nothing unusual about researchers doubting Hutchinson. It is noted in most modern JtR books that Hutchinson's story can be doubted and give various legit reasons why.

Have you read Evans criticism of the even the signatures on the statements he made? There is even doubt over some of those because they don't resemble others. http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-witness.html

No, what he says is Kelly walked TOWARDS Thrawl St., and the man, who had been standing at Thrawl St., walked towards Kelly, so they met somewhere between F&D St. and Thrawl St.

"...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."

So no distance is implied or assumed, they could easily have been no more than 20ft away from Hutchinson - who knows.

You've pretty much dismissed his story yourself by claiming a max distance of 20ft. The fact is you have to include Hutchinson within a hearing radius around MJK and having Hutchinson within that small circle most of the time. Hutchinson is hovering about the two like he is her dad. He is no longer the watchman by the corner observing things at a distance and then as they pass getting a look. He is literally within their circle, following them within a small radius. We are then to believe that with this obvious intense interest from Hutchinson in this pair that JtR murdered her?

The description of Astrachan is extremely similar to a local confidence trickster & petty thief, Joseph Isaacs.
He was a foreign Jew in his 30's who had been arrested once impersonating a policeman, and wearing an imitation gold watch chain.
The Press stated he "certainly" resembled the suspect with the Astrachan coat. He lived in Paternoster Row, off Dorset St., so had every reason to be where he was that night, on his way home.
Being a resident he would naturally be known by local criminals as one of their own.

Jospeh Isaacs was a convicted thief and we know he stole a watch but can you quote the source that has him wearing this gold watch chain at night in some of the most dangerous parts of Whitechapel/London? You are invoking Isaac's as an example of someone who would walk around places like this wearing what appears to be costly luxury items. So I certainly want to read about that.

It might come as a surprise, but the I.P.N. was not an official police newspaper, it was just a controversial tabloid.
And, given that all the press were constantly complaining that the police would tell them nothing, I am surprised you seem to think the police had to tell the press anything.

Hutchinson claimed to the press (and his story changes - see Evans link above) to have told a policeman on Sunday morning what he had seen. The murderer of MJK. Yet there is no mention of any PC reporting this incident. No notice asking for Hutchinson to come forward again to report this incident. Zip.

Hutchinson claims he was asked to make an identification of the body on Tuesday 13th November even though Barnett had only identified her by her eyes and ears because her face was so badly mutilated. Yet we are to believe that by 13th Nov she was in a condition good enough for someone else like Hutchinson to recognize her. Evans suggests if this happened it would be to judge his reaction. I say its unlikely it ever happened at all.

In fact no one can account for Hutchinson prior to his arrival at Commercial St (or on Commercial St or anywhere else for that matter) and no one can account for Hutchinson after he claims to have left Dorset St.) Not one single person. Not one single officer.

The police on duty that night claimed they saw nothing unusual. Hutchinson claims to have seen a PC but the PC didn't bother going down Dorset St.

No one has been able to show that Hutchinson even matches the description of the man Lewis saw standing outside Miller's Court.

Accepting Hutchinson's account is nothing more than putting faith in his account. It is what he requires from his listeners to accept his story because it certainly isn't based on any supporting evidence what-so-ever.

[Wickerman]

This is a murder case with a murder squad working on it. If anyone followed the "Trial of Oscar Pistorius" then changing one's story can even mean the difference between a fan being inside a room by a sliding door or out on the balcony. A difference of a few feet. I think you want big differences in a story (someone appearing who wasn't there the last time for example). Something as simple as that fan's position could make or break a testimony and assign guilt. People who agree with this would then also deduce that Hutchinson has changed his story. Also omissions are important to consider.

The fact Ten Bells was struck out, and there was no room to write Queens Head after it, indicates the error was only realized some minutes later, likely on the read-through before Hutchinson is asked to sign his statement.
Whether Badham assumed he meant the Ten Bells, or Hutchinson just got the name wrong is unknown.

You cannot walk northward passed the Ten Bells on your way to Dorset St. you have already passed Dorset St. So as it was the mistake did not make sense anyway.
The FACT the change WAS corrected is a STRONG indication of Hutchinson's honesty.

You do not know who made the mistake, but it WAS corrected - that is what is important. Hutchinson may simply have said that he stood under a lamp "by the pub on the corner".
Badham would ask which pub?, and Hutchinson may have said he didn't know, he wasn't looking at the pub at the time.

I am trying to explain that you are making a mountain out of a molehill, a simple error of the wrong pub name does not constitute changing a story.
Packer told the police he saw no-one in the street - that was his story.
Days later he was asked the same question and said he saw two people - this was a change. It wasn't a signed correction, like Hutchinson.

I do know that you know the difference, but I also see that you are deliberately avoiding admitting that you know.
You have a theory to defend.

Hutchinson claimed to have met Kelly at the corner of F&D St. Next he claims she headed towards Thrawl St. She is still on Commerical St. That's nearly the same distance between the other two streets give or take a few yards.

No, what he says is Kelly walked TOWARDS Thrawl St., and the man, who had been standing at Thrawl St., walked towards Kelly, so they met somewhere between F&D St. and Thrawl St.

"...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."

So no distance is implied or assumed, they could easily have been no more than 20ft away from Hutchinson - who knows.
Like a handful of others I could name, you are pushing for an extreme interpretation, only to then ridicule it and claim that he lied. Your approach is common, predictable and so easy to dismiss.
It is similar to what is commonly known as a "Strawman argument" - set up something that is flawed or completely false, then shoot it down with common sense.

Hutchison doesn't give an account of this 120 yard movement. Why?

Why should he?
This is his statement to Badham, not the result of an interrogation by Abberline.

This is all without even including the fact that this rich looking Jew, dressed to the nines, with gold and gems hanging around his belly is walking around the most treacherous streets in London after midnight.

Are you sure you are not Ben, in disguise?


The description of Astrachan is extremely similar to a local confidence trickster & petty thief, Joseph Isaacs.
He was a foreign Jew in his 30's who had been arrested once impersonating a policeman, and wearing an imitation gold watch chain.
The Press stated he "certainly" resembled the suspect with the Astrachan coat. He lived in Paternoster Row, off Dorset St., so had every reason to be where he was that night, on his way home.
Being a resident he would naturally be known by local criminals as one of their own.

Despite the altercation between Hutchinson in this guys face and on his tail, he still continues to do tricks like picking up handkerchiefs, and then going down an alley for a murder. The odds of JtR not seeing Hutchison by the time he met MJK is slim. The odds of him not taking notice after Hutchinson popped his head in for a look is slim. Even Hutchinson claimed to have been hanging around the place after.

And if your assumption that Astrachan was the killer is wrong, then your theory falls apart.

By the way, the PC in the Police News is saying that he saw nothing essentially. No mention of Hutchinson hanging around or being questioned by police.

It might come as a surprise, but the I.P.N. was not an official police newspaper, it was just a controversial tabloid.
And, given that all the press were constantly complaining that the police would tell them nothing, I am surprised you seem to think the police had to tell the press anything.

Hutchinson has no mention of Lewis going down the court either.

Right, because women are anywhere & everywhere. They were part of the background.

Here is another thing. How did Hutchinson describe Mary Kelly? What aspects of MJK did he describe that tells us he saw MJK?

Ah, now you actually do pose a legitimate question.
Was the woman really Kelly?
Maybe not, but that is not Hutchinson's fault. Did he, like Maxwell, make a legitimate mistake?

[Batman]

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.

This is a murder case with a murder squad working on it. If anyone followed the "Trial of Oscar Pistorius" then changing one's story can even mean the difference between a fan being inside a room by a sliding door or out on the balcony. A difference of a few feet. I think you want big differences in a story (someone appearing who wasn't there the last time for example). Something as simple as that fan's position could make or break a testimony and assign guilt. People who agree with this would then also deduce that Hutchinson has changed his story. Also omissions are important to consider.

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."

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?

http://www.casebook.org/victims/mary_jane_kelly.lewis.html#ani

Yes. That piece.

Commercial St running South has three Eastern streets, Fashion St and then Flower & Dean St and then Thrawl St. The distance along Commerical street between Fashion St and then F&D St is one hundred and twenty yards. Hutchinson claimed to have met Kelly at the corner of F&D St. Next he claims she headed towards Thrawl St. She is still on Commerical St. That's nearly the same distance between the other two streets give or take a few yards. At this point Hutchison has heard Kelly say “alright” to the man. Not only that but he also hears the man say “You will be alright for what I have told you.” A cloudy cold rainy evening, at 120 yards away, he can hear this conversation take place.

Next we have the omission that Hutchinson needs to travel from this point where he can hear things (F&D St corner) to Fashion St. corner. This is to get him under the Queens Head lamp to see them better. Hutchison doesn't give an account of this 120 yard movement. Why?

We know from the public records, that originally the statement didn't read the Queens Head, but the Ten Bells, which is way up north along Commercial St. Ten bells has a strike-through. I don't believe a murder squad got this wrong. I think Hutchinson needed to add this correction and so had it added. Locations are paramount to his witness testimony. Even then his testimony is still problematic.

There is no mention of this 120 yard walk because Hutchinson thought his originally testimony didn't require it. It's as if he was standing at Fashion St. under the light all the time. By meeting MJK and watching her walk away towards Thrawl St., he thought his story already had him by a nearby lamp by a pub. He doesn't claim to move and says MJK and the man she met walk past him under the lamp. This is why he proposes he can hear them. Sound improves the closer you get to the source, or the source gets to you. Yet we have this 120 yard walk going on to try to make it work. The inclusion of hearing conversations and this new 120 yard movement makes this simply impossible. He isn't Superman.

This is all without even including the fact that this rich looking Jew, dressed to the nines, with gold and gems hanging around his belly is walking around the most treacherous streets in London after midnight.

Despite the altercation between Hutchinson in this guys face and on his tail, he still continues to do tricks like picking up handkerchiefs, and then going down an alley for a murder. The odds of JtR not seeing Hutchison by the time he met MJK is slim. The odds of him not taking notice after Hutchinson popped his head in for a look is slim. Even Hutchinson claimed to have been hanging around the place after.

By the way, the PC in the Police News is saying that he saw nothing essentially. No mention of Hutchinson hanging around or being questioned by police. Hutchinson has no mention of Lewis going down the court either.

Here is another thing. How did Hutchinson describe Mary Kelly? What aspects of MJK did he describe that tells us he saw MJK?

I bet, like a made up story, that all we have is 'Hutchison claiming to know' MJK but not offering one shred of a description of the person he claims to know.

If he can't even describe Mary then all he has is a man and woman going down Miller's court. He doesn't even claim to see them go into any room.

[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

[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?

[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]

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?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.