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

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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.

[Wickerman]

Hi Scott,

Yes, do come along! First round's on Jon.

How are your refereeing skill's, Scott?

Hi Jon,

No, he did not say, and nor did he imply in any way, that he had seen Astrakhan man prior to the 9th November sighting. He stated to the press that he saw a man on the Sunday morning after the murder who he "fancied" might have been the same man he saw with Kelly on the night of the murder.

What he also said was;
"I believe that he lives in the neighbourhood, and I fancied that I saw him in Petticoat lane on Sunday morning, but I was not certain."

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 could swear to the man anywhere" - says Hutchinson.

Anywhere except Petticoat Lane it seems, where he allegedly spots the same man wearing precisely the same unique clothes and accessories, but wonders if it might have been a different person???

Where does it say he was, "...wearing precisely the same unique clothes and accessories" ?, another assumption Ben?

[Ben]

I agree, Mike.

In fact, yours is probably the most likely alternative.

[The Good Michael]

There is no way Hutchinson responded to a "list" provided by Badham, unless you're seriously suggesting that, in addition to height, weight etc, Badham had a form for witnesses to fill in which included "shirt collar material?", "eyelash colour?", "tie-pin design?", and other sillinesses. Unless you think that happened, it's quite clear that Hutchinson's Astrakhan description was offered more as a narrative.

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

[Ben]

Hi Scott,

Yes, do come along! First round's on Jon.

Hi Jon,

Hutchinson did say that he had seen this man (IMO, Joseph Isaacs) in the area before.
So he knew what he dressed like.

No, he did not say, and nor did he imply in any way, that he had seen Astrakhan man prior to the 9th November sighting. He stated to the press that he saw a man on the Sunday morning after the murder who he "fancied" might have been the same man he saw with Kelly on the night of the murder. This severely damages the argument that Hutchinson "knew what he dressed like" from more than one sighting, unless you consider it likely that Hutchinson saw two different men on Friday and Sunday, each sporting the same horseshoe tie-pin, red stone seal, linen collar, white butttons over button boots, dark eyelashes and upturned moustache.

"I could swear to the man anywhere" - says Hutchinson.

Anywhere except Petticoat Lane it seems, where he allegedly spots the same man wearing precisely the same unique clothes and accessories, but wonders if it might have been a different person???

[Batman]

Hutchinson never changed his story. I am assuming you know why the police did not trust Packer?

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

The Star knew nothing of Lewis on Saturday when the Kennedy story broke. Lewis never spoke to the press, so your conclusion is based on a false assumption.

What is the title of the Kennedy story in the Star - "...a doubtful story..." right? 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. 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. Hence Kennedy had her own version of the Lewis story. Kennedy isn't at the inquest for good reason because of this. Lewis is! A doubtful story... yes indeed.

You are falling into the same timeline trap that others have fallen into. No-one outside the Inquest knew what was said inside the inquest.

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?

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_news/18881113.html

What is your source for this?

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

Not unusual, especially as she was suddenly, 'entertaining'.

Yes usually she did talk to people she knew when 'entertaining'. See Blotchy + MJK, meeting Cox and the greetings.

How many astrachan-coated suspects did Abberline have waiting to be identified?

I don't follow. We know from the case files that they had someone who could be used for identification and was used as such (no, not referring to Swanson's Seaside police home in Brighton candidate) even up until Sadler.

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?

The link I posted noted the following "The edifice, indeed the very foundations of Hutchinson’s story, rested solely on his points of observation."

.. and boy what a story he tells.

That's it. Either one says the only reason they accept him is because of Lewis or one ends up just accepting what he claims without any corroboration. He also doesn't attend the inquest. Why? Because he will be busted for lying his head off. Look at the state Maxwell got herself into and the warning she was given.

Let's discredit him another way.

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?

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben.

Hi Jon,

Thanks for that.

It's obvious that many of those "attributes" would not be considered in the context of a fleeting sighting with a stranger.

"Obvious"?
Once again Ben, you underestimate the abilities of the average human being.
Hutchinson did say that he had seen this man (IMO, Joseph Isaacs) in the area before.
So he knew what he dressed like.

A brew or two sounds like a great idea! I'd like that very much, and will get in touch about it nearer the time.

Yes please do.
I do have an unpredictable work schedule, but hopefully I can figure something out.

[Wickerman]

There are so many faults with your suppositions, it is hard to know where to start.

Hutchinson has the all attributes of another Paker.

Hutchinson never changed his story. I am assuming you know why the police did not trust Packer?

Maxwell was also likely fibbing and we have The Star doubting Kennedy because Lewis was already on the record saying virtually the same thing.

That is not true.
The Star knew nothing of Lewis on Saturday when the Kennedy story broke. Lewis never spoke to the press, so your conclusion is based on a false assumption.

1. Hutchinson's story is only corroborated by Lewis who describes a completely different man standing where he claims and Lewis story was out before Hutchinson turned himself in. Lewis's story was available during the inquest which was before Hutchinson turned himself in. Lewis story was also out orally in Dorset St. and nearby.

You are falling into the same timeline trap that others have fallen into.
No-one outside the Inquest knew what was said inside the inquest.

2. Not a single policeman noticed him or bothered to check him out through all the hours he claimed to be standing there.

What is your source for this?
Whatever paperwork Abberline had at his disposal to verify Hutchinson story is not known to us today.

3. Despite giving us a pantomime Jewish villian described down to the quantum level, Hutchinson doesn't even include seeing Lewis who he got this story from even though she went down the court!

Forget what he told Badham, what did he tell Abberline?

4. Mary doesn't even bother saying hi to her friend on passing him by.

Not unusual, especially as she was suddenly, 'entertaining'.

5. Even if Abberline initially believed him, Hutchinson was never used indentification parades (which they had) despite having a better view of JtR than Scwartz and Lewende put together.

How many astrachan-coated suspects did Abberline have waiting to be identified?

[Scott Nelson]

Hey, I'd like to join Jon and Ben for some brews! Can anybody spare a plane ticket?

[Ben]

Hi Batman,

As I mentioned on t'other thread, I think Hutchinson lied to conceal his true reasons for being there, not to pretend falsely that he was there at all.

Hi Jon,

Thanks for that.

It's obvious that many of those "attributes" would not be considered in the context of a fleeting sighting with a stranger. Hutchinson would not have known Astrakhan's "eating habits", for instance! I'm also not seeing any category for tie-pin shape, eyelash colour etc.

This lady might, however:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rEBtpWQ7x8

I'm genuinely saddened that you've feel you've been "bullied" by me, Jon. That was not my intention; indeed, the very idea of bullying two blokes as shy, retiring and un-opinionated as yourself and Christer is simply beastly.

I'm about an hour away but if possible, maybe we could get together for a brew?

A brew or two sounds like a great idea! I'd like that very much, and will get in touch about it nearer the time.

All the best,
Ben