The Red Handkerchief...

[Wickerman]

Loitering around in the cold and rain at 2.30am, eschewing the opportunity of a bed and crucial rest for the following day's hard toil? You can forget that idea immediately.

I agree, we can all forget it, you just invented it.

Neither Lewis nor Hutchinson mention anything about rain, and even Mary Cox only said it was raining about 1:00 am when she returned.

This is your predictable plan of attack, to exaggerate any point to work in your favour. Lets just stick to what was written, while Hutchinson was on his vigil there is no mention of rain.

The only thing correct about the above is that both Hutchinson and Lewis undoubtedly observed the same couple strolling along Dorset Street. Where things go haywire, however, is your refusal to accept that they did not, as the Daily News erroneously printed, enter Miller's Court, and nor could they possibly have been Kelly and Astrakhan.

Both Hutchinson AND the Daily News place the couple walking up the passage.

I've provided the proof, and it is your time to waste arguing otherwise.

You have?
Didn't you just admit that in your opinion the police could not prove Hutchinson had lied, therefore, no proof could exist?

If no proof existed, then no press article concerning this issue could be based on proof.
That reads to me like you just pulled the rug out from under your own theory.

No proof ever existed that Hutchinson had lied to police. Therefore, all press articles concerning the above are exposed as conjecture!

Your rather amusing impression that the "world a large" is shining its big old Spotlight on Hutchinson threads waiting for me to provide proof is, therefore, a seriously misplaced one.

Well, I'm sure if you ever get around to writing a book such 'proof' would be a necessity. Sadly, our wait is now in vain, you admit no such proof ever existed (sigh), what a let down.

No, it's common sense that if he was too far away to have made the observation, he probably lied about the observation.

No, what it means is you have placed him at the wrong location.

There is no "core" of serious researchers who even monitor Hutchinson debates, let alone regularly come down in favour of your opinions over mine.

As you may have re-read by now, they had their say and have no intention of repeating their objections.

Now that you have finally admitted that the police did not accuse Hutchinson of lying then we have no need to prolong this "I have proved he was discredited" angle.

The question then becomes why was the statement by Hutchinson suddenly deemed to be of reduced importance?
On this we apparently agree.

Once the report from Dr Bond came through the system it naturally would create cause for reflection. No medical conclusion will be deemed infallible, but in consequence of Bond's opinion it would be prudent to open up two parallel lines of investigation.
To still pursue the Hutchinson suspect, but at the same time make thorough investigations for the Cox suspect.

This, in my opinion, is the cause of the Echo article being worded the way it was- the reason they described Hutchinson's statement to be of reduced (NOT discredited) importance.

It was apparent to the reporters on the street that detectives were pursuing two different suspects. What the press did not know was why, hence the Star jumped for a most controversial explanation.
Controversial, and false.

[Ben]

Neither Lewis nor Hutchinson mention anything about rain, and even Mary Cox only said it was raining about 1:00 am when she returned.

Irrelevant and immaterial.

It doesn't matter whether or not it happened to be raining at 2:30am, the salient point is that it was a cold and miserable November night. It is preposterous to pretend that loitering on Dorset Street was perfectly normal, voyeuristic behaviour for people to engage in at that time of the morning, in an exposed location, and in those weather conditions. It's a silly, silly point to try to defend, and you don't succeed in defending it.

Both Hutchinson AND the Daily News place the couple walking up the passage.

The Daily News was proven false and Hutchinson's statement was discredited, which means they can't possibly corroborate each other. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Didn't you just admit that in your opinion the police could not prove Hutchinson had lied, therefore, no proof could exist?

Yes.

I never said I had any proof that Hutchinson lied. I said I had proof that Hutchinson was discredited by the police because he was suspected of lying, because I do, and I've provided it many times. I'd appreciate it if you properly acquainted yourself with the specifics of what I've been arguing before making silly, inaccurate claims about the rugs being pulled out from under my theory. The press were not relying on their own conjecture. They were simply reporting on police opinion at the time, which was that Hutchinson was discredited because of doubts surrounding his credibility, not because the police were in possession of proof that he lied.

No, what it means is you have placed him at the wrong location.

I've "placed" him where he "placed" himself, according to the only evidence available, whereas you're fiddling about with his narrative in the hope that you can salvage some semblance of credibility from it, and you're doing an thoroughly botched job of it.

Now that you have finally admitted that the police did not accuse Hutchinson of lying then we have no need to prolong this "I have proved he was discredited" angle.

Oh, for f...

Look, it's perfectly simple. I have proved he was discredited, but only because the police arrived at the opinion that his evidence was untrustworthy, not because they had proved him a liar. In the absence of such proof, the police could not "accuse" him of being a liar because Hutchinson had only to say "prove it" and walk away.

Once the report from Dr Bond came through the system it naturally would create cause for reflection. No medical conclusion will be deemed infallible

No.

Not this Bond business again.

Hutchinson's discrediting had absolutely nothing to do with Bond's time of death, which was not accepted without question by the police. On the contrary, it is quite clear from other sources that the police considered the mutually corroborative evidence of Lewis and Prater to be a rough guide in that respect. The Echo makes perfectly clear the reasons for Hutchinson's evidence being "considerably discounted", and it involved his lateness in coming forward and the inevitable impact this had on his credibility. To extrapolate from the Echo report that Bond had anything remotely to do with the "very reduced importance" attached to Hutchinson's account would mean flying in the fact of what the article actually said.

And no, there is no evidence that the police "still persue(d)" Hutchinson after 15th November, after the Star reported that Hutchinson was "discredited" in yet another obviously accurate report. Hutchinson was lumped together with Packer, another bogus witness, in the report in question entitled "Worthless Stories Lead the Police on False Scents"

[Wickerman]

It doesn't matter whether or not it happened to be raining at 2:30am, the salient point is that it was a cold and miserable November night. It is preposterous to pretend that loitering on Dorset Street was perfectly normal,...

Ah, so because you are again shown to be mistaken, this time about the rain, now, it doesn't matter?

Oh, by the way, there were two or three other people also loitering around outside the Britannia on this cold and miserable night.
It was 39 deg F, 4 deg C., are you sure you are fully in touch with what passed for normal activity in the East End in the late 19th century?

The Daily News was proven false and Hutchinson's statement was discredited, which means they can't possibly corroborate each other. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Here you go with those bogus claims of 'proof' again.

I never said I had any proof that Hutchinson lied. I said I had proof that Hutchinson was discredited by the police because he was suspected of lying, because I do, and I've provided it many times.

Without any proof he lied, there is no proof he was discredited (by the police?). Only an official report explaining the cause and effect constitutes proof of that.
You have neither, oh please, we are not reaching for those sad excuses for news reports again are we?

Why don't you publish a book on this?, at the very least you will then learn that my views on your theories are more prevalent than you choose to accept.
Genuine proof, has very narrow limitations. No-one, who desires to be taken seriously, relies on solitary unreferenced newspaper opinions as proof.

The press were not relying on their own conjecture. They were simply reporting on police opinion at the time, which was that Hutchinson was discredited because of doubts surrounding his credibility, not because the police were in possession of proof that he lied.

Excuse me here Ben, but that is pure poppycock.
For you to suggest the police would actually share their inside thoughts concerning a witness before they have established any cause for that concern is ridiculous.
Had the police been given true cause to doubt Hutchinson then he would have been detained, just like Isaacs was, while they thoroughly check him out.
This is where you really DO need to discuss your ideas with someone who has police experience. What you suggest is pure nonsense.

"Not sure", is not an option. Scotland Yard are looking for the most vicious murderer known. If they had doubts about Hutchinson, they could have their man in their grasp. Scotland Yard will turn every stone to satisfy themselves as to whether he is telling the truth, or that he has lied.
We, that is everyone alive today, can be rest assured that Scotland Yard had found no cause for doubt concerning George Hutchinson at any point.
There were only two options, "yes" we are convinced and he can go or, "No" we are not convinced, and he will be detained.

Hutchinson's discrediting had absolutely nothing to do with Bond's time of death, which was not accepted without question by the police.

I suggest you re-read up on the influence Dr Bond had on police opinion, and in face of a majority view, on the cause of the death of Rose Mylett.
Robert Anderson sent Dr Bond in five days after the death of Mylett.

The overwhelming majority of opinion by several doctors on that case was that Dr Brownfield was correct, Mylett had been murdered.
However, the police had been "induced" (remember that word before?), to follow the opinions of Dr Bond that the cause of death was more likely by natural causes.
The jury & the Coroner chose to return a verdict of willful murder.

Do not underestimate the influence Dr Bond had with Robert Anderson.
If Anderson was convinced, then Scotland Yard will follow suit.

And no, there is no evidence that the police "still persue(d)" Hutchinson after 15th November, after the Star reported that Hutchinson was "discredited" in yet another obviously accurate report.

Er, its been proven Ben (by your standards, at least).

Hutchinson was lumped together with Packer, another bogus witness, in the report in question entitled "Worthless Stories Lead the Police on False Scents"

Hutchinson was lumped with Packer .....by the press (Star).
What you need is a police report lumping Hutchinson with Packer, but as no such comparison exists, and the reason why is too obvious, then you reach back to those ill-informed, uncorroborated, inaccurate newspaper stories.

It was fodder for the masses Ben, not to be taken seriously.

[Ben]

Ah, so because you are again shown to be mistaken, this time about the rain, now, it doesn't matter?

Do not pathetically and laughably imagine you have shown me to be mistaken. It was known to have been raining that night, and it may or may not have been raining at the precise moment in time when he was clocked, in all probability, by Lewis. The conditions that night were cold and miserable, as has been established for decades, and you piping up with nonsense now is not about to change any of that. There were two people, not three, outside the Britannia that night, and they were not loitering for the sheer boredom of it. They were, in all probability, a prostitute and her client. Most people did not get out of bed at 2:30 just for the sheer joy of loitering, nor would that sacrifice their comfort for such a pursuit.

Without any proof he lied, there is no proof he was discredited (by the police?). Only an official report explaining the cause and effect constitutes proof of that.

This is preposterous.

The police were perfectly capable of discrediting a witness on the basis of a suspicion that the witness in question was lying, and in the absence of proof that they were. What is the realistic alternative? Endorse any old $hit as accurate and worth pursing purely because it can't be proven false? Don't ever, ever consider policing as a career option - ever. And don't make me chunder and laugh in equal measure by pretending that your particular views on my theories are even remotely "prevalent". No theory is immune to criticism, but your particular objections are based on some truly baffling misunderstandings.

The Echo's proven communication with the police establishes that at the very least, the credibility of Hutchinson's claims came to be doubted.

For you to suggest the police would actually share their inside thoughts concerning a witness before they have established any cause for that concern is ridiculous.

You're completely wrong, you annoy me intensely by dismissing as "poppycock" that which you obstinately refuse to understand, and as such, I don't value your opinion, but I'm compelled to respond nonetheless. A competent police force is perfectly capable - and professionally obliged - to separate the wheat from the chaff in terms of eyewitness evidence. They don't always have a magic wand at their disposal for determining truth from untruth. They have to make judgments according to the perceived merit of the information they receive, and Hutchinson ultimately failed to pass muster in this regard. When the police harbour suspicions about the credibility (or lack thereof) or a particular witness, there is no rule book that asserts that they would never disclose as much to trusted members of the press. It is horribly naive to argue otherwise.

Had the police been given true cause to doubt Hutchinson then he would have been detained, just like Isaacs was, while they thoroughly check him out.

No.

Wrong.

Hopelessly, transparently, and permanently wrong.

Isaacs was dragged in as a suspect, while Hutchinson approached the voluntarily as a witness. There is no evidence that the latter was ever contemplated as a suspect. In discrediting his evidence, the implication was that Hutchinson was a publicity or money-seeker, not the real Jack the Ripper attempting to lie his way out of a potential noose. Was Packer or Violenia ever considered a suspect, despite their self-confessed proximity to the murder scene? No. And nor was Hutchinson.

There is not a scrap of evidence that the police supported Bond's time of death, and strong indications against it. The fact that a doctor supplied a report doesn't mean that the police are duty-bound to accept it, especially when it argues against mutually supportive eyewitness evidence. The huge irony here is that you too reject Bond's time of death, and yet here you are wrongly insisting that the police subscribed to it.

The Star accurately reported the detail that the police supported a later time of death than that proffered by Dr. Bond. For what possible reason would they invent something so inconsequential to the reputation of the police? The police evidently believed the cry of "murder" to have been uttered by the victim shortly before her death.

Incidentally, your insistence that Bond exerted a major influence on the police is another old-hat misapprehension that you still appear to labour under. I can see why the police as a collective might have valued Bond's opinion in particular, and in contrast to other medical professsionals, but Anderson was not simply a hapless sponge to whatever Bond suggested. It will be remembered that Bond believed Alice McKenzie to have been a ripper victim, while Anderson disagreed.

What you need is a police report lumping Hutchinson with Packer, but as no such comparison exists, and the reason why is too obvious, then you reach back to those ill-informed, uncorroborated, inaccurate newspaper stories.

We know for an absolute ironclad certainty - and yes, I will repeat and repeat and repeat this for as long as you're stubborn enough to keep arguing with me - that the Echo was correct in reporting the discrediting of Hutchinson by the police. The fact that the Star "echoed" the same observation was a testament to the fact that they too were in the loop, at least with regard to Hutchinson.

[Wickerman]

Do not pathetically and laughably imagine you have shown me to be mistaken.

What is the alternative, accusing you of intentionally trying to mislead?
Which do you prefer?

The police were perfectly capable of discrediting a witness on the basis of a suspicion that the witness in question was lying, and in the absence of proof that they were.

What is that supposed to mean, exactly?
The last witness to see a victim alive is potentially a prime suspect. I've lost count how many different members with policing experience has told you that basic fact.

If any part of the statement given by that witness is suspected of being false, it will be checked out.
Whether the witness is detained while being investigated will depend on what portion of that statement was suspicious.

In the case of Hutchinson, if his venture to Romford turned out to be false, there is no conceivable reason to discredit the rest of his story.
If, on the other hand, the Astrachan character turned out to be false, then the police have just cause to detain Hutchinson.
In this case, IF his story is now discredited that fact will be verified by him being detained in prison.

You have yet to provide a rational, believable reason for the police to discredit their principal witness, turning him into a principal suspect, but also release him without detention.
I'm sorry if that was too difficult to understand, but this is the problem you are left with.

The Echo's proven communication with the police establishes that at the very least, the credibility of Hutchinson's claims came to be doubted.

There is no proven communication between the Echo and police (this is your c-l-a-i-m).

... When the police harbour suspicions about the credibility (or lack thereof) or a particular witness, there is no rule book that asserts that they would never disclose as much to trusted members of the press.

I can't believe that you truly believe this nonsense.
The police will not discuss their suspicions about a witness with the press.
That is not a debatable issue.

In discrediting his evidence, the implication was that Hutchinson was a publicity or money-seeker, not the real Jack the Ripper attempting to lie his way out of a potential noose.

You first need to establish this discrediting took place. And, you have no idea what the reason was for your fictitious discrediting, money-seeker or murderer.
Hutchinson will become a murder suspect before he is suspected of merely seeking money.

There is not a scrap of evidence that the police supported Bond's time of death, and strong indications against it.

Ben, you are a fine one to talk about 'not a scrap of evidence' - please reflect on your c-l-a-i-m-s about Hutchinson.

The fact that a doctor supplied a report doesn't mean that the police are duty-bound to accept it, especially when it argues against mutually supportive eyewitness evidence.

It is Anderson who cracks the whip.

The huge irony here is that you too reject Bond's time of death, and yet here you are .......... insisting that the police subscribed to it.

That much is correct.

The fact that the Star "echoed" the same observation was a testament to the fact that they too were in the loop, at least with regard to Hutchinson.

The Star did not 'echo' the words of their contemporary, they distorted them.

[Ben]

What is the alternative, accusing you of intentionally trying to mislead?
Which do you prefer?

I'd prefer you not to lash out with ludicrous and unpleasant accusations based on your own misunderstandings, or for you to extricate yourself from further discussions with me if you're incapable of doing that.

The last witness to see a victim alive is potentially a prime suspect. I've lost count how many different members with policing experience has told you that basic fact.

If it's "potentially" it's not a "fact, for crying out loud.

And once again, your constant references to other members and what they supposedly "told me" several years ago smacks of insecurity. It's a plea for "help", and a clarion call to join in the crusade against Ben.

What a lot of people don’t understand is that policing as an organized body was still it its infancy back then, and they had no precedent at all for serial killers (or perhaps any type of criminal) injecting themselves into their own investigation and requesting an interview. Since the very concept would have seemed like anathema back then - despite modern commentators talking about “common sense” from the fortunate perspective of hindsight – it is unlikely in the extreme that Hutchinson was viewed as a suspect. Had it been otherwise, Abberline would have said so in his private, internal report; something along the lines of, “I believe this statement to be true, but then again, he might be Jack the Ripper, so I’d better just check to make sure he’s not”. Unless people want to argue that he already had made sure, which is just impossible.

If any part of the statement given by that witness is suspected of being false, it will be checked out.

They may make investigations, but as with the entire question of the ripper's identity, investigations don't always lead to answers.

In the case of Hutchinson, if his venture to Romford turned out to be false, there is no conceivable reason to discredit the rest of his story.

But a competent investigator would treat the "rest of his story" with considerable caution, knowing he lied about one aspect of it. If he's capable of lying, why can't the rest of it be a lie too?

In this case, IF his story is now discredited that fact will be verified by him being detained in prison.

100% false.

And do stop making these ironclad ex-cathedra pronouncements when it's clear you have no insight into these matters at all. Did Packer go to prison for being suspected of lying? No. Did Emanuel Violenia go to prison when he was suspected of lying, despite also claiming to have been the last witness to see the victim? No.

So where are you getting this stuff from?

You cannot send a witness to prison for suspecting him of lying.

The witness has only to challenge them to prove it, and if they can't prove it, the witness skips away into the sunset.

You have yet to provide a rational, believable reason for the police to discredit their principal witness, turning him into a principal suspect, but also release him without detention.

The police evidently discredited Packer as a publicity/money/thrill-seeker despite the fact that he claimed to have been at a crime scene when the crime was committed.

The police evidently discredited Violenia as a publicity/money/thrill-seeker despite the fact that he claimed to have been at a crime scene when the crime was committed.

The police evidently discredited Hutchinson as a publicity/money/thrill-seeker despite the fact that he claimed to have been at a crime scene when the crime was committed.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY OF THESE THREE MEN WAS INVESTIGATED AS A SUSPECT.

So sorry if it's confusing.

There is no proven communication between the Echo and police (this is your c-l-a-i-m).

Yes there is.

Yes there definitely is.

The police will not discuss their suspicions about a witness with the press.
That is not a debatable issue.

More of these abysmal sweeping and inaccurate statements.

It is naive in the shocking extreme the way you refuse to accept that detectives have always, ALWAYS, divulged material to the press, and have always, ALWAYS, taken into their confidence trusted members of the press. That is not a debatable issue, and I'm horrified to see this nonsense dredged up again here, after I demolished it so thoroughly on the "What the press knew" thread.

Hutchinson will become a murder suspect before he is suspected of merely seeking money.

Absolute nonsense.

I just can't believe what I'm reading.

You are pronouncing with undeserved confidence about matters you have demonstrably no knowledge of, and it is exceptionally galling to read statements like the above after you've lectured my so patronisingly about passing speculation off as fact.

When Hutchinson's statement was doubted, the overwhelmingly likelihood is that he was cast in the role of an attention-seeker, as Packer and Violenia before him. It was extremely unlikely to have occurred to the police that one of them might have been the murderer.

The Star did not 'echo' the words of their contemporary, they distorted them.

And with that final piece of nonsense, I think that'll have to be you finished with these Hutchinson debates until at least after Christmas.

[Wickerman]

And with that final piece of nonsense, I think that'll have to be you finished with these Hutchinson debates until at least after Christmas.

One can only hope that a brief respite will give you time to reflect.

[caz]

Back to the scarlet snot rag...

Continued from the "Solved?" thread...

Hi Caz,

It is incredibly unlikely, as you seem to acknowledge, that the hanky was of distinctive enough appearance to tie it down to Hutchinson specifically. Unless he had his initials embroidered onto it, that really isn't an option. But if he'd convinced himself, however briefly, that he'd accidentally left it in the room and knew it couldn't have been recognised as his property, there was an obvious incentive in working it in to his fictional account in order to give the Astrakhan episode more validity.

Not really, Ben, no. Especially if you are claiming Hutch placed himself too far away from A Man and Kelly to make the red hanky episode anything but ludicrously implausible. If he was lying about the couple being there in the first place, he'd have been wiser to put himself much closer to them, but behind them, claiming they were too engrossed with each other to care who else was around. Drawing attention to his knowledge of anything the police may have found at the actual crime scene would have been a totally unnecessary risk. Not mentioning the hanky (if he thought he'd left it in the murder room) was risk free as long as it couldn't be identified as his own. If the police swallowed his whole 'ludicrously implausible' tale, they'd have swallowed it with or without the hanky thrown in. If not, he'd have had considerably more explaining to do, having admitted to knowing about such an item found at the scene.

I'd stress again that I don't believe for a moment that he actually did leave his red rag in the room, or that the police ever found one. Had it been otherwise, there would have been little chance of him escaping suspicion, and certainly no chance of the police dismissing him as a mere bogus witness who wasn't there.

So you see my point exactly then! It would have done him very little good and potentially a lot of harm.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

If Hutchinson was the killer and came forward with the intention of pulling the wool over the eyes of the police after becoming aware of a potentially incriminating link to the crime scene (in the form of Lewis), he was realistically expecting either to be accepted as a genuine witness, or to be exposed for what he really was. I doubt very much that he ever anticipated what actually happened, i.e. getting dismissed as an attention-seeker. If the handkerchief detail was thrown in because he feared he'd left it in the room, it was for the purpose of latching onto anything that might lend support for his story, in his mind. Liars will often embroider their stories with too much detail in the mistaken belief that it will lend weight to their credibility, rather than detracting from it. The Astrakhan man description included far too much superfluous detail, but Hutchinson may have thought he was increasing his chances of the police taking the bait, rather than incurring greater risks.

We shouldn't make the mistake of arguing that if person X was a liar, he would have lied better, therefore he didn't lie.

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

He wouldn't have needed to read Lewis' account in the press, Jon.

He need only have registered the fact that Lewis was one of the witnesses due to appear at the inquest, which would have required, at the very most, joining the crowds thronging outside Shoreditch Town Hall. Alternatively, he may have read the "Mrs. Kennedy"'s account in the press and discovered from the Star's report that she was parrotting the evidence of a genuine witness, Sarah Lewis, who probably delivered her genuine her account to the inquest. Either way, rumour travelled like wildfire on those streets, so you can be assured that anything spoken at the public inquest because public knowledge very quickly indeed!

If Hutch was aware, before the murder was even committed, that Lewis was watching him loitering, and he knew who she was, he would also have known that she was likely to report her sighting of him when MJK was found ripped to shreds. And yet he carried on regardless, not apparently caring about her at that stage? Is this what you are suggesting? If not, I'm at a loss to understand how Hutch is meant to have 'registered' that a woman was going to put him near the scene, and who this woman was, either from a list of attending witnesses, or from seeing her face as she arrived (and hoping presumably that she wouldn't see his and recognise him). The only theoretical possibility that appears to make any sense is that he hung around as people left the inquest and managed to learn that his loitering had been observed and reported by Lewis, prompting him to come forward and put an innocent slant on it. Even so, he could hardly have found out every last thing she said, nor indeed anything the police may have asked her to hold back (as they had with Lawende), by the time he presented himself to Abberline for questioning. And make no mistake, he would be expecting to be questioned, if he only came forward because an inquest witness had already put him at the scene. Lewis's man would have been considered a person of interest to be found and eliminated, and a guilty Hutch must have breathed a huge sigh of relief when the police didn't appear to make any connection between the two similar tales of a man watching the court - Lewis's followed by his own admission.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

If Hutch was aware, before the murder was even committed, that Lewis was watching him loitering, and he knew who she was, he would also have known that she was likely to report her sighting of him when MJK was found ripped to shreds. And yet he carried on regardless, not apparently caring about her at that stage? Is this what you are suggesting?

Not really, no.

At the time of the original sighting on Dorset Street, Hutchinson may have considered Lewis' passing more of a "near miss" - a woman who didn't pay him much attention, who probably didn't get a good look at his mug in the darkness, and under the broad brim of his wideawake hat. He have have cursed his misfortune at having to wait for this new entry into the Court to settle down to bed and sleep, but I'm not suggesting he necessarily considered her a particularly serious threat until he registered her presence outside Shoreditch Town Hall (pursuant to the reality that serial killers will closely monitor investigative progress, not just in the press), and concluded that she had seen more than he had given her credit for at the time of the original sighting. He would then have fully anticipated Lewis to divulge the "loitering man" detail, even if he wasn't able to hear her verbatim description (which wouldn't have taken long to do the rounds on the streets).

Another possibility is that he sensed immediately that Lewis would be able to recognise him, but couldn't risk inserting himself into the investigation before the inquest and claiming the identity (in effect) of the wideawake man, since this would have resulted in himself appearing at the inquest, with all the risk that entailed of being recognised by previous witnesses to previous ripper crimes.

All the best,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

The only theoretical possibility that appears to make any sense is that he hung around as people left the inquest and managed to learn that his loitering had been observed and reported by Lewis,

yes, and without knowing that she hadn't fingered him. In this scenario, he would have overheard people talking and with only a sense of not wanting to be caught, didn't hear who Lewis had been talking about and only knee jerk reacted to this fear. Doesn't sound right to me.

Mike

[Lechmere]

Yes - no one at the time made the connection between Lewis's sighting of a not tall but stout fellow and Hutchinson, a man of military appearance. I wonder why?

[caz]

We'll we have to weigh the possiblity of the police asking Sarah Lewis if the man she'd seen was Hutchinson.
Or that she knew him.To me they would have. Common sense, Simple detective work. What came of it we do not know. Hutchinson dismissed as a witness was telling. Added to that no reports of anybody saying Hutchinson was a friend or an acquaintance of Kelly. If she knew Hutchinson and/or recognize him as the man at 2:30 AM he would have been a major witness.

I agree with this, Varqm. I don't see how the police could realistically have forgotten that Lewis had seen a man watching the court, as if waiting for someone to come out (thus making her a major witness), and simply decided that Hutch's account of doing exactly the same thing was either not credible or not suspicious. Surely anyone supposedly watching and waiting in those circumstances would have been of major interest to the police unless shown not to have been involved, or not even there. If the police came to believe that there was no Astrakhan Man in that room with Kelly after Blotchy had departed, they'd have wanted to know the reason for Hutch saying there was.

I grew up in a ghetto-like neighborhood near a market with many alleys and byways.Lots of people come and go.I did not know the majority of the people even across the street in those alleys . I lived there
for years. The weight goes to, that they did not know each other and Hutchinson would have not cared.

Again, I totally agree with you. This idea that everyone knew each other, by sight if not by name, in an area such as this, seems to come from nowhere - or when some theory requires it to have been the case.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Yes - no one at the time made the connection between Lewis's sighting of a not tall but stout fellow and Hutchinson, a man of military appearance. I wonder why?

Because they were so obviously interested in other things, Lechmere, and had countless other leads to pursue. Wideawake man was elipsed in terms of potential significance by the other, seemingly more "scary" man in her account: the Bethnal Green botherer with the pale face and the black bag. Remember that despite how terribly obvious the connection appears to be to us today, there is no evidence of anyone registering a connection until the mid 1990s.

Unless you're arguing that "not tall but stout" is incompatible with a "military appearance", which is just wrong, but we've thrashed that one to death, as you recall.

All the best,
Ben