The Red Handkerchief...

[Wickerman]

The only newspaper known to publish coverage of the Inquest, to the point which included the testimony of Sarah Lewis, was the Echo in their evening edition.
Publication time not known.

But still, all that was 'publicly divulged' about the loiterer, was this:

She saw a man at the entrance to the court. He was not talking to anyone.
Was he tall? - Not very - a stout-looking man. I do not know whether he had dark clothes on.
Echo, 12th Nov.

Detailed enough to put the willies up any potential suspect, wouldn't you say?

[Sam Flynn]

The only newspaper known to publish coverage of the Inquest, to the point which included the testimony of Sarah Lewis, was the Echo in their evening edition.
Publication time not known.

Curses! if only we knew the time Hutchinson's statement was taken.

But still, all that was 'publicly divulged' about the loiterer, was this:

She saw a man at the entrance to the court. He was not talking to anyone.
Was he tall? - Not very - a stout-looking man. I do not know whether he had dark clothes on.
Echo, 12th Nov.

Detailed enough to put the willies up any potential suspect, wouldn't you say?

Thus the true "willy-upping" testimony would have been what was revealed - until then, exclusively - at the inquest itself. Whether he heard it there, or read it in the evening paper, it doesn't leave much room for Hutch to get spooked or to concoct his story. (I've little doubt that it was concocted, by the way.)

[Wickerman]

Hutchinson could hardly have shown up inside the town hall, space was cramped as it was, too risky (assuming he was guilty of anything). With Abberline present, and all the witnesses, including Lewis, he could hardly then offer the statement he would do an hour? or so later.

Incidently, the time of Hutchinson's statement is given as 6:00pm (as you know), but that is not the time he walked into Commercial St. station, 6:00pm is the time they sat down to write it up. Probably after him giving a verbal account first.
The time the inquest terminated is not stated.
The time Hutchinson walked into Commercial St. is not stated.
The time the Echo published their first evening edition, is also not stated.

Any suggestion that Hutchinson gained advanced knowledge is therefore tenuous - to unlikely, at best. Once we pursue the questions, "from who?" or "how?, we see that the argument is not sustainable by anything beyond guesswork.
Consistent with everything else aimed at diminishing Hutchinson's credibility.

[Sam Flynn]

Incidently, the time of Hutchinson's statement is given as 6:00pm, as you know

I didn't actually, Jon - or I'd forgotten, in which case thanks for reminding me!

[Ben]

Hutchinson could hardly have shown up inside the town hall, space was cramped as it was, too risky (assuming he was guilty of anything).

Actually, if space was at a premium and the room overcrowded (which we know it was), there was nothing problematic about Hutchinson blending into such a crowd. Have a look at some of the photos depicting the crowded nature of the Waldorf Astoria where the Titanic inquiry was held, and that should give you a reasonable idea. That said, a far more plausible explanation - one which has been argued against with a dreadful lack of success - is that he was lost in the crowd that thronged the Shoreditch Town Hall, and simply recognised that the same woman who clocked him at 2:30am on the night of the murder was due to appear at the inquest, where she would presumably divulge her sighting of the wideawake man. But there are other obvious possibilities - he could have read about Lewis' account in the evening papers, or he could have heard it via the Bush Telegraph, and if you think word of mouth didn't travel extremely fast in those days, I invite you to guess again.

Whatever Hutchinson's source and whatever the means by which he accessed it, it is far easier to accept that he must have done so somehow than it is to accept that a monster "coincidence" took place. Lewis' specific observation that the man appeared to to be waiting for someone to come out is quoted practically verbatim by Hutchinson when describing his own behaviour. The realistic and logical explanation is that he was aware of Lewis' evidence and her specific observations when he came forward, which he did very shortly after the termination of the inquest.

Consistent with everything else aimed at diminishing Hutchinson's credibility.

You should learn who to pick your fights with in future, and not be so anxious to combat me at any cost. My argument that Hutchinson came forward after realising he'd been seen at least acknowledges that the wideawake man was almost certainly Hutchinson, which you also accept. Remember? Some people don't even accept that Hutchinson was there at all, and that he lied about the whole thing, and it is generally those people who challenge my view with regard to Hutchinson recognising himself in Lewis' account. Your view is closer to mine than theirs, and yet because of your determination to undermine my observations at any cost, you fail to take this on board.

This may be a troubling newsflash for you, but the majority of people who disagree with my overall view of Hutchinson share my opinion that he probably lied.

Detailed enough to put the willies up any potential suspect, wouldn't you say?

If you're trying to pour water (and possibly scorn) on my suggestion that Hutchinson might have had something to fear from Lewis' evidence, you'd do well to understand that a weak description doesn't equate to a weak sighting. A witness may well give a vague description of an individual, and yet still be able to recognise him or her again.

Hi Gareth,

As the forgoing illustrates, I respectfully disagree and fondly recall those pre-2011 days when we saw eye-to-eye on this one.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Thanks for your reply, Patrick, which I don't consider remotely "boring"!

Based upon Abberline's reputation, career, track record, etc., that's really all I have to base my opinion on.

I would agree with you were it not for the fact that:

(a) The "very reduced importance", "considerably discounted", and ultimately "discredited" nature of Hutchinson's account indicates very strongly that Abberline's initial endorsement was subsequently revised.

(b) Abberline's report was submitted before there was any opportunity to investigate Hutchinson's claims.

(c) Any assessment based on body language is notoriously unreliable according to today's leading experts, including David Canter, who considered in "nonsense" to deduce a witness or suspect's credibility on such a basis.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

There was no crowd to blend in to.

"The room in which the inquest was held was small and very few of the general public were admitted."
St. James Gazette, 13th Nov.

The few members of the public would stand apart from the press, on the one side, and the jury on the other.

No, no Hutchinson here.

[Ben]

There was no crowd to blend in to

Yes, there was.

Have a look at this from the Evening News, 12th November:

"The Court room was inconveniently small, and was overcrowded".

Given the size of the room, it isn't surprising that few of the general public were admitted, but if Hutchinson was one of those few, he certainly did have a crowd to blend into.

No, no Hutchinson here.

Yes, very possibly Hutchinson here.

[Wickerman]

This may be a troubling newsflash for you, but the majority of people who disagree with my overall view of Hutchinson share my opinion that he probably lied.

It's the 'probably', that sets them apart from you.
If theorists would limit their accusations to 'probably/possibly' then much of the vigorous exchanges would melt away.

[Wickerman]

Yes, there was.

Have a look at this from the Evening News, 12th November:

"The Court room was inconveniently small, and was overcrowded".

Given the size of the room, it isn't surprising that few of the general public were admitted, but if Hutchinson was one of those few, he certainly did have a crowd to blend into.



Yes, very possibly Hutchinson here.

It wasn't overcrowded with the public, it was the army of pressmen.

"A mahogany table, drawn up against the windows, was laden with hats, black bags and papers, belonging to the army of reporters."
Pall Mall Gazette, 12th Nov.

[Ben]

If theorists would limit their accusations to 'probably/possibly' then much of the vigorous exchanges would melt away.

But I want lots and lots of "vigorous exchanges" on Hutchinson, so does that mean that if I limit my accusations to "definitely/absolutely", I can achieve my goal of 12,000 posts in the Hutchinson forum, and ensure that he is by far the most extensively discussed individual on Hutchbook - sorry! - I mean Casebook? Wow, if I knew it was that easy...

It wasn't overcrowded with the public, it was the army of pressmen.

It was overcrowded full stop, Jon - with people.

The courtroom was crowded, not just the press enclosure. It's a bit difficult to envisage the press cramped into a cordoned-off corner of the room, while the members of the public had a reclining leather seat and a wideawake hatstand each!

Regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Gareth,

As the forgoing illustrates, I respectfully disagree and fondly recall those pre-2011 days when we saw eye-to-eye on this one.

We're still eye-to-eye on some things, Ben - I still maintain that Hutch made most of it up. It's his possible reason for doing so on which we differ.

[Wickerman]

But I want lots and lots of "vigorous exchanges" on Hutchinson, so does that mean that if I limit my accusations to "definitely/absolutely", I can achieve my goal of 12,000 posts in the Hutchinson forum, and ensure that he is by far the most extensively discussed individual on Hutchbook - sorry! - I mean Casebook? Wow, if I knew it was that easy...

Thats fine Ben, your reputation is unmatched for one who makes a lot of noise, its the substance that needs work.

It was overcrowded full stop, Jon - with people.

Only in so far as the press are people too.

And of course, Arnold, Abberline & Nairn will see every face in that small room throughout the following hours of the Inquest.
Hutchinson dare not show his face in the presence of the police, then present himself as one who was ignorant of the proceedings. He would have no clue who he would come face to face with in the station house once he offered himself as a witness.
Then of course there's Sarah Lewis who also might see him, and any number of reporters, one of which eventually will interview him.

No, the more you think it through the worse the proposal becomes. Not worthy of serious consideration.

[Michael W Richards]

I think that most would agree that IF George Hutchinson was actually Marys friend, and IF George Hutchinson was a man of at least average intelligence, he would have realized that his "experience" and his sighting would be very important to the investigation into her death. Perhaps crucial.

Waiting 4 days doesnt marry well with the above. Meaning...if we take the first claim, then why was he in essence impeding the investigation of a "friends" murder by not providing his story? The second part I will give him...which makes the delay in coming forward contrived...in that he would have realized that not providing the account in a timely fashion it diminished the value it may have had in catching her murderer.

Cheers... and Merry Xmas all.

[Wickerman]

Well Michael, it always comes back to the fact that over the weekend the press were reporting confusing times when Kelly is supposed to have been murdered. Some as late as 9:00am on Friday morning.

What possible reason would a witness seeing her at 2:30 am have for coming forward if her death was assumed to be as late as 9:00 in the morning?