The Red Handkerchief...

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

The Echo makes pretty clear on two successive days of reporting that the reason for the discrediting of Hutchinson's account was inextricably linked to doubts over Hutchinson himself - specifically, his failure to present himself earlier and give evidence at the inquest, where his statement would have appeared "on oath" and compared to other eyewitness descriptions. Notwithstanding the other "non-lying" explanations occasionally provided for the "very reduced importance" attached to Hutchinson's account, the evidence is very much consistent with the witness's credibility coming under question. The terminology speaks for itself - "very reduced importance", as opposed to "ruled out" completely, and we'd only expect the latter if Hutchinson was shown conclusively to have been accidentally wrong or mistaken.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

The Echo makes pretty clear on two successive days of reporting that the reason for the discrediting of Hutchinson's account was inextricably linked to doubts over Hutchinson himself - specifically, his failure to present himself earlier and give evidence at the inquest...

Thanks for explaining, Ben. However, that does not materially affect my point, namely that it was only his statement that was reportedly discredited. To keep claiming that "Hutchinson was discredited" is wholly misleading, as it implies - quite strongly - that he was in some way found to be a disreputable person. No source, newspaper or otherwise, says any such thing; they only refer to the story being discredited, not the man.

[Sam Flynn]

Isn’t it obvious how terribly convenient it is that this “courage” just haven’t to have been “plucked up” as soon as it was publicly divulged (at the recently closed inquest) that someone had been seen loitering opposite Miller’s Court?

"Someone"? - which, due to a lack of even the most mundane detail could have been anyone, any age, any height, any 'class'. No cause for concern there.

My concern, on that specific point, is just how "publicly divulged" Lewis's testimony actually was by the time Hutchinson came forward. The press didn't carry the story until the day after Hutchinson made his statement. I know... we can posit a "jungle grapevine" hypothesis, or propose that Hutch was at the inquest, but just how likely is either explanation?

[RockySullivan]

For all the talk about hutch n lechmere...what about the other man who inserted himself into the investigation. You know the man who turned up with a victims kidney? Lusk is real good suspect n my opinion. If not him the Killer may have known him. But th kidney story I real suspicious

[richardnunweek]

Hello Ben.
With respect, I am not talking about/referring to, farting on the moon, once again you make comparisons which are not relevant, even as a example .
The point is I take the view that Hutchinson relayed the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, you obviously want proof of this , I cannot give anyone that, apart from his official statement...
You have no official police record, that dismisses his statement, and you therefore are in the opposite camp to me..fact is we simply don't know..and although I have speculated for years on Casebook, I will take what is in the police files as acceptance, and not a conspiracy angle.
Regards Richard.

[Wickerman]

My concern, on that specific point, is just how "publicly divulged" Lewis's testimony actually was by the time Hutchinson came forward. The press didn't carry the story until the day after Hutchinson made his statement. I know... we can posit a "jungle grapevine" hypothesis, or propose that Hutch was at the inquest, but just how likely is either explanation?

I wouldn't lose any sleep over this issue Gareth, it's easy to see that it's an argument born of desperation.

One of the best supplements to the official Inquest record comes from the Daily News. Ben really does not like this example for obvious reason's, it pulls the rug out from under his theory.

In Ben's opinion the Daily News article is only an accumulation of errors.

Errors like, the mention of a man & a woman seen together while this loiterer was in Dorset St. - just like Hutchinson said.
Errors like, saying the woman was "the worse for drink", just like Hutchinson said (ie; tipsy).
Errors like, seeing this man & woman "pass up the court", just as described by Hutchinson, and at the same time Hutchinson claims to have been there.
Errors like, the mention of a man standing at the door of the deceased's room - exactly what Hutchinson claimed to have done.

And this was in the press 24 hours before Hutchinson's version was published.

How did the Daily News reporter manage to make so many accurate mistakes the day before anyone else learned about Hutchinson's story?

Stunning for most, embarrassing for Ben.

I think we can accept Sarah Lewis provided a story which confirmed the one later offered by Hutchinson. Two separate stories providing essential details which complement each other.

Given the above, I would like Ben to re-state that, in his opinion, Hutchinson's story was influenced by that given by Sarah Lewis.

[Wickerman]

The sources that establish that Hutchinson’s statement was discredited are beyond contradiction ...

The fundamental error you cannot get away from is that you have no "sources". You only have unsubstantiated press claims. Claims which are proven wrong by the continued interest in the Hutchinson "suspect" for several weeks after the murder.
Why do I have to keep reminding you of this?

Here was the opportunity for Abberline to write whatever he wanted about Hutchinson in a private internal report,...

Abberline had no need to "take the opportunity", there were required forms for making reports, this wasn't one of them.

Serious students of the Kelly case know for a fact that this didn’t happen,...

Name a "serious student" who can tell me that for a fact.

Just let me know if you want to go through this whole business again…

Did it ever end?

[Wickerman]

The Echo makes pretty clear on two successive days of reporting that the reason for the discrediting of Hutchinson's account was inextricably linked to doubts over Hutchinson himself - specifically, his failure to present himself earlier and give evidence at the inquest, where his statement would have appeared "on oath" and compared to other eyewitness descriptions.

Debunked long ago. The Echo was barking up the wrong tree for two reasons.

1 - The police are not about to let Hutchinson go if they found him out to be a liar. By his own admission he was at the murder scene. If he lied about one thing, what else did he lie about? - haul him in!
Automatically he is wanted.

2 - A Coroner's Inquest is not adversarial, which means you can tell the court anything you like and it is not automatically subject to cross-questioning.
So, Hutchinson's story would not be challenged.
The Echo were confused with a trial where the story given by a witness is tested, this was not a trial.

Oh, and 3 - the police were still interested in the Hutchinson suspect long after the murder.

It would be appreciated if you could find something in support of your theory that has not been debunked.

[Ben]

One of the best supplements to the official Inquest record comes from the Daily News. Ben really does not like this example for obvious reason's, it pulls the rug out from under his theory.

You're hell-bent on digging these enormous embarrassing holes for yourself...

The Daily News were guilty of misreporting Sarah Lewis' evidence. We know this because their report on her evidence contradicted her actual police statement and all other press reports. Nobody has ever attempted to revive the Daily News' version as accurate until you piped a couple of years ago, and that ought to tell you something. Sarah Lewis did not see anyone enter Miller's Court (which does encompass the interconnecting passage, for any irritating pedants out there), and she made it very clear that there was "nobody in the court". She saw a couple "pass along" Dorset Street, and in other accounts they are described as being "further along", i.e. further east along Dorset Street from where the wideawake man was standing.

Nowhere, apart from in the confused mind of the Daily News journalist, is it ever suggested or inferred that the couple in question entered Miller's Court, and everybody but you accepts it as a misreporting error; a confusion or a conflation between the court and the street.

Similarly, Lewis never said anything about a man standing at the doorway of the deceased's room. Go back and read Sarah Lewis's actual police statement and all other press reports. You'll discover that they flatly contradict this claim. There was nobody in the court, according to Sarah Lewis - not a couple passing up it, and certainly not a man standing outside Kelly's door. She makes it perfectly clear that the man in question was stationed outside Crossingham’s lodging house on the other side of Dorset.

But all this just washes over you.

And you compound the gaffe by asserting that “most” people consider the Daily News’ proven falsehoods “stunning”. This is scarily delusional stuff. Who besides you has ever claimed that Lewis saw a couple pass up the court, and that she saw a man standing outside Kelly’s door? Just you. Only you. Nobody else. How do you feel to be the sole advocate of proven falsehoods? Bad? I’d feel positively wretched.

“Given the above, I would like Ben to re-state that, in his opinion, Hutchinson's story was influenced by that given by Sarah Lewis.”

I hereby “re-state” that, in my opinion, Hutchinson’s story was influenced by that given by Sarah Lewis.

But Lewis actual evidence, mind.

Not the misreported version as bollocksed up by the Daily silly News, and hilariously endorsed as accurate by you (just you). And even though you’re a fine one to talk about “unsubstantiated press claims”, I’m met with this hilarity:

“The fundamental error you cannot get away from is that you have no "sources". You only have unsubstantiated press claims. Claims which are proven wrong by the continued interest in the Hutchinson "suspect" for several weeks after the murder.”

The Echo report has been proven accurate, courtesy of the fact that the claims made therein were only obtainable from police sources. Give me an excuse to go over this again. Give me an excuse to bury this nonsense the same way I’ve been burying it over and over again. There is not the slightest poop of a suggestion that “the Hutchinson suspect” was actively pursued after 15th November.

“Abberline had no need to "take the opportunity", there were required forms for making reports, this wasn't one of them.”

You really are making it up as you along, aren’t you?

Required forms? This is truly horrifying nonsense. If Abberline wanted to elaborate on his reasons for his faith-based “opinion” that Hutchinson told the truth, he had the opportunity to say so there and then in the report on the “day’s events”. Tell me what was stopping him. Explain the logic of Abberline deliberately withholding information just because he didn’t have the “required form”. Explain the logic of Abberline being secretive to his superiors – when time was of the essence in capturing a serial killer – just because he didn’t have the correct piece of paper??

And don’t you dare assert that your dreadful, unconvincing, and offensively biased “reasons” for dismissing the Echo article amounted to anything remotely resembling a “debunking”.

“The police are not about to let Hutchinson go if they found him out to be a liar. By his own admission he was at the murder scene. If he lied about one thing, what else did he lie about? - haul him in!”

Evidence?

Provide your evidence immediately, and dispense with your silly exclamatory assertions based on nothing. I have never suggested that they “found him out” to be a liar. I’ve said that they dismissed his account on the belief that he was one, because that is where the evidence unquestionably points. Where is the evidence that Packer was “hauled in” as a suspect when he was suspected of lying? Where is the evidence that Violenia was “hauled in” for similar reasons? Just deal with the fact that witnesses assumed to have been lying were dismissed as fame/money-seekers and not converted into suspects.

“2 - A Coroner's Inquest is not adversarial, which means you can tell the court anything you like and it is not automatically subject to cross-questioning.”

And the relevance factor here is…?

Wow, pretty low…

I have never suggested that any cross questioning occurred at the inquest, and nor has the Echo. It was simply observed that Hutchinson’s failure to come forward earlier and present himself at the inquest meant that he could not be questioned “on oath”, and that his description would not be compared (there and then) to others provided at the inquest. Nothing to do with any cross-examination.

“It would be appreciated if you could find something in support of your theory that has not been debunked”

And I would appreciate it if you stopped picking the fights you lost so terribly badly less than three months ago; stopped these fantasies of yours about “debunking” that which you’re patently ill-equipped to debunk, and took yourself to debating pastures anew. I realise that my mention of Hutchinson killed off all other threads, including the previously contentious “apron” thread (I’m endowed with the power to do so, apparently!), but you have a go at kick-starting that again.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

To keep claiming that "Hutchinson was discredited" is wholly misleading, as it implies - quite strongly - that he was in some way found to be a disreputable person

Not "found to be" disreputable per se, but rather suspected of having been less than honest on this particular occasion. That inference is inescapable, to my mind, in light of the Echo's communication with the police. There is no way the Echo would cite Hutchinson's failure to come forward earlier and present himself "on oath" at the inquest as reasons for the "very reduced importance" accorded him by the authorities, unless he was suspected of lying. These issues are irrevocably linked to the question of credibility, and it would make no sense to raise them in the context of, say, a hypothetical "honest mistake" on Hutchinson's part.

I know... we can posit a "jungle grapevine" hypothesis, or propose that Hutch was at the inquest, but just how likely is either explanation?

Pretty likely, to my mind.

Infinitely more likely, at any rate, than the transparently implausible "pure coincidence" argument favoured by those intent on arguing that Hutchinson's decision to come forward had nothing to do with the recent release of Lewis' evidence. So strong is this "coincidence", in my view, that we may dispense with the issue of "did he hear of her evidence?", and focus instead on "how did he hear of her evidence"?. The bush/jungle telegraph is one valid explanation, but it's just as likely that he joined the crowds of curious onlookers outside Shoreditch Town Hall and registered that Sarah Lewis (that pesky woman who entered the Court unexpectedly) was due to appear as a witness there.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

With respect, I am not talking about/referring to, farting on the moon, once again you make comparisons which are not relevant, even as a example.

With reciprocal respect, my comparisons are extremely valid - regardless of how flippant they may appear - because they get to the heart of my objections to your reasoning. It's fine to have an opinion that Hutchinson told the squeaky-clean, honest-to-buggery truth, but when it comes to actually arguing your case, you tend to appeal only to face value acceptance, citing irrelevant and inconsequential details such as the account's alleged "simplicity" (like farting on the moon and pigs flying) and the fact that it was voluntarily offered (like a lot of lies are).

I'm just a little concerned that these are your "truthfulness" barometers, when they really shouldn't be.

Regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben..
Agree to disagree my friend..my opinion will never falter about GH it has remained steadfast for years, and I have no evidence acceptable, to alter my views..at least to date.
Regards Richard.

[Wickerman]

The Daily News were guilty of misreporting Sarah Lewis' evidence.

Well lets leave the hyperbolic waffle aside shall we, and take this step by step...

You have two choices, either Sarah Lewis actually saw what the Daily News reported, or, the Daily News reporter got things badly wrong.

***
"In the doorway of the deceased's house I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing"
Daily News.

"I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house or hear any noise."
George Hutchinson.

Correct, or wrong?


***
"I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."
Daily News.

"...and they both went up the court together."
"Kelly did not seem to me to be drunk, but was a little bit spreeish."
George Hutchinson.

Correct, or wrong?


Somehow, this reporter managed to guess that:
- the loiterer actually stood at Kellys door,
- that a man & woman were in the vicinity of the loiterer,
- that the woman was a little tipsy,
- and that this man & woman walked up the court together.

On Tuesday morning (13th) when the Daily News was published only Hutchinson knew these details (and probably Abberline). And these details were not shared with the public until Wednesday (14th).

You need to provide a sound argument to explain how this Daily News reporter could get details so correct while, in your opinion, also being totally wrong.
And, while you are at it, explain why he would maliciously attach these spurious details to the statement of Sarah Lewis.

Or, you need to accept that the only viable source was Sarah Lewis herself.

[Wickerman]

The Echo report has been proven accurate, courtesy of the fact that the claims made therein were only obtainable from police sources. Give me an excuse to go over this again. Give me an excuse to bury this nonsense the same way I’ve been burying it over and over again. There is not the slightest poop of a suggestion that “the Hutchinson suspect” was actively pursued after 15th November.

The Echo (& Star, for that matter) have been proven wrong time & time again, ad nauseam, on the matter of what they claimed to know about the case. And we know the reason for this, both the Echo & Star, along with every other newspaper complained that the police would not tell them anything.
So, they didn't tell them anything, hence the press were reduced to guesswork & conjecture.

We all know this, all except you that is, which comes as no surprise.

And, I am not the only one who has proven to you using specific articles that interest in the Hutchinson suspect continued for several weeks.
The articles are 'proof', whereas all you offer is rejection.
Ignoring the fact doesn't make it go away, but it does make your arguments tiresome and repetitive.

[Wickerman]

... Sarah Lewis did not see anyone enter Miller's Court (which does encompass the interconnecting passage, for any irritating pedants out there), and she made it very clear that there was "nobody in the court".

Ben, lets not be silly about this.
If there had been anyone in the court then it would have been a different couple. There was nobody in the court because the couple went inside No 13.
When Hutchinson walked up the court he didn't see anyone in the court either did he?
So Lewis and Hutchinson are in agreement again.

She saw a couple "pass along" Dorset Street, and in other accounts they are described as being "further along", i.e. further east along Dorset Street from where the wideawake man was standing.

Yes, and in various accounts she saw a man standing outside Crossinghams, and also standing outside the entrance to Millers Court, and eventually outside Kelly's door.
The man moved Ben, by his own admission he stood in different locations.

Go back and read Sarah Lewis's actual police statement and all other press reports. You'll discover that they flatly contradict this claim. There was nobody in the court, according to Sarah Lewis

You're not being consistent Ben.
Neither her Inquest statement nor police statement make any mention of "nobody in the court", this is you sneaking a press account into the debate (a single account from the Daily Telegraph) when it suits you, while pretending to only recognise her inquest statement.

Considerably more was said at the inquest than was captured by Hodgkinson, the Court Recorder. This has been demonstrated.
The official record from the Kelly Inquest is abridged, not complete. This is also the proven case with the Eddowes Inquest record. This is why we need the press accounts.