The Red Handkerchief...

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Sally’s post was bang-on, to my mind.

I will say again, and a great many more times if necessary, Hutchinson was not “known” to have been the last person to see Kelly alive. This is only what he claimed. Violenia was not “known” to be the last person to see Chapman alive. That is only what he claimed. The latter was never proven to have lied about his sighting and proximity to the murder scene; it simply came to be accepted by the police that he probably wasn’t. There is absolutely no evidence (and no good reason to think) that Violenia ever converted from a discredited witness who was not believed to have told the truth, into a potential suspect. The same was evidently true of Hutchinson.

No offense, Fish, but if there’s one suspect theory that relies very heavily on the police NOT following “procedure” and failing to treat as suspicious those who ought to be treated as such, it’s Crossmere, who was proven to have been at the crime scene, unlike Hutchinson. I’ve even heard it suggested that Robert Paul was considered a potential suspect, but that the thought never occurred to anyone to treat the first person to discover the body in a similar fashion. If they suspected Paul, it is impossible that they never suspected Cross (yes, I said “impossible”, not “almost certainly impossible”, but actually impossible).

“My own stance on the matter is that two things would have weighed heavily in Hutchinson´s favour:
He came forward of his own free will.
He gave a very honest and straightforward impression.
A third factor may well have contributed: He may have been given the green flag by aquaintances, working comrades, doss house keepers and relatives.”

I agree entirely.

I’m sure you’ll also agree that people who come forward of their own free will can be, and have been, killers. People who “give a very honest and straightforward impression” can be, and have been, killers. People who get given a “green flag” by acquaintances, relatives etc can be, and have been, killers. In other words, the fact that Hutchinson meets all three criteria does not detract in the slightest from the possibility of him being the killer. In fact, a serial killer who gives an instantly dishonest, dodgy impression, and who has a bad and dangerous reputation among “acquaintances”, is far less likely to continue evading capture than one who doesn’t. This particular killer evaded capture indefinitely, probably because he wasn't known as a dodgy geezaaarr.

You’ve been claiming that Dew described Hutchinson as a “respected citizen” and an “honest citizen” for far too long now, and I'd like it if you stopped. All Dew was offering was his 1938 personal hunch that Hutchinson was wrong, possibly as to time or date. He didn’t say anything about his character, and he didn’t say anything about what the police thought of him. Dew’s book was “riddled with mistakes” according to you, and “got lots of things terribly wrong” and your sage advice has remained with me to this day.

He wasn’t “cleared” in the eyes of the police, because he was obviously never considered a suspect in the first place.

“Can you also perfectly understand if Astrakhan man was someone Hutchinson had met/seen on a number of occasions (I believe he lives in the neighbourhood)?”

You keep ignoring my point – if Astrakhan was a man he had “met/seen on a number of occasions", it is ludicrous for Hutchinson to claim that he wasn’t sure if he saw the same man again on Sunday. This holds especially true for those who wish to argue, quite inexplicably, that he noticed minute details such as horseshoe tie pins, linen collars, dark eyelashes and all that rhino bollocks, and managed to get a better look at these same articles – ascertaining precisely what they were – in daylight. If he say the same specific accessories and clothing again, there is no possibility of it being a different man. I don’t know what “case” you think you’re "resting", but I do wish you’d pay attention to what I’m saying.

“It is, if I remember correctly, "arsenumbingly" obvious that what Hutchinson did could not be done - nothing even near it could be.”

That’s right, and fortunately, it wouldn’t have taken long – less than 24 hours – for the police to scrutinise his statement and arrive at a similar conclusion, even by those who believed that such an unusual and demonic series of crimes would have an equally unusual and demonic perpetrator. While I’m on the subject, Abberline’s initial faith in Hutchinson is far less surprising than his opinion that Klosowski-the-ripper was an organ harvester acting on commission from an American, specimen-seeking doctor. Even the idea of Astrakhan as a real person described faithfully by Hutchinson is less outlandish than that.

“That didn´t do your cause any favours at all, since we have at long last arrived at the insight that you were wrong to claim that money was offered on both occasions. Eh - "we" meaning Ben and me.”

No, Fish.

Money was offered on both occasions – the sources make that obvious, one in words, the other in actions.

“And please don´t wake me up again if you can avoid it. If somebody needs their beauty sleep, it´s me!”

Oh, come on! Bor-ring! how am I going to reach my goal of 13,000 posts in the Hutchinson forum with you asleep? I can’t have that! I’m a secret Hutch zealot on the quiet, truth be told, and my hidden agenda is ensuring that Hutchinson dominates ripper discussion. I can’t achieve this without you, mate.

All the best,
Ben

[Scott Nelson]

Well, I'll do my best to keep you busy Ben.

Hey, what's your hat size again?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

Hi Fisherman,

Sally’s post was bang-on, to my mind.

Well, that´s the thing - her posts are always very much to your liking, but not to mine.

I will say again, and a great many more times if necessary...

Oh, don´t go through any great trouble on my behalf!

... Hutchinson was not “known” to have been the last person to see Kelly alive.

Ah, yes - but when he reported into the cop shop, they will have given him the benefit of a doubt, at least initially. And that would have been the stage where he would have been looked upon as a person of interest too.

No offense, Fish, but if there’s one suspect theory that relies very heavily on the police NOT following “procedure” and failing to treat as suspicious those who ought to be treated as such, it’s Crossmere ...

I thought we were not going to bring Lechmere into this? Weren´t you annoyed about it?

... who was proven to have been at the crime scene, unlike Hutchinson. I’ve even heard it suggested that Robert Paul was considered a potential suspect, but that the thought never occurred to anyone to treat the first person to discover the body in a similar fashion.

I just had Sally suggest that reporting in to the police on your own accord would clear away any suspicions of guilt. Maybe you differ on this?

If they suspected Paul, it is impossible that they never suspected Cross (yes, I said “impossible”, not “almost certainly impossible”, but actually impossible).

Not at all, Ben - at least not if Sally is right.

I agree entirely.

I’m sure you’ll also agree that people who come forward of their own free will can be, and have been, killers.

Absolutely.

People who “give a very honest and straightforward impression” can be, and have been, killers.

Absolutely.

People who get given a “green flag” by acquaintances, relatives etc can be, and have been, killers.

Absolutely.

In other words, the fact that Hutchinson meets all three criteria does not detract in the slightest from the possibility of him being the killer.

Well, in all honesty I think we need to admit that people who DO come forward of their own free will, who DO give a good impression and who ARE supported by many people as being good guys, are normally NOT killers. So these factors actually do detract massively from the possibility of them being a killer. These things are actually not even "criteria" of a serial killer. They are criteria of a good guy. The criteria of serial killers are that they kill.
The mentioned "criteria" do not necessarily prevent people from killing as such, though.

In fact, a serial killer who gives an instantly dishonest, dodgy impression, and who has a bad and dangerous reputation among “acquaintances”, is far less likely to continue evading capture than one who doesn’t.

Absolutely.

This particular killer evaded capture indefinitely, probably because he wasn't known as a dodgy geezaaarr.

Probably? Perhaps. It´s not a bad guess, anyhow.

You’ve been claiming that Dew described Hutchinson as a “respected citizen” and an “honest citizen” for far too long now, and I'd like it if you stopped.

Oh, but I won´t.

All Dew was offering was his 1938 personal hunch that Hutchinson was wrong, possibly as to time or date. He didn’t say anything about his character, and he didn’t say anything about what the police thought of him.

This is the relevant bit, my markings in bold:

Hutchison described him as well-dressed, wearing a felt hat, a long, dark astrakhan collared coat and dark spats. A turned-up black moustache gave him a foreign appearance.

But I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken, not necessarily as to a person, but as to date and time. And I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were wrong.

Indeed, if the medical evidence is accepted, Mrs. Maxwell could not have been right. The doctors were unable, because of the terrible mutilations, to say with any certainty just when death took place, but they were very emphatic that the girl could not have been alive at eight o'clock that morning.

And if Mrs. Maxwell was mistaken, is it not probable that George Hutchison erred also? This, without reflecting in any way on either witness, is my considered view.

So Dew clearly compares Hutchinson to "people with the best of intentions" and says that he he does not reflect in any way on him or Maxwell, since he feels that they erred - as opposed to lied.

So Dew DID feel Hutchinson was honest.

I agree, however, that we should rely first and foremost on the police in this case.

Luckily Dew was just that - a police, working the case.

So let´s rely on him.

He wasn’t “cleared” in the eyes of the police, because he was obviously never considered a suspect in the first place.

Didn´t I answer that one before? Once or twice?

You keep ignoring my point – if Astrakhan was a man he had “met/seen on a number of occasions", it is ludicrous for Hutchinson to claim that he wasn’t sure if he saw the same man again on Sunday.

Depends on the distance and the circumstances, does it not?

This holds especially true for those who wish to argue, quite inexplicably, that he noticed minute details such as horseshoe tie pins, linen collars, dark eyelashes and all that rhino bollocks, and managed to get a better look at these same articles – ascertaining precisely what they were – in daylight. If he say the same specific accessories and clothing again, there is no possibility of it being a different man. I don’t know what “case” you think you’re "resting", but I do wish you’d pay attention to what I’m saying.

Likewise, Ben! I am saying that Hutch could have seen/met the man numerous times, forming the opinion that he lived in the neighbourhood and taking in his clothing and stuff. Then he could have caught a glimpse of a man in the market crowds that was seemingly the same man.

It´s not rocket science, is it?

That’s right, and fortunately, it wouldn’t have taken long – less than 24 hours – for the police to scrutinise his statement and arrive at a similar conclusion, even by those who believed that such an unusual and demonic series of crimes would have an equally unusual and demonic perpetrator.

But why would it take 24 hours if it was so "arsenumbingly" evident? In that context, 24 hours is an eternity. Why did Abberline not just laugh in Hutchinsons face and say: No, no, no - it´s incredibly evident that this is a lie!

Why did he not throw Hutchinson out of the cop shop, a s a p?

If - that is - it was so very obvious?

Could it be that Abberline saw it differently than you?

That he was right to believe in the story and you are wrong not to?

No, Fish.

Yes, Ben. You are not of the meaning that money was mentioned being on offer in the Hutchinson version. You denied yourself that this was so. You are of the meaning that money SEEMINGLY was offered.

That´s not the same.

Oh, come on! Bor-ring! how am I going to reach my goal of 13,000 posts in the Hutchinson forum with you asleep?

I have great faith in you, Ben. There´s always Jon and Gareth and Observer, and ... you´ll be fine!

I can’t have that! I’m a secret Hutch zealot...

No, you´re not. No secret there.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

There you are, Ben - and Scott! And who knows, maybe some other poster who voted no to Hutch being the Ripper could take pity on you and chime in too!

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Jon,

Please explain where the evidence is for Hutchinson ever having been considered a suspect at the time.

As far as I can see, the known facts point decidedly to the reverse.

No woolly answer please - no 'must haves' based on your personal opinion - just the evidence.

Thanks in advance.

Sally.
From what I see in these discussions it is the context of the word 'suspect' that needs to be clarified.

I don't see anyone on these boards denying that the police pounced on Joe Barnett due to his relationship with Mary Killer. "Why?", because as you, me & everyone else understands, the principal partner is always the first 'suspect'.
This is why they interrogated him for four hours.

Surely, no-one here is going to insist that a wanted poster has to be produced before they will believe that the police considered Barnett a 'suspect'?

There are suspects which are seen at the murder sites who are legitimate suspects, and published descriptions are offered.
Then there are the obvious considerations (suspects?), like John Kelly, Joe Barnett, Geo. Hutchinson, & Michael Kidney.

Which level of suspect are you thinking of?

[Wickerman]

We know that Abberline initially accepted Hutchinson's account, because we have him on record.

Not so, Sally.
We know that Abberline accepted Hutchinson's account only after the interrogation.
Likewise, we also know that Abberline accepted Barnett's account only after the interrogation.

These gentlemen were not entertaining the police for fun.

We also know, from the contemporary press, that his account was dismissed shortly afterwards.

Wrong again.
What we read is what the press thought, not what was fact.

Given that 'we know' the police did not share case related information with the press (and for this we have both press & police opinion on this), then the press were compelled to speculate to create a story.
That is what you read.

[Wickerman]

I will say again, and a great many more times if necessary, Hutchinson was not “known” to have been the last person to see Kelly alive. This is only what he claimed.

Right, and by his own admission, he is the last person 'known' to have seen Kelly alive.
My dear fellow, an admission is like a confession. You say you were in the presence of the victim within the hour(?) of her death, then you are of extreme interest to police.
They may even consider you could be responsible for her death, I know you don't seem to think that, but believe me, it is true.

None of which applies to Packer, or Violenia who appears to have crumbled under pressure of interrogation. Hutchinson did not.
The difference?, one of them was being truthful.

[Fisherman]

The equation about what happened to the police interest in Hutchinson and his story is solved differently by different posters, as always.

Things to keep in mind:

-It is said throughout that the story Hutchinson told is what was questioned, not the man himself.

-Walter Dew says that his take on things is that Hutchinson simply erred, as many people with the best of intentions do. He infers that the error was one of mistaken time or day.

-It is evident that the Astrakhan man track was not abandoned after the press "revelations", but instead continually followed up on - but with less intensity.

-It is reported in the papers that the story suffered a diminution, not a shipwreck.

-We know that Abberline interrogated Hutchinson and came to the conclusion that he was telling the truth.

-Hutchinson and his story falls out of the papers after the disclosure about the diminution of usefulness of the testimony.

-No police officials, apart from Walter Dew, mention Hutchinson in their memoirs.

Does this, taken together, point to a man and a story that was always considered the real McCoy, the top lead throughout the investigation?

Does it point to a man that was revealed as a liar and a timewaster?

Or does it point to a man who gave a honest impression, and who told a story that seemingly disclosed a very hot lead - but who was suspected to have been in error, honestly mistaking the time?

If Hutchinson was revealed as a liar, would Dew not have been informed, together with any policeman who worked the case? Would it be strategically wise for the men at the top to let their men keep following a track they knew had grown a lot colder? Or would they inform them, allowing them to redirect their efforts towards other tracks?
We know that Violenia, who was easily deflated, was revealed by the press. Would the same journalists fail to throw Hutchinson to the wolves?
Would the police waste resources on following up on a track presented to them by somebody they knew had conjured up his story?
Would the police waste resources on following up on a track presented to them by somebody they thought had conjured up his story?

There can only be one sensible solution to these matters. Only one solution answers to what happened.

If we reason that Hutchinson was always considered to be on the money by the police, then how do we explain the silence that followed after his story had been pointed out as being a lot less worth than what was originally told? How do we explain that Dew has him down as somebody who made some sort of crucial error? How do we explain that he goes unnamed in the memoirs of the top names, if he was a man who provided a decisive track?

It doesn´t pan out.

If we reason that Hutchinson was revealed as a liar and a timewaster, then how do we explain that the hunt for his man went on, albeit with less effort? How do we explain that Dew does not brand him a liar and a timewaster, but instead says that he simply erred, as many "people with the best of intentions" do? How do we explain that he does not figure in the memoirs of the top names as a villain who threw the investigation off track?

It does not pan out.

Because he got the days muddled up, that´s why. And when this was discovered, the police felt a bit embarrased for not having realized this from the outset (they should have asked themselves why Lewis was not mentioned, for example), and so they did not elaborate all that much on things, but simply leaked to the press that they had found reason not to invest in Hutchinsons story other than on a much lower level. They said thank you very much, Mr Hutchinson, and sent him on his way. And Dew confirms this by saying that he emerged as hot news, but his conclusion is that Hutchinson seemingly had erred timewise.
So in the end, he was not material for the memoirs, since the ones who led the investigation were none too eager to brag about how they failed to make the appropriate checks that would have revealed Hutchinson´s mistake.

That pans out perfectly. No leaking seams there!

Factually, the suggestion is immaculate, so those who dislike it have chosen the argument that George Hutchinson, a man who took on odd jobs, probably moving from place to place, quite feasibly working odd hours and who we know did not have the work at day/sleep at night schedule most organized people do, since we have it on record that he did very long treks in the middle of the night, would NEVER muddle the days.

There is every chance that his days and nights would float in and out of each other, making it totally viable that he would mix them up in his mind.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

-No police officials, apart from Walter Dew, mention Hutchinson in their memoirs.

Perhaps that's because Dew relied on newspaper cuttings, rather than personal recollection, when he wrote his book. His gaffe about the bulging-eyed "youth", i.e. the very middle-aged Tom Bowyer, gives the game away as far as I'm concerned.

[Ben]

Fisherman,

Bed time didn’t last terribly long, did it?

I knew you wouldn’t let me down. You’ve even started another long-winded argument about Dew and "date-confusion". Terrific. You can guarantee that I will end it, even it if takes another 500 pages of back and forth lovely repetition.

The Dew business – which argues for Hutchinson being “honestly mistaken” - was wholly contradicted by the known, proven reason for his discrediting, which concerned doubts about his credibility and late, post-inquest presentation of his evidence. Moreover, it was purely Dew’s own speculations, written in 1938, and definitely not based on official police opinion at the time. These speculations have been known about for many decades since the publication of “I Caught Crippen”, and yet no-one sought to revive his stance on Hutchinson as the likely one until you piped up in an article a few years ago, and evidently convinced yourself you were presenting something brand new! Ironically, you wrote the article just a month or two after cautioning me not to listen to Dew, whose book - you told me - got things “terribly wrong”, and was “riddled with mistakes”.

Gareth’s suggestion that he relied on press cuttings is an extremely persuasive one to my mind. Being the “bit of a freshman” (your description) that he was in 1888, it is doubtful that he was informed of the reasons for Hutchinson being “considerably discounted”. It was only necessary for his superiors to inform him that the hunt for Astrakhan was off – no reason to tell him why. This explains why he was compelled, in 1938, to guess at the reasons for Hutchinson dropping off the map. He could have read the papers, of course, where he would have found out all that he needed know, i.e. that Hutchinson’s credibility was under question on account of his late appearance.

Had the police informed him directly, i.e. “Don’t worry, Dew, silly only Hutchinson bollocksed up the dates”, Dew would have said so explicitly. He’s have said “the police determined that...”, as opposed to “I can see no other explanation than…”

The imagined distinction between a discredited statement and a discredited author of that statement makes very little sense to me in this instance. You can’t just dislocate a statement from its source like that, and it’s clear that the authorities did nothing of the kind. The statement was “considerably discounted” in part because of Hutchinson’s failure to attend the inquest where he could have been quizzed “under oath”. How could they have cited this reason for discounting his statement unless they entertained doubts about his credibility?

The only reason Hutchinson's statement suffered a "very reduced importance" and was "considerably discounted" as opposed to being totally abandoned was because the police couldn't prove him wrong or a liar. They simply arrived at that concluson, as they had arrived at a similar conclusion may times before with a great many presumed timewasters before him. It is ludicrously selective to endorse as accurate the Echo's report that Hutchinson's account was accorded a "very reduced importance", but then ignore the actual reason given in that same article for this reduction, i.e. his failure to come forward earlier, with all the negative implications about his credibility that this carries.

Notwithstanding some extremely unconvincing arguments regarding a difference between “sequential” and eidetic memory – designed, of course, to reconcile the discrepancy between Hutchinson’s supposedly astonishing attention to detail in memorizing Astrakhan’s particulars with his supposed dappiness in ballsing up the day – there is no realistic possibility of “date confusion” in his case. He was hardly likely to confuse a day that coincided with the date of such a famous murder (of his acquaintance of three years, no less), AND his mammoth trek to Romford AND the well-advertised, well-known Lord Mayor’s Show.

There is absolutely no evidence of any further pursuit of Astrakhan lookalikes after Hutchinson’s account had suffered a “very reduced importance”. That doesn’t mean to say that the odd copper didn’t retain an interest in Astrakhan man, and wondered if top brass may have been wrong to discredit him (hardy surprising in the absence of proof that Hutchinson lied, as already pointed out), but no evidence whatsoever of official, active interest.

“Factually, the suggestion is immaculate”

Factually and logically, the suggestion is woefully implausible, which presumably explains why nobody besides you has sought to revive Dew’s suggestion as the correct one, despite it being in the public domain for almost 80 years.

Now then, I’d better just revisit older to threads and get a few chunks of prose ready to post here in the event that you really are up for another interminable Dew-off.

Regards,
Ben

[Sally]

Hi Ben,

Moreover, it was purely Dew’s own speculations, written in 1938, and definitely not based on official police opinion at the time.

Yes - as is often the case in Ripperology, what is essentially a minor detail has been magnified and given an exaggerated importance.

What was essentially a passing comment by Dew - an aside - has been used by Fisherman in discussions on Hutchinson to support his personal 'Wrong Night' theory.

As most of us can recognise, Dew wasn't expressing a theory regarding Hutchinson - his stories about the Ripper case are the brief reminiscences of yesteryear: still warranting enough public intererst for inclusion in his memoirs, but essentially old news.

To contemporary audiences, the selling point was in the title.

[Ben]

Ah, yes - but when he reported into the cop shop, they will have given him the benefit of a doubt, at least initially. And that would have been the stage where he would have been looked upon as a person of interest too.

No, Fisherman.

Having volunteered his evidence as a cooperative "witness", coming forward without prompting from the police, it is extremely unlikely that he was ever looked upon as a "person of interest". The more you argue that he "would have been" - without so much as a scrap of supporting evidence - the more own goals you score against the Crossmere theory, and he certainly "would have been" if Paul was.

So these factors actually do detract massively from the possibility of them being a killer.

No they don't.

Absolutely and irrefutably no way.

Another own goal for Crossmere, whose guilt also relies on him having had a good reputation as an "ordinary bloke, exuding no menace or dodginess. A serial killer who is able to provide good character references, and who draws no negative attention to himself, will have more success than those who are more overtly menacing and suspicious. The serial killers who have been more successful have been the superificially normal, even charming, "everyman" types. Nobody who knows anything about serial killers would disagree with me, and nobody seriously arguing for Cross as the ripper would dispute this reality, unless they want to undermine their own theory.

I say again: Dew never described Hutchinson as a "respected citizen". He described him as somebody he thought was wrong. Of course, the only "wrong" person in the equation is Dew, because he conjured up an entirely speculative brand new reason for Hutchinson's disappearance from the record, and one which contradicts the actual reason, provided at the time of the murders, just a day after Hutchinson's first appearance.

I agree, however, that we should rely first and foremost on the police in this case.

Luckily Dew was just that - a police, working the case.

But you told me NOT to listen to Dew because his book got "lots of things terribly wrong" and was "riddled with mistakes." You also encourage people not to listen to the contemporary and apparently unanimous police verdict that Cross was a witness, not Jack the Ripper. What am I to make of your advice when it changes with such startling regularity?

Likewise, Ben! I am saying that Hutch could have seen/met the man numerous times, forming the opinion that he lived in the neighbourhood and taking in his clothing and stuff. Then he could have caught a glimpse of a man in the market crowds that was seemingly the same man.

I'm saying that's ridiculous on three levels; a) since it assumes Astrakhan wore the same clothes and accessories every time Hutchinson saw him; b) that in spite of this odd uniformity of dress, Hutchinson thought it might have been a different man in identical garb on Petticoat Lane, and c) because Hutchinson would unquestionably have said so if he'd seen the man more than twice.

But why would it take 24 hours if it was so "arsenumbingly" evident?

It would have been considerably less than that, actually.

As I suggested, Abberline may have visited the sites in question for the purpose of "replaying" Hutchinson's account in his mind, and it may have been at that stage that he smelt his first rat. Whatever the merits of that suggestion, the reality is that his faith in Hutchinson's account was very short lived.

His opinion on Klososwski was pretty "out there", and far more difficult to understand that a brief, faith-based thumbs-up for Hutchinson.

I have great faith in you, Ben. There´s always Jon and Gareth and Observer, and ... you´ll be fine!

No, Fisherman. You!

But I've got you.

So all's good.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Perhaps that's because Dew relied on newspaper cuttings, rather than personal recollection, when he wrote his book. His gaffe about the bulging-eyed "youth", i.e. the very middle-aged Tom Bowyer, gives the game away as far as I'm concerned.

... whereas other things are seemingly very spot on, right? The Bowyer business was written about like this:
"I was chatting with Inspector Beck, who was in charge of the station, when a young fellow, his eyes bulging out of his head, came panting into the police station. The poor fellow was so frightened that for a time he was unable to utter a single intelligible word.
At last he managed to stammer out something about " Another one. Jack the Ripper. Awful. Jack McCarthy sent me."

How old was Bowyer? On this site, it says "One possible candidate was born c.1825 in Mitcham, Surrey, and ... Another possibility is a Thomas Bowyer who was born in Clapham in 1847 ..."

So if it was number two, then he was 39 at the time. Could he have passed as a "young fellow"? Perhaps.
The drawing of him seems to depict not a youth, but it is just a drawing, and we do not know what overall impression he would have given.

What we must bear in mind when discussing this is an Echo article that commences: "Bowyer, the young man in Mr. McCarthy's employ was out at different times up Miller's-court on the Thursday night for the purpose of getting water from a tap there - the only available supply."

Bowyer, the young man...! Apparently, more than Dew was of the meaning that Thomas Bowyer was young. Maybe we should not diss Dew all too quick...?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben: Fisherman,

Bed time didn’t last terribly long, did it?

No - you keep disrupting my well deserved snooze, Ben.

I knew you wouldn’t let me down. You’ve even started another long-winded argument about Dew and "date-confusion". Terrific. You can guarantee that I will end it, even it if takes another 500 pages of back and forth lovely repetition.

History itself will end it, Ben. Not you.

Now, let´s see, is there something new and inventive here ... hmmm ... nope. Not a scrap. Same old balderrdash all over again.

Good. Saves me a lot of trouble!

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

How old was Bowyer? On this site, it says "One possible candidate was born c.1825 in Mitcham, Surrey, and ... Another possibility is a Thomas Bowyer who was born in Clapham in 1847 ..."

So if it was number two, then he was 39 at the time. Could he have passed as a "young fellow"? Perhaps.

No, he couldn't. A 39 year-old could not be a "youth" by any stretch of the imagination... especially not when Dew himself was only in his early twenties at the time. To him, "Indian Harry" Bowyer should have appeared a middle-aged man, which he undoubtedly was.



..."bulging-eyed youth", indeed