Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[Ben]

“But the fact remains that it would be odd in the extreme if the connection had not been made”

With respect, Fish, this isn’t a fact at all. Given the nature of the investigation, the regularity with which publicity-seekers and time-wasters were cropping up, the demonstrated propensity of high profile investigations to overlook seemingly trivial details, and the nascency of policing in general would markedly reduce the "oddity" factor of the police in 1888 failing to have picked up on the Lewis-Hutchinson correlation. Abberline put his faith in Hutchinson “at” the outset, as distinct from “from” it, but we now know how incredibly short-lived this was.

As Garry has suggested, there was no real incentive to cross-reference his already dismissed account with details that had emerged from the inquest, especially if there were already question marks over Lewis’ credibility and character (see Garry's post above). If, however, they were still attaching some importance to Lewis’ account, and were not overly swayed by Bond’s estimation of the time of death (which is a very real possibility), it is likely that the focus was sustained on the Bethnal Green Botherer spotted at the corner of Dorset Street, who Lewis clearly made out to be the more “suspicious” of the two.

But I agree that this as far as we’re likely to progress with this one.

“Like I said, let´s not make the mistake of believing that wideawake and Hutchinson BOTH stood around for 45 minutes!”

Yes, but they didn’t need to have there for the exact same length of time in order for the suggested “coincidence” to be rejected as outlandish, in my view. There is still too much obvious correlation – both in terms of detail, and the fact that Hutchinson delivered his account as soon as Lewis’ information had been publicly divulged – for a link to be dismissed. Whatever the wideawake man was doing immediately before and after Lewis had him in her sights does not enervate the reality that Hutchinson claimed to have been doing precisely what Lewis observed the wideawake man to have been doing at the same time and the same location, and that’s still too much of a coincidence, as is the timing, which is why I’m compelled to conclude that he WAS the man in question, and came forward as soon as he realised he’d been seen. The wideawake man was solitary, stationary and apparently preoccupied with the court, not a “passer-by” throwing a glance in that direction.

“The "total mismatch" hypothesis actually has a lot going for it, since it would help explaining why Hutch was not taken seriously, and it would explain Dew´s stance.”

I don’t understand how you can conclude this. If they “mismatched” totally, they were in a position to prove that Hutchinson was definitely wrong in his testimony, which clearly did not happen, because this reason was not provided in the 13th November Echo article. If something had emerged to prove that Hutchinson was elsewhere on the night in question, the Echo would have a) said so explicitly, and b) reported that the authorities had utterly dismissed the account, not just attached a “very reduced importance” to it.

Again, the article in question provided several clear reasons WHY the account had suffered a diminished importance, and they had nothing to do with all the unnecessary fill-in-the-blank explanations that require the positing of imaginary evidence. And please, the “Romford testimony suggestion”? It really seems out of character for you to conjure up scenarios for which we have no evidence whatsoever, and to your credit, you’re usually the first to criticise people who do resort to this.

We know there wasn’t a “Romford testimony suggestion” because, if there was one, both the Echo article and Dew would have been able to dismiss Hutchinson for definite. There was absolutely no need for the Echo to have reported other, lesser reasons (Hutchinson’s delay, lack of other Astrakhan types, nobody else verifying his account etc) for dismissing Hutchinson when there were far more compelling ones, such as a mysterious “alibi”. The fact that the latter isn’t mentioned is the best indicator we could possibly hope for that nothing of the kind ever emerged.

The fact that they were expressing opinion only is a compelling indicator that they didn’t know the truth of the matter.

It would be an astonishing thing for Hutchinson to lie about leaving Romford when he actually was IN Romford, come to think of it.

Nothing can be proved, of course, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but as it stands I utterly reject the “Romford alibi” because not only is there no scrap of evidence to support the contention that anything vaguely like this occurred, there are strong and compelling indications against it

“It does, Ben. Which is why the police would have spotted it instantly, as would the press. It is a glaringly obvious thing, and it would never have gone amiss”

I disagree, for the reasons I’ve already outlined, and for the reasons pointed out by Garry. I haven’t ruled out the possibility that the connection was made, but as I’ve explained, even in that scenario, Hutchinson doesn’t get “ruled out”.

“The only small pointer we have, seems to tell us that he was NOT a shortish guy, since he stooped down to look Astrakhan in the face.”

No.

If they were around the same height, Hutchinson would still have been required to stoop if Astrakhan man was attempting to conceal his face with his hat.

“That points more to a tall man than to a short, as has been noted by most in the past.”

No. Very few people have “noted” this. Certainly not “most”. Right or wrong, the view that Hutchinson was the wideawake man has enjoyed far more widespread and mainstream acceptance.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"To begin with, jurisdiction over inquest proceedings lay not with the police but with the coroner, and it was (and still is) the task of the police to provide the coroner with details of any witness who might provide material information before the court. The decision, therefore, as to who did and who did not appear before the jury lay entirely with the coroner. As such, the fact that Sarah Lewis was called to give evidence should in no way be taken as an indication as to her perceived degree of importance from a police perspective. We know, for example, that Carrie Maxwell was called before the inquest despite the reality that her account was viewed with some scepticism by investigators."

Technically correct, of course. Just as it would be technically correct to point out that the form and shape that the police clad Lewis wordings in, helped the coroner to make his call.

"In other words, the value of Sarah’s statement was judged not on its own merit, but rather upon the character of the person who supplied it."

That would have been a factor that was weighed in, I fully agree with that. And thanks for the directions to sources that underbuild your arguments, Garry. I have actually read up on numerous things related to the social factors involved in things like these, but a little more can never hurt, can it?

The seemingly crucial point here, however, would be to point out that it would seem that Lewis´testimony was judged so valuable IN SPITE of the fact that she was not court-related or lady Astor´s closest friend, that she still made it to the inquest. It we make the conscious choice of looking at it from this angle, we get a different story.

We may also reflect somewhat about the fact that two probably honest labourers, Best and Gardner, were left out of the inquest proceedings in Stride´s case, whereas the "charwoman" Lane and a number of rowdy gentlemen from the IWMEC were allowed. Social implications aside, there was a job that needed to be done as best as it could. In the Kelly case, that would have meant that Lewis was admitted because she was deemed dependable after having been scrutinized by the police.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"it isn’t remotely unusual in high profile investigations for such details to be given scant attention, even when we’re dealing with comparatively more enlightened and sophisticated times in terms of policing."

Once you go looking for things, Ben, you may certainly find the oddest items where you least expect them. But the fact remains that it would be odd in the extreme if the connection had not been made, if the room was there for it - but I don´t think it was. And that, I suspect, is as far as we are going to get on that point.

"It would mean that Hutchinson was erroneously dismissed as a publicity-seeker because such people were – and still are – frequently the bane of any high profile police investigation"

Well, that very much belongs to the kind of suggestion that qualifies for the kind of answer I just gave. And there were certainly oddballs around a plenty, we all know that. But the character of the testimony given by Lewis earned her a place at the inquest, and we know that Abberline put faith in Hutchinson from the outset. To me, thjat pretty much ensures that a viable connection would not have been missed by all the men involved in the hunt. And that, I suspect, is as far as we are gonna come on that point.

"The “total mismatch” hypothesis doesn’t cut it for me at all. Unlike the above proposal, this is far too predicated on the extraordinary, inexplicable coincidence of two individuals standing in an exposed location in very poor weather conditions at 2:30am on the morning of Kelly’s murder, engaging in ostensibly the same activity of watching and waiting for someone."

Like I said, let´s not make the mistake of believing that wideawake and Hutchinson BOTH stood around for 45 minutes! We simply cannot know what actions wideawake took before and after Lewis´sighting, just as we do not know how much of an observer he was of Miller´s court. Lewis states that he looked up the court as if watching it, but the traditional interpretation of who he was and what he did rests very much on his identification with Hutch, does it not? If he was NOT Hutchinson, then all we have is a man that threw a glance in direction of the court as Lewis passed by. Plus we have the very possible suggestion that Lewis had done a little bit of interpreting herself after the incident, aware that she was that a woman was killed à la the Ripper in that very court!
The "total mismatch" hypothesis actually has a lot going for it, since it would help explaining why Hutch was not taken seriously, and it would explain Dew´s stance.

"In this scenario, I would at least have expected Dew to allude to this bizarre coincidence of two individuals engaging in identical activity but still being different people. Something along the lines that “We initially believed him because of his compatibility with another witness account, until we found out that...pleuh”. "

Sorry, Ben, but we cannot possibly know why Dew chose not to mention why Hutch was left out in the end. It proves nothing, either way. But I think that since Dew does not paint Hutch out as a liar or a time-waster, we are looking at a trivial matter like a mismatch or something rather unsensational, like a mistaken date. Let´s for example ponder the fact that Hutch said that he had returned from Romford. This is something the police would reasonably try to verify. And if that quest ended in somebody down in Romford telling them that yes, he was down here, but no, that was the day before, then there you are.

"Crucially, he doesn’t appear to have known the reasons for Hutchinson dropping off the map."

Hard to tell, I´d say. If the Romford scenario that I suggested applies, then he may well have known about it, and he may have concluded that old George would probably have been wrong about the dates.

"We can get rid of the idea, straight away, that any “proof” had been procured to the effect that Hutchinson was not in Dorset Street on the night in question. We know from the Echo article that this was most emphatically not the case, otherwise they would have cited this as a reason for attaching “very reduced importance” to his account"

No. Once again, we cannot know that. The Echo states ”From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder", and I´m afraid that you are jumping the gun very much when you say that this must mean that the explanation to Hutchinsons dismissal was in print in the statement from the beginning. Once again, apply the Romford testimony suggestion, and you end up with a situation where the police realized that they may need to apply "very reduced importance" to it. They may have found themselves in a situation where Hutch said one thing and a Romford witness the other, and they may have been of the meaning that the latter stood a lot better chance of being correct. After having checked it out, and finding that Hutch WAS indeed wrong, it would have been time for the Star to dismiss him totally. Such a scenario - and dozens of other, likewise plausible scenarios - would tally extremely well with what we´we got.

"But even if this individual did decide, bizarrely, to stop for 20 seconds to peer into a court entrance, it still constitutes a striking coincidence with the actions and movements claimed by Hutchinson at that very time."

It does, Ben. Which is why the police would have spotted it instantly, as would the press. It is a glaringly obvious thing, and it would never have gone amiss - were there not reasons for it. As for wideawake, I have already touched on his role.

"I might agree with your “The implication is that neither police nor press actually believed that he was there”, but I’m supremely confident that this had nothing to do with Hutchinson being “a lean, tall guy”!"

I could not say either way, since I readily admit that I have no description of Hutchinson. The only small pointer we have, seems to tell us that he was NOT a shortish guy, since he stooped down to look Astrakhan in the face. That points more to a tall man than to a short, as has been noted by most in the past.
Any way, I am not "supremely confident" about anything about Hutchinsons looks, so it would seem you have the upper hand here.

"Well, we certainly know some of the reasons why the police had come to attach a “very reduced importance” to Hutchinson’s account because they are provided immediately afterwards."

I answered this in my former post. There is no "we" in this issue.

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

"If, for example, investigators regarded Sarah as a somewhat less than upstanding character, they might have been disinclined to accord her story too much in the way of credibility."

But we know, Garry, that the police believed that Lewis´testimony qualified her for the inquest. I really do not think we can get a much better grading of how the police looked upon it.

A most interesting point, Fish, and one that to my mind is deserving of deeper exploration. To begin with, jurisdiction over inquest proceedings lay not with the police but with the coroner, and it was (and still is) the task of the police to provide the coroner with details of any witness who might provide material information before the court. The decision, therefore, as to who did and who did not appear before the jury lay entirely with the coroner. As such, the fact that Sarah Lewis was called to give evidence should in no way be taken as an indication as to her perceived degree of importance from a police perspective. We know, for example, that Carrie Maxwell was called before the inquest despite the reality that her account was viewed with some scepticism by investigators.

When conducting research for my book prior to the advent of the internet and the extensive indexing of Ripper-related archives, I discovered in the 1881 census returns a fifteen-year-old Sarah Lewis who resided with a sister and their parents at an address in Little Pearl Street. If, as seems likely, this was the Sarah Lewis, we may make a number of deductions. First: Sarah was twenty-two in 1888 and was almost certainly unmarried. This, of course, directly contradicts her claim that she had had a disagreement with her husband on the night in question. Secondly: since the Great/Little Pearl Streets area has been described as ‘particularly rough’, it may be inferred that Sarah was more Mary Kelly than Mary Poppins. And thirdly: her claimed occupation of ‘laundress’ combined with her early morning wanderings suggest that she was a prostitute.

Assuming all of this to be true, we may have an answer as to why the police seemingly failed to accord her narrative the importance it most surely deserved. To this end, compare the way in which investigators treated Mary Cox and Joseph Lawende. Cox viewed Blotchy at close quarters and at a time that was critical in terms of Dr Bond’s projected 1:00am to 2:00am time of death. This sighting was even more salient owing to the fact that several witnesses overheard Kelly singing until 1:00am. Despite this self-evident reality, however, Mary Ann Cox and her description of Kelly’s blotchy-faced drinking cohort were all but brushed aside by the police. Joseph Lawende, on the other hand, was given the Hollywood treatment by investigators. Not only was he sequestered, but part of his inquest evidence was also withheld ‘in the interests of justice’. Yet Lawende sighted Eddowes’ supposed slayer from the other side of the street and from the rear. He also doubted that he would recognize the man again. So how did Lawende come to be seen as a more important witness than Cox?

To my mind there is but one explanation for this discrepancy: social status. Lawende, as the recently discovered photograph bears testimony, was clearly a man of some refinement. He was also a family man, in full employment, and seems to have been a moderate drinker. Mary Ann Cox, conversely, was a common prostitute, a slum-dweller, and almost certainly an alcoholic – an unholy combination that certainly appears to have exerted a negative influence on police thinking. And if this was true of Mary Cox, there is little reason to suppose that Sarah Lewis might have been an exception. In other words, the value of Sarah’s statement was judged not on its own merit, but rather upon the character of the person who supplied it.

As I stated earlier, Fish, you have raised a most interesting issue. And if you are at all sceptical as to the preceding interpretation, I would encourage you to research some of the policing scandals of the Sixties, Seventies and Eighties that revealed similar investigative deficiencies. Be warned, however, that the documented interrogations of alleged rape victims are not for the squeamish.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

“There is reason to realize that there may have been an element of diluting involved, yes - but I do not think it would have stretched to overlook men standing around outside Miller´s Court”

Not overlooked entirely, Fish, just bypassed in terms of significance, and as Garry has already pointed out, it isn’t remotely unusual in high profile investigations for such details to be given scant attention, even when we’re dealing with comparatively more enlightened and sophisticated times in terms of policing.

“Exactly. And that is all-important when trying to understand what happened, the way I see it. It´s either a case of Hutch looking enough alike wideawake man to have been him, and placing himself in a situation where he seemingly corroborates Lewis´testimony - and still he is ignored, not only by the police but also by the investigative forces of the press.”

Yes, that would be the solution which tallies the most with the extant evidence, and the obvious reality outlined by Garry concerning the all-too-human propensity to overlook important details, especially when deluged with “leads” that need pursuing. It would mean that Hutchinson was erroneously dismissed as a publicity-seeker because such people were – and still are – frequently the bane of any high profile police investigation, and it was simply easier to consign him to that category. A recognition that the Lewis and Hutchinson accounts tallied in that key particular would have given them reason to reassess that view, and what few indicators exist would suggest that this connection was never made, even by the discerning folk at the Evening Star, who believed that Hutchinson himself ought to be considered a suspect on account of his implausible statement.

Tellingly, even they failed to arrive at that “Eureka” moment as far as Lewis’ evidence was concerned.

The “total mismatch” hypothesis doesn’t cut it for me at all. Unlike the above proposal, this is far too predicated on the extraordinary, inexplicable coincidence of two individuals standing in an exposed location in very poor weather conditions at 2:30am on the morning of Kelly’s murder, engaging in ostensibly the same activity of watching and waiting for someone. Even if we accept the vastly implausible “different day” angle, the coincidence is still a stretch.

“OR DOES IT SIMPLY MEAN THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF A CONNECTION WERE NEVER REALLY THERE? If Dew KNEW that Hutch and Lewis´loiterer did not match by far,”

No, I don’t consider this a reasonable suggestion at all. In this scenario, I would at least have expected Dew to allude to this bizarre coincidence of two individuals engaging in identical activity but still being different people. Something along the lines that “We initially believed him because of his compatibility with another witness account, until we found out that...pleuh”. Crucially, he doesn’t appear to have known the reasons for Hutchinson dropping off the map. His opinion that Hutchinson was an honest bloke who got the day wrong constitutes just that: an opinion, thus providing another very good reason, in my view, to avoid the temptation to conjure up the existence of some big, unrecorded “something” that ruled Hutchinson out either as Lewis’ loiterer or the murderer.

The salient observation, again, is that the police were only in a position to opine and speculate in the absence of concrete proof.

We can get rid of the idea, straight away, that any “proof” had been procured to the effect that Hutchinson was not in Dorset Street on the night in question. We know from the Echo article that this was most emphatically not the case, otherwise they would have cited this as a reason for attaching “very reduced importance” to his account, and not all the other reasons that had nothing whatsoever to do with proof that he wasn’t there. Again, if proof had been procured, both the Echo and Walter Dew would not have confined themselves to opinions only.

I never claimed or intimated that Dew was personally of the opinion that Hutchinson was a time-waster or a liar. He would obviously aware that the account had been discredited, and therefore speculated as to why. He clearly was not in the “Know”. But I disagree very strongly with the idea that he knew of the existence of a possible connection with another witness (which he inexplicably failed to mention) and that it had been dismissed. I think it far more likely that he was simply unaware that the connection had ever been inferred – probably because it hasn’t. Once again, the latter explanation is a lot less “fill-in-the-blanks”.

“A twenty-second stop in a doorway, combined with a glance up the court on the other side of the street does not equal a witnessed-about forty-five minutes of careful watching, does it?”

The wideawake man would have been visible from the time Lewis emerged onto Dorset Street from Commercial Street until the moment she entered the interconnecting passage to Miller’s Court. This would have taken roughly 20 seconds, I imagine, and at no point was the individual recorded as being anything other than stationary and solitary. She even made the distinction between the unmoving wideawake man and another couple who “passed along”. But even if this individual did decide, bizarrely, to stop for 20 seconds to peer into a court entrance, it still constitutes a striking coincidence with the actions and movements claimed by Hutchinson at that very time.

"It HAS to have been Hutch" is a very dangerous conclusion to draw, all things considered.”

I have considered “all things”, and although “has to me” implies a level of certainty that none of us is entitled to, I’d say the man was very probably Hutchinson. All other explanations fail to account for the coincidence above referred to, or make unsuccessful (IMO) attempts to downplay that coincidence. I might agree with your “The implication is that neither police nor press actually believed that he was there”, but I’m supremely confident that this had nothing to do with Hutchinson being “a lean, tall guy”!

“YOU may think that WE know, but let me assure you that WE do nothing of the kind. Please remember that you admitted in an earlier post that my suggestion of something turning up that could have discarded Hutchinson”

Well, we certainly know some of the reasons why the police had come to attach a “very reduced importance” to Hutchinson’s account because they are provided immediately afterwards. In that respect, at least, there is no mystery, and it is certainly not “my own version”. We were discussing the various catalysts that might have fuelled this doubt in the first place, and you made the sensible suggestion that Hutchinson may have made a few ill-guarded comments to the police when on his walkabout.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"If, for example, investigators regarded Sarah as a somewhat less than upstanding character, they might have been disinclined to accord her story too much in the way of credibility."

But we know, Garry, that the police believed that Lewis´testimony qualified her for the inquest. I really do not think we can get a much better grading of how the police looked upon it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"it’s worth bearing in mind that given the relatively large number of “suspicious” individuals reported in the area, the significance of the Wideawake loiterer could easily have been overlooked."

There is reason to realize that there may have been an element of diluting involved, yes - but I do not think it would have stretched to overlook men standing around outside Miller´s Court, seemingly watching it, at a time when the murder may have been planned and perpetrated.

"Garry just raised the crucial point that not even the press appeared to have made the connection"

Exactly. And that is all-important when trying to understand what happened, the way I see it. It´s either a case of Hutch looking enough alike wideawake man to have been him, and placing himself in a situation where he seemingly corroborates Lewis´testimony - and still he is ignored, not only by the police but also by the investigative forces of the press. In other words, what you yourself and Garry regard as a very hot match for the Ripper, was completely and utterly overlooked by both police and press in spite of the inherent, very obvious qualities as a Ripper suspect. It was a top priority crime, engaging hundreds of coppers and swarms of journalists, all looking for the slightest pointer that could lead them to the Rippers doorstep - and yet, they ALL failed to see this ...?
Or, if you are wrong, we are dealing with a situation where the police did not make the connection and the press did not sniff it up for the very simple reason that there WAS no connection. This could owe to, for example, a total mismatch inbetween Lewis´ loiterer and Hutchinson, or to - as I have stated numerous times - something popping up that effectively closed that particular alley of investigation down.

"Dew’s observations make clear that he, at least, was unaware of any connection"

Exactly once again, Ben! And why was Dew not aware of any connection? That would depend on who you ask. Because the joint forces of the police and the press were unable to put two and two together - that´s your bid. But think a little bit further, Ben: does the fact that Dew does not mention the connection mean that it would not have been made if the circumstances called for it at the time? OR DOES IT SIMPLY MEAN THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF A CONNECTION WERE NEVER REALLY THERE? If Dew KNEW that Hutch and Lewis´loiterer did not match by far, then why would he speak of a connection? If it had been proven that Hutchinson was not in Dorset Street on the night in question, then why would he speak of a connection? Think about it, Ben - if Walter Dew was of the meaning that Hutchinson was an honest witness - and the implications are that he was of that exact meaning - then why would he suggest that he was wrong on the dates, UNLESS HE HAD GOOD REASON TO SUSPECT THAT THIS WAS THE CASE? Unless, that is, the implications were that Hutchinson was NOT the man Lewis testified to?
Nota bene, Walter Dew does not say that Hutchinson was a publicity seeker, he does not speak of a story made up - he takes Hutchinsons testimony at face value, but he is aware that Hutchinsons story was in some manner discredited at the time; therefore he offers the possibility that Hutch had mixed the dates up.
Summing up, Walter Dew does not in any fashion support a wiew that Hutch was a liar or a conscioius time-waster, and he certainly does not strengthen your suggestion of a non-connection either. He points not to a glaringly obvious connection being overlooked, but instead to that connection never being a viable option.

"it should be clear from Lewis’ evidence that the lurker was both solitary and stationary, and that he was apparently watching or waiting for someone"

It IS clear, Ben. What is NOT clear, though, is that he stood there for fortifive minutes, as Hutch claimed to have done. The mistake we may be doing here is to state that Lewis´man did the exact same thing as Hutchinson did, because we cannot possibly know this. A twenty-second stop in a doorway, combined with a glance up the court on the other side of the street does not equal a witnessed-about forty-five minutes of careful watching, does it? For all we know, that may have been all Lewis loiterer did. He may have left Dorset Street the moment she turned the corner.

"It HAS to have been Hutch" is a very dangerous conclusion to draw, all things considered. Not least since we KNOW that Hutchinson was dropped. The implication is that neither police nor press actually believed that he was there - and if you really need Walter Dew to strengthen a suggestion, then how about this one?

"we know that the police were already attaching a “very reduced importance” by the 13th November, and very importantly, we know why."

Not that again, please, Ben. YOU may think that WE know, but let me assure you that WE do nothing of the kind. Please remember that you admitted in an earlier post that my suggestion of something turning up that could have discarded Hutchinson could have something going for it, although you favoured your own version! Let´s not be dogmatic about things that we cannot be dogmatic about.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

this sighting would reasonably have been interpreted by the police as a very possible sighting of the Ripper

I agree, but it’s worth bearing in mind that given the relatively large number of “suspicious” individuals reported in the area, the significance of the Wideawake loiterer could easily have been overlooked. Lewis herself was far more perturbed by the man standing at the corner of Dorset Street outside the Britannia pub, as she took him to have been the same individual who accosted her and a female companion on the Wednesday prior to the murder. The emphasis placed on this individual could easily have overshadowed any potential significance the wideawake man may have had to the investigation, and with Blotchy reported as the last man seen in kelly’s company, that significance would have been reduced even further.

Garry just raised the crucial point that not even the press appeared to have made the connection, despite their demonstrated eagerness exhibited elsewhere to engage with the subject of eyewitness sightings and descriptions. Even the one press article (from the Washington Evening Star) that did drop the veiled hint that the police should consider Hutchinson a viable suspect never alluded to this connection.

Overall, I consider it marginally more likely that the Hutch-wideawake connection was never observed. There’s no evidence that the police or press ever picked up on it, and Dew’s observations make clear that he, at least, was unaware of any connection. These factors may not be decisive in isolation from each other, but tend to make a more compelling case for the non-connection when added together. In my view, at least.

“There is every chance that the wideawake man could have stopped quite briefly on his way through Dorset Street, and if he did it opposite Miller´s Court, it would not be a very odd thing to do to throw a glance in that direction. And if this happened as Lewis passed by, well, then the behaviour of wideawake man may not at all have equalled what Hutch spoke of.”

I accept the observation that we only have Hutchinson’s word for it that he waited there for as long as he claimed. On the other hand, it should be clear from Lewis’ evidence that the lurker was both solitary and stationary, and that he was apparently watching or waiting for someone. All three correspond to Hutchinson’s own claims with regard to his actions and movements. It’s still too much of a “stretch”, even if we accept the “different day” hypothesis. I’m also doubtful in the extreme that Dew should have avoided any mention of Lewis if he knew of this interesting correlation of detail between the two accounts.

“Likewise, we know that Hutchinson changed details when speaking to the press - but have a look at the almighty number of details that stayed unchanged! Maybe such a thing would call for a renewed set of questions from thepolice - but it would certainly not render him a dismissal!”

But we know that the police were already attaching a “very reduced importance” by the 13th November, and very importantly, we know why. The reasons were outlined in the Echo article. It doesn’t require a great deal for a “very reduced importance” to be downgraded further to an outright “dismissal”, and the heavily embellished and contradictory press claims could easily have provided the catalyst for this. It was as though the “authorities” were looking for excuses to consign the account to the dustbin, and it appears that his press offerings may have achieved this. For another instance of not-so-coincidental timing, consider that the The Star’s revelation that the account was “now discredited” came a single day after Hutchinson’s “fuller” account appeared in the newspapers.

So I’m afraid I continue to disagree very strongly that “Hutch´s dismissal would have taken a lot more than this”.

Best regards,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

It is beyond belief that the Police wouldn't compare Hutch's statement with that of Lewis.

I’m not so sure, Ruby. If, for example, investigators regarded Sarah as a somewhat less than upstanding character, they might have been disinclined to accord her story too much in the way of credibility. If they also placed undue weight on Dr Bond’s projected 1:00am to 2:00am time of death, Sarah’s narrative might have been construed as interesting but irrelevant owing to the fact that it entailed a 2:30am sighting of Wideawake – in other words, at least thirty minutes after Kelly was thought to have died. (Bear in mind that a similar situation arose in the Chapman case when ‘civilian’ testimony was all but disregarded when it conflicted with Dr Phillips’ estimated time of death.) It may well be the case, therefore, that when Hutchinson materialized three days later, no-one thought to re-examine Sarah’s seemingly insignificant story concerning the man she observed staring intently into Miller’s Court. And since Hutchinson was apparently discredited within hours, it is unlikely that time and effort would have been wasted in cross-checking the story of a time-waster, even if it had occurred to anyone to so do.

Whilst admittedly speculative, such an interpretation is by no means beyond the bounds of possibility. Indeed, the annals of crime are positively awash with investigations that went awry precisely because of a police failure to recognize the true significance of seemingly insignificant evidence. Hence I’m by no means convinced that the police made the connection between Hutchinson and Sarah Lewis’s Wideawake Man. Given that the press seems to have overlooked it, I think it highly likely that the police did too.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Fisherman]

Abby:

"I think that more than likely they did match Lewis man with Hutch as one in the same, and instead of a suspect Hutch is now a witness and then hutch was eventually downgraded as even a witness when A-man does not turn up and Hutch changes his story in the press."

If all witnesses who saw somebody at a crime site, somebody who proved hard to find afterwards, were to be discarded as credible witnesses, we would have a strange situation indeed. What if Astrakhan man emigrated to Russia the day after Miller´s Court? Would that make Hutchinson a bad witness per se..? I think not.
Likewise, we know that Hutchinson changed details when speaking to the press - but have a look at the almighty number of details that stayed unchanged! Maybe such a thing would call for a renewed set of questions from thepolice - but it would certainly not render him a dismissal! Even if the suspicion was there on behalf of the police - how would it look if that suspicion was proven wrong afterwards? No, Hutch´s dismissal would have taken a lot more than this, I´m sure.

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

I think that the simplest explanation is that Hutch followed the case, knew that a witness had testified to 'wideawake hat' man in the court, and he then
presented himself to the Police...with the timings and inference being that he was 'wideawake man'.

It is beyond belief that the Police wouldn't compare Hutch's statement with that of Lewis.

I still contend that if the Abberline was willing to accept Hutch's statement straight off -then he matched the physical description of the man seen in the court...whether or not not he was that man

If the police did not put the 'man in the court' to the top of the suspect list subsequently then I think that, even if they dismissed Hutch, they still believed that Hutch was that man.

Why would they not be looking for Wideawake Man as the prime suspect, otherwise ?

Hi Ruby

I think that the simplest explanation is that Hutch followed the case, knew that a witness had testified to 'wideawake hat' man in the court, and he then
presented himself to the Police...with the timings and inference being that he was 'wideawake man'.

Even simpler-he was telling the truth about being the lurker, whether or not he had any idea about lewis testimoney of Wideawake man.

It is beyond belief that the Police wouldn't compare Hutch's statement with that of Lewis.

Pretty much agree-can't see how they could have missed it. but maybe they did.

I think that more than likely they did match Lewis man with Hutch as one in the same, and instead of a suspect Hutch is now a witness and then hutch was eventually downgraded as even a witness when A-man does not turn up and Hutch changes his story in the press.

[Rubyretro]

I think that the simplest explanation is that Hutch followed the case, knew that a witness had testified to 'wideawake hat' man in the court, and he then
presented himself to the Police...with the timings and inference being that he was 'wideawake man'.

It is beyond belief that the Police wouldn't compare Hutch's statement with that of Lewis.

I still contend that if the Abberline was willing to accept Hutch's statement straight off -then he matched the physical description of the man seen in the court...whether or not not he was that man

If the police did not put the 'man in the court' to the top of the suspect list subsequently then I think that, even if they dismissed Hutch, they still believed that Hutch was that man.

Why would they not be looking for Wideawake Man as the prime suspect, otherwise ?

[Fisherman]

Hi Ben!

"As it stands, and strictly speaking, there is no evidence that the police made the Hutch-wideawake connection and no evidence that such a connection was ever inferred until 100 years after the event."

There is not, that is correct.
So we are left with the fact that Lewis stated that there had been a man standing opposite Miller´s Court, as if watching it, and this sighting would reasonably have been interpreted by the police as a very possible sighting of the Ripper (though we do not have this on record either, as you will notice).
We are also left with the fact that as the police were wondering about just who the wideawake man could have been, George Hutchinson enters the stage and tells the police that he spent a good deal of the night in question standing opposite Miller´s court, watching it.
Finally we are left with your suggestion that the police may not have noticed that these two separate phenomenons seemingly point in the exact same direction, and my suggestion that they would not have missed such a thing. And quite honestly, the fact that we do not have any documentation pointing the finger in either direction, does not mean that it would be somehow more trustworthy to believe that the connection was not made. To my eye, that would defy logic. But just like you point out, our mileages often differ, Ben.

"Surely it compounds the problem?
Surely, in that scenario, we’re compelled to accept that two separate individuals were standing outside the entrance to Miller’s Court at 2:30am on the night in question, both “watching and waiting” for someone? And we’d be wondering why “lean, tall” Hutchinson, on his identical mission to that of Mr. Wideawake, wasn’t observed by Lewis. Unless I’ve misunderstood the suggested scenario, I find this very implausible, and it still stretches that odd coincidence of Hutchinson’s account of his movements just happening to coincide with the behaviour of the wideawake man as reported by Lewis, and that Hutchinson’s decision to come forward with this information just happened to coincide with the release of Lewis’ information."

Please note, Ben, that this is not any suggestion on MY behalf - it may, however, have been a suggestion on Dews behalf, explaining why he opened up for the possibility of a mistaken date on Hutchinson´s behalf! It would of course be odd if there were two men in Dorset Street on two consecutive days, both seemingly watching Miller´s Court at the same hour - but it would be even more strange if they were there on the same day! And that is why I mean that Dew may have opted for a mistaken date. We must remember that we do not know that the loiterer stood around for 45 minutes. We only know that Hutch SAID that HE did! There is every chance that the wideawake man could have stopped quite briefly on his way through Dorset Street, and if he did it opposite Miller´s Court, it would not be a very odd thing to do to throw a glance in that direction. And if this happened as Lewis passed by, well, then the behaviour of wideawake man may not at all have equalled what Hutch spoke of. Maybe this is how Dew´s thoughts wandered - provided that he theoretically KNEW that the two men were very much unalike each other.
Of course it stretches things a bit, but if Dew felt that he wanted to believe in both Lewis and Hutch, then this may have been how he coped with the problem.

Then again, if Dew KNEW that Hutch was dropped as a time-waster, Ben, then why would he want to place him in Dorset Street at all, fifty years after it all went down...? That too represents a riddle, wouldn´t you say?

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

I think that Witness Statements -even if the Witness is the most honest person in the world-are always to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Luckily we have DNA testing finger printing and cameras today.

My two experiences with 'witnessing' (I've already recounted them) proved to me that they are false. Also my experiences of 'creative deep relaxation' prove that you can make crystal clear memories of things that never happened.

If you ask your brain to supply details from your memory, I think that it will supply you with 'an answer' -even if that answer is false- in the same way that that you would be compelled to give an hypnotist 'an answer' to any question posed.

You can experiment yourself with people around you by writing down 'memories' of, say, the last time you went to a pub with your partner
..what time you arrived, who was there, where they were standing, what they drank, what they were wearing, what they said, when they left. I amost guarantee that if you both write things down separately and then compare, that there will be differences...differences which might be crucial in a serious ivestigation.

Even memory card games and that 'object on a tray' game, show that when conciously trying to remember details, it's quite difficult ; so even more difficult when not realising the importance of an event when it's happening.

Is it possible that Dew mixed up Bowyer with Fiona Kendall's Grandfather, whom he might have seen subsequently ?

[Garry Wroe]

I personally would never assume that someone [Packer*] that the police realized was fibbing to them would not then cross their minds as a possible suspect. He did spend some quality time at the Yard so we are not talking about snap decisions.

I’m assuming nothing, SRA. Police thinking regarding Packer was clearly defined in a report submitted to the Home Office by Swanson in which it was stated that Packer had ‘unfortunately made different statements so ... any statement he made would be rendered almost valueless as evidence.’ Manifestly, therefore, Packer was still being viewed at senior police level as a witness, albeit one whose claims could not be trusted by dint of their inconsistency. And if he was a witness, he most certainly wasn’t a suspect.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[*] My insertion.