“Ben – let me tell you that newspaper editors do deliberately take different lines on stories just to be different.”
You’re referring to deliberate fabrication on the part on the part of the Echo and suggesting that the Star independently came up with the same fabrication. That’s rather a hefty accusation with very little to back it up. As for the Star taking a different line, we know that they were initially enthusiastic about Hutchinson’s account when they provided it in full on the 14th. It would only have hindered their own credibility if they did a U-turn the next day and claimed falsely that the account had been discredited. So the evidence is not ambiguous – it is wholly supportive of the obvious reality that Hutchinson’s statement was discredited.
“The fact that Abberline didn’t mention Hutchinson at a later date means what exactly?”
Despite the various disagreements between the police officials, all effectively exclude Hutchinson, which lends tremendous support to the contention of the Echo and the Star that the account was discredited. Dew was seemingly aware of this discrediting, but was apparently not informed as to why, and far from me “disregarding” Dew, it just happened to be me who introduced this extract of his memoirs to you and my other naysayers.
“Also Ben, you seem to be slightly ill-informed as Dew did not claim that Thomas Bowyer was ‘young’, he didn’t mention Thomas Bowyer by name at all”
“I would suggest that 2.15 isn’t materially outside the range of Dew’s estimation of time of death being before 2.00 am.”
“She claimed to know Marie Kelly”. The inference is that she claimed to, but in fact didn’t.”
He was simply making a statement of fact – that she claimed to know Kelly. He wasn’t expressing personal doubt about it all, but rather simply avoided creating a misleading impression that it had been proven beyond doubt that Maxwell knew Kelly. He stated that from his experience, witnesses can be wrong NOT necessarily as to identity, but as to time and date; the logical inference being that Maxwell and Hutchinson both erred in this regard, in his controversial opinion.
“He realised he’d been seen at the crime scene by another witness and came forward with a fabricated account designed to both legitimise his presence and deflect suspicion in a spurious direction.”
I will quite readily accept that is a possibility. An unlikely possibility though.
I will quite readily accept that is a possibility. An unlikely possibility though.
The evidence of Sarah Lewis is inextricably linked to that of “Mrs, Kennedy” who was interviewed by the police and whose evidence appeared in the newspapers from 10th November. Kennedy was either Lewis herself incognito or another women Chinese-whispering her account, but whether Hutchinson was aware of this or not, he could easily have picked up on the detail (in Kennedy's account) that the court occupants for the night were effectively interned there early the next morning while the police searched for witnesses. Hutchinson would have picked up the detail that whoever the woman was who passed him, she would certainly have been quizzed by the police the next morning.
As the inquest approached, it could have been an incredibly simple case of observing – physically observing - that the woman who had spotted him that night was due to be called as a witness. Either that or he observed her departure from Shoreditch Town Hall after having provided her evidence. This is by no means outlandish given the crowds that hovered in the area at the time, and which threatened to overwhelm the coroner’s court. In any case, the moment Lewis provided her account to the inquest, it was effectively public knowledge, and there were plenty of avenues available for ascertaining the details, several of which I’ve already mentioned. My point about Leather Apron was purely to illustrate the extent to which rumours travelled far as wide in the district.
“To be ill-informed or even similarly ill-informed, I must have been informed by someone. Who?”
“The only relevance is that the Victoria Home required a special pass in order to gain entry after 12.30/1.00 am.”
“There must have been some personal aspect to the pass or anyone could have come in late.... errrr and they wouldn’t be special anymore.”
No personal aspect.
There is no evidence, anywhere, for a “personal aspect” to any pass. What do you mean anyone could have come in late? We know it wasn’t anyone – it was anyone with a generic metal cheque that either had “weekly pass” engraved on it, or was a certain colour to differentiate daily from weekly passes. Obviously, the Victoria Home would have regulated the number of these available in order to prevent overcrowding. It sounds like you’re just getting carried away with the word “special” for some reason.
“Again, it is my opinion that as it was not straight forward to gain access to the Victoria Home after 12.30/1.00 am it is an implausible location for a night murderer, when there were many other lodging houses near-by that let people come and go at any time.”
“I would humbly suggest that if you need to progress your theory that Hutchinson did it, then to gain credibility you must move him out of the Victoria Home. Also work out a better explanation as to why he appeared at Commercial Street nick after the inquest – one that doesn’t rely on him hearing Lewis’s testimony.”
Best regards,
Ben
Comment