Innocent, By George!

[Lechmere]

A couple of points Mr Ben.

Although we can sensibly conclude that the police lost confidence in Hutchinson’s worth as a witness, we cannot certainly conclude that the police thought he was lying.

Nor can we conclude that Abberline personally had a change of heart later on the evening of 12th November. The Echo report is not proof of this. The press have been known to over exaggerate or even make things up. A rival officer who preferred a rival witness statement could have told the Echo. These things happen.

The same goes for the Star story. As I have pointed out, other newspapers, including local ones, continued to regard Hutchinson as a credible witness for quite a few days longer. The situation was clearly ambiguous.

I would suggest that if Hutchinson had ‘dropped a bollock’ while out with an officer for three hours on the night of 12th, such feedback would be far too late to affect a news report in the Echo, which went on sale on 13th.
It seems odd to me that Hutchinson was shown Kelly’s corpse next day and taken out with a policeman again.

The very fact that the press and the police don’t seem to have connected Hutchinson to the wide-awake man, may well suggest that there was good reason not to connect them – i.e. they weren’t the same person.

Lastly, of all the testimony given at the inquest, Lewis’s seems to have been the most overlooked. You seem to accept this and have mentioned several times the fact that the wide-awake man and Hutchinson were not linked at the time. You therefore should accept that this makes it unlikely that the detail of the Lewis testimony would have reached Hutchinson’s eager ears (outside Shoreditch Town Hall or even less likely back to the Victoria Home) and so provoked him to trotting off to the police station to give his account.

[The Grave Maurice]

Yes pure hearsay evidence - literally.

Legal aside: Actually, it isn't. Hearsay is a statement, originating with someone else, that is repeated by a witness in order to establish the truth of the statement. What we have here is direct evidence. And, if you say it, Lech, I believe it.

[Lechmere]

Mr Ben

There is a club – by which I mean an establishment frequented by members of the younger generation to imbibe alcoholic beverages and listen to loud rhythmic sounds – in what were the subterranean public conveniences outside Christ Church Spitalfields. This is more or less opposite the site of where the Britannia would have been.
There is a cordoned off area at the top of the stairs that lead down to the club – which is called ‘Public Life’. In this area some of the clientele congregate to smoke cigarettes.
Please note that I did not say the club was a third of the way down what was Dorset Street.

Now we have that established, I will continue.
I was not in the vicinity with the express purpose of carrying out the experiment, otherwise I would have gone down there in the small hours of a mid week evening, when it would be quiet - and I may yet do that.

I had been to an event in Bethnal Green and afterwards wanted to check out a new chip shop on Hanbury Street. The nearest parking place I could find was outside the Providence Row Refuge. I can place the time as parking restrictions end at 10.00pm on the east side of Commercial Street and there were wardens lurking. On the western side it is easier to park. So actually in retrospect by the time I had parked and got my chips (and pie) and did the test it was about 10.00 pm.

On the way back to the car I thought ‘I know I’ll do a little test.’ I was not trying to hear the clubbers, I was actually trying not to hear them, but they were too noisy. I could hear them distinctively though.

From the corner with Commercial Street I could just hear what was said at the approximate entrance to Miller’s Court. My accomplice spoke in a raised voice, which was a long way sort of a shout (there were people in the car park opposite and they were too embarrassed to stand in a deserted side street alone and shout).

I am certain that on a quiet night (with no clubbers and fewer cars) a raised voice would be heard distinctively. I won’t answer for knowing the colour of a handkerchief at night and at that range however.

I hope this clears up your confusion Mr Ben.
By the way I don’t think I have been rude or aggressive in my posts.

[Lechmere]

Ah - direct evidence. Excellent

[Ben]

What we have here is direct evidence

And I trust you'd say the same of my experiences in London as reported above, GM.

“Although we can sensibly conclude that the police lost confidence in Hutchinson’s worth as a witness, we cannot certainly conclude that the police thought he was lying.”

Not “certainly”, Lechmere, no, but this was by far the most common reason for the discrediting of certain witnesses adjudged to be false. The fact that Hutchinson was included in a Star article alongside Matthew Packer which carried the headline “Worthless stories” is most revealing in terms of what it says about the police’s views on Hutchinson by the 15th November. Yes, it doesn’t prove that they considered Hutchinson a liar, but it is to be considered a very telling indication in that regard. Bear in mind that doubts that already surfaced by the 13th November as reported in the Echo. The Star simply offered further independent support of this.

I consider it extremely unlikely that the Echo was supplied false information. They referred explicitly to the “authorities” who came to attach a “very reduced importance” to Hutchinson’s account in light of later investigations. Both reports accord very favourably with the evidence contained in subsequent police reports, memoirs and interviews, from which Hutchinson is clearly absent.

The fact that other newspapers continued to mention Hutchinson’s account after 15th is therefore only evidence that they were not provided with the salient details that were supplied to the Star and the Echo.

Observe in particular that the Echo made reference to “later investigations” that had led to the reduction of importance attached to Hutchinson’s claim. Clearly, they were referring to investigations that occurred subsequent to his initial police statement, indicated that enough time had by then elapsed in which to make reasonable assessments as to Hutchinson’s believability. Significantly, however, these investigations only resulted in doubts surrounding his account, and certainly not the acquisition of proof that he had confused the day or was “honestly mistaken” about anything else.

Incidentally, it appears that the “reduced importance” reference may have appeared in an evening issue of the paper, since Hutchinson was introduced as the author of a potentially crucial witness account in the same paper earlier that day. In which case, there was ample time for the results of the previous night’s Astrak-hunt to reach the ears of the Echo’s reporters.

“The very fact that the press and the police don’t seem to have connected Hutchinson to the wide-awake man, may well suggest that there was good reason not to connect them – i.e. they weren’t the same person.”

We’ve been over this more than a few times, but it seems more likely to me that the two were never connected because Lewis’ and Hutchinson’s evidence was never cross referenced, either by the police or press, at least not to the extent that his possible candidacy for the role of the wideawake man was ever contemplated.

“Lastly, of all the testimony given at the inquest, Lewis’s seems to have been the most overlooked. You seem to accept this and have mentioned several times the fact that the wide-awake man and Hutchinson were not linked at the time”

I suggested it may have been overlooked by the police. That doesn’t mean that the local interested populace were applying the same priorities to the individual witnesses. As the inquest approached, it would have been an incredibly simple case of either hearing of Lewis’ evidence through the grapevine, or 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.

But here too we’re in done to death territory.

Regards,
Ben

[The Grave Maurice]

And I trust you'd say the same of my experiences in London as reported above, GM.

Yes, I believe everything you say as well, Ben. Come to think of it, this may explain why I've never been called for jury duty.

[Ben]

Thank you for the clarification, Lechmere.

I'm rather glad you fixed the location, as I’m sure you would understand how I might have been perplexed by your claim to have heard conversation or raised voices “from where Miller’s Court was”, which wasn’t opposite the Britannia or outside Christ Church. It may be a relatively minor point, but the distance in question is considerably less than the distance between the corners of Dorset Street and Miller’s Court (as was). Unless the clubbers were shouting exclamations in an obviously loud rather than raised voice, I consider it very unlikely that actual conversation could have been detected. Neither Levy nor Lawende could hear conversation from less than ten feet away in Duke Street in much quieter conditions, and the same may be said of PC Smith when he passed in close proximity to Liz Stride and the man with the newspaper parcel.

Hutchinson’s initial police statement mentioned nothing about a “loud voice”. He merely had Kelly saying to her nearby companion, “Come along my dear, you will be most comfortable”. Hardly an exclamation, which wasn’t remotely necessary considering the proximity of her alleged companion, even she was “a bit spreeish”. The “loud” reference only appeared in subsequent press versions of his account, and the “Come along my dear” reference is curiously absent from all of these. Unfortunately, if anyone wants this phrase AND the “loud voice” to reflect the truth, they have the unenviable task of deciding upon a pick-and-mix combination of both press and police accounts, with all the contradictions and embellishments that would entail, to say nothing of the extended Astrakhan description which included a pale AND dark complexion, a slight AND heavy moustache etc.

Meanwhile, back on topic...

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

I'm sure you'd do a great job, GM. At the very least, you are au fait with some crucial legal definitions and distinctions lost on most!

[Lechmere]

Mr Ben

The wording of the Echo and the Star stories do not imply lying either. It was left open. We know Dew certainly didn’t suggest that Hutchinson was lying.

I have said this before but if you asked a number of people to describe a given event that they all witnessed, you will get dramatically different accounts. People’s minds play tricks with them at the best of times. This does not mean they were lying.

If the police did think Hutchinson was lying I would suggest that they would have looked closely at him. I am surprised you don’t prefer the option that they dismissed him as they just thought he was muddled up. I think that would give you a better case.

The other newspapers would have been aware of what was said in the Echo and the Star. It is highly unlikely that they would not have checked to make sure they did not make fools of themselves.

I think this suggests that the official line persisted that Hutchinson was a credible witness, but that certain officers gave inside information, or their own personal view, that Hutchinson wasn’t to be believed. I emphasise this doesn’t by any means imply that Hutchinson must have been regarded as a liar. They may just have regarded him as being honestly mistaken.

Another alternative is that he convinced them he was honestly mistaken when he was in fact lying. He may have been lying – or embroidering - for example in order to earn a few bob as a roving informant.

Incidentally the police may have been reluctant to publicly say Hutchinson was wrong (for whatever reason) as they were sensitive about looking foolish in putting too great a store in Hutchinson’s story without checking it out first.

[Garry Wroe]

Lastly, of all the testimony given at the inquest, Lewis’s seems to have been the most overlooked. You seem to accept this and have mentioned several times the fact that the wide-awake man and Hutchinson were not linked at the time. You therefore should accept that this makes it unlikely that the detail of the Lewis testimony would have reached Hutchinson’s eager ears (outside Shoreditch Town Hall or even less likely back to the Victoria Home) and so provoked him to trotting off to the police station to give his account.

Assuming your final sentence to be true, Lechmere, Hutchinson must have come forward in total ignorance of Lewis’s testimony and yet still placed himself at the same location as the man seen staring intently into Miller’s Court. Unless (as I suspect you might) you dismiss this co-occurrence as nothing more than coincidence, it must be concluded that the Lewis account provides independent corroboration for Hutchinson’s claimed Dorset Street vigil. More to the point, it extinguishes any potentiality that Hutchinson confused the date on which this vigil occurred.

[Ben]

“The wording of the Echo and the Star stories do not imply lying either.”

Yes it does, Lechmere.

The “discrediting” of Hutchinson was announced under the headline “Worthless stories lead police astray”, not “Helpful honest witness gets hopelessly muddled”. Again, Matthew Packer appeared in the same article, obviously implying that the police had lumped both "witnesses" into the same category, and there can be little doubting which category Packer was consigned to. The word “lying” wasn’t used specifically, that is true, but then as far as I’m aware, the expression was never applied to Packer or Violenia either. Both police and press were simply being guarded somewhat in their terminology. Even so, the Star couldn’t really have been more obvious in their implications.

“I am surprised you don’t prefer the option that they dismissed him as they just thought he was muddled up.”

Gosh, wouldn’t that be convenient. But damn it, it’s just so implausible, Lechmere. “Muddling up” as a general concept I can cope with quite easily, but misremembering an entire day when there were other memorable events occurring concurrently with that “misremembered” day is far too much to take on board as I’ve discussed ad nauseam. The "honestly mistaken" premise is merely a form of resistance to the infinitely more likely explanation that Hutchinson lied in his account. Even if we ignore the sheer wealth of detail allegedly noticed and memorized, the nature of what, or rather who, was being described is so outlandish.

I don’t think it’s so much the case that the “the official line persisted that Hutchinson was a credible witness”. More likely, a few newspapers got wind of more accurate information.

“If the police did think Hutchinson was lying I would suggest that they would have looked closely at him.”

Probably not as a suspect, though.

Still no.

All the best,
Ben

[Lechmere]

Mr Wroe
While I would grant that Fisherman’s ‘day out theory’ is credible, if I had to chose one version of events it would not be that.
I do think it is almost certainly a coincidence that Hutchinson seemingly placed himself in the position described by Lewis. I don’t think it would be a remarkable coincidence at all, if he was there and she was there.
In any event it may not have been him. It may have been someone else (eg a resident from Crossinghams).
It could be that he didn’t go there at all and was lying, or he went there the day before, or at a slightly different time.

Mr Ben
The newspaper quotes you just provided do not imply lying. It is pointless saying they do when they manifestly do not. You can interpret them that way, but you can equally interpret them to mean he was mistaken.

I won’t go back over why I believe you are wrong to discount the possibility that Hutchinson could have got muddled up over a day, but in any event there are more things that someone could get muddled up with than dates. He could have been muddled up about who Kelly was. He may have seen someone else altogether.

If only a handful of newspapers got the true story, don’t you think the police would have wanted all the papers to have the correct story, rather than negligently watch all the other papers print misleading information about a suspect?

[Ben]

The newspaper quotes you just provided do not imply lying. It is pointless saying they do when they manifestly do not

It is pointless saying they don't when they manifestly do, Lechmere.

Gosh, these things do go on, don't they?

I'm astonished by your interpretation of the wording in the Star and Echo, but you're of course welcome to it, just as you're welcome to believe the similarity between Hutchinson and the Lewis' wideawake loiterer was pure coincidence, as was Hutchinson's decision to come forward shortly after the release of her inquest evidence. I'm amazed, though.

"If only a handful of newspapers got the true story, don’t you think the police would have wanted all the papers to have the correct story"

Unless, of course, your suggestion applied:

the police may have been reluctant to publicly say Hutchinson was wrong (for whatever reason) as they were sensitive about looking foolish in putting too great a store in Hutchinson’s story without checking it out first.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

" it’s not as though a grotty pick-up truck was remotely out of ordinary for the surroundings in which the boy made his observations"

What does that matter - the observations the boy made were unique to that particular truck They did not ALL have the same dents and the same shapes of rust patches, I´m afraid.

"your laughably irrational demand that I provide an example of something that I know for certain occurred is akin to demanding other examples of East End eviscerating serial killers."

It can be any killer in any time at any place; I am open for eny suggestion. And I still say that you won´t find another example of the behaviour you think Abberline stod for. Instead you will find thousands of cases where added evidence makes the police change their minds. That is extremely telling. As for Garry, since you mention him, he has, I belive, stated that he thinks there is a good possibility that something came up during Hutchinons walk with the police escort through Whitechapel, and that this may have been what changed the picture.

"We know it happened"

The ONLY thing we "know" is that the testimony was discarded. We know NOT why this happened. Unless you want to claim the opposite, Ben? So please don´t use this knowledge to try and bolster your opinion. It works admirably with my opinion too. AND if I am right, then Abberline becomes one of thousands and thousands of policemen who have quickly changed their opinion since new evidence surfaced. If you are right, Abberline becomes the only senior police officer in the history of crime to have made a definitive call of honesty, only to retract it the fewest of hours later WITH NO ADDED FURTHER EVIDENCE. My suggestion is one of triviality, your one of total uniqueness. The answer should be simple enough and in accordance with what history tells us.

" It coincides with a determination to avoid making it absurdly obvious that it was her evidence that spurred him"

That´s as bad as a suggestion gets. It´s rock bottom. NOBODY is so stupid as not to be able to put two and two together and realize that when we watch an entrance in a deserted street, it is strange if we don´t see the one person entering it. Moreover, it would not in any fashion have given away any sinister murder plan if he admitted to seeing her. How could it? Why would it? Do you think the police would have leapt out of their chairs and cried "Murderer!" if he said that there was a woman going into the court at around 2.15? Of course not - the proposal is silly. On the other hand, when the police realized that Hutchinson said he was there at the same time Lewis had claimed to pass into the court, THEN there would have been some major consternation if he also claimed steadfstly that nobody passed into the court at 2.15. And such a thing would make the police start doubting his testimony - as evinced by the papers! It´s all schoolbook easy.

If Hutch was there and forgot to mention Lewis, the police would ask him. Specifically. Over and over again: Did somebody enter the court? If Hutch persisted, they would probably in the end say that they KNEW that a woman had entered the court, and once again they would have asked him if he really did not see her. Are you sayig that you think that he sat through this interrogation saying no, no , no and no again, NOT TO LOOK TOO SUSPICIOUS? It´s Laurel and Hardy class on that one, Ben! If he was there, he was there, and then he would heve seen her. You know that. The police knew that. Hutch would have admitted it. This is how it goes.

"And if my auntie had bollocks, she “may well” be my uncle."

After all I heard about your auntie, I´d say she would be quite a catch for any researcher even vaguely interested in the issues of sexual predispositions.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Observe in particular that the Echo made reference to “later investigations” that had led to the reduction of importance attached to Hutchinson’s claim. Clearly, they were referring to investigations that occurred subsequent to his initial police statement, indicated that enough time had by then elapsed in which to make reasonable assessments as to Hutchinson’s believability. Significantly, however, these investigations only resulted in doubts surrounding his account, and certainly not the acquisition of proof that he had confused the day or was “honestly mistaken” about anything else."

Are you now saying, Ben, that the detail/s that brough about Abberlines sudden doubts, arrived on the scene as a result of NEW EVIDENCE OR KNOWLEDGE aquired by the policemen that walked with Hutch on Monday evening? Please tell me this is so!

The best,
Fisherman