Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[Fisherman]

Mike:

"I was going to put you on ignore, but that would leave me with no one to talk to... except for Fisherman, and he's kind of long-winded"

Not.

F-man

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"As for this ‘certainty’ that Hutch = Lewis’s loiterer, the connection does not seem to have been made at the time, so I think we should be much less sure now."

Exactamundo, Lechmere - the sparse number of witnesses involved would have ensured that the police would have made the connection IF IT WAS THERE, reasonably.
But it was NOT made, and that points to one thing and one thing only - that it COULD NOT be made. There would have been things involved that made the two men unreconcilable, and that would reasonably have formed the ground for Dew´s assertion that he could not explain Hutchinson´s shortcomings in any other way than by suggesting a mistaken day.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I don’t know of anyone who aborted their previously held opinion that Hutchinson was Lewis’ man on the basis of your reminding them about Dew’s extremely unpopular Hutchinson-musings. If any such people exist, a mean-spirited but discerning person might consider them ripe for the ridicule for requiring you to tell them about a piece of cast related commentary that has been around for over seven decades."

As spiteful and arrogant as always, I see. Never mind - if that´s the picture you want to peddle of yourself, feel free!

What I am saying is that there has been very little debate about Dew´s suggestion over the years, in spite of it being a very good suggestion, covering things that could not be covered in a useful manner before (and no, it is not useful to suggest that Hutchinson did not mention Lewis because he thought that would reveal himself. Not at all, actually. It is a dumb suggestion).
There were a number of renowned Ripperologists who agreed very much with me on the usefullness of the perspective I spoke for as my aticle was published. You will recall that Tom Wescott exclaimed "why have I not seen this before?", for example. To me, that is not the reaction of a man who has had the material at hand and dismissed it - it is the reaction of a person who has overlooked a very obvious possibility. Others reacted much the same. A guy like Monty had nothing to remark on the suggestion a few posts back - he did say that it did not tally with the testimony, and it does not - but how could it, if the testimony, given in good faith, was given by a man who was out on the dates?

No, Ben, my friend, you may be as spiteful and scorning as you like, but that won´t make any difference. The inherent value of a theory is not judged by how many times you choose to vomit upon it. Such things only make for a bad debating climate, and not for any constructive assessment. Please bear in mind that the best you have come up with so far in terms of criticism is that you don´t personally think that Hutchinson could have muddled the dates. That´s it - nothing else. In no instance can you point to any particular detail where the suggestion of a mistaken day can be dismissed.

...and that is the position from which you think it is quite appropriate to piss on the suggestion. Charming!

"I really wouldn’t advise bringing up this nonsense again"

Find your footing first, learn to debate without scorning people, bury that arrogance, get a grip, Ben - and then, who knows, maybe I WILL take advice from you.
Not before, though.

"I didn’t say that. I said that the compatibility between Hutchinson’s evidence and that of Lewis with regard to her loiterer is sufficient to conclude that they were the same person."

Don´t be a fool - that amounts to the exact same thing. Once again - and forever, if that is what it takes - the compatibility between Hutchinson’s evidence and that of Lewis with regard to her loiterer is sufficient to conclude that they MAY HAVE BEEN the same person. Nothing more. And when you start weighing in Lewis´changed testimony, Dew´s statement, the non-existant evidence that Abberline drew the conclusion that you do and many, many more things, you will find yourself with an ever weakening case.

"They were standing in the same location to within a Vauxhall Astra’s length, which is an absurd distance to quibble over"

More foolishness. You have no idea whatsoever if Hutchinson in his interview with Abberline claimed never to have left the Miller´s Court side of the street during his vigil. You do not know this, Ben. He may well have done so, and Abberline would most certainly have asked about his exact movements. Unless you want to dismiss that too?
And if this was so, then it would not matter if the distance was that of a Fiat 500, would it? If Abberline established that Hutchinson was never on the other side of the street, then your theory becomes baloney, end of story.

And to be perfectly honest, the combination of Abberline´s ultimate dismissal of Hutchinson´s story may well have owed to the combined knowledge that Hutch never left that sidewalk, and Lewis´not having stumbled over him as she went into the court after having seen ANOTHER man on THE OTHER side of the street.

This is perfectly feasible and anybody with a fair mind will immediately recognize that. Moreover, if you decide to call it rotten, filthy, detestable, nauseating vomit, then that will not add anything at all to the built-in parameters of the suggestion. It will only add to people´s picture of Ben the poster.

"In the absence of any indication that Lewis was mistaken as to time in her inquest testimony and police report, we’re obliged to accept that she was correct. "

But her police report and inquest testimony were different. Are we to accept that she BOTH saw a man that she could not describe AND that she saw a man that she COULD describe? You have to make a choice here, Ben, and the wisest choice would be to opt for choosing the first suggestion over the other, or at least to only opt for the parameters that were present in BOTH variants. That is, let´s accept that Lewis did see a man standing outside Crossinghams - and that´s it.
I can buy that, although I think that Lewis´, shall we say, diversity, makes her a not very good witness.

"If, in the unlikely and zero-evidence scenario, she was wrong in her timing, that would lessen the “coincidence” factor, but we have absolutely no reason to think that she was."

Nor do I - in her case, we have THREE parameters to work from: her own word, the observation of the clock, and the Keylers´ corroboration, that would have been at hand. That firmly establishes that we should accept that Sarah Lewis DID walk down Dorset Street to Miller´s Court at around 2.30 AM.

Instead, George Hutchinson would have been the part that was wrong on the timing, as outlined in numerous posts. He THOUGHT and CLAIMED that he was there on Friday morning, and that would have been his honest conviction.
He was seemingly wrong, though. Unluckily, there was another man standing outside Crossinghams (and NOT directly outside the court) for a moment the next night, at a time that corresponded with the time during which Hutch had been in Dorset Street the night before. That, AND NOTHING ELSE, is what forms the ground for your stance. Incidentally, it is also what you think allows you to scorn and ridicule posters who do not agree with you, but that is another issue!
Now, Ben, the place in which Lewis´man was standing was outside a doss house and opposite a court, where sex could be bought. The doss house had around 300 dossers sleeping inside it every night.

Are you really telling us that in spite of this number of dossers sleeping inside Crossingham´s, and in spite of the potentially huge number of men that were interested in paying for sex, furnished by the numerous trading ladies inside Miller´s Court, and in spite of the fact that we do not know how long Lewis´man was standing in that spot - that this man could ONLY have been George Hutchinson? Are you?

Hoping for a less spiteful answer,
Fisherman

[harry]

Wasn't the connection made as soon as Hutchinson appeared.They certainly couldn't make it before.

[Fisherman]

That would depend, Harry, on who you ask. There are those who claim that the connection was in fact never made by the contemporary police or press, and that was not until us Ripperologist took an interest in the errand that the correlation was discovered.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Sorry, Lechmere, forgot to add:

“But I would repeat to those who say he deliberately missed the inquest – he may well not have known it was talking place on the Monday”

Irrelevant, unfortunately, because it still doesn’t explain why he didn’t come forward immediately after learning of the murder.

Hi Fisherman,

“Exactamundo, Lechmere - the sparse number of witnesses involved would have ensured that the police would have made the connection IF IT WAS THERE, reasonably.”

No. There is no evidence that any police or press connection was ever made between Hutchinson and the wideawake man mentioned by Lewis. Had the connection been made, it is inconceivable that the press would not have latched onto it, especially given their demonstrated willingness to pass their own commentary on eyewitness evidence. It is extremely likely that the other man mentioned in Lewis’ testimony very quickly became the focus of her account, and thus a suspicious person of interest. The wideawake man was consequently overlooked in terms of potential significance, apparently.

“As spiteful and arrogant as always, I see. Never mind - if that´s the picture you want to peddle of yourself, feel free!”

Well I’m frankly rather annoyed that you should dredge up this entire issue again. Why bother, when it’s been discussed at length already? It also bothered me slightly when you claimed, rather bizarrely, that the number of people who recognised that Lewis’s man was Hutchinson had dwindled since the publication of your article, especially when there’s no evidence for this being the case at all. It’s triumphalist rhetoric, which I’m not too huge on.

“What I am saying is that there has been very little debate about Dew´s suggestion over the years, in spite of it being a very good suggestion”

That’s just your opinion. It’s far nearer the mark to say that there has been very little debate about Dew’s suggestion over the years precisely because it is NOT a “very good suggestion”. Personally, I would give experienced commentators Tom and “a guy like Monty” credit at least with knowledge of Dew’s memoirs and the Hutchinson speculations advanced therein. If bringing this subject up out of nowhere all the time means you’re going to keep drawing attention to everyone’s supposed lack of knowledge, and how you were finally able to put them in the picture by acquainting them with material that had been in the public domain for 70 years, I would consider this one more reason not to bother with it.

I’m not especially deflated by your reaction to my suggestion that Hutchinson avoided mentioning Lewis to make in appear less obvious that it was her evidence that forced his hand, but if all you can do is dismiss it as “dumb”, this tells me immediately that you weren’t able to argue against it very successfully, although I knew this already from the first time you attempted to dismiss it. I don’t wish for a bad climate of debating, or to be spiteful or scornful, but the risk of this happening in minimized significantly if you just occasionally acceded to my polite requests not to keep dredging repetitive debates up.

I think you must only have been listening to yourself during those previous discussions if you seriously can’t remember that people cited specific reasons for doubting the “wrong night” hypothesis. I won’t waste time regurgitating them now, as they were all discussed on the interminable thread that was dedicated to the topic.

“Once again - and forever, if that is what it takes - the compatibility between Hutchinson’s evidence and that of Lewis with regard to her loiterer is sufficient to conclude that they MAY HAVE BEEN the same person.”

Stamina war tactics again – good luck with those. Let’s see whose wins out. Once again, as I’m prepared to reiterate until I expire, the compatibility between the two is sufficient to conclude that they PROBABLY were the same person. Otherwise, we’re left with ludicrous “coincidence”. The factors that you have introduced in an attempt to lessen this coincidence just happen to be factors that pretty much nobody else buys into; “Lying Lewis”, the Dew Spew, some magical, mythical hoped-for document informing us that Abberline “must have” made the connection. And yet these are precisely the things you choose to resort to in an effort to “weaken” the case for the two being the same.

“You have no idea whatsoever if Hutchinson in his interview with Abberline claimed never to have left the Miller´s Court side of the street during his vigil.”

He never claimed to have even visited the “Miller’s Court side of the street”. He simply didn’t specify any “side”. Given the tiny little piss-poor piddling distance between the two sides of the street, i.e. the length of the hatchback, he could have been anywhere in the street that resided in front of the Court entrance. It’s just you making heavy weather again, and trying to create some huge distinction between the north and south sides of the street - investing it with with significance it clearly doesn't warrant. If Hutchinson waited there for as long as he alleged, the chances are strong that he moved about the immediate location somewhat, rather than rooting his feet to one particular spot like a constipated hippo.

“It will only add to people´s picture of Ben the poster.”

I love the “people’s” – all those “people” paying all this attention to me, according to you. Hardly. Don’t run away with the idea that other “people” are as obsessed with battling me into eternity as you are.

“But her police report and inquest testimony were different. Are we to accept that she BOTH saw a man that she could not describe AND that she saw a man that she COULD describe?”

No, it means that after the horror of what had taken place on her very doorstep had subsided, she was able to gather her recollections somewhat better. As you’ll no doubt recall from numerous other threads, it was pretty much just you who was determined to depict Lewis as a liar or a bad witness, and the idea went down like a lead balloon as I fully suspected it would. It’s also ridiculous, and factually in error, to claim that Lewis’ two accounts contained more variation than Hutchinson's.

As for the lodging house’s proximity to Lewis’ loiterer, it is irrelevant. The loiterer was not interested in the lodging house, according to Lewis. He was standing on his own, watching and waiting for someone to come out of Miller’s Court, exactly as Hutchinson would later tell the police he was doing at that same location, and at the same time. I’m afraid it is very obvious that you only wish to lessen this "coincidence" in an effort to lend some sort of gravitas to your “date confusion” hypothesis, which naturally RELIES on Hutchinson being separate from Lewis’ man.

“Hoping for a less spiteful answer”

After calling me foolish and dumb…

Do as you would be done by, Fisherman.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"There is no evidence that any police or press connection was ever made between Hutchinson and the wideawake man mentioned by Lewis."

Come to think of it, there is no evidence that Hutchinson had a nose either.

If us Ripperologists, amateurs in crime that most of us are, can make the connection quicker than you can say Jack Robinson, then you may rest assured that the connection was made.
It is not as certain that it lay behind the ultimate ditching of Hutchinson´story, but still a very fair bet.

What I find mindboggling here, Ben, is that you so often take it upon you to make the call that very unobvious matters are "bleeding obvious", whereas you fail to see when something truly is. But I will give you credit for using the "no evidence" card to the full.

"I’m frankly rather annoyed that you should dredge up this entire issue again."

You were frankly very annoyed when I did it the first time too, Ben. Remember? In fact, you have been very annoyed EVERY time it has been mentioned. You don´t like it, since it will not fit in with your reasoning. And what does not fit in with your reasoning annoys you.

"It’s triumphalist rhetoric, which I’m not too huge on."

There are times, Ben, when I think you invented the concept, so you could have fooled me.

"It’s far nearer the mark to say that there has been very little debate about Dew’s suggestion over the years precisely because it is NOT a “very good suggestion”. "

That´s just YOUR opinion. It would make far better sense if you presented something - aside from "I don´t think he messed up the days" argument - to show WHY it is not a good suggestion.
Could it be since it does not account for why Hutch did not mention Lewis?
Could it be since it does not account for why the Dorset Street PC never saw Hutchinson?
Could it be since it is obvious that Hutchinson describes the night as one of very bad weather?
Could it be because it is very logical to walk the streets all night on rainy, cold and blustery nights?
Could it be because the only contemporary person that worked the case, and subsequently voiced an opinion about why Hutchinsons story was dropped, voiced a belief that he must have been in place on Friday morning?
Could it be because people normally stand around outside in terrible weather, five yards from a sheltering room they have access to?

Could it be anyone of these parameters that you deem damning to the suggestion of a mistaken day? Or is it just that you sense that the suggestion is so very, very "unpopular? Does such a thing mean that we don´t have to look at it any further?

Or is the sole reason for your dismissal that you yourself do not think that Hutchinson would have mixed up the days? And if so, what expertise do you judge this by? The "bleeding obvious", once more? As always?

"Personally, I would give experienced commentators Tom and “a guy like Monty” credit at least with knowledge of Dew’s memoirs and the Hutchinson speculations advanced therein."

Of course. Which was why Tom Wescott exclaimed that he was amazed that he had not realized the implications before. Makes sense big time, Ben.

And don´t try and paint it out as I am yearning for some sort of Nobel Prize here, please. Do not take every opportunity to roll the ones who disagree with you in tar and feathers, Ben. Give us a little more credit than that, if you want to be taken seriously.

Dew´s statement has been there for everybody to see over the years. What I did was to couple it with a number of other parameters, and test how it held up. And it held up admirably, although YOU won´t admit that. But that was to be expected - in both cases.

In conclusion, I have expanded on Dew´s suggestion, and put in in context, and I am happy that I did so. It does not make me a genius or point me out as incredibly shrewd. But is makes for a pretty darn good suggestion, well worth of pursuing further.
Do I feel proud about it? Yes, I do, to some extent. But I fail to see that it makes me the equivalent of people suffering from illusions of grandeur.

You, of course, make another evaluation, and try to smear me as a Bonaparte wannabee. But once again, this is your decision, not mine, and you are free to make it, as long as you realize that it says a lot more about you than about me.

"I don’t wish for a bad climate of debating, or to be spiteful or scornful, but the risk of this happening in minimized significantly if you just occasionally acceded to my polite requests not to keep dredging repetitive debates up."

Translation: As long as you adjust to my rules, everything is fine. The moment you displease me, though, I will make you regret it.
Thanks, but no thanks.

"I think you must only have been listening to yourself during those previous discussions if you seriously can’t remember that people cited specific reasons for doubting the “wrong night” hypothesis. I won’t waste time regurgitating them now"

Please do! It will take up precious little space.

"Stamina war tactics again – good luck with those. Let’s see whose wins out."

Eh - not necessarily, Ben. It is an unshakable fact that there is no absolute proof that the two men were one and the same, and it is equally unshakable that they MAY have been. A stamina debate should only apply when there are two unprovable suggestions around, and that is not the question here. It is not proven that the men were the same - they may or may not have been.
Or do you dispute this? Hmm? Of course not - you will only go on nagging about how incredibly ALMOST certain this is, how "we can be 99,99999999 per cent sure" it is, and how filthy, rotten, stinking, nauseating unfair it is that somebody should challenge this.
You would however never take the step to say that it is beyond doubt proven that the two men were one and the same (severely tempted though you are), and you would not do that because you very well know that it is NOT proven.

To me, that represents a very good reason not to enter any, hrrrm, "stamina war". Would you not agree?

"He never claimed to have even visited the “Miller’s Court side of the street”. He simply didn’t specify any “side”. Given the tiny little piss-poor piddling distance between the two sides of the street, i.e. the length of the hatchback, he could have been anywhere in the street that resided in front of the Court entrance."

Yes. He COULD have. But that does not change the fact that there WERE two sides of the street, and Hutchinson MAY well have told Abberline that he was never on the Crossingham side throughout. So it is your argument that is piss-poor piddling - not the hatchback.

"If Hutchinson waited there for as long as he alleged, the chances are strong that he moved about the immediate location somewhat, rather than rooting his feet to one particular spot like a constipated hippo."

Yes again. But if he did NOT - and moving about can be made on just the one side of the street, actually (who would have thought it?) - and told Abberline that "No, Sir, I stood outside the court, at the corner of it all the time" and Abberline asked "And you are positive that you never crossed the street?" and got the answer "That I am!", then your theory is baloney, just like I said.
We can of course not be sure that the conversation took this turn, it is just an outlined potential scenario of many - but we CAN be reasonably certain that Abberline DID ask about exactly what Hutchinson did and where he did it. Unless you object to that too?

"all those “people” paying all this attention to me, according to you. Hardly."

I think you may be wrong there, Ben. The reoccurring exchanges between you and me will have been seen by hundreds, perhaps thousands of persons. And I am fine with that.
Are you?

"No, it means that after the horror of what had taken place on her very doorstep had subsided, she was able to gather her recollections somewhat better."

Oh! So it is not strange that a woman at an inquest can furnish a description of a man that she claimed that she could tell nothing at all about when speaking to the police initially? But it is very strange that a man can provide a detailed description of another man he watched intently for a substantial period of time?

Choosing, are we?

"It’s also ridiculous, and factually in error, to claim that Lewis’ two accounts contained more variation than Hutchinson's."

Of course. Going from no description at all to a description including height, body stature, colour of clothing and hat type is nowhere nearly as strange as changing the moustache, walking manner and skin colour in a detailed description. Point taken!

Choosing, are we?

"The loiterer was not interested in the lodging house, according to Lewis."

Yes, I can also remember her specifically saying this: "That man had no interest at all in the doss house!", that´s what she said, honest to God!

"I’m afraid it is very obvious that you only wish to lessen this "coincidence" in an effort to lend some sort of gravitas to your “different day” hypothesis, which naturally RELIES on Hutchinson not have been Lewis’ man."

What I wish to do, is to point out that Lewis´SECOND testimony has been used over her first one generally, something that swears very much against normal procedure. The first impression is the most important one, which is why the police are anxious to speak to the witnesses as soon as possible. The risk is that they forget otherwise, or even worse, that they suddenly start to "remember" things. Such occurrences are very often tied to wishful thinking or lies, as you will no doubt appreciate and admit.
In line with these factualities, I am proposing that we open up for another thinking on the connection that is so damn obvious to you (but not to Abberline, no Sir ), and look at the case from the ground instead of starting out from a point where a potentially totally faulty and very detrimental mistake is already made.

"After calling me foolish and dumb…"

We are not allowed to call each other foolish and dumb, Ben. That is why I called your SUGGESTIONS foolish and dumb. It does not necessarily mean that I think YOU are foolish and dumb. But I DO think you are often unnecessarily and improductively spiteful. And I AM hoping for improvement on that score.

The best,
Fisherman

[John Winsett]

But..

I think that most are assuming Dorset Street was empty when Hutchinson was loitering. In fact it was probably still very busy.
I'm amazed anyone still believes Hutchinson was telling the truth. A man who walked from Romford, tired, no money, notices eyelashes and such?
Unfortunately policemen are human and make mistakes so if no one noticed Hutchinson or forgot they talked to him is human nature.
Throw Hutchinson away as a witness. Suspect maybe......

[Fisherman]

John Winsett:

"A man who walked from Romford, tired, no money, notices eyelashes and such? "

Okay, John - imagine yourself walking a long stretch, arriving in your home town late at night. And there, in the street, you notice a very good woman friend of yours. And as you see her, a man walks up to her and starts speaking to her, grabbing her around the shoulders and walking away with her. He wears a nice suit and looks quite respectable.

Then, all of a sudden, you remember that the newspapers have been writing about a well-dressed man, wearing a suit, that has been seen in the company of a number of women that have subsequently turned up dead or missing. And you realize that the man with your friend may just be that man.

What do you do?

Of course - you are too tired to bother and you go home to get some sleep. Naturally.

The best,
Fisherman

[Bob Hinton]

John Winsett:

"A man who walked from Romford, tired, no money, notices eyelashes and such? "

Okay, John - imagine yourself walking a long stretch, arriving in your home town late at night. And there, in the street, you notice a very good woman friend of yours. And as you see her, a man walks up to her and starts speaking to her, grabbing her around the shoulders and walking away with her. He wears a nice suit and looks quite respectable.

Then, all of a sudden, you remember that the newspapers have been writing about a well-dressed man, wearing a suit, that has been seen in the company of a number of women that have subsequently turned up dead or missing. And you realize that the man with your friend may just be that man.

What do you do?

Of course - you are too tired to bother and you go home to get some sleep. Naturally.

The best,
Fisherman

But you can’t have it both ways. If you are saying he was so concerned about her safety he followed MJK and the stranger, how come all his concern seems to have evaporated after he found out she was dead?

[John Winsett]

John Winsett:

"A man who walked from Romford, tired, no money, notices eyelashes and such? "

Okay, John - imagine yourself walking a long stretch, arriving in your home town late at night. And there, in the street, you notice a very good woman friend of yours. And as you see her, a man walks up to her and starts speaking to her, grabbing her around the shoulders and walking away with her. He wears a nice suit and looks quite respectable.

Then, all of a sudden, you remember that the newspapers have been writing about a well-dressed man, wearing a suit, that has been seen in the company of a number of women that have subsequently turned up dead or missing. And you realize that the man with your friend may just be that man.

What do you do?

Of course - you are too tired to bother and you go home to get some sleep. Naturally.

The best,
Fisherman

Actually I was saying Hutchinson made it all up. The only reason anyone gives credence to Hutchinson is Abberlines opinion he was being truthful. I think Abberline was fooled, and desperate for any break he could get.

[Ben]

Hi John,

I agree entirely with your observations. The extent to which Abberline was beleaguered and anxious for any sort of tangible lead may well have played a part in his being taken in, initially, by Hutchinson.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

“If us Ripperologists, amateurs in crime that most of us are, can make the connection quicker than you can say Jack Robinson”

But we didn’t, Fisherman.

That’s not what happened.

As far as I’m aware, the possibility that Hutchinson and Lewis’ loiterer were the same person was first mooted in the mid or late 1990s, over a hundred years since the murders were committed. This "delay" was probably the result of an uncritical approach to Hutchinson that had persisted for decades. The computer age has also enabled the curious to access case-related documents for free and digest and stew over them at leisure, and over months and years that the officers on the ground at the time did not have available to them. It cannot be gainsaid either that with our increased knowledge of serial crime came a more criminological approach to the study of these crimes, and this could also have altered our perspective of Hutchinson.

“You were frankly very annoyed when I did it the first time too, Ben.”

No, not at all. Have a look at my first reaction to your article on the “wrong night” thread. Not much evidence of “annoyance” there – quite the contrary. I just don’t get on at all well with your “wear ‘em out” approach to debating the issue. Take the lead in agreeing to disagree occasionally, and avoid the temptation to engage in relentless repetition of done-to-death topics, and I can guarantee a more respectful and less hostile exchange.

“That´s just YOUR opinion. It would make far better sense if you presented something - aside from "I don´t think he messed up the days" argument - to show WHY it is not a good suggestion."

This is the sort of thing I’m talking about. You know absolutely full well that others have provided specific reasons for doubting the “date confusion” hypothesis, and yet you pretend that they haven’t, and that their criticisms have been limited to “I don’t think…” with nothing of substance beyond this. Unless you suffer from a particularly severe case of selective memory, you know full well why people reject your proposal. The overwhelming probability that Hutchinson was the man Lewis saw on the morning of the 9th November for one. Then there’s the obvious reality that what you outline as anomalies (such as walking around all night on a cold, wet night) can far more logically be chalked up to fabrication than “date confusion”. In fact, the more you draw attention to these incongruities, the more weight you lend to the premise that he lied.

In addition, it is quite clear that Hutchinson would not have confused so significant a date – one that involved the brutal murder of a three year friend/acquaintance, a mammoth 14-mile trek from Romford, and the Lord Mayor’s Show. All the events took place on a date which you contend he muddled, and I consider that implausible in the extreme. Not nauseating or vomit-inducing, just very implausible. This does not mean we shouldn’t explore the possibility further – indeed, I wish you all the very best with that endeavour, but bear in mind that “exploring the possibility” does not consist of endless repetition of previously challenged contentions.

“What I did was to couple it with a number of other parameters, and test how it held up. And it held up admirably, although YOU won´t admit that.”

It is for the readers of your article to judge that, Fisherman, not you. I’m not interested in hearing how you think your ideas "hold up", and nor should anyone be. It counts for nothing. You wouldn’t write a novel, read it, and then write “Wow, what a captivating read that was! Had me spell-bound it did!”. You are simply fantasizing if you believe I secretly think that “date confusion” was a credible proposal, but won’t "admit" it. This is an intolerably arrogant delusion on your part, and not the way to ensure friendly debate in the future. I swear on everything I have ever held dear in this world, Fisherman, that I don’t consider “date confusion” to be a credible explanation.

“Translation: As long as you adjust to my rules, everything is fine. The moment you displease me, though, I will make you regret it.
Thanks, but no thanks.”

So in other words, you know precisely what annoys me, and that desisting from it would ensure a hostility-free exchange, but would prefer to carry on being antagonistic. Okay…

“To me, that represents a very good reason not to enter any, hrrrm, "stamina war". Would you not agree?”

I would agree, yes, but it seems you’re eager for a stamina war anyway. Of course it is unproven that Hutchinson was the wideawake man, but it remains highly probable.

“Hutchinson MAY well have told Abberline that he was never on the Crossingham side throughout.”

But there’s no evidence whatsoever for this, and it would be an odd detail to include. “Please understand, sir, that I was never on the Crossingham side. Heavens above, no!” How incredibly weird and unnecessary would that be? It’s quite obvious that you need a lot of very bizarre and unnecessary questions and answers to have flitted between Hutchinson and Abberline to cement him to the specific location you want him to have stood at. If we’re realistic about this, it is overwhelmingly likely that when Hutchinson stated that he stood "there", Abberline was happy to settle for that parameter rather than requesting him – like an odd, odd lunatic – to pinpoint his location with exactitude. Why the blinking heck would Abberline have asked Hutchinson "And you are positive that you never crossed the street?". What difference would it make?

Hutchinson did not commit himself to ANY side of the street.

“The reoccurring exchanges between you and me will have been seen by hundreds, perhaps thousands of persons.”

“Seen”, yes, but not scrutinized and followed with intensity. You are obviously very aware of an “audience” out there…

“Oh! So it is not strange that a woman at an inquest can furnish a description of a man that she claimed that she could tell nothing at all about when speaking to the police initially?”

No, it’s not strange, and as we discovered on a previous thread that you’re not about a dredge up (because you’re aware that life’s too short), you were in the extreme minority of opinion when attempting to cast doubt on her evidence. The addition of such mundane details of “not tall, but stout” and “wore a wideawake” pales in comparison to the whole array of details that Hutchinson miraculously noticed and memorized.

“Choosing, are we?”

Yes, I choose: Lewis was a genuine witness and was recognised as such. Hutchinson was a liar and discredited as such. Bad-a-bing.

“What I wish to do, is to point out that Lewis´SECOND testimony has been used over her first one generally, something that swears very much against normal procedure.”

It does nothing of the kind, and I question your knowledge of “normal procedure”. If anything, an earlier witness statement is likely to be less reliable, especially if s/he was an unwitting or unwilling participant in an extremely traumatic affair such as Lewis would have been in the morning of 9th November, after a harrowing discovery and a sleepless night. Again, nobody rejected Lewis’ testimony, then or now, nor has anyone asserted – until you showed up – that her police statement invalidates her inquest testimony.

“But I DO think you are often unnecessarily and improductively spiteful. And I AM hoping for improvement on that score.”

Well you know just what to do to ensure this, or rather what NOT to do.

We’ll just have to see…

All the best,
Ben

[FrankO]

Excuse me for butting in here, Frank, but I would like to comment on your suggestions!

No problem, Fish!

I fail to see why it would be in any way illogical to tell the story to a PC.

Although I think it would have been better to go to one of the 3 nearby police stations, I don’t think it would have been illogical to approach a PC.

It would seem that most people on this thread are of the meaning that any discerning PC would have acted upon it accordingly and immediately,…

That’s just it! There are some posters who’ve suggested that the PC approached by Hutchinson might not have done so for a variety of reasons. That’s what I’ve reacted to, because, even though it’s possible, I don’t think it’s the most likely explanation for why nothing seems to have come from the alleged encounter between Hutchinson and this PC.

I´m at a loss here languagewise, Frank, so you are going to have to help out: What does "buffed by" mean? Does it mean that he was put off by the PC, or something such?
What he said to the papers was: "I told one policeman on Sunday morning what I had seen, but did not go to the police station", and as far as I can make out, nothing at all is said about the policemans reactions. Where does the "buffing" come in?

I have to admit that I struggled with how to put it myself. On second thought, it would have been better if I’d used something like ‘discouraged’.

It seems that, if the alleged meeting between GH and the PC took place, it wasn’t taken any further than that. I see 3 possible explanations for that:
1. the PC made note of GH’s account, but didn’t do anything with it.
2. the PC advised GH to go to the police station, where they could take his statement, but as GH found that too much trouble, he was discouraged and didn’t follow through at that point.
3. the PC wasn’t helpful and told GH to take a hike, which obviously discouraged him, so he left it at that.

With what I wrote, I was referring to options number 2 and 3.

But how soon was "as soon as"?
How do we know that he could have come forward earlier?
How do we establish the point of time when he knew what had happened to Kelly?
How can we be certain that he was in a position to come forward any earlier than he did?

Where did I write or suggest that GH knew earlier about the murder than Sunday morning? Yes, I would find it odd that he wouldn’t have known what happened to Kelly until Sunday morning if he’d not left the district since his return from Romford, but I haven’t alluded to this in my post to Lechmere and wasn’t writing from that viewpoint. So, in this case ‘as soon as’ means Sunday morning, when we quite safely assume that he did know about Kelly’s brutal murder.

I will not settle for any claim that he "must have known". Of course he must not - to deduct that would be to make a deduction for a specific person from what we suppose (logically!) to be true for the general public. And we can´t do that.
It is not and can never be a case of Hutchinson having had to have known because a certain - unestablishable - percentage of the population on the whole would have known.

Well, then it's a good that I aint claiming he ‘must have known’ before Sunday morning, Fish. If he left the area again on Friday morning, after he’d first returned to his lodgings, I think there would still be a good chance that he came to know it before Sunday, but that’s not claiming he ‘must have known’. If he remained in the area, I think the chances that he didn’t know earlier than Sunday would be very slim indeed.

All the best,
Frank

[Garry Wroe]

[I]magine yourself walking a long stretch, arriving in your home town late at night. And there, in the street, you notice a very good woman friend of yours. And as you see her, a man walks up to her and starts speaking to her, grabbing her around the shoulders and walking away with her. He wears a nice suit and looks quite respectable ... Then, all of a sudden, you remember that the newspapers have been writing about a well-dressed man, wearing a suit, that has been seen in the company of a number of women that have subsequently turned up dead or missing. And you realize that the man with your friend may just be that man.

This is where people tend to become confused, Fish. Hutchinson in fact claimed to have harboured no suspicion whatever regarding Astrakhan. He was quite explicit in this context, and stated, 'I did not think he would harm another.' His interest in Astrakhan, he maintained, was stimulated as a consequence of Astrakhan's well-to-do appearance. Nothing more.