Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[Ben]

Fisherman,

Just address the posts that are directed to you in the future, if you'd be so kind. Life’s too short – no really, think about it, it is – for writing fussy indignant posts to every single comment anyone ever makes that interferes with your world view. People just skim through them. Sounds a lot like you’re “interfering with my posts to others”, which is something you cautioned me “never!” to do.

“No, I think that George Hutchinson was an innocent man, very willing to help the police”

And I regard that as motbjudande irriterande nonsense. "Innocent man" I simply disagree with, but "very willing"? Nah. People who are “very willing to help the police” don’t sit on their evidence for three days, allowing the trail of a potential murderer to grow cold, and only come forward when they realise that they had been seen at a crime scene, which is almost certainly what happened in Hutchinson’s case, short of outlandish coincidence. There is no evidence whatsoever for any “shame” on Hutchinson’s part that he did not “take any actions” as far as the Astrakhan man was concerned. As Garry has already noted, Hutchinson spoke of no suspicions that the man was the murderer, or that he would harm anyone. The idea that he harboured such suspicions is a creation of your own, completely contradicting Hutchinson’s own claims (which you purport to believe); spurred on, no doubt, by a misguided intention of making the account appear more plausible.

“Some other man was outside Crossinghams the following night. Utterly inconceivable. Would never happen, not in a million years.”

I wouldn’t say that. It’s very implausible, however, to argue that two individuals stood at the same location at the same ungodly hour on two consecutive nights, both “watching and waiting for some to come out” of Miller’s Court. Not unless it was some weird tradition unique to Dorset Street.

As for Lewis, it seems as though you're determined to engage in yet more endless repetition, so naturally I'll take your lead and play along with that pointless exercise. Please don’t suppose for one moment that I don’t see your problem. You wish to play down the obvious and inescapable reality Hutchinson was Lewis' man because it pinpoints him at that location on the night of Kelly’s murder, and thus militates very against your very recently conceived and highly controversial opinion that Hutchinson confused the day. As it stands, though, I’m not in the least bit surprised that you’re struggling so hard to find any support for your attempt to demolish Lewis whilst depicting Hutchinson as a “pillar of society”. It just looks ridiculous to argue that the addition of three extremely mundane non-specific details in Lewis’ account are somehow problematic, whereas the embellishments, contradictions and unutterably implausible details in Hutchinson’s thoroughly discredited three-day late story are fine and dandy.

Try and find another way “in”, I would, if your intention is to convince your intended audience of the imagined validity of Walter’s different day, because the Lewis angle just isn’t working. Clearly nobody has any problem with the minor discrepancies between her police statement and inquest evidence. Clearly nobody has any problem with her impression of the man’s interest in the court. Clearly, nobody considers a black hat a “detailed description”, and so on. 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.

To describe Lewis’ evidence as “laughable” is heartless, defiling shabby nonsense. She did not provide an “estimation of height and body structure”. She stated “not tall, but stout”. Hardly very detailed. She did not mention hat "fashions" either, but rather a common type of headgear and the most common colour for hats and coats around: black.

“Albeit we know that changed testimony like this was and is regarded by the legal authorities as something that serves better as a reason for a hearty laugh than as evidence”

There is no evidence that the “legal authorities” placed ANY doubt on Lewis’ testimony at ANY stage.

“They had fewer people related to by the inquest witnesses and Hutch in Dorset Street at that time, than they had fingers on their hands. And they would easily have made the connection.”

So you acknowledge that there is a “connection”, now?

Gosh, your reasoning really is disturbingly inconsistent and toppy-turvy here. One minute you declare that there is no coincidence at all, and the next minute you assert that the coincidence is so obvious that the police must have registered it!

As for accusations of lying, you did precisely that in a post to me of yesterday:

“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”

You are accusing me of lying, therefore, when I opine that the Dew theory does NOT stand up. Report me to the administrators if you want, but I’ll do precisely the same to you. Put me on “ignore” if you’ve got that much of a problem. I wasn’t even aware that anyone seriously believed the “mystery PC” alleged by Hutchinson. I thought this was yet another example of people playing Devil’s Advocate, i.e. the “it isn’t proven that he lied about it” school of thought. Hence, I felt quite “safe” in saying what I did about that particular aspect of Hutchinson’s press testimony, as I felt reasonably secure in the assumption that nobody actually believed it to be true and accurate.

“You just "feel" that the whole suggestion of a trivially mistaken day is utterly ridiculous?”

Not this irritating fallacy again.

Are you seriously suggesting that in the absence of proof, we cannot establish from the evidence that which is probable and that which is improbable? I cannot prove that Sir William Gull was not the ripper, but I feel immensely secure in my dismissal of the theory as ridiculous and outlandish. Just so with the suggestion that the Lewis-Hutchinson connection amounts to extraordinary random coincidence, or that Hutchinson "mistook" the day.

“I´m afraid that your suggestion that they would not give a damn is a lot sillier. The police are always interested in detailing”

Not to the catastrophically silly extremes that you’re envisaging. I’m still not sure if you were really serious last night about attempting to differentiate the “eastern” and “western” corners (separated by about five feet), and then expecting the sane to invest it with any significance at all.

“There is no evidence that he asked him about how he first met Kelly.

Do you think that he did?”

I think Abberline asked him how long he had known Kelly, because we have the answer on record.

“... and Lewis provided a whole alleged description of the man she saw, which was wholly absent from her initial account”

Which was trivial in the extreme because it consisted of an extreme vague description. Unlike Packer, Lewis wasn’t discredited in advance of the inquest.

“I said that once you have established the type, you only need a fraction of a second to confirm that the eyelashes looked the way they invariably do on southern foreigners of this coloration.”

But Hutchinson never specified a “southern foreigner”, nor does the description depict anyone as such. If anything, the description is suggestive of a polish or Russian Dew, which doesn’t qualify as “southern” on my map.

Again, it might be an idea if you adhered to your previous suggestion and conducted some further research into your "date confusion" idea. Repeating it again and again on unrelated threads isn't the way to go.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Just address the posts that are directed to you in the future, if you'd be so kind."

Did you not say earlier that you have never started a Hutchinson thread?

Would that not mean that all the times you enter a discussion on the topic, you do so by not addressing a post put to you?

If so, would you please - and as usual - mind YOUR business, and let me mind mine the way I see fit to?

"I regard that as motbjudande irriterande nonsense. "

I can help out with the Swedish. But why are you trying to use it ...?

"I wouldn’t say that. It’s very implausible, however, to argue that two individuals stood at the same location at the same ungodly hour on two consecutive nights, both “watching and waiting for some to come out” of Miller’s Court. "

Take Swansons professional advice, and you may forget about the "problem".

"To describe Lewis’ evidence as “laughable” is heartless"

Don´t blame me - blame Swanson and everybody else in his line of profession who are taught at the academy not to pay much attention to testimony like this.

"There is no evidence that the “legal authorities” placed ANY doubt on Lewis’ testimony at ANY stage."

And there is no evidence that Hutchinson was asked if he was a client of Kellys.

Like I said, don´t play this game, Ben.

"So you acknowledge that there is a “connection”, now?"

Connection, correlation - call it what you want. There are two testimonies speaking of a man outside - roughly - Miller´s Court at 2.30. That connects the witnesses in this respect. Nuffin more, though, I´m afraid ...

"You are accusing me of lying, therefore, when I opine that the Dew theory does NOT stand up. Report me to the administrators if you want, but I’ll do precisely the same to you."

You are welcome. But keep in mind that these guys can read!

"Are you seriously suggesting that in the absence of proof, we cannot establish from the evidence that which is probable and that which is improbable?"

Not at all. But I seem to notice that we interpret thing differently, i e you opt for the incredible and I for the credible. That´s why you´ve got a serial killer sitting in you lap, whereas I have a benevolent, everyday witness.

"Not to the catastrophically silly extremes that you’re envisaging."

No? Then go find out - the world is full of investigating policemen. There are policemen and former policemen around on the threads, even, and they may be able to tell you whether they disregard questions of positioning or if they pay full attention to them.
You see, Ben, Abberline would have had double reasons for asking - he would A/ be able to exactly pinpoint where Hutch was. This would enable him to tell Hutch apart from other people who may have been around, perhaps witnessed about in other testimonies. And Abberline would not have settled for any justaboutish stuff if he could avoid it. Plus B/ He would not ask just once. He would come back, time and time again, to Hutchinsons story, in order to see if it panned out IN ALL DETAILS every time. The devil is in the detail, as you will appreciate.
This is exactly how police work is carried out today, and it would not have differed back then.

But, like I said, don´t take my word for it! Go find out! Who knows, maybe you can call me things afterwards.

Or not.

"I think Abberline asked him how long he had known Kelly, because we have the answer on record."

But that was not what I said, was it - What I said was that we DON´T have on record any question about when and in what context the two met the first time. And you can bet your rosy behind that Abberline DID ask about it! Just as he asked about whether Hutch was a customer of hers. And just as he asked about EXACTLY where Hutchinson stood during his vigil. Claiming that the nonexisting evidence of this in some manner would point to Abberline missing out on all of this is futile and childish.

"Unlike Packer, Lewis wasn’t discredited in advance of the inquest."

And unlike Packer, Lewis had not contradicted herself BEFORE the inquest. See the difference? No? Didn´t think you would ...

"Hutchinson never specified a “southern foreigner”, nor does the description depict anyone as such. If anything, the description is suggestive of a polish or Russian Dew, which doesn’t qualify as “southern” on my map."

Yawn. Have you not yet grasped that it is the coloration of the man that matters, not what his passport said...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

And yet none of these people who enlivened the backstreets noticed the extremely conspicuous Astrakhan man, Jon? Fascinating...

Very possibly because he did not look so out of place as some choose to think.
Just another middle-class tosser looking for a cheap thrill.

[Garry Wroe]

Who was the first person to make the connection between Sara Lewis's loitering man and Hutch being one and the same?

I honestly have no idea, Abby. Despite years of trawling the various archives, I never found anything to suggest that the connection was made either by the press or police at the time of the murders. I even wondered (and sometimes still do) if the man seen by Sarah Lewis might have been the individual for whom Elizabeth Prater waited shortly before she retired to bed. This would certainly explain the man's preoccupation with the court. Unfortunately, such was the nebulous nature of Mrs Prater's account that it is impossible to determine whether she had arranged to meet a specific individual at a specific time and place, or was merely touting for business in the hope of pulling in any old punter. All things considered, however, I think it infinitely more plausible that the man sighted by Sarah Lewis was George Hutchinson - especially since the contemporaneous sketch of Hutchinson bears an uncanny resemblance to the description of Sarah's loiterer.

[Ben]

Very possibly because he did not look so out of place as some choose to think

But Hutchinson - who you purport to believe - allegedly scrutinized him precisely because he appeared "out of place". Nobody suggested he was "middle class", however.

[Ben]

“If so, would you please - and as usual - mind YOUR business, and let me mind mine the way I see fit to?”

Sounds like a deal, Fisherman, but it just means you lose your entitlement to moan at me the next time I feel like commenting on what you’ve posted to others. For instance, I might have to voice my distain the next time you dredge up the “date confusion” hypothesis, irrespective the intended recipient of your post.

“I can help out with the Swedish. But why are you trying to use it ...?”

Maybe in the hope that the message would sink in rather better that way. Where did I go wrong, by the way? I know that the extra “e” of “nonsens” was superfluous, but I couldn’t do much about that, as Microsoft Word kept auto-correcting it! What have I said, precisely?

I don’t know why you’ve suddenly become obsessed with Swanson, but I can assure you that he never expressed any criticism of Sarah Lewis’ evidence. You can “laugh” at Lewis’ testimony all you want, but you’re dreaming if you imagine that Swanson ever took a dim view of Lewis’ evidence, and that goes for every other contemporary police or press official who assessed her evidence. Lewis is bashed by you alone.

“There are two testimonies speaking of a man outside - roughly - Miller´s Court at 2.30. That connects the witnesses in this respect.”

Well then…don’t waste your own presumably precious time trying to create some mythical schism between Lewis’ loiterer and Hutchinson, especially if you acknowledge the “connection”.

“Not at all. But I seem to notice that we interpret thing differently, i e you opt for the incredible and I for the credible. That´s why you´ve got a serial killer sitting in you lap, whereas I have a benevolent, everyday witness.”

I’m not particularly bothered as to which particular brand of delusion you choose to embrace, but to depict me as the bad guy in the equation for having a “serial killer sitting in (my) lap” makes very little sense as a criticism considering that this entire message board is dedicated to the discussion of a serial killer. “Benevolent everyday witnesses” don’t tend to fanny up the date of a particularly memorable date and a particularly memorable encounter by a full 24 hours, incidentally.

“You see, Ben, Abberline would have had double reasons for asking - he would A/ be able to exactly pinpoint where Hutch was.”

But within reason, Fisherman. Surely you’re able to appreciate this. No sane individual would ever waste his time distinguishing between the "eastern" and "western" corner of the Miller’s Court entrance, as though the distinction counted for anything, especially when the two were separated by a gap of four feet. Nor would any sane police officer expect anyone to be as specific as that – to what possible end, anyway? “Mr. Hutchinson, please specify which corner you were stationed at. We wouldn’t want to make the grave mistake of confusing you with another potential loiterer who was stationed four feet to your left/right.”

It is “spy-framkallande smuts” (is that right?) to suggest that Abberline expected such specificity of any of his witnesses, as you would no doubt appreciate from your vast knowledge of East End geography. It is obvious that Abberline settled for Hutchinson’s description as somewhere in front of the Miller’s Court entrance that night. Anywhere more specific than that takes us out of rational discussion and into fantasy land, since no policeman worth his skin would accept that a witness rooted his feet to one particular spot without moving about a bit.

“And you can bet your rosy behind that Abberline DID ask about it!”

I’ll see your “rosy behind” and raise you all my worldly possessions that Abberline did not quiz Hutchinson on the circumstances of his first ever meeting with Kelly. The only thing that is “futile and childish” is pronouncing with no evidence, as you are doing. Never before has the expression “Piss or get off the pot” assumed so much of a resonance. Any detail of significance that was not included in the body of the statement was later included in Abberline’s report, and details of Hutchinson’s first ever meeting with Kelly is absent for some not-so-amazing reason.

“Unlike Packer, Lewis had not contradicted herself BEFORE the inquest. See the difference? No? Didn´t think you would ...”

No. Packer had contradicted himself before the inquest, in actual fact, and his evidence was discredited, unlike Lewis’.

“Yawn. Have you not yet grasped that it is the coloration of the man that matters, not what his passport said...?”

But the colouration didn’t suggest a “southern foreigner”. Simple as.

[Wickerman]

But Hutchinson - who you purport to believe - allegedly scrutinized him precisely because he appeared "out of place". Nobody suggested he was "middle class", however.

The only reference we know of along those lines was this.

"Also that he was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch them."

That Kelly did not normally associate with those above her own class? That say's nothing about him being out of place in the area, just not normally seen by Hutch in her company.

[harry]

Fisherman,
I did not question whether there was a coat over the window when Bower looked in.Only when it was put there.

As to who made the connection between Hutchinson and Lewis's sighting,it may have been me.Do not forget that Hutchinson was first mooted as a suspect on these boards.No books suggesting him had then been written.This was many years ago.

[Wickerman]

Sugden suggested the 'loiterer' may have been Hutchinson back in '94, however, Begg, Fido & Skinner in '91, suggested "most researchers" considered this same identification for the loiterer. I have not looked for the suggestion earlier than that.

Jon

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Sounds like a deal, Fisherman, but it just means you lose your entitlement to moan at me the next time I feel like commenting on what you’ve posted to others. For instance, I might have to voice my distain the next time you dredge up the “date confusion” hypothesis, irrespective the intended recipient of your post."

Do you mean to say that you have respectfully refrained from commenting on it before ...? Seriously?

"Maybe in the hope that the message would sink in rather better that way. Where did I go wrong, by the way? I know that the extra “e” of “nonsens” was superfluous, but I couldn’t do much about that, as Microsoft Word kept auto-correcting it! What have I said, precisely?"

You mean you don´t know what you said...? Okey.

"Motbjudande irriterande nonsense" goes wrong where you thought it went wrong - a Swede say nonsens, not nonsense. And it translates into "detestable, irritating nonsense", to be exact. But I am at a loss as to why you prefer to insult me in Swedish - I am normally quite familiar with British insults and language too, so it´s just as useless to insult me in both.

"I don’t know why you’ve suddenly become obsessed with Swanson ..."

I am not obsessed at all, Ben - just pleased to see that there is a contemporary source, top ranking in the Ripper case, who tells us that changed testimonies are unreliable and largely useless ones.

"... but I can assure you that he never expressed any criticism of Sarah Lewis’ evidence."

No you can´t. You can only say - as usual - that there is "no evidence" of it. There is, however, evidence relating to the Packer case, that clearly tells us his mindset in errands like these.
Therefore, when you write: "Packer had contradicted himself before the inquest, in actual fact, and his evidence was discredited, unlike Lewis’", it would seem that yiou have not understood the full implications here at all. But I will point you to them!

Matthew Packer was initiall interviewed by Sgt Stephen White from the police, ant the latter reported (MEPO 3/140/221/A49301C) that Packer claimed that he had neither seen nor heard anything suspicious the night Stride died.
After that, Packer was approached by Le Grand and Batchelor, self-proclaimed private investigators, and after having chatted with these gentlemen, Packer suddenly remembered that he had met Stride with a stranger and sold them fruit. The two detective subsequently took Packer to see Warren (or so they hoped), but only after having Packers brand new story told in the press.

Do you see the implications here, Ben? Can you understand why the police did not want to see Packer at the inquest? Exactly - because they now KNEW that Packer had changed his story from having claimed to have seen nothing, to claiming that he HAD seen Stride and sold her and a stranger in her company grapes, as hort time before the murder. And that - according to Swanson - rendered Packer´s testimony all but worthless.

I think it was very, very wise of Swanson to realize this. Packer most probably lied, after having been influenced and quite possibly treated by Le Grand/Batchelor.

And Lewis? Well, she told in her police interview that she had noticed a man that she could not describe in any manner whatsoever - no physical description and no deswcription of what he did, thus. And THAT story would have been what the police expected her to reiterate at the inquest. But no - she instead told the court that she actually had seen and was able to describe the man, clothingwise, including color of the garments and the color and cut of the hat he was wearing. She also suddenly was able to say that the man was not tall, but stout. And, miraculously, she was able to say exactly what the man was doing - he was staring intently up the court. And, lo and behold, not only this - she was ALSO able to discern an intent behind the staring: the man seemed to wait for somebody to come out.

If the police had known that Lewis was going to change HER story, just like Packer did, then they would have thrown her testimony out to, and on the exact same grounds - she changed her story radically.

So Packer had changed his story, and the police knew that BEFORE the inquest - and ruled him out.
Lewis ALSO changed her story - but contrary to Packer, she did not do it BEFORE the inquest, but instead AT the inquest. Thus the police were in no position to rule her out before it - but the Packer incident tells us that they certainly would do so after it. Thus when you say that there is no evidence that the police ever disregarded Lewis´efforts, you are wrong - for there is very clear evidence what the police thought of people who changed their stories radically. The police must have thought her a valuable and useful witness until she opened her mouth at the inquest. After that, nope. And what you are going to need if you still want to believe her is not any parrotlike repeating of the sentence "there is no evidence", since there IS evidence of A/ what Swanson thought about people changing their testimony, and B/ a very obvioulys changed testimony on behalf of Lewis. Therefore, the evidence that is not there, is in fact any evidence that the police put any stock at all in Lewis after the inquest - and there is no such evidence around. And we all know why, right?

"No sane individual would ever waste his time distinguishing between the "eastern" and "western" corner of the Miller’s Court entrance, as though the distinction counted for anything"

ANY sane policeman would do exactly that, Ben. In the end, it matters little, though, as I think you will appreciate that the police MUST have asked Hutchinson about where he stood, and it would be enough for him to say "On the Miller´s Court pavement" to turn your hopes and beliefs to dust. If you seriously believe that any police who could get exact positions described would instead hush their witnesses and say "Ah, knowing that you were in that street is enough, Sir - it ALL counts as "outside the court" since the street is so small and narrow" , then that is your business, but as I say - there are ways of finding out things like these, tehre are KNOWLEDGEABLE people to ask, so go ahead!

“spy-framkallande smuts” (is that right?)"

No - but it is hilarious! Keep it coming! Did you ever see that old tv show "Ello, ello"? There was a french gendarme in it, trying to speak British and he leaps to mind now...!

"Any detail of significance that was not included in the body of the statement was later included in Abberline’s report, and details of Hutchinson’s first ever meeting with Kelly is absent for some not-so-amazing reason."

Have a look at the report. Then estimate how much was said at the interrogation. After that, ask yourself why so much time as you expect was spent on idle chit-chat with no connection to the case.

"But the colouration didn’t suggest a “southern foreigner”. "

Matters - not. What - matters - is - that - the - eyelashes - were - a - logical - part - of - an -overall - coloration.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"I did not question whether there was a coat over the window when Bower looked in.Only when it was put there."

It was there in the morning. That means that a suggestion that it was there in the night is rather a legitimate one, especially taking into account that it would have helped keeping the room warm on that windy and cold night.

But of course - the coat may have been lifted down two minutes before Hutch stepped into the court and hung back up two minutes after he left. And if you think that makes my suggestion a very incredible and useless one ... Nah, I won´t even go there.

"As to who made the connection between Hutchinson and Lewis's sighting,it may have been me.Do not forget that Hutchinson was first mooted as a suspect on these boards.No books suggesting him had then been written.This was many years ago."

My contention is that nobody living around the turn of the former century would have cast Hutchinson as a suspect in any book. They would all have known that it did not add up. His story and why it was dismissed, plus the incompatibility with Lewis´story would have been common knowledge back then, if I am correct.

It was not until the men who worked the case died away and the written material started to disappear, that we - deprived of the exonerating evidence that would once have been there visavi Hutchinson - could start to make a (bad and purely speculative) case for Hutchinson as the Ripper again.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

My contention is that nobody living around the turn of the former century would have cast Hutchinson as a suspect in any book. They would all have known that it did not add up. His story and why it was dismissed, plus the incompatibility with Lewis´story would have been common knowledge back then, if I am correct.

It was not until the men who worked the case died away and the written material started to disappear, that we - deprived of the exonerating evidence that would once have been there visavi Hutchinson - could start to make a (bad and purely speculative) case for Hutchinson as the Ripper again.

This is good stuff. It is impossible that we today know more about Huthcinson than was known then. Utterly, irrefutably impossible. People like Deb and Chris had to scrape archives just to find George's father and son living in the exact same area. The police would have known about his father.

Other things we don't know that the authorities probably knew, even if they may have been lies

Why Hutch went to Romford
Names of people who corroborated Hutch's alibi
If Hutch had any prior record of crimes
How he looked (military appearance ala Reggie's photo, or short and stout)
His reputation
People he roomed with at the VH
What kind of lodger he was
Did Lewis identify him after she was asked to when he was paraded around

Lack of information, doesn't mean people can just make sh*t up, and that is the most sickening thing with Hutchinson. There is an entire coven of sh*t maker-uppers. It's the Republican Party in miniature

As for me making up stuff: The records don't show it becaus eit's kind of a sensitive subject for investigative purposes, but the coat in thw window had astrakhan cuffs. Prove me wrong.

Mike

[Ben]

"Motbjudande irriterande nonsense" goes wrong where you thought it went wrong - a Swede say nonsens, not nonsense. And it translates into "detestable, irritating nonsense", to be exact."

Dammit!

I meant to write "fluffy pink gorilla", but since it's there now, I gues we'll have to settle for "detestable, irritating nonsense". Seriously though, I'm quite aware that "a Swede say nonsens", but Microsoft Word wouldn't allow it and kept auto-correcting me, and I forgot to ammend when I copied and pasted into Casebook. It's a great word, though - "motbjudande".

Anyway...

"I am not obsessed at all, Ben - just pleased to see that there is a contemporary source, top ranking in the Ripper case, who tells us that changed testimonies are unreliable and largely useless ones."

That's not what he said at all. His comments weren't anywhere near a generalized as you're making them out to be. He was talking specifically about Packer, who changed his testimony far more subtantially than Lewis - incorporating an entire interaction with the victim and a suspect at his shop, whereas before, there was nothing. This doesn't remotely compare with Lewis, who simply remembered some minor, trivial details once she had fully collected her thoughts. Matthew Packer was discredited prior to his appearance at the inquest, unlikely Lewis, who nobody at the time even criticised, let alone discredited. So your implications are to be rejected. Nobody, then or not, lumped Lewis and Packer into the same category, as you are attempting to do now. You just need Lewis to be wrong or lying in order to sustain your not-very-convincing "date confusion" hypothesis.

Even after Lewis appeared at the inquest and delivered what you bizarrely consider to be dramatically divergent testimonies, the police clearly continued to treat her a credible witness and even compared her evidence to later suspects, as we learn from an article in the Echo that dealt with a Birmingham suspect that supposedly matched Lewis' suspect (the other one) "in both appearance and manners".

"But no - she instead told the court that she actually had seen and was able to describe the man, clothingwise, including color of the garments and the color and cut of the hat he was wearing. She also suddenly was able to say that the man was not tall, but stout."

Whoops, there's that abysmal repetition again. So I'll just repeat my previous answer: Clearly nobody has any problem with the minor discrepancies between her police statement and inquest evidence. Clearly nobody has any problem with her impression of the man’s interest in the court. Clearly, nobody considers a black hat a “detailed description”, and so on. If anything, an earlier witness statement is likely to be less reliable than a later inquest testimony, 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.

You repeat, I repeat, Fisherman.

If that's the game you want to play, let's keep at it for another hundred pages or so and we'll see where it gets you.

There is no evidence that Sarah Lewis lied.

There is no evidence that anyone at the time thought she lied.

There is no reason to think she would have lied.

"In the end, it matters little, though, as I think you will appreciate that the police MUST have asked Hutchinson about where he stood"

And Hutchinson provided the police with an answer - "to the court", which could be anywhere on narrow Dorset Street in front of the Miller's Court entrance. In other words, a very tiny ciucumscribed area. Anyone who expects any more specificity than this, and asserts that Hutchinson would not have moved about during that alleged 45 minutes with that tiny area, is either fantasizing or dreaming up yet more terrible excuses for dismissing the Lewis-Hutchinson connection. You can invent zero-evidence dreamed-up scenarios in which Hutchinson specified which pavement he was on, and that he rooted himself there like a stature for the full duration of his vigil, but you have absolutely no evidence.

"What - matters - is - that - the - eyelashes - were - a - logical - part - of - an -overall - coloration"

Which coluration - dark or pale? Hutchykins gave both, remember? Which polar opposite version of the same account to you go for? I go for neither, myself.

"They would all have known that it did not add up. His story and why it was dismissed, plus the incompatibility with Lewis´story would have been common knowledge back then, if I am correct."

I do love the "if I am correct". Great. In other words, if your wild speculations turned out to be true, we can arrive at X conclusion. It's yet another example of the "If my Aunite had bollocks, she'd be my uncle" brand of fallacy. You can try actual evidence for a change, if you'd prefer.

"deprived of the exonerating evidence that would once have been there visavi Hutchinson - could start to make a (bad and purely speculative) case for Hutchinson as the Ripper again."

Please don't keep going our of your way to make my puke with a mixture or profound irritation and horrified surprise, Fisherman, and do try to process the irony of your claim that the case for Hutchinson as the ripper is "purely speculative". Just try to remember what upsettingly poor excuses you have come up with in an attempt to make the suggestion appear bad. The idea that there "must have" been some lost-to-history "exonerating evidence" for Hutchinson is purely speculative, and yet you use this same pure speculation to dismiss Hutchinson as a potential suspect. The hypocrisy and irony of it all is truly depressing.

[Ben]

But here comes Mike again with his difficult-to-take seriously obsession with "Reggie" and his feigned indignation.

"Lack of information, doesn't mean people can just make sh*t up"

What are you doing then?

That's right. Compiling a big silly list of things of things the police "must have" known, despite the TOTAL ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE that any of them occured. Hutchinson's alibi? He didn't have one by his own admission. Between 3.00am and 4.00am on 9th November, he was walking about all night. This is a non-alibi, unless you're seriously arguing that someone was conveniently stationed somewhere on the streets in the smallish hours who spoke to him during that time frame, and who Hutchinson inexplicably neglected to mention. To posit the existence of such a person - and such an unlikely scenario - would most assuredly qualify as "making $hit up".

If Hutch had any prior record of crimes

Difficult to establish with any accuracy, really. This was 1888, not 2011.

Did Lewis identify him after she was asked to when he was paraded around

No evidence that she was "asked to" do any such thing. When you make pronouncements like this it is essential that you do so on the basis of some sort of evidence.

People like Deb and Chris had to scrape archives just to find George's father and son living in the exact same area. The police would have known about his father.

Now what are talking about? "George's father?" Or is this Ripper and the Royals again?

but the coat in thw window had astrakhan cuffs

Good one!

On no, wait, you're serious...

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"That's not what he said at all."

Nope. It´s just what he meant. "Andemening" is the Swedish word for it.

"He was talking specifically about Packer"

Yes indeed. And the only reasonable thing to believe it that he really had it in for Packer, and that he would NEVER look upon other witnesses that changed THEIR testimony in the same derogatory way. But Packer - he was a thorn in Swansons side! A true "skitstövel", as we say here in Sweden.

"Matthew Packer was discredited prior to his appearance at the inquest, unlikely Lewis, who nobody at the time even criticised, let alone discredited."

Explain to me, Ben, how Lewis COULD have been discredited before the inquest, given that she had not had the time to contradict herself before that? Make it a very good explanation, because I am having some serious trouble understanding how you can fail to see the obvious difference here. "Otroligt" is the Swedish term: unbelieveable.

"Nobody, then or not, lumped Lewis and Packer into the same category, as you are attempting to do now."

Ooopla, Ben "(Hoppla" in Swedish) - this is where you will be wrong - Lewis WOULD most certainly have been discredited by the police after her inquest efforts. It is the only reasonable deduction to make, as far as I am concerned. If I may remind you, Ben - you know zilch about what the police thought about Lewis AFTER the inquest. There is one indication and one indication only in the material, and that rests with Donald Sutherland Swanson.

Therefore:

"Again, nobody rejected Lewis’ testimony" is wrong. Nobody KNOWS what the police thought of it - but we DO know what they thought of the Packer parallel (has an extra "l" in Sweden: parallell).

"You repeat, I repeat, Fisherman."

Really? I thought I was the sole ("enda" in Swedish, not to be confused with "ända" - ass) repetitive poster and you the pedagogical beacon of light? That is how you normally phrase it.

"Anyone who expects any more specificity than this, and asserts that Hutchinson would not have moved about during that alleged 45 minutes with that tiny area, is either fantasizing or dreaming up yet more terrible excuses for dismissing the Lewis-Hutchinson connection."

Or, alternatively, presenting a method Abberline could (and would) have used to AVOID being kept in the dark. You see, Ben, back then, Abberline KNEW why Hutchinson was honestly ("ärligt" in Swedish) mistaken - and he did it because he asked the right questions. Very specific questions, as it were.
Have you ever come across the police-connected reasoning that they do everything to convict or exonerate? That, Ben, is not achieved by regarding a substantial area of a street as one and the same.

"Which coluration - dark or pale? Hutchykins gave both, remember? Which polar opposite version of the same account to you go for? I go for neither, myself."

Dark. At least as regards the hair, the eyes, the moustache - these features were dark and we know that Hutchinson spoke of a Jewish appearance ("utseende" over here). Piece that together and tell me that you may end up with blonde eyelashes ...? Yes?

"I do love the "if I am correct". Great. In other words, if your wild speculations turned out to be true, we can arrive at X conclusion. It's yet another example of the "If my Aunite had bollocks, she'd be my uncle" brand of fallacy. You can try actual evidence for a change, if you'd prefer."

And that advice ("råd) comes from ...? Ah ...!


"The idea that there "must have" been some lost-to-history "exonerating evidence" for Hutchinson is purely speculative".

It is a theory, a suggestion. Naming Hutchinson the killer, THAT´S purely speculative.

You do have a lot of difficulties ("svårigheter" in my tongue) grasping some very basic and simple things, Ben. And it would seem that you have now tried to overcome it by speaking Swedish (well ...) Therefore, I have decided not to keep you in the dark when it comes to the finer points of this Northern language, and so I am offering you

FISHERMANS SWEDISH CRASH COURSE FOR HUTCHINSONIANS!

Here is lesson one, to soak up:

1/ Va? Kallar du Lewis en lögnhals din sälle? Denna fina kvinna, vars öde borde röra oss till tårar och vars vittnesmål står som en vårdkase av ljus. Skäms, tusenfalt skäms! (What? Are you calling Lewis a liar, you brute? This fine woman, whose destiny should move us to tears and whose testimony stands like a beacon of light before us. Shame, a thousandfold shame!)

2/ Det finns inte i bevismaterialet, tra-la-la! (It is not in the evidence, la-de-da!)

3/ Nänä - det där frågade Abberline inte om! (Oh no, no - Abberline did not ask about that!)

4/ Den där gatan var så smal att en myra kunde stå med tre ben på varje trottoar. (That street was so narrow that an ant could have stood with three legs on each pavement.)

5/ Det där begriper jag bättre än du. Jag begriper det faktiskt bättre än alla. Ingen skall komma och tro att de fattar det här lika bra som jag gör. Fan, vad ni är dumma. (I understand that better than you do. I actually understand that better than everybody else. Nobody is going to come here and try and tell me that they understand this as well as I do. Damn it, you are dumb!)

6/ Det där var inte vad han sade första gången. (That´s not what he said the first time.)

7/ Nej nej, nej - det var INTE vad han sade första gången. (No, no, no - that´s NOT what he said the first time.)

8/ Räck mig spegeln, är du snäll. (Hand me the mirror, please.)

9/ Oj! Så VACKER! (Wow! How BEAUTIFUL!)

10/ Vad hände? (What happened?)

These are all very useful phrases, and I am sure that you will be able to fit them into your efforts to communicate with me in Swedish. More to come, should you wish!

The best,
Fisherman