Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[Sister Hyde]

You´re from Bohuslän, Sister? That´s such a nice place - the front side of Sweden, as it were!
France and Paris is not all that bad either, anyhow - but it was frightfully expensive the last time I went there!

The best,
Fisherman

ah.. Uddevallare (jag är en korv ) Yes Bohuslän outside Uddevalla is so nice, used to live in a tiny place close to Dingle and Smögen right after Munkedal (called Bärfendal), Paris is nice for holidays but living there is horrible, and yes, very expansive, while people tend to think that scandinavia is much more expansive than the rest of Europe, well it's true for booze, but food, ciggs, and rents are much cheaper. The only reason why I left Sweden was because at that moment finding a job was so hard, I was still studying but couldn't get any CSN money, and I didn't have parents to pay for my rent, so I found a job abroad and left, which to me, was the most stupid mistake I ever did!! they don't even have Grotesco here!

[The Good Michael]

damitall

You travel to Kazakhstan to get away from Swedes and you can't . I mean, now we have half-Danes and friggin' Parisian I-forgot-my-language Swedes.
It's enough for me to sit down with Reggie Hutchinson and get obliterated.

Mike

[Sister Hyde]

damitall

You travel to Kazakhstan to get away from Swedes and you can't . I mean, now we have half-Danes and friggin' Parisian I-forgot-my-language Swedes.
It's enough for me to sit down with Reggie Hutchinson and get obliterated.

Mike

thanks Mike i think you're cute too

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“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.”

I disagree. Packer gave several conflicting testimonies, and the extent to which they changed was rather extreme. It should come as no surprise that Swanson “discredited” Packer for that reason. Lewis’ testimony, by stark contrast, barely altered at all beyond that which would have been considered understandable under the circumstances. These circumstances consisted of a statement taken in the early morning after a sleep-deprived night and a very harrowing experience on the part of a vulnerable woman who could so easily have met Kelly’s own fate. Hardly surprising then that Lewis was not considered a liar or a dubious/unreliable witness by the contemporary police, nor indeed by any contemporary commentator, nor indeed by any modern commentator until you decided to take the plunge in that regard, very ill-advisedly, for the first time a few months ago.

There is not the slightest indication that Swanson ever distrusted the evidence of Sarah Lewis.

“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?”

She wasn’t discredited at any stage, Fisherman, before the inquest or afterwards.

“Ooopla, Ben "(Hoppla" in Swedish)”

But what does “Ooopla” even mean in English?

“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.”

You and nobody else, fortunately. I can’t believe I’m even reading this. So despite the absence of any indication to suggest that Lewis’ evidence was doubted in any way, you are now leap-frogging over your own very recently cultivated speculations that Lewis might have lied and converting them into a certainty that she was discredited. Besides being very outlandish (considerably more so than anything I’ve yet read here), the suggestion is provably false, since we know for certain that the police were still contemplating suspects based on Lewis’ second description. She was not, in fact, discredited.

It’s probably best if we steered this thread back on topic, and avoided any further consideration of anti-Lewis stuff, on this thread at least. It didn’t go down at all well the first couple of times you brought it up, and in any case, this thread pertains to Hutchinson’s alleged Sunday sighting, which has nothing to do with the “Lying Lewis” proposals that ought, in my opinion, to have been left to die a natural and quick death very shortly after they were very controversially proposed. But thanks in advance for your co-operation as far as “on-topic awareness” is concerned.

“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.”

Oh, boy…

I’m afraid those are you own highly controversial, and in my opinion, very misguided speculations. Only this time you’re declaring it as a fact. Maybe I should say in response: “You see, Fisherman, Abberline just didn’t realise that this apparent publicity-seeking time waster, but Jack the Ripper inserting himself into the investigation.”. Abberline was not kept “in the dark” about Hutchinson’s professed location, incidentally – at least I never suggested he was.

“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).”

No, I was talking about complexion. Do you support the “pale complexion” he provided to the police or the “dark complexion he provided to the press?

As for the Swedish lessons, thanks for those.

What was wrong with “spy-framkallande smuts”, by the way?

I’m an eager student, and anxious to impress the teacher. As such, I’d appreciate any grammatical corrections to the following Swedish sentences:

1) Uthållighet Krig: en misslyck debatt strategi mot mig.

2) Vänligen nej, inte fortsätta att upprepa samma impopulära "Lewis lögnaren" teorin, Fiskare.

3) Jag önskar den Viktorianska polisen hade det kloka i det Svenska Handstil Utredningsgruppen.

4) Hutchinson var en oskyldig, ljus, och ärligt talat, väldigt gosig vittne. Han var en häst-rörmokare till yrket.

5) Du vet när du börjar äta en fin lod pudding, och den innehåller en sten? Det har hänt mig. Det är så typiskt! Varför lämna den där? Inte lika illa som att hitta ett hår i det, dock. Usch! Och hur det ibland fastnar runt dangly bit ner i halsen. Riktigt obehagligt .. En annan sten! Det finns två nu!

Any help with these translations would be most welcome.

By the way, Fisherman, I think what Roy was trying to get across very politely was that your non-use of the quote feature sometimes makes your points difficult for others to pinpoint. The fact that you have “managed without it so far” is quite beside the point.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I disagree."

You DO?

"Packer gave several conflicting testimonies, and the extent to which they changed was rather extreme. It should come as no surprise that Swanson “discredited” Packer for that reason."

You know, Ben, there is very little forgiveness on behalf of the police in this department. It is not as if witnesses are allowed a certain number of test runs, if that is what you believe. It is quite enough for the police to discard you if you change your testimony more or less radically just once. Of course, it does nothing for your credibility if you add a number of other variants, but the truth of the matter is that only the ones who stand by their original testimonies are believed by the police. The only exceptions are people who have been threatened or had some other pressing reason not to be honest the first time over.

"These circumstances consisted of a statement taken in the early morning after a sleep-deprived night and a very harrowing experience on the part of a vulnerable woman who could so easily have met Kelly’s own fate."

"...a vulnerable woman ..."! You bring tears to my eyes, Ben - such concern, such tenderness! It´s a sad thing that the police are obliged not to prioritize a god sob over clear thinking!

"Hardly surprising then that Lewis was not considered a liar or a dubious/unreliable witness by the contemporary police, nor indeed by any contemporary commentator"

Ouch, Ben - you are making things up again! You and me, Ben, the pair of us, only know that the police regarded the evidence Lewis gave BEFORE the inquest, at her police interview, as POTENTIALLY valuable. If Lewis had been able to do a "Packer" BEFORE that inquest, changing her testimony from A to Z, then she would have been doing something else on the inquest day, instead of speaking of her experiences of Friday the 9:th before a coroner and jury.

I will tell it to you again, slowly and clearly:

Matthew Packer had given two (2) wildly differing versions of his experiences relating to Strides murder night before the inquest. The police had gotten wind of both of them, sealing Packer´s fate. They (the police) were therefore able to say (and imagine a grave voice here, Ben!): Look at this - he first said A and now he says B - so he is not trustworthy and we will not recommend that he is summoned to the inquest.

Sarah Lewis had given one (1) version and one version only of HER experiences relating to Kellys murder. Thus the police were NOT able to say: Look at this - this woman has ALSO changed her testimony - because, you see, Sarah Lewis did not change it until at the inquest! And THAT meant that the police would instead have said: This woman has made a statement that seems to be of importance to the inquest, so we will reccomend that she is summoned to it.

And lo and behold - that was exactly what happened! Sarah Lewis WAS summoned to the inquest, as a woman the police must have hoped would provide the same stuff as she had provided at the police interview.
Alas, she did not - just like Matthew Packer had done, she ALSO changed her story radically, and you know what, Ben? We have no record of what the police thought about that! And we have no record about what the press thought about it either! All we have is Swanson telling us that changing you story radically will not earn you any seat of honour in the academy of historical witnesses. Instead you will be shown the door and told not to forget to close it behind you as you leave.

The conclusion? An inevitable one: When you, my fantazising friend, claim that the police believed Lewis throughout, you do so without knowing this. You hope, perhaps. You like to guess, perhaps. You want it very much, arguably. But I´m afraid you cannot have what is non-existant.

"You and nobody else, fortunately."

And here we go guessing again, guessing again, guessing again, allowing ourselves to go guessing again, all on a Sunday morning ... tra-la-de-daa!

"So despite the absence of any indication to suggest that Lewis’ evidence was doubted in any way, you are now leap-frogging over your own very recently cultivated speculations that Lewis might have lied and converting them into a certainty that she was discredited."

No. I think we can safely deduct that Swansons´words ought to be regarded a fair "indication" in this respect. If we subsequently add 123 yers of policing to it, we get thousands of more "indications" of the same thing. In fact, every time a witness has been laughed out of court for changing a story in the manner Lewis did, we have had another "indication". And that includes - sob! - "vulnerable women".

But you don´t understand it, Ben, and that´s the tragedy of it all. No comprendo, fattar inte ett dugg (that was the Swedish version!), ne comprends rien. You think that the lacking evidence is enough for Lewis to stay in the clear, and you don´t care chickenshit about the very clear fact that there is exactly as little evidence telling us that she WAS believed after the inquest.

...and here I was thinking Heinrich was the supreme fundamentalist of Ripperology today! Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!

" Besides being very outlandish (considerably more so than anything I’ve yet read here), the suggestion is provably false, since we know for certain that the police were still contemplating suspects based on Lewis’ second description."

Have you given ANY thought to the matter that Lewis parroted Cox`s testimony, Ben? Of course not!
Now, show me where it is said in any contemporary police report or any contemporary press report, that the authorities were looking for LEWIS´man specifically! Do that, or retract this obvious balderdash.

To mislead people is not a nice thing, Ben. And that is what you are doing if you claim that the police searched for Lewis´man specifically.

" in my opinion, very misguided "

Once again, how could I hope for a better indicator of being correct?

" Do you support the “pale complexion” he provided to the police or the “dark complexion he provided to the press?"

I normally choose the police version over press versions, Ben. Perhpas you don´t? But it matters not in this case, for earlier outlined reasons.

"As for the Swedish lessons, thanks for those."

You appreciated them? Good. Just let me know when you are ready for lesson two, and I will provide it! After having seen your latest efforts, I will try and be diplomatic and say that you seem to be lacking somewhat in this department too.

All the best, Ben! And do try and understand the Packer/Lewis business, will you? And do not forget, whatever you do, to bring me the complete list of police reports and press articles where it is proven that the police searched specifically after the man Sarah Lewis had (or not, depending on which version you prefer) described. I want that material urgently, Ben. URGENTLY!!

Fisherman

[Ben]

Gosh, how may more flippin’ times to I have to urge the same request before you respect it? Pretty please, with sugar on top, stop derailing the thread in the direction of the Lewis-the-liar nonsense again. It’s ridiculous. It was considered ridiculous by everyone who was subjected to it when it was first raised to our collective horror and surprise. We all know full well that you’ve only recently and suddenly taken a dim view of Lewis, and only because you hope it might come to the much-needed rescue of your “date confusion” revival of Dew’s bad speculations. I wouldn’t be quite so cross about it had you acceded to a few polite requests not to keep on about it on the wrong thread, but once again we see this determination on your part to create antagonism where there needn’t be any.

“but the truth of the matter is that only the ones who stand by their original testimonies are believed by the police.”

And Lewis most assuredly did that.

The police would have allowed for minor variations, as they did for all witnesses, unless they were unimaginative and incompetent, and they would certainly allowed for an initial failure to of any witness to collect their immediate thoughts if their statement was taken very early on the morning of a sleepless night, during which a brutal murder was committed opposite the tiny dwelling in which she lived (another vulnerable women, much like the victim), unless they were heartless, clueless buffoons.

“You and me, Ben, the pair od us only know that the police regarded the evidence Lewis gave BEFORE the inquest, at her police interview, as potentially valuable.”

Yes, and we also know that it was treated as valuable afterwards, because we know that later suspects continued to be compared with her evidence, as witness the Birmingham suspect mentioned in the Echo. An inquest witness described a suspect whose “gentlemanly appearance and manners” matched up with those of this individual from Birmingham, and since Lewis’ suspect was the only “gentleman”-type to emerge from the inquest, it is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that it was Lewis who was compared to this suspect. What further underscores this obvious reality is the fact that the Echo were in communication with the police.

This pre/post inquest distinction is a gallingly crap irrelevance. Packer was discredited before the inquest, whereas Lewis was treated as a genuine witness before the inquest and after it. It is your presumably precious time to waste arguing otherwise.

“Alas, she did not - just like Matthew Packer had done, she ALSO changed her story radically, and you know what, Ben?”

No, she most assuredly didn’t.

In your fantasy “date confusion”-rescuing nightmare perhaps, but as far as everyone else is concerned, she did not change her story “radically”. The inclusion of a few minor, trivial details is irrefutably not “radical”, and it is a fact that Hutchinson’s evidence changed considerably more. Yet you prefer this discredited, three-day late evidence for some utterly impossible to justify reason.

“All we have is Swanson telling us that changing you story radically will not earn you any seat of honour in the academy of historical witnesses.”

He did not say any such thing – fact.

You are once again pretending that Swanson’s comments were generalized, as though he were outlining general police procedure when it came to witness assessments, when it fact, he was talking specifically about Packer, who doesn’t compare in the slightest to Lewis.

“In fact, every time a witness has been laughed out of court for changing a story in the manner Lewis did, we have had another "indication".

There has never, ever been such an occasion, nor will there be.

...and here I was thinking Heinrich was the supreme fundamentalist of Ripperology!

you don´t care chickenshit

When you, my fantazising friend

Ah good, a personal attack on my character, and not the theories advanced. These will be good ones to keep in reserve for the next time you push that big red button and alert the moderators.

“Have you given any thought to the matter that Lewis parroted Cox`s testimony, Ben? Of course not! Now, show me where it is said in any contemporary police report or any contemporary press report, that the authorities were looking for LEWIS´man specifically! Do that, or retract this obvious balderdash.”

Don’t make be chunder. Parroting Cox’s testimony? What mucky drivel are you shamelessly and fatuously espousing now in your desperation? Lewis did absolutely no such thing. I have already demonstrated that the police were obviously interested in Lewis’ account at least a week after the termination of the inquest, and don't you even dream of telling me what I should “retract”.

“And do try and understand the Packer/Lewis business, will you?”

There was never any “Packer/Lewis business”. There is absolutely no reason for the two to be juxtaposed, let alone dismissed for the same reason. Gosh, all these hastily jumped-upon fantasy speculations that you pile one upon the other. What sickens me most is that you have the absolute nerve to accuse me of "fantasizing" when I state that Lewis' evidence continued to be taken seriously, right after you stated it as a "certainty" that she wasn't. It's enough to turn a man to more drink.

It’s back on topic time for you, Fisherman, unless you want to continue on this thread and on this particular subject, going round and round in relentless point-scoring circles. I wonder which option you’ll pick...

I want that material urgently, Ben. URGENTLY!!

You really do need to calm down, and stop behaving in this obsessive, weird fashion.

Back we are to square one:

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.

There is strong evidence to suggest that her evidence was taken seriously and pursued after the inquest.

[Fisherman]

Ben tries again:

My words: "the truth of the matter is that only the ones who stand by their original testimonies are believed by the police.”

Ben´s rather imaginative answer:

"And Lewis most assuredly did that.
The police would have allowed for minor variations"

That´s "Alice in Wonderland" all over again, Ben. We all KNOW that Lewis went from claiming that she could not say one single thing about the man she saw - not a shred, not a scrap, not nothing, that is - to suddenly being able to point out that he was a shortish, stout guy clad in dark clothes, wearing a dark wideawake hat, and she was even able to add that he intently watched the court as if waiting for somebody to come out.

Now, maybe David Copperfield could have made something out of this, or Siegfried and Roy, if they felt extra ambitious and wanted to stun the world. But since they have carreers in the magical business to safeguard, they would probably never even have tried it.
You, on the other hand, seem not to be too troubled by dabbling in a business where you lack all talent? MINOR variations??? Ben, if a hat goes from grey to black, you have a minor variation. If a man goes from tall to short, though, you have a MAJOR variation, and a good reason to doubt the witness. And if a man goes from not having been described, to suddenly emerging, body stature, clothing, hat couture and all, together with a complete description of his behaviour and perceived intent, then we are looking at a colossal change. A major-major change. And if you fail to see that, you need to surgically get your severely dislocated sense of logic seen to by somebody.

"we also know that it was treated as valuable afterwards, because we know that later suspects continued to be compared with her evidence, as witness the Birmingham suspect mentioned in the Echo. An inquest witness described a suspect whose “gentlemanly appearance and manners” matched up with those of this individual from Birmingham, and since Lewis’ suspect was the only “gentleman”-type to emerge from the inquest, it is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that it was Lewis who was compared to this suspect."

Balderdash, and you know it. The Star, 19:th November 1888:

"Considerable excitement was caused in London yesterday by the circulation of a report that a medical man had been arrested at Euston, upon arrival from Birmingham, on a charge of suspected complicity in the Whitechapel murders. It was stated that the accused had been staying at a common lodging-house in Birmingham since Monday last, and the theory was that if, as was supposed by the police, he was connected with the East-end crimes, he left the metropolis by an early train on the morning of the tragedies. The suspected man was of gentlemanly appearance and manners, and somewhat resembled the description of the person declared by witnesses at the inquest to have been seen in company with Kelly early on the morning that she was murdered. Upon being minutely questioned as to his whereabouts at the time of the murders, the suspect was able to furnish a satisfactory account of himself, and was accordingly liberated."

End of story. Out the window, once again, Ben, with you cleverly thought up argument. It seems it invariably exits the building through that exact same window? Funny.

The Birmingham man - to whom you attach so much hope, resembled a man seen "in Kellys company" on the murder morning. I fail to see that Lewis´man fits that description.
It is very clear that the man spoken of here is Astrakhan man. The paper made the mistake of believing that he belonged to the inquest, which he didn´t. A perfectly clear pointer to this is how it is spoken of gentlemanly manners on his behalf. Or do you suggest that Lewis spoke of gentlemanly manners on behalf of HER man?
"He followed us and spoke to us, and wanted us to follow him into an entry. He had a shiny leather bag with him.
[Coroner] Did he want both of you ? - No; only one. I refused. He went away and came back again, saying he would treat us. He put down his bag and picked it up again, saying, "What are you frightened about ? Do you think I've got anything in the bag ?" We then ran away, as we were frightened."

Gentlemanly manners, eh? Lewis clearly implicates that the man´s manners made her think that he could have been the Ripper. Gentlemanly? Balderdash!

I also fail very much to see why you should use the BG man as a sign that the police followed up on Lewis tip about a loiterer. It is not the same man at all, is it?

"This pre/post inquest distinction is a gallingly crap irrelevance. Packer was discredited before the inquest, whereas Lewis was treated as a genuine witness before the inquest and after it. "

Balderdash.

"There has never, ever been such an occasion, nor will there be."

Help me out, Ben - which is the next step after "Balderdash"??

"Ah good, a personal attack on my character, and not the theories advanced. These will be good ones to keep in reserve for the next time you push that big red button and alert the moderators."

They can read, remember!

"Lewis did absolutely no such thing."

Of course not - the fact that her man is a twin of Cox´s is just a twist of fate, nothing else ...! Dark clothing, not tall but stout, wideawake hat ...

"What mucky drivel are you shamelessly and fatuously espousing now in your desperation?"

So, Ben, you try to pull off the very obvious misconception that Lewis only changed her testimony to a very small extent, and top it of by calling me shameless? Good luck with that one. Balderdash!

"There was never any “Packer/Lewis business”. "

Aha. So the two did not relate to the same case?

"There is absolutely no reason for the two to be juxtaposed"

You don´t WANT them to be, you mean, since it further underlines the feebleness of your argument.

"Gosh, all these hastily jumped-upon fantasy speculations that you pile one upon the other."

Once again you try to peddle the view that I jump to extremely hasty conclusions. Well, let me tell you that it only takes a fraction of a second to outwit you, so don´t hold it against me!

"What sickens me most is that you have the absolute nerve to accuse me of "fantasizing" when I state that Lewis' evidence continued to be taken seriously, right after you stated it as a "certainty" that she wasn't. It's enough to turn a man to more drink."

It would seem you have had quite enough already, Ben. Put the glass down and sober up.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sister Hyde]

väldigt gosig vittne.

how do you know THAT ??

[Fisherman]

Not to ask "How did you PHRASE that ... Computerized translation programmes obviously have some serous shortcomings.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sister Hyde]

JAG är gosig.
Now Fish, maybe he really meant to say that Hutchinson was a very cuddly witness... then I seriously wonder how he got to know that!

[Ben]

how do you know THAT ??

I have it on top authority from Melvyn Fairclough, Joseph Gorman Sickert, the Morning Advertiser, the Wheeling Register and some bloke named Terry from Romford.

Men allvarligt, var han enligt uppgift mycket gosig. Han vandrade också 48 miles varje dag före frukost.

[Ben]

So engaging me obsessively in yet another interminable Hutchinson-discussion is obviously the priority for you here, rather than recognizing that the better thing to do would be to steer the thread back on topic after you derailed it.

“We all KNOW that Lewis went from claiming that she could not say one single thing about the man she saw - not a shred, not a scrap, not nothing, that is - to suddenly being able to point out that he was a shortish, stout guy clad in dark clothes,”

There’s that detestable repetition of previously challenged nonsense again, so off we go again: 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.

People who have confidence in their own arguments tend to let them stand on their own merits, rather than pleading the same redundant, unpopular, never-to-be-seriously-entertained drivel about Sarah Lewis, who continued to be taken seriously as a witness. This horrible nonsense about a colossal change on Lewis’ part is your fantasy alone, and one the contemporary police did not invest in. The man was “not, tall but stout”, wore a wideawake, and was apparently “watching” and “waiting”. Besides the numerous explanations behind Lewis’ omission of those details on the morning of the murder, when her egress from the court was physically prevented, it might be borne in mind that she was preoccupied at the time of the sighting by the other man from Bethnal Green Road, who had spooked her considerably more than the wideawake man.

Philip Sugden was aware of this, and yet he still considers Lewis a genuine witness just as everyone else does. This “major-major” change is a fantasy you’ve invested in a month of two ago because you panic that the Lewis-Hutchinson connection establishes beyond reasonable doubt that neither confused the date. In fact, all these crazy new theories you’re currently espousing are all borne of a desperation to salvage Dew’s “date confusion” speculations, which is something else you decided to revive a few posts after I mentioned him for the first time in connection with Hutchinson.

Is “balderdash” a new word that you’ve looked up in English, and are suddenly very proud of being able to use?

“It is very clear that the man spoken of here is Astrakhan man. The paper made the mistake of believing that he belonged to the inquest, which he didn´t.”

Don’t be preposterous.

The Echo knew few well that Hutchinson did not attend the inquest, and would not, therefore, have described him as a witnesses who attended it. They were already fully aware by then, as a result of direct communication with the police, that Hutchinson was discredited in part because of his failure to attend the inquest. What sane newspaper would report this police-supplied detail which focussed specifically on Hutchinson’s no-show at the inquest, only to describe him a few days later as a witness who attended the inquest? Clearly they did no such thing, and yet you have the gut-wrenching gall to accuse me of lying, and pretend that I “know” this isn’t true.

You are talking yet more nonsense, Fisherman, and YOU know it.

Hutchinson didn’t even specify a man of “gentlemanly” appearance, so the 19th November Echo description couldn’t have applied to Hutchinson even if he did attend the inquest. Lewis was the only witness to describe a “gentleman” suspect, a detail that you oh-so-conveniently omit from your reproduction of Lewis’ evidence.

From the Daily Telegraph, 13th November:

“On Wednesday night I was going along the Bethnal-green-road, with a woman, about eight o'clock, when a gentleman passed us. He followed us and spoke to us, and wanted us to follow him into an entry. He had a shiny leather bag with him.”

It doesn’t matter in the slightest whether or not you think the man had gentlemanly appearance and manners, but Sarah Lewis, who was able to observe and listen to the man at close quarters, still described him as a “gentleman”. I go with Lewis’ impression, not yours.

Also, since Lewis was the only inquest witness who referred to a “gentleman” suspect, it follows that the 19th November Echo article could only have been in reference to Lewis, thus demonstrating continued police endorsement of her evidence a week after the inquest. There is no other explanation. Rotten, beastly luck for your recently conjured up Lewis-bashing agenda.

“I also fail very much to see why you should use the BG man as a sign that the police followed up on Lewis tip about a loiterer. It is not the same man at all, is it?”

It seems very much as though “the loiterer” was eclipsed in terms of importance by the more superficially sinister man from Bethnal Green Road.

“Of course not - the fact that her man is a twin of Cox´s is just a twist of fate, nothing else ...! Dark clothing, not tall but stout, wideawake hat”

Ah yes, what an astonishingly detailed description that was? Good grief. If Lewis wanted to parrot Cox’ evidence (for what possible reason?), she would certainly have used Cox’s “Billycock” in preference to “wideawake”, and she would certainly have referred to a blotchy face and/or carroty moustache.

“So, Ben, you try to pull off the very obvious misconception that Lewis only changed her testimony to a very small extent, and top it of by calling me shameless?”

If it’s such an “obvious misconception”, why does virtually nobody agree with you then? Try to cultivate a bit of humility when you post these extremely controversial, brand new, and minority endorsed ideas, please.

“Well, let me tell you that it only takes a fraction of a second to outwit you”

I realize this seems to be your cherished pursuit and main reason for dedicating so much of your time to discussions in which I participate, but you’ve never been at all successful at it. That doesn’t mean I’m not grateful that I can command such extremes of attention from some people. The desire to “outwit” me clearly has a hypnotic appeal for some.

Let's have another very long post please, Fisherman.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

I have it on top authority from Melvyn Fairclough, Joseph Gorman Sickert, the Morning Advertiser, the Wheeling Register and some bloke named Terry from Romford.

And don't forget Lady-Kee-Kee Keyler

[Sister Hyde]

I have it on top authority from Melvyn Fairclough, Joseph Gorman Sickert, the Morning Advertiser, the Wheeling Register and some bloke named Terry from Romford.

Men allvarligt, var han enligt uppgift mycket gosig. Han vandrade också 48 miles varje dag före frukost.

ok then these people must have had very very VERY weird relations to Hutchinson.
wandering 48 miles daily ok it's not so weird. but before breakfast every day?? probably it did happen sometimes, maybe even often, cause he was not a rich guy and who knows sometimes what you have to do in order to get some food but it would seem weird that he would be doing it every day. spnding a lot of energy while having nothing in the system is not something "fun" I can tell you

[Fisherman]

Sister Hyde:

"I seriously wonder how he got to know that!"

He just knows things, Sister. And he won´t let go of Hutchinson for anything in the world.

He ought to let go of that translation programme, though ...

The best,
Fisherman