Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[Garry Wroe]

"In this case, the principal issue is to determine whether Hutchinson's Astrakhan story was true. If not, there isn't a shred of evidence that Mary Kelly ventured outdoors subsequent to being sighted by Mary Cox, meaning that her killer was either Blotchy or someone who came to be in the room subsequent to Blotchy's departure. If the latter, there is every reason to believe that there was not only a pre-existing relationship between Kelly and her killer, but that Kelly was also explicitly targeted."

Meaning that you miss out totally on possibility number three - that Hutchinson was out on the dates. And if we are to "evaluate the evidence purely on it´s own merit", don´t you think that we should weigh in ALL factors?

I think that you'd be better served by reading what I actually wrote, Fish. If Hutchinson's story was untrue - in other words, even if it is unreliable courtesy of mistaken dates or timings - we are left with no evidence whatsoever that Mary Kelly went outdoors after her encounter with Mary Cox. Thus events take on an entirely different complexion to those traditionally associated with her death.

[Garry Wroe]

"why explore an area that may well prove productive"

I fail to see who´s stopping you?

No-one's stopping me, Fish. Just as no-one's stopping any of those posters who have been driven away by the seemingly interminable squabbles that have come to characterize the Hutchinson threads.

Do you recall the events of last year? Do you remember why Stephen felt the need to take action?

Just a word to the wise.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I asked you not to keep derailing the thread with more of this unrelated Stride stuff from years ago"

... but STILL just as embarrasing now as it was then, right?

" ...the overwhelmingly logical reason for this is that Schwartz never said anything about the man’s “respectable” appearance, or lack thereof. Had he done so, it would have been included in the police report."

You will appreciate, Ben, that I do not turn to you to find out what is "overwhelmingly logical" or not! My guess - and since it is a guess , I CALL it a guess - is that the police took great interest in BS man´s appearance, and that they accordingly asked about his general appearance. Then again, there is, like you say, nothing in the report to prove that they did so. But I feel confident in saying that not all things went into all reports.

At the end of the day, though, I may persuade you to agree that ALL information that could be had about BS man would have been of interest to the police?

"So yes, I do “speak of the probability that the paper got it wrong”, and it would be extremely unusual if anyone argued otherwise."

No. It should be argued that the paper COULD have gotten it wrong, but not that it was probable as such. For every thing a paper gets wrong, it gets thousands of things right.

"Don’t attempt to justify your continuing derailment of the thread on the grounds that it’s necessary to “expose” me"

Oh, you´ve exposed yourself for the longest time, Ben. It is not my doing - it is yours. But I reserve the right to point to it when you are very tendentious in your choice of evidence material.

"This article refers to Sarah Lewis, who was a witness at the inquest and used the word “gentleman” to describe the man she encountered on Bethnal Green Road. Astrakhan man does not meet the criteria mentioned in the Echo article."

Stupid, I´m afraid. The word "gentleman" was mentioned by Lewis, yes. But that is only one parameter attaching to this article. So let´s list them, and get this embarrasing suggestion out of the world once and for all.

1. gentlemanly appearance
2. gentlemanly manners
3. seen in Kelly´s company on the murder night
4. testified about at the inquest

Now, where does Lewis fit in? Yes, that´s right - she ticks the first and the fourth box. The other two - no. The so called Bethnal green man was called abusive by the Times, and that is not exactly gentlemanly manners, is it? Furthermore, Lewis´ man was NOT seen in Kellys company on the murder night!

So, two out of two. How about astrakhan man? He ticks boxes 1, 2 AND three! Meaning that he is the better bid.
Can we take it further? Yes indeed, we can. For we have Cox´s man too, and HE ticks boxes 3 and 4 very clearly, plus it CAN be claimed that supplying drink for a lady can be called gentlemanly manners, at least if we use a little fantasy - and you normally don´t mind that, do you?

So, my fine friend, you hang things up very much on the claim that the man in Birmingham resembled a man that was alledgedly spoken about at the inquest. But many days had elapsed since that inquest, and we KNOW that no such man as the one described in the article was EVER described at Kelly´s inquest.
It could NOT have been Lewis´man, for he was not in the company of Kelly and he was not very gentlemanly in his manners. Cox´s man seems a better bet, for he WAS in Kelly´s company, and that is a much, much more qualifying detail than the very vague title of "gentleman". Blotchy, though was shabbily dressed and as far as we can tell, there is no evidence that Kelly was offered any beer at all from the pale - so he seems a better, but not a good bet.
But Astrakhan man! We already know that something was wrong in the papers report, and if we accept that it was the claim that this fellow was mentioned at the inquest, the rest is spot on: the gentlemanly appearance, astrakhan coat, collar, gold chain and all, the gentlemanly manners, offering Kelly his handkerchief plus the all-important fact that he was reportedly seen in Kelly´s company on the murder night.

The combination of inquest and "gentleman" falls flat on it´s nose in comparison. It makes for a deplorable comparison. It will take a lot of desperation to go for the kind of "interpretation" that you choose here.

"Nothing has changed, Fisherman. "

No? Let´s just agree to disagree on that score!

"The only blatant lie in the equation is your offensive, shoddy little accusation."

Shall we ask the administrators about their view, Ben? To see if THEY think I am a shoddy little liar and you are not? I think that time may have come.

"If I state that something “is clear”, the obvious implication is that it is clear to me."

That is equally untrue. When something is clear, there is no doubt about it. If you are speaking of yourself, you need to press that: "It is clear TO ME" etcetera.
You may wriggle and writhe as much as you like, but I will tell you that it is NOT clear that the police dismissed Hutchinson since they thought he was a liar.
It is absolutely and totally UNCLEAR, it is in all probability only a minority-endorsed suggestion and I have every right in the world to point that out without myself being called a liar for it!!
I can accept a linguistic mistake on your behalf, but only if you admit it. If you do not admit it, and admit that it is NOT clear that Hutchinson was a liar in the eyes of the police, I shall certainly report your claim: "The only blatant lie in the equation is your offensive, shoddy little accusation."

Myself, I don´t have a hope in hell to make you admit your misrepresentations without any external pressure, so there´s the only bid I can give you.

"That’s “at the very least”. I also happen to believe that the evidence more than allows for additional inferences."

Fine. No problems. That´s as it should be.

"Have I been more robust in my terminology to you than I have been recently to Monty? Probably, but that’s because he is not nearly as aggressive and antagonistic in his prose as you are, nor does he accuse me of lying. "

No. He used "misrepresent". And you should know better than to let your personal antagonism towards me taint your way of describing the evidence!

" In observing the probability, as I perceive it, that Hutchinson was dismissed as a probable liar, I’m doing so on the basis of the evidence, rather than “setting it aside”.

Fine again. But when you claim that it is clear that the police thought him a liar, you ARE tampering with the evidence, and that is something you need to correct!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"Do you recall the events of last year? Do you remember why Stephen felt the need to take action?"

Yes, I do. Why would I not? But I fail to see why you ask ME this, when Ben is the party claiming that it is OK to state that it is clear that the police regarded Hutchinson a liar. To this, he adds that I am a shoddy little liar for pointing out that this is not true.

I am having serious trouble understanding how this makes ME the bad guy, but I am sure that you can explain it in a very pedagogical manner.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

I agree entirely, Garry.

If we work from the basis of the inquest evidence only, there is no evidence that Kelly ventured out of her room after she was last seen to enter it with Blotchy.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

“... but STILL just as embarrasing now as it was then, right?”

Well yes, I was embarrassed for you, which is why I’m amazed you took the catastrophic decision to dredge it all up again. I’m sure the police did take an active interest in the appearance of the broad-shouldered man, which is why they would certainly have remembered and recorded any detail that related to the man’s respectable or non-respectable appearance had Schwartz mentioned anything about it. The total absence of any commentary from Schwartz on that subject – as recorded in Swanson’s report – suggests very strongly indeed that Schwartz never broached it.

It is therefore extremely likely to my mind that either the Star was in error, or there was an understandable translation error.

“But I reserve the right to point to it when you are very tendentious in your choice of evidence material.”

Again with this delusion that you are in any way suitable for the role of Guide to the Wrongdoings of Ben. In fact, your attentive persistence is more likely to increase my chances of “getting away” with naughty interpretations of the evidence.

“Stupid, I´m afraid. The word "gentleman" was mentioned by Lewis, yes. But that is only one parameter attaching to this article.”

Oh, you’re repeating this nonsense again?

Bear with me a moment, dum di dum di dum…here we are:

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. 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. The Echo were in direct communication with the police, and they knew full well that Hutchinson did not attend the inquest – indeed the were one of the few newspapers that made specific reference to his non-attendance. It is impossible to accept, therefore, that they described Hutchinson as a “witness at the inquest” when they knew full well he wasn’t.

“1. gentlemanly appearance
2. gentlemanly manners
3. seen in Kelly´s company on the murder night
4. testified about at the inquest”

You can forget #3 for starters. The Echo didn’t say anything about the suspect having been seen with Kelly on the night in question, so you can also forget the idea that the Echo were wrong on any point in that article. This leaves us with the remaining three, and suffice to say, Lewis’ description meets all the existing criteria, with Hutchinson's meeting none of them. He did not attend the inquest, nor did he describe a gentleman. Your desperately nonsensical claim that the 19th November article applies to Astrakhan man is predicated on the flawed and baseless assumption that the article in question was wrong, and yet when you leave it untouched, it points unambiguously and unmistakably to Sarah Lewis having been the witness referred to.

It is quite clear that Cox’s man wasn’t the individual referred to, as he was not of “gentlemanly appearance”, unlike Lewis’ man. But Blotchy is a better candidate than Astrakhan, I’ll give you that much. I don’t know where you formed the impression that the man from Bethnal Green Road was “abusive”, but Lewis conveyed no such impression.

Sarah Lewis was most emphatically the witness described in the 19th November article, as I am prepared to reiterate for decades and decades, if necessary.

“If you are speaking of yourself, you need to press that: "It is clear TO ME" etcetera”

No. I don't.

I will do no such thing at your behest. When I say, “it is clear”, I expect people to be able to figure out that I mean clear to me, without my having to hold their hand and specify as much. Hence, it is totally and utterly clear that Hutchinson was discredited for reasons that pertained to his credibility. You can foam at the mouth about this if you want, but if you call me a liar for expressing that view, I’m just going to call you one back, and if you seriously think you can go around calling people liars and then report people who retaliate in kind, you are utterly fantasizing.

If you wish to retract that accusation, I might be inclined to retract mine. But as it stands, I stand by every single observation I've made. I did not make a “linguistic mistake”, and I will continue to think, and say, that Hutchinson was clearly discounted because of doubts surrounding his credibility. I know for certain that nobody is going to apply any “external pressure” to retract those statements, and it's utterly ludicrous for you to threaten any.

[Rubyretro]

I agree entirely, Garry.

If we work from the basis of the inquest evidence only, there is no evidence that Kelly ventured out of her room after she was last seen to enter it with Blotchy.

All the best,
Ben

I agree with you both.

[Garry Wroe]

I am having serious trouble understanding how this makes ME the bad guy, but I am sure that you can explain it in a very pedagogical manner.

Apologies, Fish, if my previous posts created the impression that they were aimed specifically at yourself. I thought I'd made it clear that they were intended for all concerned parties. So again, apologies for the confusion.