Vetting Hutchinson

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Ease off the Hutchinson threads for a bit. You’re on them far too much. I want at least 12 hours to have elapsed before you address this.

The discussion concerned the identification of Hutchinson as Lewis’s wideawake man – nothing to do with Astrakhan man. It was necessary only for you to demonstrate to a curious JohnG the extremely high probability that the man observed loitering opposite the court at 2:30am on the night of the murder, seemingly “waiting for someone to come out”, was the same man who later claimed and admitted to doing precisely that at precisely the same time and location. That was achieved very successfully, and it didn’t need your Daily News horror story, which you keep derailing every Hutchinson thread with, owing to your ongoing obsession with Astrakhan man and his supposed identity.

"Further on" ahead of Lewis, on her side of the street. Further on in front of Lewis.”

No.

It doesn’t mean that, and she certainly didn’t mean that.

I’m talking about what normal people understand by the term “further on”. She saw the loitering man outside Crossingham’s, and then noted that “further on” from where that man was standing there was a couple. There is absolutely no suggestion that the couple were on “her side of the street”. You also seem to be labouring under the delusion that it was unusual for woman in that part of the east end to get drunk and not wear a hat. I’d dispense with that obvious delusion, and soon.

“I know you are desperate to play down the significance, but you said yourself, Hutchinson saw nobody else that night. He only saw one policeman, one lodger, and one couple - Astrachan & Kelly. No mention of a second couple.”

Circular reasoning yet again. Hutchinson told the truth because Hutchinson says so, announces Jon. Of course, if he lied, he could easily have seen the same irrelevant, innocuous couple that Lewis did but omitted to mention then in favour of his discredited Astrakhan subterfuge.

“What analysis is to be done? It's a press report by a reporter who was at the Inquest. I am the only one who has thought to collate the various press reports, the end result is over on JTRForums.”

The arrogance and ridiculousness of this statement is endearing somehow. I’m afraid this is one for the Bookmark. Are you seriously suggesting that you are the only person who has ever compared the press reports on the Kelly inquest? And if you answer, amusingly, in the affirmative, does it follow that you’re the only person capable of offering a valid opinion on the subject? What are you trying to convince me of here? That because you supposedly know so much more than everyone else, nobody is in a position to contradict you? I guess it doesn’t matter, then, that nobody agrees with you on the “passing up the court” issue, because you’re the only person on the planet who has ever done any homework on the subject.

You do realise, I hope, that copying and pasting from the Casebook press section isn’t that difficult to do?

“Sarah Lewis had no cause to suddenly inject, "there was nobody in the court", if your couple was way off down Dorset St. There is absolutely no connection between the two.”

Yes, I know.

Well done.

The irrelevant couple were heading west along Dorset Street and there was nobody in the court, whereas if a couple had just entered the court, there would be “someone” in the court – two people, to be precise, and making their presence very much known in the tiny enclosure that was #13. And yet Lewis makes no mention of any noise emanating from that room, which you insist had just been entered by Kelly and Astrakhan (who up until that point had been quite noisy and chatty). Whatever weird and unacceptable “interpretation” you choose to go with, Lewis’s observation that there was “nobody in the court” makes a nonsense of any suggestion that a noisy couple had entered the court just a few minutes or seconds earlier.

“Lewis only saw this couple from behind, and in the dark, so naturally she was not asked to identify the woman”

Provide your evidence immediately for the assertion that “Lewis only saw this couple from behind”. Lawende also saw the Church Passage woman from behind and in the dark, and yet he was still called to identity the victim’s clothes. Had there been the remotest suggestion that the woman “in drink” witnessed by Lewis was Kelly, a similar attempt at clothing identification would irrefutably have been made. In fact, the only person who seems to determine to identify the woman as Kelly is, well, guess who?

“A woman's concept (Cox) of being the worse for drink is not the same as a man's (Hutchinson).”

What an extremely odd, inaccurate and sexist thing to say.

Where do you come up with such dotty stuff?

So, go on then, keep digging – the best gender for accurately guessing the extent of a person’s intoxication is…? You usually attempt to undermine Cox’s evidence at every opportunity, so I guess she must have been wrong about this one too. Which leaves you with Hutchinson, whose observation that Kelly was merely “spreeish” does not tally with a person who is “worse” for drink; which completely ruins your attempt to find some sort of compatibility between Kelly and the “in drink” woman described by Lewis.

I’m afraid you’re away with the hairy fairies on this one.

All the best,
Ben

[harry]

Richard,
If you had been following my exchanges with Fisherman,you would have plenty of reason for understanding I was alluding to both Thursday and Friday.It was an error of concentration,not a failure of memory that made me write Thursday the 9th.It still doesn't invalidate my post.
Now only a suspicious nature would believe it did.

[Wickerman]

The story was available throughout the area throughout the weekend Jon, there is no reason to assume he wasn't exposed to some of that talk.

We are only talking about the contribution by Lewis, yes?

With that in mind, are you suggesting that her story of seeing the loiterer & this other couple was available on the street, over the weekend?

Seeing as how nothing by Lewis was printed in the press, I am not sure what the basis is for your opinion that her story was available.
Can you elaborate?

I accept your belief he was believed, but there is little if any evidence that can be used for a supporting argument for that belief. On the other hand, we can read for ourselves in contemporary reports that it was stated that he was discredited.

Discredited? - ok, but what does discredited mean in your opinion?

For the longest time the interpretation has been given that Hutch was dismissed as a witness, which is why the police were no longer interested in him, much like Packer.

Since this claim has been exposed as false, that further accounts in the press demonstrate a continued interest by police long after this 'assumed' discrediting, the meaning of "discredited" has necessarily been revised.

Now, we are being told that "discredited" means a lessening of interest, more in keeping with the Echo's claim of "reduced importance", not an outright dismissal - which we already knew.

So, what is your meaning?

[Michael W Richards]

Hutchinson would have to be present in that little room at Shoreditch for him to have heard sufficient testimony with which to base his story. Given that very few members of the public were admitted to the inquest, he would stand out in the presence both Supt. Arnold & Insp. Abberline. Not forgetting that Sarah Lewis might have pointed him out too.

Are we then to believe he would come forward an hour or so later expecting not to be recognised?

It's a mistake to give any credence to this idea of a 'Lewis-derived' source for Hutchinson's story.

The story was available throughout the area throughout the weekend Jon, there is no reason to assume he wasn't exposed to some of that talk. Its hearing that story that may well have been his catalyst for coming forward at all,... in one example, if he was Wideawake Man and wanted a cover story for his being there that night.

I accept your belief he was believed, but there is little if any evidence that can be used for a supporting argument for that belief. On the other hand, we can read for ourselves in contemporary reports that it was stated that he was discredited.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

...Hutchinson saw a man accost Kelly, he described what he saw, but it is not certain if he was her killer, the body was not discovered until some 9 hours afterwards..plenty of time, for someone else to have committed the murder.

Quite so, an obvious conclusion to arrive at. Sugden makes the same observation:
"...it is always possible that Mary got rid of the man he saw and picked up another client shortly before her death".

We do not need any evidence that she left her room. The very fact the police were given a potential time of death between 3:30-4:00 (the cry of murder), up to an hour after Hutchinson's vigil, is reason enough.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Harry,
I accept what you are saying, many people say , I went out Thursday all day and got back late Thursday night, even though they actually arrived home 2 am Friday morning.
But Hutchinson stated, he arrived back at 2.am , clearly interpreting , the early hours of a morning, which would have been the Friday, some 9 hours until Kelly was discovered..
If we curb our suspicious natures, it really is straightforward,
Hutchinson saw a man accost Kelly, he described what he saw, but it is not certain if he was her killer, the body was not discovered until some 9 hours afterwards..plenty of time, for someone else to have committed the murder.
Regards Richard.

[harry]

Richard,
I sincerely hope the question of lies doesn't arise.
Normal acceptance,yes,but in my mind, Thursday night has a normal acceptance of the hours of darkness following the daylight period of Thursday.Common usage might explain a statement of,"Kelly was killed on Thursday night".I might arrive home in the early hours of Friday morning,yet on retelling I might say I was out late on Thursday night.
Regards.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Harry,,
For the record I have no problem with fact in my 'own mind', such a broadcast did exist, I never lie to make a point..
But back to your interpretation of days..
Thursday begins at midnight Wed evening , and ends at midnight Thursday evening, which is when Friday commences.
Surely that is normal acceptance?
Regards Richard...

[harry]

Fisherman,
No I was not offended.In fact I was not wrong even.The admittance was made to prevent more long winded arguments,of what is what.Richard is obsessed with fact seeing he has a problem himself with it.The proving of a radio programme,but Richard is a decent poster,who never descends to personnel ridicule.
Thursday the 8th and Friday the 9th.Thursday night and Friday morning.So Thursday the 9th.The overlapping of two days,for when does Thursday night cease and Friday morning begin?Maybe not your way of expressing it,or anyone elses,and maybe it has never been expressed that way before. The question is,is it wrong? Would Tursday/9 be incorrect.What law or decision would make it so.
Remember,it began with me.

[Wickerman]

...Thus, as Sugden (2002) points out there are at least 40 points of corroboration between the statement he gave the police and the account he gave the press. Therefore, if he simply based his account on the evidence that Lewis gave at the inquest, why didn't he recall this evidence more effectively, bearing in mind that it was given the same day he came forward?

Hutchinson would have to be present in that little room at Shoreditch for him to have heard sufficient testimony with which to base his story. Given that very few members of the public were admitted to the inquest, he would stand out in the presence both Supt. Arnold & Insp. Abberline. Not forgetting that Sarah Lewis might have pointed him out too.

Are we then to believe he would come forward an hour or so later expecting not to be recognised?

It's a mistake to give any credence to this idea of a 'Lewis-derived' source for Hutchinson's story.

[J6123]

Doesn't Hutchinson describe the killer as tapping Kelly on the shoulder and making her laugh? Then he puts his arm around her, then he whips out his red handkerchief for her because she's lost hers? This is describing a man who knows how to interact with women, a Casanova, not Jack the Ripper...

[Sally]

Jon,

The apparent fact that many of the details observed by Hutchinson can be found in everyday accounts in the press, actually demonstrates that his story is based on reality.

'Apparent fact?' It either is or it isn't, Jon -and in this case it is. Unfortunately for your sweeping rebuttal, I am not referring to 'everyday accounts' but rather to specific details.

You are wrong.

The police were certainly abreast of what was being written in the press. It is quite audacious to think that something so obvious should go unnoticed by the police.

Bollocks - but please do go ahead and suggest that the police spent their spare time - of which, of course, they had an abundance - trawling through the latest press reports just in case anything therein had been inspirational to a bogus witness - I could do with a laugh.

I find it rather amusing that some claim his account is so fanciful it cannot possibly be true - yet at the same time claim his account is so 'common' that he must have made it up...

And I find it rather amusing that you regularly try to misrepresent the arguments of others in so transparent a fashion.

On the contrary, when we actually do look close at the "Hutch-the-liar" argument, not only do we find nothing but bold accusations, but those who are making these accusations can't even agree on what it is that he may have lied about.

A "maybe" + "maybe" + "maybe" = therefore, he is.
Is not a mathematical formula that I recognize, but it seems to be all the "Hutch-the-liar" camp have going for them.

Not at all, it's really very easy to present a strong case for 'Hutch-the-Liar' - and it's been done, many times - which is why I'm reluctant to go through it yet again. You seem to enjoy going over old, done-to-death ground - and I see you're not alone; so I'm sure the absence of anybody else will be ok - you can invent 'solutions' amongst yourselves. I have other, more interesting pursuits to attend to I'm afraid.

If that, is someone's idea of 'simple' then I'll take the conventional view any day.

Will you? So you'll be dropping your silly Isaacs nonsense then?

No?

[John G]

It is a fact that eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and it's therefore worth remembering that Hutchinson had only a brief look at the suspect in poor lighting conditions. Moreover, he didn't come forward until 3 days after the sighting, although in a press interview he claims to have informed a police officer the day before, which would have further impacted on his recollection. It would therefore be unsurprising if his description was a composite of the suspect he saw with Kelly and the man he saw on Petticoat Lane, the day before he came forward, who he thought was the same man.

Of course, there are some discrepancies between his account and that of Lewis, but Hutchinson clearly had a very good memory. Thus, as Sugden (2002) points out there are at least 40 points of corroboration between the statement he gave the police and the account he gave the press. Therefore, if he simply based his account on the evidence that Lewis gave at the inquest, why didn't he recall this evidence more effectively, bearing in mind that it was given the same day he came forward? And what of Lewis' evidence? She might not have had such a good memory so could have made some errors, particularly as her testimony at the inquest was 3 days after the murder.

[Fisherman]

- A portion of Lewis's testimony confirms what Hutchinson claimed.

I agree with much of your reasoning, Jon. But we need to take into account that what Lewis said does not necessarily confirm Hutchinson. It SEEMS to do so on the surface, but once we delve deeper the cracks begin to show.

Just saying ....

[Fisherman]

So I made one mistake.Good,I stand corrected,it was the days and mornings of 7/8 and 8/9 November.Proves MEMORY can be corrected,as I'm sure Hutchinson's would,if HE had been mistaken.

Sorry, Harry, I didnīt mean to offend you. But you must admit that - given the context - your mistake was a funny one ...