Vetting Hutchinson

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Once again, Hutchinson explained in print that this was his meaning.

Hutchinson explained in print that "to the court" and "up" it referred to two separate locations:

"They both then went up the court together. I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away"

The above makes clear the fact that Hutchinson regarded the act of going "to" the court to be quite different to going "up" it.

Warren never put a time limit on the receipt of paperwork, it is only made clear that every communication must pass over his desk.

Yes, and at the very earliest opportunity. A manhunt for an all-too-active serial killer could ill-afford to conceal important information at ground level, which is why Abberline would certainly not have withheld crucial revelations from the Hutchinson interrogation had any emerged.

“They can hardly listen for his footsteps if they are making noise themselves.
On the other hand, Cox believed she heard footsteps outside and thought of a policeman on his beat. Maybe that is what they thought.

I don't see the point of this line, why does it matter?”

I’m simply trying to ascertain why a couple, who had been chatty and giggly and spreeish a few seconds previously, would suddenly go silent upon entering Kelly’s room, and it “matters” because your theory demands that such bizarre behaviour actually occurred. The idea that they were trying to “hide” from Hutchinson doesn’t really ring true, considering the complete lack of interest Astrakhan man had previously shown in Hutchinson’s overtly intrusive behaviour.

As for witnesses requiring specific questions to encourage them into providing information that they might not have considered relevant, I’m quite happy with that as a general principle. I’m not happy with the suggestion that the statement-taking offer simply told Hutchinson to deliver a monologue and hold court uninterrupted for as long as he wishes, with no questions being asked. That appears to be your impression alone, and I note that none of the police experts who post here have supported your contention that it happened that way. Nor am I happy with the idea that an innocent, truthful Hutchinson didn’t consider the act of entering the court itself to be an important point to mention.

“Here you go again, what cause is there to be so childish?”

I had no belittling intentions, Jon; I was simply drawing humorous attention to the latest trend of trying to make Badham look as bad as possible (bad, bad Badham!) for Hutchinson to look good.

“The subsequent information is obviously the result of further questions by the reporter, or show me wrong by proving he invented this extra information.”

Let’s just improve the above by flipping it around:

The subsequent information is obviously the result of additional invention by Hutchinson, or show me wrong by proving that it was the result of further questions by the reporter.

There, much better.

“Badham should have been looking for details which establish an alibi, to waylay any thoughts that this witness was somehow involved.”

But no such “thoughts” existed, or were likely to exist, in the absence of any experience of serial killers coming forward as witnesses. Why would it have been the fault of Badham, or any other police officer for that matter, if Hutchinson was not able to provide “details which establish an alibi”? It wasn’t as if he was likely to procure one “walking about” alone in the small hours, conveniently enough for him.

“The "fear he was recognised" has been used by others, yet it is quite clear from the above comparison that Lewis's description is no description at all. Far too general to be used to single anyone out”

It seems you’re another one who doesn’t understand the basic difference between a description and a sighting. A suspect may be essentially non-descript, and a witness may lack the ability to describe people very well, but that does not for one moment mean that the witness will not be able to “recognise” that suspect again. It is more than possible to remember another person's face without being able to provide a very detailed description of them; nondescript is not the same as unmemorable. In the case of Lewis, there may not have been much to describe, especially if wideawake man had the appearance of an average working class local.

It's a bit shabby to describe an argument as “poor” just because you haven't understood it properly, and you should try not to misinterpret the stated positions of others. Nobody, as far as I’m aware, has stated that Hutchinson was recognised; only that he feared he might be if he didn’t come forward.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

... he could explain why he was in the area, maybe he knew he had been seen lurking nearby..and this would offer a explanation..
Self preservation is a strong motive.rather like the reason Mr Blotchy never showed himself to the police..
Regards Richard,

Hi Richard.

Doesn't the non-appearance of Blotchy run counter to Hutchinson's appearance?

I mean, if self-preservation was Hutchinson's concern then, how can you use Blotchy as an example - a suspect who did not come forward?

If you compare the description given by Cox of Blotchy, with the description offered by Lewis of the loiterer (Hutchinson?), then we can see Hutchinson had no cause to believe he had been, or even be recognised.

Cox suspect (Blotchy):
Age: 36
Height: 5ft 5in
Comp: Fresh, with blotches.
Small side whiskers, thick carroty moustache, clean chin.
Dress: Shabby dark clothes, dark overcoat, black felt billycock hat.

Lewis suspect (loiterer):
Height: Not tall, but stout, wore wideawake (black) hat.
Dress: No notice of clothes.

The "fear he was recognised" has been used by others, yet it is quite clear from the above comparison that Lewis's description is no description at all. Far too general to be used to single anyone out.
Blotchy had much more to fear yet he managed to stay away and uncaught.

It is a poor argument that is not substantiated by any evidence.

[richardnunweek]

Quite possible if [ and only if] he was Topping...
We know he met his wife to be, at a music hall, when she tripped over his cane, giving me the impression , that he may well have taken pride in his appearance, and dressed rather dapper..so a silk handkerchief why not?
Regards Richard.

[GUT]

The reason Hutchinson knew the handkerchief was red, was because it belonged to him..the reason why Abberline believed him, was because the said item was amongst the inventory in Kelly's room..
No proof one way or another, as no complete inventory exists.
Just imagine if my theory is right, the horror Hutch felt, when he realised around Friday lunchtime[ or sometime that day] that the person he spent some time in room 13, during the early hours of Friday morning, was reported to have been butchered on her bed, at the time he was in her room...?
But why worry , lots of red silk Handkerchiefs around..?
But these were expensive..and people may have noticed his was missing..
By incorporating his movements into a fictitious character that was Mr A, he could explain why he was in the area, maybe he knew he had been seen lurking nearby..and this would offer a explanation..
Self preservation is a strong motive.rather like the reason Mr Blotchy never showed himself to the police..
Regards Richard,

Do you think Hutch would have owned such a luxury though, a silk handkerchief.

[richardnunweek]

The reason Hutchinson knew the handkerchief was red, was because it belonged to him..the reason why Abberline believed him, was because the said item was amongst the inventory in Kelly's room..
No proof one way or another, as no complete inventory exists.
Just imagine if my theory is right, the horror Hutch felt, when he realised around Friday lunchtime[ or sometime that day] that the person he spent some time in room 13, during the early hours of Friday morning, was reported to have been butchered on her bed, at the time he was in her room...?
But why worry , lots of red silk Handkerchiefs around..?
But these were expensive..and people may have noticed his was missing..
By incorporating his movements into a fictitious character that was Mr A, he could explain why he was in the area, maybe he knew he had been seen lurking nearby..and this would offer a explanation..
Self preservation is a strong motive.rather like the reason Mr Blotchy never showed himself to the police..
Regards Richard,

[harry]

Well no Jon,you haven't clarified anything.What you are now trying to do,is place the blame for your lying about a third report,for which there is no evidence,on the writings of others.

No one except you has claimed a third reports existence.What others have written,is that the statement written by Badham,and the one written by Aberline,in their opinion,should have more detail.They are entitled to that opinion,but in no manner do they claim that detail was submitted in a separate report by Aberline,only yourself claims that.

It isn't a question of who knows best,or who one should listen to.Each investigator or questioner will proceed according to their own ideas of what needs to be established,and will include or exclude as they seem fit.

If Hutchinson did contact a police officer as claimed,the least I would expect is that officer obtain his name and address,and himself(the police officer) as soon as possible,advise higher authority.Had that been done,I am sure Hutchinson would have been contacted well before having to appear at the police station himself.But then,neither Hutchinson nor you,appear to know how things were done.

[Wickerman]

If you want "to the court" to mean inside the court itself,...

Once again, Hutchinson explained in print that this was his meaning.

Meaning what, exactly? You can either complain about my supposed use of "ridicule" or you can resort to counter-ridicule yourself, but I'm afraid you can't do both!

When I wrote:
“Was that you crying for help from Garry?”

It was in direct response to your:
"Stewart, whose participation in this discussion you seem eager to recruit.."

So tell me Ben, what caused you to make such a comment?

Statement-taking in 1888 might well have been considered lax by today's standards, but it is clear that Abberline didn't believe the Hutchinson statement to have been particularly deficient,..

Show me where this is clear.

The statement itself was formulated as a result of a "question and answer" session conducted by Badham,

Show me the evidence for this.

He happened to include a reference to his "daily activities" in a report that was specifically submitted in regard to Hutchinson's statement,

Show me this "specific" reference.

Then he forwarded the actual statement itself. The fact that he did so is a testament to his awareness of his duty to submit all case-associated paperwork to Donald Swanson,

Warren never put a time limit on the receipt of paperwork, it is only made clear that every communication must pass over his desk.
Was the interrogation report forwarded the next day after it had been analyzed?
Copies of it, possibly, but Abberline, as with every Chief Inspector, had his own files.

Considering that Miller's Court had only one exit and thus no "escape" from this inquisitive man, I can't see what Astrakhan would have gained from waiting in silence in Kelly's darkened room, with Kelly herself presumably just going along with it all (?).

They can hardly listen for his footsteps if they are making noise themselves.
On the other hand, Cox believed she heard footsteps outside and thought of a policeman on his beat. Maybe that is what they thought.

I don't see the point of this line, why does it matter?

Only if you resort to the entirely circular argument that the press additions were all genuine details that silly old Badham forgot to ask Hutchinson about,

Explain the "circular argument" bit.

Why, after all, did Hutchinson have to wait to be questioned about such things?

See, you have not read Stewarts analysis, or you would know:
"A typical witness cannot be expected to supply full and accurate details at the mere request, "Tell me what happened." In my experience witnesses do not realise how much they are able to say nor what is relevant."

You wouldn't need to go around in repeated circles with your questions if you actually read the answers provided.

Even the new Badham-the-Bastard theory doesn't get round that problem.

Here you go again, what cause is there to be so childish?

Provide your evidence that Hutchinson needed "coaxing", as opposed to the alternative explanation that he invented an "actual time he left".

The subsequent information is obviously the result of further questions by the reporter, or show me wrong by proving he invented this extra information.

So why were these "same details" not in the covering report, but other less important "details" were?

Do you know what a Cover letter is?

Oh, do tell me how Hutchinson's "alibi" was established!

Badham should have been looking for details which establish an alibi, to waylay any thoughts that this witness was somehow involved.

[Ben]

At the very least, I would have expected him to ask Hutchinson how he was able to discern so much detail, considering the poor lighting conditions; what was his relationship to Kelly; and why didn't he come forward earlier. Of course, none of this information appears in the surviving documents

But why wouldn't it, John?

Abberline was reporting on both the statement and the interrogation. If these all-important "clarifications" occurred as a result of the latter, why didn't Abberline mention them in his report? What possible advantage would there have been in saving them for later document, and only making reference to Hutchinson knowing the deceased for three years and occasionally giving her money?

I would have expected him to ask Hutchinson how he was able to discern so much detail, considering the poor lighting conditions

And you would have expected Hutchinson to say what in response to such a question? And how would it have "satisfied" Abberline (and us, for that matter)?

What I find confusing is that Hutchinson must have realized that there were discrepancies between his press and police statement, which he presumably signed. Moreover, he surely had to realize that the police would quickly pick up on any major discrepancies. So how did he expect to get away with it?

By protesting that any discrepancies were the work of the press, and if the police failed to buy that excuse, Hutchinson had only to challenge the police to make good their accusations, which they could not have done. The evidence suggests that Hutchinson was suspected of lying, but in the absence of proof for those suspicions, the police could do little more than cast him aside as probable publicity-seeker, the likes of whom they had encountered before in the form of Packer and others.

I'm not sure what you mean about Hutchinson's account being "broadly consistent" with Lewis's. The latter saw a man with an apparent fixation with the court entrance at 2:30, and Hutchinson later came forward with an account placing himself at that time at that location, engaging in the same apparent activity. It's a strong point of correlation, yes, but it's the only one, and doesn't require any feat of "memory" on Hutchinson's part.

It therefore seems odd that he would accidentally make a fundamental mistake when recalling details to the press.

Odd if it was a mistake, certainly, but not if was a deliberate and calculated alternation made for reasons of self-preservation.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

If you tell me you went to the C N Tower, I know you mean you went inside, and up the Tower - I just know that, you do not need to give me a step by step picture - that is what going to the Tower means.

But normal people wouldn't say that they went "to" the CN Tower when they mean they made their ascent to the room near the top. You told me, for instance, that it has been years since you have been "up" the tower, whereas I mentioned that I had taken photographs of the open roof of the Rogers Centre "from" it. Had I stated instead that I went "to" the tower and waited for someone to come down, you can assume I was on the ground level having a few Steam Whistles from the nearby brewery.

If you want "to the court" to mean inside the court itself, you are irrefutably stuck with having to accept that Hutchinson stood there for the duration of that 45 minutes, and stuck with having to accept that he gave a completely contradictory account to the press. The police statement does not betray the slightest guff of a suggestion that Hutchinson went into the court and back, and nor is there the faintest hint that he went anywhere else for "a couple of minutes".

Compared to what, his attire is nothing more than respectably dressed, he could in no way pass for a West End Gentleman.

So you're saying that a "West End Gentleman" would dress more flashily than Astrakhan man? I'm afraid I have serious doubts about the extent of your knowledge with regard to the sartorial styles of 1888.

As I have reminded you on previous occasions, you reap what you sow.

Meaning what, exactly? You can either complain about my supposed use of "ridicule" or you can resort to counter-ridicule yourself, but I'm afraid you can't do both!

Statement-taking in 1888 might well have been considered lax by today's standards, but it is clear that Abberline didn't believe the Hutchinson statement to have been particularly deficient, or he would have rectified the problem before writing a report to his superiors on the subject. The fact that this never happened tells us beyond doubt that Abberline shares equal responsibly with Badham for the "probable overlooking" of certain grey areas that modern day Hutchinson-defenders insist must have been cleared up "off-record".

The statement itself was formulated as a result of a "question and answer" session conducted by Badham, and if the questioning (and thus the statement) was found to be sorely lacking by the time Abberline arrived on the scene, the vastly more senior officer would have rectified the situation by asking these "overlooked" questions of Hutchinson and making reference to his answers in the "covering report". The fact that no such "answers" appear tells us that Abberline was largely satisfied with Badham's statement-taking efforts, or at least satisfied enough to present the document to his bosses with just a few extra details thrown in that were gleaned from the "interrogation".

So much for the eccentric idea that Badman wore the black hat and Abberline the white one. It just won't wash, because can't help but accuse the latter of being equally incompetent by extension.

That is exactly what I said, this Cover Report contains a brief collection of notes appended to his daily activities

No.

He happened to include a reference to his "daily activities" in a report that was specifically submitted in regard to Hutchinson's statement, and he was obliged to provide anything of importance from the "interrogation" that had a bearing on his credibility. The fact that no such "clinches" appeared in the cover report - but irrelevant peripheral tidbits did - tells us immediately that they never existed.

Then he introduces the new witness, and provides a few brief notes indicating that the witness knew the victim, and that he could identify the suspect, and was willing to assist police.

Then he forwarded the actual statement itself. The fact that he did so is a testament to his awareness of his duty to submit all case-associated paperwork to Donald Swanson, whose role, believe it or not, was not that of a glorified librarian who simply filed documents away under "Ripper, J", but rather to scrutinise and assess all incoming material. Time, believe it or not, was of the essence in apprehending the culprit, and Abberline would not have surrendered a document such as an original witness statement knowing it to be deficient, and nor would he have offered irrelevant notes on the interrogation knowing that far more revelatory details emerged from it.

No, because they likely heard someone walk down the passage, and Astrachan might already have believed he was being followed by this inquisitive stranger.

"Might" have? Well, Hutchinson peering into his face and stalking him all the way to the court entrance just "might" have provided Astrakhan man with a clue that he was being followed, yes. Considering that Miller's Court had only one exit and thus no "escape" from this inquisitive man, I can't see what Astrakhan would have gained from waiting in silence in Kelly's darkened room, with Kelly herself presumably just going along with it all (?).

The question is, merely whether he walked down the south side of Dorset st. at a suitable distance from the couple, so as not to look conspicuous, and stopped in front of Crossingham's, until they disappeared up the passage, at which point he crossed the road.

Or, he followed directly to Millers Court passage, but due to McCarthy's shop still being open, he crossed over to the south side so as to not be seen standing in front of McCarthy's shop doorway. And, from that vantage point looked up the passage for a few minutes, after which he recrossed the road and approached up the passage himself.

Either is possible, but the former better fits Lewis's story.

Either is possible in reality, yes, but neither is compatible with his police statement if entering the court itself has anything to do with it.

Yes John, and interestingly, the reporter appears to have done better than Badham.

Only if you resort to the entirely circular argument that the press additions were all genuine details that silly old Badham forgot to ask Hutchinson about, as opposed to inventions by Hutchinson himself which he did not incorporate into his account until after he communicated with Badham. The latter makes a lot more sense as an explanation, if an unbiased and sensible mind were to contemplate the issue. Why, after all, did Hutchinson have to wait to be questioned about such things? Even the new Badham-the-Bastard theory doesn't get round that problem. For these press additions to be anything other than Hutchinson's own embellishments, we would have to accept not only that Badham was incompetent, but that Hutchinson needed to be questioned on a specific topic before thinking it a good idea to impart his information on it.

Hutchinson was coaxed by the reporter to provide the actual time he left, and by what means he knew this, also what he did afterwards

Provide your evidence that Hutchinson needed "coaxing", as opposed to the alternative explanation that he invented an "actual time he left".

"Abberline will naturally need the same details not provided for in the initial statement, so these and other questions will have been explored by Abberline in his interrogation."

So why were these "same details" not in the covering report, but other less important "details" were?

"If for no other reason than to establish an alibi."

Oh, do tell me how Hutchinson's "alibi" was established!

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I agree. In fact, Abberline would surely have to be totally incompetent not to ask for further clarification. At the very least, I would have expected him to ask Hutchinson how he was able to discern so much detail, considering the poor lighting conditions; what was his relationship to Kelly; and why didn't he come forward earlier. Of course, none of this information appears in the surviving documents

Yes John, and interestingly, the reporter appears to have done better than Badham. One brief example is that the police need to know what time Hutchinson left the scene, and, most assuredly, where did he go and who did he see after that. If for no other reason than to establish an alibi.

Hutchinson was coaxed by the reporter to provide the actual time he left, and by what means he knew this, also what he did afterwards.
Abberline will naturally need the same details not provided for in the initial statement, so these and other questions will have been explored by Abberline in his interrogation.

[John G]

Hi John.

The part I hi-lite in bold is precisely what we should expect, that is the point of the interrogation, to expand on the initial statement.

Hi Jon,

I agree. In fact, Abberline would surely have to be totally incompetent not to ask for further clarification. At the very least, I would have expected him to ask Hutchinson how he was able to discern so much detail, considering the poor lighting conditions; what was his relationship to Kelly; and why didn't he come forward earlier. Of course, none of this information appears in the surviving documents

[Wickerman]

What I find confusing is that Hutchinson must have realized that there were discrepancies between his press and police statement, which he presumably signed. Moreover, he surely had to realize that the police would quickly pick up on any major discrepancies. So how did he expect to get away with it? Is it possible that, when interviewed by Abberline, he elaborated further on his initial statement? And, ironically, wouldn't it have appeared equally suspicious if the police and press statements were in perfect accord?

Hi John.

The part I hi-lite in bold is precisely what we should expect, that is the point of the interrogation, to expand on the initial statement.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
But if Hutchinson really did walk up the passage, what was preventing him from saying so to the police?

Hi Ben.
That is exactly what he did - are we going around in circles here?

If you tell me you went to the C N Tower, I know you mean you went inside, and up the Tower - I just know that, you do not need to give me a step by step picture - that is what going to the Tower means.
I would not for a moment expect that you went there to stand outside.
And, thanks to the explanation Hutch provided in the press, it is confirmed that he did in fact mean the court at the back.

An opulently and ostentatiously dressed Jew...

Compared to what, his attire is nothing more than respectably dressed, he could in no way pass for a West End Gentleman.

Before you accuse others of “ridicule”, incidentally, I would suggest cutting back on comments like:
.
.
Otherwise, you run the risk of being accused of hypocrisy.

As I have reminded you on previous occasions, you reap what you sow.

It think you might do very well to “have a look back at Colin’s post” as he made it very clear at the time that he was not talking about “present” policing, ...

Well, we have conflict of opinion then because Stewart believes the present statement taking process is more rigorous than a hundred years ago.

"What is evident in many Victorian witness statements is the amount of relevant material that the officer has failed to record. It is an odd fact that many of the points missing are very obvious ones. Possibly they were taken for granted and deemed unnecessary to record, but that's being kind. They were probably just overlooked."

When compared with today:

"They have been honed to a fine art by the knowledge of the possible defences that may be raised, the nature of the evidence as regards relevance and the information needed as a result of case law."

Statement taking in the early years appears more lax than today.

Have you found any expert on police matters who shares your opinion – currently based on nothing at all – that Hutchinson delivered a lengthy monologue without being questioned at all by Badham? Have you, moreover, found any support for your assertion that it is the witness who decides what information is important, as opposed to the investigating officers?

From that it is clear you failed to read Stewarts analysis.
No-one can say for certain that he was not questioned "at all", the best that can be determined from the content is, "poorly" or "not at all".
There is nothing within his statement to indicate he was questioned. Interestingly, the journalist appears to have posed several questions after he received the initial story.

Only the description he gave Badham appears to be the result of questions.

No, he did not.

If you read the article properly, you will discover that it was Abberline’s report accompanying the statement that he referred to as a “covering report”,...

That is exactly what I said, this Cover Report contains a brief collection of notes appended to his daily activities.
This is Abberlines daily report, it begins with his first duty, and concludes with his last.

My question, which you’ve scarcely touched upon, is why would he include these relatively trivial pieces of information ...

Short answer is, because your question is irrelevant.

That report begins with his first duty, the Inquest, and he provides some details that demonstrate the identity of the victim, and that it was concluded to be a murder (no surprise there).
Then he introduces the new witness, and provides a few brief notes indicating that the witness knew the victim, and that he could identify the suspect, and was willing to assist police.
Finally summarizes his day by enumerating that days arrests
This document is his daily report to cover events of the 12th., that is all.

This report has nothing specific to do with any interrogation, it has everything to do with his daily activities.

... and you don't get to "exonerate" Hutchinson on the basis of "lost" or "missing" files.

There's no need, he was not condemned, accused, nor suspected of anything. What is there to exonerate?

How are your accusations going, any evidence yet?

If you’ve decided that “there” refers to outside the entrance to Miller’s Court,...

I have no need, he says precisely that himself, as I have quoted many times before.

If he followed Kelly and Astrakhan into the court immediately after they had entered it, don’t you think it a tinsy winsy bit odd that he found the room to be completely dark and silent? After the chatty, laughy, “spreeish” Kelly and her companion had entered it just seconds before?

No, because they likely heard someone walk down the passage, and Astrachan might already have believed he was being followed by this inquisitive stranger.

Well, ironically, no.

This is about the only piece of information that cannot be “reasonably questioned”.

The question is, merely whether he walked down the south side of Dorset st. at a suitable distance from the couple, so as not to look conspicuous, and stopped in front of Crossingham's, until they disappeared up the passage, at which point he crossed the road.

Or, he followed directly to Millers Court passage, but due to McCarthy's shop still being open, he crossed over to the south side so as to not be seen standing in front of McCarthy's shop doorway. And, from that vantage point looked up the passage for a few minutes, after which he recrossed the road and approached up the passage himself.

Either is possible, but the former better fits Lewis's story.

[John G]

What I find confusing is that Hutchinson must have realized that there were discrepancies between his press and police statement, which he presumably signed. Moreover, he surely had to realize that the police would quickly pick up on any major discrepancies. So how did he expect to get away with it? Is it possible that, when interviewed by Abberline, he elaborated further on his initial statement? And, ironically, wouldn't it have appeared equally suspicious if the police and press statements were in perfect accord?

And let's assume for one moment that Hutchinson's account was fabricated. Well, I think it would have to be acknowledged that he had an excellent memory and had thought things through in some detail. After all, he clearly made a detailed police statement, which is broadly consistent with Sarah Lewis' account, and his press statement is reasonably similar. It therefore seems odd that he would accidentally make a fundamental mistake when recalling details to the press.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“If it were "according to the wording", then we would be reading, "I never walked up the passage".
As he certainly did not say that, then any assumption that he did is, once again, all down to you.”

But if Hutchinson really did walk up the passage, what was preventing him from saying so to the police? The idea that he needed police prompting to spur him into revealing whether he did so or not is deeply, deeply silly, not least because it paints both parties in an extremely unfavourable light. According to the police statement, it simply didn’t happen. He walked to the court (as opposed to “up” it, as per his clear distinction between the two), remained “there” for 45 minutes (without going anywhere else, or he would have said so) before allegedly leaving the area.

It doesn’t matter whether you want “the court” to refer to inside the court itself or outside it on Dorset Street; all you have to take on board is that it referred to a single location for the duration of his vigil. If you choose the first option – the court itself – then bang goes your suggestion that Lewis saw Hutchinson outside Crossingham’s lodging house on the other side of Dorset Street, whereas if you accept the explanation that everyone else accepts - that the vigil took place on Dorset Street - then Hutchinson simply did not enter the court itself, and you're stuck with having to explain the police-press contradiction. Nowhere in the police statement does Hutchinson state that he went anywhere other than this “to the court” location, during that time period.

“To which you respond, if I recall, that it could be too dangerous to go out at night looking like that, they would get mugged or worse.
And yet we read in the press of men appearing in court as the victims of mugging, watch theft, and the like.”

Yes, exactly (?).

I’m confused as to whose point you think you’re reinforcing here. Mine was that if anyone was stupid enough to advertise their wealth in such a district in the small hours of the morning, they were likely to be mugged, and Astrakhan – being far more opulently attired than any of the mugging victims mentioned in those articles – could have expected a similar outcome, especially at the height of the ripper murders when plain-clothes coppers and vigilante committee folk were superadded to the group seeking to accost anyone looking vaguely out of place. I’m glad you appear to agree.

“Since when did "because its dangerous" ever stop anyone from doing what they please?”

I’m not suggesting it does, or did.

But people who embark on dangerous endeavours usually take steps to lessen the danger as much as possible, rather than going out of their way to increase it. Serious mountain climbers, for instance, take warm clothing and oxygen bottles; they don’t ascend Everest wearing nothing but G-strings made of ice-crystals, as someone with Astrakhan’s level of imprudence might have done.

“Astrachan gave the appearance of a Jew, and a local Jew at that.”

An opulently and ostentatiously dressed Jew, to be precise, and the only reason Hutchinson ventured his “belief” that the man was “local” was because of the alleged second sighting of the man “in the neighbourhood” on Petticoat Lane.

“More to do with ridicule than serious debate, but your point was these two clients (alleged) were unique, yet as is also often the case you have no data whatsoever to make such a suggestion.”

No, that was not my point at all.

My point was that your theory, which revolves around Kelly servicing two black package-carrying criminals that night in very quick succession – the first a failed thief and "confidence-trickster" and the second a mutilating serial killer – is quite unique, and "unique" in this case means that you are both the creator and sole adherent of that theory. Before you accuse others of “ridicule”, incidentally, I would suggest cutting back on comments like:

“Time and time again we are exposed to the same irrational logic, still it's free, and good for a laugh.”

And:

“I notice there are now two of you who live in this black and white world - it seems endemic among this small group of Hutchinsonians.”

And:

“Was that you crying for help from Garry?”

And:

“do I need to hold your hand and guide you through this?”

Otherwise, you run the risk of being accused of hypocrisy.

“I'd have to look back at Colin's post but, I think he was talking in the present tense.”

It think you might do very well to “have a look back at Colin’s post” as he made it very clear at the time that he was not talking about “present” policing, but rather what was likely to have occurred in Hutchinson’s case in 1888. You should at least give him some credit for offering a contribution that was actually germane to the debate, even if it happened to be inconvenient for your pre-jumped-to conclusions. Have you found any expert on police matters who shares your opinion – currently based on nothing at all – that Hutchinson delivered a lengthy monologue without being questioned at all by Badham? Have you, moreover, found any support for your assertion that it is the witness who decides what information is important, as opposed to the investigating officers?

“Stewart called that brief collection of notes, a Covering Report.”

No, he did not.

If you read the article properly, you will discover that it was Abberline’s report accompanying the statement that he referred to as a “covering report”, and it’s a very apt description because it did indeed “cover” both the statement and the interrogation. Abberline was free, or rather obliged, to offer commentary on both, and yet the only information he provided on the latter was:

“...he had known her about 3 years. Also that he was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch them. He can identify the man and arrangement was at once made for two officers to accompany him round the district for a few hours tonight with a view of finding the man if possible.”

My question, which you’ve scarcely touched upon, is why would he include these relatively trivial pieces of information – stuff that really doesn’t affect his credibility either way – whilst concealing a treasure trove of bombshell explanations that supposedly “answer” all modern-day gripes and suspicions with his story, thus absolving him of suspicion? Obvious answer: he wouldn’t, and didn’t, which means that these bombshell answers and explanations never existed, and you don't get to "exonerate" Hutchinson on the basis of "lost" or "missing" files.

“He explained by adding, "I stood there for three-quarters of an hour to see if they came down again, but they did not, and so I went away."

We now know where "There" is, due to him including, "to see if they came down".”

Go on, then, where is it?

If you’ve decided that “there” refers to outside the entrance to Miller’s Court, could you now show me where, in his police statement, Hutchinson makes any reference to leaving that location to go elsewhere for “a couple of minutes”, because I’m certainly not seeing it? All he states is that he stood “there” before leaving the area entirely, and don’t even think about suggesting that Hutchinson would have mentioned the crucial detail of standing outside the victim's room if only the atrociously incompetent (as this theory demands) police had asked.

“So the couple walked "up" the court, and then he walked "up" the court. However, he later stood for 45 minutes waiting for them to come "down".”

Show me where Hutchinson states this in his police statement. Show me where Hutchinson mentions being on both sides of the Miller’s Court passage in his police statement. Show me where Hutchinson tells the press that going up the court was the first thing he did, as opposed to spending a “couple of minutes” there once the 45 minutes were up. If he followed Kelly and Astrakhan into the court immediately after they had entered it, don’t you think it a tinsy winsy bit odd that he found the room to be completely dark and silent? After the chatty, laughy, “spreeish” Kelly and her companion had entered it just seconds before?

“The only reasonable question we have is, at what point did he stand outside Crossingham's, assuming Sarah L. did indeed see Hutchinson.”

Well, ironically, no.

This is about the only piece of information that cannot be “reasonably questioned”. Hutchinson places himself in Dorset Street looking “up” the Miller’s Court passage in both his police statement and press interview, and it is consistent with the time and location at which Sarah Lewis saw a man apparently waiting for someone to come out of the court.

You're really not helping Hutchinson out here.

All the best,
Ben