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

[Ben]

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

This is obviously a nonsensical and circular argument for two reasons.

1) What on earth was preventing a lying Hutchinson from using the pre-existing "accounts in the press" to lend superficial weight to his story?

2) If several sources described a long-necked multi-humped monster dwelling in Loch Ness, does that "demonstrate that the story is based on reality" and the Nessie is a prehistoric living reality? Or does it mean that one tall tale is being regurgitated by publicity-seekers because they know it latches on to a fanciful and "interesting" solution to a phenomenon that probably has a far more mundane explanation? The problem with you is that you're as obsessed by the image of "Gentleman Jack" as Nessie hunters are by the idea that a plesiosaur basks in the depths of the loch.

- Hutchinson was never identified as a suspect (which he would be if found to have lied).

But if he was merely suspected of lying, in the absence of final proof, he would have been treated as yet another two-a-penny publicity seeker of the type that crop up all too frequently during the course of a high-profile murder investigation. This appears to have been precisely what happened.

No, there was no active pursuit of Astrakhan man after mid-November, and the press quotes you dredge up and repeat ad nauseam do not contradict that in the slightest.

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.

Or joining the masses outside Shoreditch Town Hall and noting the fact that Lewis was due to appear as a witness, or by hearing about her evidence via word of mouth that travelled like wildfire in the district. Whatever his source, the only ludicrous argument is the one that asserts that Hutchinson's ever-so-timely appearance at the police station just after the inquest had no causal relationship with the very recent termination of the inquest, at which Lewis had divulged her sighting of a wideawake man loitering where Hutchinson later claimed to have stood.

It's also very naive and unimaginative to suggest that it was only possible for details publicly divulged at an inquest to receive a public airing from the press. Your clue is highlighted for you in bold. I assure you that this world of yours, where no information is leaked, and where press and police never communicate, still doesn't exist. All Hutchinson needed to do was register which witnesses were due to appear at the inquest, even if they included that damned woman who turned an unexpected right into Miller's Court on the night of the murder - if he was motivated into doing so, of course.

You seek to antagonise, presumably, by claiming to have exposed as "false" the observation that Hutchinson was discredited, but all you continue to "expose" is your lack of basic understanding of the word's definition. It does not mean that Hutchinson's account was "proven false" any more than Packer's was. It means that no "credit" came to be invested in either account because they came to be doubted and distrusted.

Ah, but what appears to be "archetypal" attire, is in actuality the common form of evening wear for a respectably dressed male of the period.

If you're suggesting that Astrakhan man's clothing remotely typified "evening wear for a respectably dressed male of the period", then you would be wrong. You can be "respectably dressed" by wearing a shirt and tie. Astrakhan man was opulently and ostentatiously dressed, which wasn't in the slightest bit "typical" for the location.

Get back to me in a day or two please.

[Amanda]

Astrakhan Man

Hi Ben,
Just PM'd you regarding Astrakhan man.

Amanda

[Ben]

Hi Sally,

You are quite right (along with Harry and Garry), of course. Hutchinson would have required a severe brain injury to confuse such a crucial and memorable date; one which coincided with his epic 13-mile walk from Romford and the Lord Mayor's Show and the excitement in the neighbourhood generated by news of the murder. The point has been made already, but it needs reiterating that there is no realistic possibility of Hutchinson discovering news of the murder early on Friday morning when he emerged from the Victoria Home, and then convincing himself that his Kelly/Astrakhan sighting had occurred two nights ago, as opposed to just a few hours earlier.

No amount of protesting that “oh, but detail memory is different from sequential memory” is going to change that either. One might as well argue that thinner and more streamlined pigs have a better chance of flying.

Date-muddling is fine as a general principle, but not if the date was very recent and several significant events had occurred on the date, thus rendering the chances of not cementing that date slim to non-existent.

I’m mildly amused by the suggestion that identifying Toppy as Hutchinson provides some sort of corroboration for the date confusion hypothesis. We’re supposed to accept, on the one hand, Reg’s claim that dear old dad had an eye for detail and for “remembering things”, but we must also swallow the notion that he somehow allowed his memory to fail him so atrociously and inexplicably on this particular occasion.

All Dew suggested was that Hutchinson and Maxwell "erred" because some people get confused as to time and date (yes, it was as vague as that - not "out by a day", as often claimed). The reason he made this suggestion was because he was evidently aware that Hutchinson's statement had been dismissed, but like many policemen of lower rank at the time, was not provided with the full details, just as the Echo weren’t. As a relatively junior official at the time, he would have been told simply that the Astrak-hunt was off, leaving him to speculate many years later as to the reason why. Clearly his speculations were wrong.

Had it been otherwise, and Dew had been provided with actual police information, he would have made it clear in his book. He would have related the detail that “our police inquiries revealed that the poor ninny was honestly mistaken”, as opposed to relying on decades-old speculation, which is precisely what he admitted it was.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Okay, he didn't have an astrakhan coat, but he did wear an Inverness cape, which is archetypal Jack the Ripper garb!

I think that's part of the problem, John.

It seems some people just can't divest themselves of the iconic image of Jack as a toff in tails. They won't admit it outright for fear of ridicule, of course, but it seems some of us are obstinately stuck in the 1970s as far as the ripper's likely appearance and social standing goes. Hutchinson then becomes a handy vehicle for those seeking to revive such controversial and outdated theories, and it is the reason for the attempted un-discrediting of a discredited account. Matters are made even worse when it emerges that a major incentive behind "reviving" Hutchinson is to cast deeply implausible rogues in the role of Astrakhan man. In reality, the preponderance of reliable police-endorsed, eyewitness evidence supports a far less conspicuous type of suspect.

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.

It would be extremely surprising, in my view.

Firstly, the police statement made no reference at all to an alleged second sighting of the same man, and conveys no impression that the incredibly detailed description was based on any sighting other than the one that supposedly took place on the morning of Kelly's murder. Had it been based on a "composite", Abberline was duty-bound to record such information in his report to his bosses.

Secondly, the "composite" explanation relies on the suspect having worn precisely the same clothes and accessories on two separate occasions. Even setting aside the absurdity of the idea that the man in question would fail to alter his appearance even slightly (especially if the ripper himself), it is impossible to accept that Hutchinson should profess "uncertainty" as to whether a man with an identical appearance and identical apparel was the same individual he had seen on a previous occasion. It was even crazily suggested a few posts ago (not by you) that Hutchinson was familiar with this man before the 9th November encounter, and that Abberline neglected to mention this detail too.

“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?”

I’m not personally suggesting that he “based” his account on Lewis’s evidence. I’m suggesting that he learned about her evidence, recognised himself as the man loitering on Dorset Street, and constructed a fictional account designed to “legitimise” his presence at that time and location, with the Astrakhan man being conjured up as a means of deflecting suspicion elsewhere. It has been protested – unconvincingly, in my view – that Hutchinson would have mentioned Lewis had the forgoing been the case. I disagree very strongly, and would argue that mentioning her would have drawn unnecessary attention to the reality that it was her evidence (and his recognition that she had seen him and mentioned him at the inquest, albeit not by name) that forced his hand.

“However, another difficulty for me is that if the man Lewis saw wasn't Hutchinson, who was he? Why didn't he come forward? Of course, considering that his behaviour could be regarded as suspicions, as could a failure to come forward as a witness, this opens up the possibility, perhaps even probability, that Kelly's murderer had an accomplice.”

Why do you suggest that the loitering man is only suspicious as a potential “accomplice” rather than a potential sole perpetrator?

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

This is obviously a nonsensical and circular argument for two reasons.

1) What on earth was preventing a lying Hutchinson from using the pre-existing "accounts in the press" to lend superficial weight to his story?

What on earth was preventing him telling the truth?

2) If several sources described a long-necked multi-humped monster dwelling in Loch Ness, ....

Not sure what this juvenile expletive was intended to demonstrate.

But if he was merely suspected of lying, in the absence of final proof, he would have been treated as yet another two-a-penny publicity seeker ......

The first cause to come to their minds, had they suspected Hutchinson of lying, would have been to suspect him of murder. That fact seems to be oblivious to you.
Abberline needs to know this laborer was not their killer. Any inconsistencies in his story, and he isn't going anywhere.

The argument, "...he may have lied to us, ...so we sent him home", is too ridiculous to contemplate.

No, there was no active pursuit of Astrakhan man after mid-November, and the press quotes you dredge up and repeat ad nauseam do not contradict that in the slightest.

Repeating a falsehood will not make it true.
Thankfully, you can't make these press reports disappear.

Or joining the masses outside Shoreditch Town Hall and noting the fact that Lewis was due to appear as a witness,

How did he know her name?
What possible connection does he have to this murder, if, as you try to claim, this other "couple" she saw were NOT Astrachan & Kelly?
Plus, the cry of murder was a good 45 minutes or more, AFTER he left Millers Court.
He has no reason to suppose this woman is even going to appear as a witness - she has not seen anything related to the murder - in your view.


However, if Lewis DID see Astrachan & Kelly, and DID see this loiterer watching them both pass up the court - then this loiterer just might have something to worry about.

You decide.

All Hutchinson needed to do was register which witnesses were due to appear at the inquest, even if they included that damned woman who turned an unexpected right into Miller's Court on the night of the murder - if he was motivated into doing so, of course.

"...register which witnesses were due to appear at the inquest.."
And, exactly where were these names published Ben?
How is he going to determine who that woman was, what her name was, whether she is to appear at the inquest?
His name wasn't Sherlock Hutchinson, just a regular George.

You seek to antagonise, presumably, by claiming to have exposed as "false" the observation that Hutchinson was discredited, but all you continue to "expose" is your lack of basic understanding of the word's definition.

I beg to differ, for the past several years it is you who has insisted that the police dismissed him as a witness, which is why, in your opinion, he dropped off the face of the earth.
An assertion which we now know to be another untruth.

So it appear you are now trying to back-pedal by amending your theory to suggest he was not totally dismissed, just partly.

It means that no "credit" came to be invested in either account because they came to be doubted and distrusted.

Well, certainly the Met. gave no further credit to Packer. Not even when he came up with another story. Unlike the City Police, who were able to make an allowance and provide some investigation.
Hutchinson though, did not go back to the police with another story for them to investigate.
As I keep pointing out to you, had the police had any suspicions about him, Hutchinson would have been held while he "helped them with their inquiries".

If you're suggesting that Astrakhan man's clothing remotely typified "evening wear for a respectably dressed male of the period",...

That was only about Thompson. Suffice to say that merely your common everyday gentlemanly attire became the archetypal Jack-the-Ripper garb.

Get back to me in a day or two please.

Oops

[Scott Nelson]

Hi Jon,

Ease off the Hutchinson threads for a bit. You’re on them far too much.

I could take over for him if you'd like. The posts would be short, though.

[Wickerman]

All Dew suggested was that Hutchinson and Maxwell "erred" because some people get confused as to time and date (yes, it was as vague as that - not "out by a day", as often claimed). The reason he made this suggestion was because he was evidently aware that Hutchinson's statement had been dismissed,

It indicates there was no solution to the mystery, that is all it indicates.
There is absolutely nothing to suggest his statement was dismissed, that is your imagination working overtime again.
Alternatively, due to him writing this 50 years after the fact, it could simply be that he forgot what the resolution was.

Memory is a funny thing, for some reason Dew was still under the impression that Mrs Mortimer was, "the only person ever to see the Ripper in the vicinity of one of his crimes". (the man who disappeared around the Board School).
Perhaps Dew was not convinced by Anderson's assertions either.

...As a relatively junior official at the time, he would have been told simply that the Astrak-hunt was off, leaving him to speculate many years later as to the reason why. Clearly his speculations were wrong.

Dew was a Detective Constable, not a Police Constable, you appear to be confusing the two. Dew's responsibilities was to "Detect", not to "Police".
We have no way to know "what he would have been told".

Had it been otherwise, and Dew had been provided with actual police information, he would have made it clear in his book.

Only if he could remember, obviously if he cannot remember then he is not likely to mention it.
He couldn't even recall how the name "Jack the Ripper" came about, he speculated if it was due to the graffiti, and also tells us that Diemschitz cried out "the Ripper", when he discovered Stride's body.

Why Dew seems to insist that Blotchy wore a beard is another cause for concern, it is just one of numerous reason's, as I am sure I have warned you about before, that "we" shouldn't trust to memoirs for evidence to support our theories. Memoirs are unreliable.

[Wickerman]

I’m not personally suggesting that he “based” his account on Lewis’s evidence. I’m suggesting that he learned about her evidence, recognised himself as the man loitering on Dorset Street, and constructed a fictional account designed to “legitimise” his presence at that time and location, with the Astrakhan man being conjured up as a means of deflecting suspicion elsewhere.

It would be far better to have built his story on known evidence, to tell the police he saw Blotchy leave, and implicate him rather than invent a ridiculous stranger who nobody else saw.
If he knew about Lewis's testimony, then he knew about Cox's also.
Regardless, it is too contrived to be taken seriously.

If you think the attire attributed to Astrachan is so outrageously untenable (for that area, or time of night), you expose a fault with your own theory.

Only an idiot would invent an alibi that was unbelievable. An alibi has to be acceptable, the man he invented must be typical for the area, not extraordinary.

[Ben]

Just wait until I've addressed your first post before you move onto posts that aren't directed at you.

Have a breather occasionally, mate.

[Sally]

Why Dew seems to insist that Blotchy wore a beard is another cause for concern, it is just one of numerous reason's, as I am sure I have warned you about before, that "we" shouldn't trust to memoirs for evidence to support our theories. Memoirs are unreliable.

It's worth remembering that Dew's account of the Ripper murders was written some 50 years after the event; and that the inclusion of his memories of the Autumn of Terror were very distinctly secondary to his account of how he caught Crippen; for which he was internationally famous.

Too often recently Dew has been cited as an 'authority' on the events of 1888, which is undoubtedly misleading. It is quite evident that Dew's memory of 50 years past was not wholly reliable* Besides - although I'm not suggesting that he resorted to invention necessarily - his pursuits in later life could suggest that he enjoyed a bit of intrigue.


* Although clearly doing better than Hutchinson, who apparently couldn't remember the previous day...

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“What on earth was preventing him telling the truth?”

Well, it might just have something to do with the fact that “I murdered Kelly” just doesn’t come across too well.

Me: If several sources described a long-necked multi-humped monster dwelling in Loch Ness, ....
Jon: Not sure what this juvenile expletive was intended to demonstrate.

Expletive?

Please direct me to where I used an “expletive”.

“The first cause to come to their minds, had they suspected Hutchinson of lying, would have been to suspect him of murder.”

No. Absolutely and permanently not, and I'm annoyed to see this nonsense repeated on multiple threads. You’re repeating factoids again with no evidence to support them. There is absolutely no reason to think that a voluntary witness in 1888 would be considered a potential Jack the Ripper himself walking into the station and requesting an interview. That doesn’t mean his story is “automatically” trusted. He only claimed to be the last person to see Kelly alive, which invites the possibility that his claim might be false – he might just be a publicity-seeker. Where is the evidence that Violenia, who claimed to be the last person to see Annie Chapman alive, was considered a potential suspect?

“What possible connection does he have to this murder, if, as you try to claim, this other "couple" she saw were NOT Astrachan & Kelly?”

I don’t know what you mean.

If Hutchinson knew full well that he loitered outside the court that night, and for reasons which differed substantially from the ones he would later provide to the police and press (reasons which he might have been anxious to conceal), he would have been very perturbed to register the fact – visually register, that is, by joining the throngs around Shoreditch Town Hall – that one of the witnesses due to appear at the inquest was the woman who had entered the court he was peering down at 2:30am. He didn’t need to know her name; he had only to watch her enter the building along with the other witnesses, and assume that she would relate the loitering man detail (which she did).

“So it appear you are now trying to back-pedal by amending your theory to suggest he was not totally dismissed, just partly.”

No, not "partly" – totally. He was totally dismissed as a credible witness, and contrary to your persistent and inexplicable misapprehension, it is more than possible to dismiss something “totally” without proving it false. And speaking of bizarre misunderstandings, here comes another:

“Well, certainly the Met. gave no further credit to Packer. Not even when he came up with another story.”

The Met were “bound to investigate” Packer’s claims, regardless of how discredited a witness he was by that stage. Your refutation of this obvious truth is based on your conflation of two completely different articles. The police would have been negligent and irresponsible had they ignored Packer’s new claims entirely, whereas the City police weren’t in the slightest bit “bound” to pay any attention to Packer – not when neither his residence nor his recounted episode occurred within the latter force’s jurisdiction. We had this argument weeks ago, and moved on. Why dredge it up again now?

“As I keep pointing out to you, had the police had any suspicions about him, Hutchinson would have been held while he "helped them with their inquiries".”

And you will make this the very last time you “point it out” to me, unless you want me to “keep pointing out to you” that it is absurd and impossible nonsense. You cannot keep a suspect, let alone a witness, in lifelong captivity until that suspect or witness can verify their account or prove their innocence. It just doesn’t work like that.

I can “keep pointing things out” for longer than you can. Try me, and you’ll see.

“Suffice to say that merely your common everyday gentlemanly attire became the archetypal Jack-the-Ripper garb.”

No, that doesn’t “suffice” at all. Do enlighten me as to what “archetypal Jack-the-Ripper garb” looks like…?

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

There is absolutely nothing to suggest his statement was dismissed, that is your imagination working overtime again.

There is absolutely everything to suggest that his statement was dismissed, and your futile objections to the contrary are based on your imagination "working overtime again".

Whenever you make a generalized condemnation like that again, I will simply respond with one of my own.

Perhaps Dew was not convinced by Anderson's assertions either.

I'm sure Anderson - with far more information than Dew, and occupying a far more senior position - lost loads of sleep over that!

Dew was a Detective Constable, not a Police Constable, you appear to be confusing the two. Dew's responsibilities was to "Detect", not to "Police".

On the basis of which you conclude...? What? That his "confusion" hypothesis was based on actual detective work conducted at the time and supported by all the other "detectives"? Wow, so that's all your Kelly-related theories pretty much knackered then, isn't it?

Why Dew seems to insist that Blotchy wore a beard is another cause for concern, it is just one of numerous reason's, as I am sure I have warned you about before, that "we" shouldn't trust to memoirs for evidence to support our theories. Memoirs are unreliable.

So why are you picking a fight with me on the issue of Dew's thoughts on Hutchinson? You don't think Hutchinson confused the date, and nor do I, and yet you choose to pick imaginary holes in my attempts to illustrate the wisdom of rejecting date-confusion in favour of something we both agree on, i.e. that Hutchinson was the man seen by Lewis. Why would you do that?

It would be far better to have built his story on known evidence, to tell the police he saw Blotchy leave, and implicate him rather than invent a ridiculous stranger who nobody else saw.

I'm pleased to see you finally accept that the Astrakhan suspect was "ridiculous". Nice concession that, if somewhat overdue (or overdew!).

But no, it wouldn't have been "better" to "implicate" Blotchy. If the whole purpose of Hutchinson’s decision to come forward was to legitimise his loitering presence outside the crime scene whilst deflecting suspicion away from himself, using Blotchy would have made no sense at all considering that he was an ostensibly working class local, just like Hutchinson himself, was not tall but stout, just like Hutchinson himself, and wore a wideawake/billycock hat, just like Hutchinson himself. Moreover, there was every chance that Blotchy – being a real person, and not a fictional one – might come forward and inform the police that he left the room much earlier than Hutchinson claimed to have seen him. A fictional character, by contrast, would never come forward (or get discovered) with his own version of events that drastically undermined Hutchinson’s, and all the better to make that character the well-dressed Jewish bogeyman that everyone wants him to be.

An alibi has to be acceptable, the man he invented must be typical for the area, not extraordinary.

No, Jon, that's obviously not true

It was the fact that Astrakhan's appearance was so atypical for the area that formed the basis for Hutchinson's alleged "reason" for following him and Kelly to the court before skulking outside the latter's home for three quarters of an hour.

[Michael W Richards]

From Ben....."I’m not personally suggesting that he “based” his account on Lewis’s evidence. I’m suggesting that he learned about her evidence, recognised himself as the man loitering on Dorset Street, and constructed a fictional account designed to “legitimise” his presence at that time and location, with the Astrakhan man being conjured up as a means of deflecting suspicion elsewhere. It has been protested – unconvincingly, in my view – that Hutchinson would have mentioned Lewis had the forgoing been the case. I disagree very strongly, and would argue that mentioning her would have drawn unnecessary attention to the reality that it was her evidence (and his recognition that she had seen him and mentioned him at the inquest, albeit not by name) that forced his hand."

Few cohesive and rational explanations exist for Hutchinson making his statement about being there at all....this, imho, is one good one, and to date, the only good one.

Anyone who believes a true friend of someone who is horribly murdered on a night when they had a discussion between them would wait 4 full days, and for the completion of the public inquiry, to come forward with a story that virtually describes what would then be the primary suspects clothing and appearance.. viewed in near darkness with remarkable detail,.... is really being their own obstacle in the investigative process.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

Anyone who believes a true friend of someone .....

Michael, this is a straw-man argument.
Where does Hutch say anything about Kelly being a true friend?