Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Mary Kelly really WAS a prostitute....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    If something of that nature did occur then it must have happened before Nov. 15th, the date of the press conjecture that Hutchinson was discredited. Yet, the press were still under the impression that Astrachan was a suspect four days later on the 19th, and Abberline as far out as Dec. 6th retained the belief that Astrachan was responsible, having just arrested Josef Isaacs whom he believed was the long sought missing lodger being sought in the hours after the Kelly murder.

    So, on balance, your suggestion seems unlikely.
    But why would they still be looking for A man, if Hutch wasn't believed?
    G U T

    There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      I will take your points one by one, Jon:

      This was a major murder inquiry with a very high profile. Hutchinson would have been asked about people of BOTH genders, and he would have been obliged to answer accordingly. I donīt think Abberline would settle for less.
      Neither do I, but we do not have Abberline's interrogation. We only have the voluntary statement taken by Badham, and it was not his place to interrogate a witness who has volunteered a statement to police.
      That being the case we cannot know what Hutchinson told Abberline, when he eventually showed up, than was captured in the initial statement.

      There was a PC interviewed, who had Dorset Street on his beat and who - if I remember correctly - stated that he had seen noone in the street as he passed.
      I do have that PC's name somewhere, but I don't recall a statement from him.
      His picture is drawn in the I.P.N. of Nov. 24th, and attached to his pic. are the words, "I was on duty all night and never heard a sound", which isn't quite the same thing. He could still have seen men & women going about their business, people not acting suspicious.

      I agree - and I said so earlier, I believe. But I think that if Abberline accepted that Hutchinson was the loiterer, then he would be inclined to go along with the rest of the story too. But he only did so initially, after which the story suffered a lessened credence.
      Ok, so it is just the reason for the eventual lack of interest (reduced importance), that we disagree on.

      The important part to remember is that it did NOT vanish totally from the radar - some little interest remained, which is entirely consistent with the police having come to the conclusion that Hutchinson was out on the dates;
      Ironically, if Isaacs was Astrachan, then clearly Hutchinson WAS out on his dates. Isaacs was behind bars over night of the 8th-9th Nov.

      Also, IF Isaacs was Astrachan, then this would be the first confirmation that Hutchinson actually made an erroneous claim, either intentional or not.
      The catch-22 though is, that some will indeed have to concede that Isaacs must have been Astrachan in the first place. Only then can it be claimed as the first true confirmation of a lie by Hutchinson, or was it an honest mistake?
      An amusing set of circumstances.

      The fact that we have reports of a man seen in, or entering the court with a female, by three separate witnesses on the same night tends to be consistent with that part of Hutchinson's statement.
      Which means to me that he had the night correct, which then begs the question, why give a description to police that so closely resembles a man who did live on the street, and but for pure happenstance, could have been implicated in the crime?

      Indeed I do, Jon! If the police had accepted that the man outside Millers Court had been identical with Hutchinson, I would have expected this to go into at least some of the memoir books.
      It's a shame that Abberline has not left any worthy recollections of this case.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by GUT View Post
        But why would they still be looking for A man, if Hutch wasn't believed?
        What I was meaning is, that if Astrachan had come forward before the 15th and shown, by some means to be innocent, then the police will loose interest in him as a witness, and the press may reasonably conclude something was wrong.
        However, police & press interest in the pursuing of Astrachan as a suspect is evident long after the 15th Nov.
        So he couldn't have come forward.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
          What I was meaning is, that if Astrachan had come forward before the 15th and shown, by some means to be innocent, then the police will loose interest in him as a witness, and the press may reasonably conclude something was wrong.
          However, police & press interest in the pursuing of Astrachan as a suspect is evident long after the 15th Nov.
          So he couldn't have come forward.
          Thanks Jon, follow you now.
          G U T

          There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

          Comment


          • If Hutchinson had come forward 50 years later,when Dew made his observation,then a wrong day might be acceptable.
            When he came forward on the Monday,the third day after the killing,it would have been clear to him that Kelly had been dead since Friday, Thursday was the day he had gone to Romford,and it was on his return from Romford that he had last seen Kelly.The only reasonable cause for a mix up of dates then,was if Hutchinson forgot entirely what he did on Thursday,and substituted events of Wednesday with that day.Credible?,not likely.Was Lewis also mistaken or lying. Doesn't seem Badham or Aberline were misled,and they too were not remembering 50 years later.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by GUT View Post
              But why would they still be looking for A man, if Hutch wasn't believed?
              Once again, we must be careful with the distinctions here. Hutchinson and the story he told should be regarded as separate elements. It does not follow, if the police took a lessened interest in Hutchinsons story, that the police did not consider Hutchinson an honest and credible source.

              If, as I suggest (and as Dew also suggests), Hutchinson got the days mixed up, then the police would have every reason to be interested in A man, but NOT as a potential suspect or a witness belonging to the murder night. They would have good reasons to look for him, in order to secure what Kelly said and did on the night before her murder.

              Comment


              • Wickerman: Neither do I, but we do not have Abberline's interrogation. We only have the voluntary statement taken by Badham, and it was not his place to interrogate a witness who has volunteered a statement to police.
                That being the case we cannot know what Hutchinson told Abberline, when he eventually showed up, than was captured in the initial statement.

                I think Badham would be every bit as interested to get the full guest list, Jon. And I think he got it. We will just have to disagree here.


                I do have that PC's name somewhere, but I don't recall a statement from him.
                His picture is drawn in the I.P.N. of Nov. 24th, and attached to his pic. are the words, "I was on duty all night and never heard a sound", which isn't quite the same thing. He could still have seen men & women going about their business, people not acting suspicious.

                Ah, yes, thatīs him. Well, if that was all it amounted to, I agree - it is not the same thing. He would nevertheless have given his view on the clientele of the street on the night in question, and so he may have played a role in the diminshed interest in Hutchinsons story, I guess.

                Ok, so it is just the reason for the eventual lack of interest (reduced importance), that we disagree on.

                I would not say that we disagree, only that we have different suggestions for it. Either one of us may be right.

                Ironically, if Isaacs was Astrachan, then clearly Hutchinson WAS out on his dates. Isaacs was behind bars over night of the 8th-9th Nov.

                Also, IF Isaacs was Astrachan, then this would be the first confirmation that Hutchinson actually made an erroneous claim, either intentional or not.
                The catch-22 though is, that some will indeed have to concede that Isaacs must have been Astrachan in the first place. Only then can it be claimed as the first true confirmation of a lie by Hutchinson, or was it an honest mistake?
                An amusing set of circumstances.

                It is!

                The fact that we have reports of a man seen in, or entering the court with a female, by three separate witnesses on the same night tends to be consistent with that part of Hutchinson's statement.
                Which means to me that he had the night correct, which then begs the question, why give a description to police that so closely resembles a man who did live on the street, and but for pure happenstance, could have been implicated in the crime?

                I think more speak against his presence than for it, but thatīs just my take on things, of course. I know you have quoted your witness evidence before, but could you do it again, so I can look at it?


                It's a shame that Abberline has not left any worthy recollections of this case.

                You can say that again!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by harry View Post
                  If Hutchinson had come forward 50 years later,when Dew made his observation,then a wrong day might be acceptable.
                  When he came forward on the Monday,the third day after the killing,it would have been clear to him that Kelly had been dead since Friday, Thursday was the day he had gone to Romford,and it was on his return from Romford that he had last seen Kelly.The only reasonable cause for a mix up of dates then,was if Hutchinson forgot entirely what he did on Thursday,and substituted events of Wednesday with that day.Credible?,not likely.Was Lewis also mistaken or lying. Doesn't seem Badham or Aberline were misled,and they too were not remembering 50 years later.
                  So you think that people may mix up the days when trying to remember things fifty years afterwards? Wow, Harry - are you not being a bit frivolous now?

                  Tour argumentation is a very careless one. You say that it would have been clear to him that Kelly had been dead since Friday. I agree - it would have been totally clear to him.

                  You then say this means that Thursday must have been the day he spent in Romford, and that Hutchinson must have known this, since he went to Dorset Street on returning from Romford - case closed! He could not have been wrong on the dates.

                  You the try to seal the deal by saying that "the only reasonable cause for a mix up of dates then, was if Hutchinson forgot entirely what he did on Thursday,and substituted events of Wednesday with that day", and you decide for all of us that such a thing is not credible.

                  What you are faced with is the fact that we normally do not do these kinds of mistakes.

                  What you are further faced with is that although they are not the norm, they are nevertheless incredibly common. Maybe Hutchinson felt sure that it was on Thursday he was in Romford - but got it wrong, since it was on Wednesday.

                  You are also faced with the fact that people who do not have even sleeping schedules, and who move from one work and address to another, are the people who are most likely to make this exact type of mistake. In tya respect, it would be hard to find a candidate who would be more likely to err than Hutchinson on these matters.

                  "Now, letīs see, I remember that I worked on that farm for two days last week. And then I worked half a day for the hawker in Great Pearl Street, but was that before or after the farm job? Letīs see... Oh, I remember now - it was before, because I worked half a day for the Butcher in Aldgate, and got payed with them cutlets...but wait...I told the farmer that I had had cutlets for supper...then that must have been before the farm job...? But how does that work...?"

                  This is the reality for many people who work odd hours for varying employers, Harry.
                  If you ask them fifty years on which they the did what, you should not expect too much.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                    I think Badham would be every bit as interested to get the full guest list, Jon. And I think he got it. We will just have to disagree here.
                    And that's ok, but we have the police statements from the Millers Court residents and they are simple, brief and not very detailed. The reason is the same, in this case Abberline himself was merely taking statements, he was in the role of interviewer, not interrogator.

                    Ah, yes, thatīs him. Well, if that was all it amounted to, I agree - it is not the same thing. He would nevertheless have given his view on the clientele of the street on the night in question, and so he may have played a role in the diminshed interest in Hutchinsons story, I guess.
                    It is only one line, presumably a reporter asked him something and this is all the press published from what he said. If the constable had seen anything suspicious we would expect him to mention it, or the press to publish that too. Though if he only saw people going about their usual business, the press would have no cause to publish something so mundane. So this single line cannot be used to suggest no-one else was on the street at the time.


                    ..... I know you have quoted your witness evidence before, but could you do it again, so I can look at it?
                    Sure, extra details concerning who Sarah Lewis saw as she walked down Dorset St., from her inquest testimony is provided by the press.

                    - Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink. - Daily Telegraph.

                    - I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court. - Daily News.


                    Other paragraphs concerning a man being seen in the court around the hour of the crime do exist.

                    - ...Bowyer, the young man in Mr. McCarthy's employ was out at different times up Miller's-court on the Thursday night for the purpose of getting water from a tap there-the only available supply.Indeed, Bowyer vistited that spot as late-or, rather, as early-as three o'clock on the morning of the murder. This early visit to the water-tap is by no means an unfrequent thing, as Mr. Mccarthy's shop, which supplies the wants of a very poor and wretched locality, whose denziens are out at all hours, late and early, does not at times close until three o'clock in the morning,while occassionally it is open all night. Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer. Bowyer has, he says, described this man to Inspector Abberline and Inspector Reid. Bowyer, who is known as "Indian Harry" has travelled a great deal, and formerly lived in India. He said to an Echo reporter this morning. "The murderer couldn't have come to a worse place (for escaping) than this court. There is only this narrow entrance, and If I had known he was there when I went to the water tap at three o'clock, I reckon he wouldn't have got off."
                    [...at the time of this writing, Nov. 14th, "the murderer" was clearly a reference to Astrachan, not Blotchy nor the Packer suspect]

                    - Mrs McCarthy herself gives a slight clue as to a person who was seen in the court early on Friday morning, as one of her customers remarked to her – before the murder was known - “I saw such a funny man up the court this morning”. Mrs McCarthy says she has been so worried by the shocking affair that she cannot now remember the customer who thus spoke to her.


                    Then we have sources who claim to have seen Kelly out on the street after her liaison with Blotchy, about 1:00 am.

                    - Although no evidence was produced at the inquest as to her having left her room after one o'clock, at which time she was heard singing, the police have obtained statements from several persons who reside in Millers Court, that she was out of her house and in Dorset street between two and three o'clock. It appears almost certain that her life was taken about the last named hour.

                    Claims which appear to corroborate the story attributed to Mrs Kennedy, that she saw Kelly outside the Britannia about 3:00 am.
                    Last edited by Wickerman; 09-08-2016, 12:28 PM.
                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • I doubt it was an every day walk to Romford and back for Hutchinson,and he is so particular as to detail,it appears amazing that he would forget which day,just three days later.He is not recallin just one incident,of standing outside Crossinghams,but a whole series of events,starting with the journey to Romford and back.WAs Thursday such a blank to him that he mistook it for Wednesday or some day previous.Or is it to be presumed that he got everything right,the journey and the day,then on returning and reaching Whitechapel,the rest became a blank,and the days jumbled in his mind?
                      But if not Hutchinson seen by Lewis,who else? Cross maybe?,and what of Kelly's movements that night? Who was the last person reported in her company.
                      Congratulations Fisherman,you have succeeded where no one has done before.
                      You have solved the riddle.It was the Thursday she was killed,not the Friday.We have all been Bamboozled.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by harry View Post
                        I doubt it was an every day walk to Romford and back for Hutchinson,and he is so particular as to detail,it appears amazing that he would forget which day,just three days later.He is not recallin just one incident,of standing outside Crossinghams,but a whole series of events,starting with the journey to Romford and back.WAs Thursday such a blank to him that he mistook it for Wednesday or some day previous.Or is it to be presumed that he got everything right,the journey and the day,then on returning and reaching Whitechapel,the rest became a blank,and the days jumbled in his mind?
                        But if not Hutchinson seen by Lewis,who else? Cross maybe?,and what of Kelly's movements that night? Who was the last person reported in her company.
                        Congratulations Fisherman,you have succeeded where no one has done before.
                        You have solved the riddle.It was the Thursday she was killed,not the Friday.We have all been Bamboozled.
                        What I have done, Harry, is to suggest that he could have muddled the days. I have suggested this against a backdrop of knowledge that tells us that these things frequently happen, and supported by the information that it happens more often to people who live a vagrant life, like Hutchinson did.
                        I can prove that this is so, there is research on it.

                        What you are doing is trying to deny that it could have happened to Hutchinson. I think you will find that too hard a task for you.

                        You can of course admit that it COULD have happened, only to then add that it would be extremely odd if it happened to Hutchinson of all people. And you are welcome to that delusion, since it is not something that overshadows the fact that these things happen. And when the facts point to it having happened here, and when we even have a policeman who served during these years, and who will have infinitely more knowledge about the details of the Hutchinson drama, and who suggested that Hutchinson WAS wrong about the time when he was there ... Well, Harry, then your take on things kind of fade away, petty sarcams and all.
                        I donīt know if I should congratulate you on that...?

                        Comment


                        • Wickerman: And that's ok, but we have the police statements from the Millers Court residents and they are simple, brief and not very detailed. The reason is the same, in this case Abberline himself was merely taking statements, he was in the role of interviewer, not interrogator.

                          I think we are veering away from the true issue here - I donīt think that anybody would leave out women from their accounts of who were present at a murder scene or close by it, as if they were non-entities. I just donīt think that is true, Jon. It seems another matter we will have to disagree on.


                          It is only one line, presumably a reporter asked him something and this is all the press published from what he said. If the constable had seen anything suspicious we would expect him to mention it, or the press to publish that too. Though if he only saw people going about their usual business, the press would have no cause to publish something so mundane. So this single line cannot be used to suggest no-one else was on the street at the time.

                          Agreed - it is too little to decide such a matter.


                          Sure, extra details concerning who Sarah Lewis saw as she walked down Dorset St., from her inquest testimony is provided by the press.

                          - Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink. - Daily Telegraph.

                          - I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court. - Daily News.


                          Other paragraphs concerning a man being seen in the court around the hour of the crime do exist.

                          - ...Bowyer, the young man in Mr. McCarthy's employ was out at different times up Miller's-court on the Thursday night for the purpose of getting water from a tap there-the only available supply.Indeed, Bowyer vistited that spot as late-or, rather, as early-as three o'clock on the morning of the murder. This early visit to the water-tap is by no means an unfrequent thing, as Mr. Mccarthy's shop, which supplies the wants of a very poor and wretched locality, whose denziens are out at all hours, late and early, does not at times close until three o'clock in the morning,while occassionally it is open all night. Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer. Bowyer has, he says, described this man to Inspector Abberline and Inspector Reid. Bowyer, who is known as "Indian Harry" has travelled a great deal, and formerly lived in India. He said to an Echo reporter this morning. "The murderer couldn't have come to a worse place (for escaping) than this court. There is only this narrow entrance, and If I had known he was there when I went to the water tap at three o'clock, I reckon he wouldn't have got off."
                          [...at the time of this writing, Nov. 14th, "the murderer" was clearly a reference to Astrachan, not Blotchy nor the Packer suspect]

                          - Mrs McCarthy herself gives a slight clue as to a person who was seen in the court early on Friday morning, as one of her customers remarked to her – before the murder was known - “I saw such a funny man up the court this morning”. Mrs McCarthy says she has been so worried by the shocking affair that she cannot now remember the customer who thus spoke to her.


                          Then we have sources who claim to have seen Kelly out on the street after her liaison with Blotchy, about 1:00 am.

                          - Although no evidence was produced at the inquest as to her having left her room after one o'clock, at which time she was heard singing, the police have obtained statements from several persons who reside in Millers Court, that she was out of her house and in Dorset street between two and three o'clock. It appears almost certain that her life was taken about the last named hour.

                          Claims which appear to corroborate the story attributed to Mrs Kennedy, that she saw Kelly outside the Britannia about 3:00 am.

                          Okay, many thanks for taking the trouble to post these snippets, Jon!

                          Now, you are working from the assumption that Hutchinson was the man outside the lodging house, and that the couple Lewis saw "passing up the court" was Astrakhan man and Kelly.

                          There are a number of things that do not sit well with such an interpretation.

                          1. Astrakhan man was described by Hutchinson as a man who seemingly was very well aware of what he did, and there is nothing at all to implicate that he was severely drunk. His way of walking, his courteous offering of his handkerchief, it all seems to describe a man who is sober. And Hutchinson says not a word about him being drunk.
                          About Kelly, he says that she was perhaps a bit spreeish (or was it tipsy?). At any rate, she was not badly affected by alcohol, but instead maybe just that little bit too loud and too happy.
                          But the man and woman Lewis describe are badly drunk.

                          2. Hutchinson stopped at the corner of Commercial Street/Dorset Street as Astrakhan man and Kelly walked down to the entrance to Millers Court. It was not until the couple turned into the court that Hutchinson proceeded to the corner of the court, and as he arrived there, then couple were not to be seen.
                          Lewis has her man standing outside the lodging house, on the opposite side of the street, as she arrived and the couple she spoke of passed up the court. That is completely wrong, therefore - Hutchinson should have stood up at the corner of Dorset Street and Commercial Street at that stage, and Lewis should have seen him hurrying down Dorset Street to the corner of the court. She should definitely NOT have him in place outside the lodging house before the couple walked up the court.

                          3. Lewis should have said that there was a couple standing outside Millers Court as she arrived, a couple who subsequently walked up the court as she drew closer. But she says nothing about how the couple stood outside the court before they passed into it.

                          Her story does not corroborate Hutchinsons ditto. They differ totally on vital points, and therefore it seems to me that she is not speaking of Astrakhan and Kelly. Nor is she speaking of Hutchinson, since she has her man on the wrong side of the street.

                          As for Bowyers testimony, it detracts from his credibility that he did not mention the man at the inquest. Moreover, "around three" could well mean that Hutchinson was no longer in place. And of course, Mrs McCarthys hearsay is even sketchier.

                          If Indian Harry was telling the truth, then maybe it was the killer he saw, even - who knows? What we DO know is that this case is filled to the brim with odd coincidences...
                          Last edited by Fisherman; 09-08-2016, 10:47 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                            Okay, many thanks for taking the trouble to post these snippets, Jon!
                            I've had practice.....


                            Now, you are working from the assumption that Hutchinson was the man outside the lodging house, and that the couple Lewis saw "passing up the court" was Astrakhan man and Kelly.
                            That appears to be the case.

                            There are a number of things that do not sit well with such an interpretation.

                            1. Astrakhan man was described by Hutchinson as a man who seemingly was very well aware of what he did, and there is nothing at all to implicate that he was severely drunk..... And Hutchinson says not a word about him being drunk.
                            Neither does Lewis, though the Daily News version may be a touch ambiguous, the Telegraph reported, "...the latter being in drink", meaning the woman. And that agrees with Hutchinson's account.

                            2. Hutchinson stopped at the corner of Commercial Street/Dorset Street as Astrakhan man and Kelly walked down to the entrance to Millers Court. It was not until the couple turned into the court that Hutchinson proceeded to the corner of the court, and as he arrived there, then couple were not to be seen.
                            Now this I don't agree with, primarily because in his police statement he says he followed them into Dorset St.
                            "They both went into Dorset Street I followed them.", only later does he say, "I then went to the Court to see if I could see them", which I take to mean he crossed the road from some point in Dorset St. (outside Crossinghams?), to the Court entrance.

                            The confusion comes with the press version where he says they crossed Commercial St and entered Dorset St., and, " I followed them across, and stood at the corner of Dorset-street."
                            True, but are we to now assume he stopped following them?

                            The distance from this corner to Millers Court is approx. 125 ft, so from such a distance he is unlikely to hear conversation between the two, so why would we insist he did not follow them into Dorset St. when his police statement tells us he did?

                            Then he adds, "I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not.", which again agrees with the police statement, and I take to mean he crossed the road to the court entrance.

                            Therefore, at some point Sarah Lewis passed down Dorset St. and as she arrived at the court she noticed a man standing opposite, as she said in her police statement...
                            "...when I came up the Court there was a man standing over against the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset St.".


                            [by the way, the police statement by Sarah Lewis is a fine example of a statement taken by an interviewing officer (in this case Abberline), which lacks detail. When we then compare this with her inquest testimony, we can see the Coroner (who is now the interrogator), extracts considerable detail from the witness.
                            This parallels Badham as the interviewer, and Abberline as the interrogator, with respect to Hutchinson's statement]
                            Abberline knows when to interview, and when to interrogate.

                            An interviewer injects questions to clarify the story given by the witness, but the statement is still in the witness's own words. An interrogator uses questions to test the veracity of the witness and his story, but the responses must still be in the witness's own words.


                            Lewis has her man standing outside the lodging house, on the opposite side of the street, as she arrived and the couple she spoke of passed up the court. That is completely wrong, ......
                            It only sounds wrong if you "assume" Hutchinson did not follow the couple down Dorset St., - but why do this when such an assumption is contradicted by Hutchinson's own words - "They both went into Dorset Street I followed them.". Plus the fact he was close enough to hear conversation between the two. Dorset St., from Crossinghams to Millers Court, is only 25 ft wide, enabling Hutchinson, standing outside Crossinghams, to hear what passed between the two on the opposite side of the street.

                            Lewis does not mention seeing a man standing as she walks down the street, only the couple walking ahead of her, "Further on there was a man and a woman, the latter being in drink"..
                            Only when she arrived at the court does she mention seeing this "loiterer", "when I came up the Court there was a man standing over against the lodging house".
                            Lewis did notice the couple walk up the passage, "I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court.".

                            There is nothing here which contradicts Hutchinson's account.

                            Also, from this we can take it that Lewis is behind this couple, by how much we cannot say, but by the time she reached the court and walked up the passage after the couple, she observed..."There was nobody in the court.", and in another version, "..She did not hear any noise as she went down the court,".
                            Which suggests that this couple that had passed up the passage ahead of her had gone inside to one of the houses, that they were not still in the court - 'up to no good' as they might say.

                            The main problem with witness testimony is that the recorded responses are erroneously understood to be a continuous narrative, as if the witness is telling a continuous story, this is not the case.
                            What we have is a series of replies to unknown questions, and it is these often unrelated replies which have been woven into a narrative by modern theorists, which subsequently present an inaccurate sequence of events.


                            As for Bowyers testimony, it detracts from his credibility that he did not mention the man at the inquest. Moreover, "around three" could well mean that Hutchinson was no longer in place.
                            Bowyer only answered questions, which is what he is expected to do. The witness is not expected to tell the court what happened to him hours before the assumed time of death - which if you recall, was said to be sometime after 9:00 am Friday morning.
                            This is what the press were reporting over the weekend. Only after Hutchinson's story hit the streets did Bowyer's recollection become important, which is why we read his account on the 14th.


                            What we DO know is that this case is filled to the brim with odd coincidences...
                            Agreed.
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Wickerman: I've had practice.....


                              Yes, I do not rule out that you can do it by heart!


                              Neither does Lewis, though the Daily News version may be a touch ambiguous, the Telegraph reported, "...the latter being in drink", meaning the woman. And that agrees with Hutchinson's account.

                              Not all that much, if he just said that she seemed a bit spreeish. It seems the couple - or at least the woman - was worse off.

                              Now this I don't agree with, primarily because in his police statement he says he followed them into Dorset St.
                              "They both went into Dorset Street I followed them.", only later does he say, "I then went to the Court to see if I could see them", which I take to mean he crossed the road from some point in Dorset St. (outside Crossinghams?), to the Court entrance.

                              He DID follow them into Dorset Street - but only after having stood at the corner of Commercial and Dorset first. I fail to think he would make that up for the papers, and it is in accordance with the police statement too. Here we go:
                              I walked on to the corner of Fashion street, near the public house. As they came by me his arm was still on her shoulder. He had a soft felt hat on, and this was drawn down somewhat over his eyes. I put down my head to look him in the face, and he turned and looked at me very sternly, and they walked across the road to Dorset street. I followed them across and stood at the corner of Dorset street. They stood at the corner of Miller's court for about three minutes. Kelly spoke to the man in a loud voice, saying, "I have lost my handkerchief." He pulled a red handkerchief out of his pocket, and gave it to Kelly, and they both went up the court together. I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not.


                              So he clearly said he stood at the corner of Dorset Street, a long was away from the lodging house where Lewis saw her man.

                              The confusion comes with the press version where he says they crossed Commercial St and entered Dorset St., and, " I followed them across, and stood at the corner of Dorset-street."

                              True, but are we to now assume he stopped following them?

                              Not at all, and nor does Hutchinson say so - he says he stood at the corner of Dorset Street, which was a rational thing to do, since the couple ALSO stood still. Then, when they turned into the court passage, Hutchinson went to the corner of the court, following them (!) - but could not see the couple - meaning that they had had the time to walk down to Kellys door, open it and pass into her room, closing the door behind them before Hutchinson got there. If he had been there from the outset, he would realistically not tell us how he could not see them as he looked down the court.

                              The distance from this corner to Millers Court is approx. 125 ft, so from such a distance he is unlikely to hear conversation between the two, so why would we insist he did not follow them into Dorset St. when his police statement tells us he did?

                              He could easily have heard it - I spoke to an accoustics specialist about that some years ago, and he said it wouod easily work. Plus Hutchinson said that Kelly spoke in a loud voice, did he not?
                              Of course, in gale force winds he would NOT have been able to hear them...

                              Then he adds, "I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not.", which again agrees with the police statement, and I take to mean he crossed the road to the court entrance.

                              ...some time AFTER the couple had turned into the court, yes - otherwise, he WOULD have seen them walk all the way down to the door and open it.

                              Therefore, at some point Sarah Lewis passed down Dorset St. and as she arrived at the court she noticed a man standing opposite, as she said in her police statement...
                              "...when I came up the Court there was a man standing over against the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset St.".

                              "I stood at the corner of Dorset Street..."

                              [by the way, the police statement by Sarah Lewis is a fine example of a statement taken by an interviewing officer (in this case Abberline), which lacks detail. When we then compare this with her inquest testimony, we can see the Coroner (who is now the interrogator), extracts considerable detail from the witness.

                              Which I always thought was worrying.

                              This parallels Badham as the interviewer, and Abberline as the interrogator, with respect to Hutchinson's statement]
                              Abberline knows when to interview, and when to interrogate.

                              An interviewer injects questions to clarify the story given by the witness, but the statement is still in the witness's own words. An interrogator uses questions to test the veracity of the witness and his story, but the responses must still be in the witness's own words.

                              The problem is, we donīt know what was extracted and what was ffreely offered. But we DO know that changed testimonies are very often totally unreliable.



                              It only sounds wrong if you "assume" Hutchinson did not follow the couple down Dorset St., - but why do this when such an assumption is contradicted by Hutchinson's own words - "They both went into Dorset Street I followed them.".

                              There is no contradiction, Jon: Hutchinson DID walk from the corner of Dorset Street to the corner of the court, and that means he followed the couple. So either he lied or was misquoted in the press versions, if we are to go with your version. Plus the police version does not disagree with the press version, as you will seemingly have it.

                              Plus the fact he was close enough to hear conversation between the two. Dorset St., from Crossinghams to Millers Court, is only 25 ft wide, enabling Hutchinson, standing outside Crossinghams, to hear what passed between the two on the opposite side of the street.

                              A street works like an accoustic tunnel, Jon. As I said, an accoustic expert had no problems with this. In a quiet street, sound carries a very long way. This was 125 FEET, and Neil heard Thains steps from 125 YARDS away in Bucks Row.

                              Lewis does not mention seeing a man standing as she walks down the street, only the couple walking ahead of her, "Further on there was a man and a woman, the latter being in drink"..
                              Only when she arrived at the court does she mention seeing this "loiterer", "when I came up the Court there was a man standing over against the lodging house".

                              He would have walked before her, in such a case, Jon, and Lewis says n othing at all about that - she only notices the man as she walks into the passage. I donīt think she could realistically have missed him!

                              Lewis did notice the couple walk up the passage, "I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court.".

                              But she should have seen them posting outside the court BEFORE they walked up the passage!

                              There is nothing here which contradicts Hutchinson's account.

                              We will have to differ on that one...

                              Also, from this we can take it that Lewis is behind this couple, by how much we cannot say, but by the time she reached the court and walked up the passage after the couple, she observed..."There was nobody in the court.", and in another version, "..She did not hear any noise as she went down the court,".
                              Which suggests that this couple that had passed up the passage ahead of her had gone inside to one of the houses, that they were not still in the court - 'up to no good' as they might say.

                              But Lewis could not have walked behind the couple, since they were not walking - they were standing outside the court. Then they went into the court passage, and if Hutchinson had been there, outside the passage at tbhis time, he would not have said that he could not see the couple. So, basically, you have Lewis AND Hutchinson walking side by side up to the passage, aggeeing as they arrive that there was noone to be seen. And on top of that, you think that Hutchinson would regard the woman walking beside him as a non-entity, a person he did not need to mention to the police...?
                              It makes absolutely no sense to me. All I see is a set of coincidences that are not closely connected.

                              The main problem with witness testimony is that the recorded responses are erroneously understood to be a continuous narrative, as if the witness is telling a continuous story, this is not the case.
                              What we have is a series of replies to unknown questions, and it is these often unrelated replies which have been woven into a narrative by modern theorists, which subsequently present an inaccurate sequence of events.

                              To me, this does not mean that we are at liberty to make as basic changes as the ones you make. It remains a case of "close, but no cigar" to me. Sorry.


                              Bowyer only answered questions, which is what he is expected to do. The witness is not expected to tell the court what happened to him hours before the assumed time of death - which if you recall, was said to be sometime after 9:00 am Friday morning.
                              This is what the press were reporting over the weekend. Only after Hutchinson's story hit the streets did Bowyer's recollection become important, which is why we read his account on the 14th.

                              That makes a lot of sense - but it does not nail the man he supposedly saw as Hutchinson.


                              Agreed.

                              Ah - good!

                              Comment


                              • Fisherman,
                                You should know about sarcasm,it's a frequent use by yourself.You just do not like it when it's returned.
                                As against Dew ,I prefer the acceptance of Aberline and Badham,who themselves would be remembering from three day's separation,and not 50 years.Such was the importance of Hutchinson's account,to them,that I believe they would have made every effort to e stablish that it was indeed the morning of Friday,that he was returning from Romford,saw Kelly return to her room with a male person,and then lingered for some 45 minutes in the vicinity of Millers Court.
                                I am not trying to prove anything.Did Hutchinson suffer from' An altered state of consciousness' .You seem to think so.(Yes I used the medical term).
                                Even Dew remarked IF such a state of affairs existed.If Hutchinson had the date wrong.Even Dew seems doubtfull. IF........

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X