Help On Some Details

[Abby Normal]

Excuse me Gareth, but when her words are right there in black and white. How can you possibly say "she didn't say that"?

"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, 13 Nov.

It's not like what she said is taken in isolation, it perfectly agrees with what Hutchinson said the night before (12th). They saw the same couple.
Once you have two independent sources who agree, they confirm each other, then that is the anchor to proceed to interpret further claims.

I have never tried to convince you that Lewis didn't say "further on", of course she must have, or at least implied the same. Therefore, her "further on" must be interpreted in conjunction with the fact she watched them pass up the court.

And, in my view, the best interpretation for her use of "further on" is to understand she meant "further on ahead of me was a couple......", not "further on past the loiterer" because that would conflict with the already established anchor between the two witnesses (Hutchinson & Lewis).

This is how a sequence of events is established, find something common between two sources and proceed from there.

Lewis is not providing a chronological story, she is responding to specific questions, as all witnesses do.
The first point noted in her police statement is her noticing that loiterer, and the first question she is asked at the inquest concerns this same loiterer.
Lewis makes no mention of another couple in her police statement, so the fact she does at the inquest can only be due to the coroner asking, "did you see anyone else in the street?" - to which she, in my view, obviously replied, "yes, further on ahead there was a couple......I saw them pass up the court", or words to that effect.
One reporter wrote "further on there was a couple", a different reporter wrote, "I saw a couple pass up the court".

Each reporter adds a small piece to the overall picture and we must collate all the press sources, along with the original court record, to gain a better understanding of what Lewis saw that morning.

When Lewis did reach the court, and walked up the passage, she noticed the couple she saw previously were not in the court, it was empty. Therefore, this couple must have gone indoors. Exactly like Hutchinson said - Astrachan & Kelly went into room 13.

To me it's as clear as day that Hutchinson & Lewis corroborate each other.

hi wick
and hutch leaves his vigil around 3. then aman leaves marys place. then Mary goes back out and runs into the BGB, is seen by kennedy, and takes the BGB back to her place who kills her and is the ripper?


I believe this is the scenario we discussed before correct?

[Abby Normal]

Two problems with this:

1) It was not up to Abberline who appeared at the inquest. The reasons for Schwartz not appearing are not known. However interestingly didn't Anderson make reference to Schwartz appearance at the Inquest. Where the Police trying to keep his testimony under wraps due to its importance and its reference to Lipski? We will never know.

2) Hutchinson never stated he and Kelly were 'friends'. He just said he knew her. As for waiting 4 days to come forward- show me one Police force in the world who will dismiss someones evidence because they didn't come forward for four days. That would be a pretty pathetic police force. My God even nowadays people come forward years after the event never mind 4 days and are believed. If waiting 4 days is being used as some sort of stick to beat Hutchinson with then it's a very weak one.

perhaps. but why would he wait so long? I cant come up with a good innocent or truthful reason. surely he heard about the murder. surely his info would be important.
sounds to me he didn't want to go to the inquest and or needed time to see what others said and to work on his unbelievably detailed story.

[Abby Normal]

Why would any detective fall for a story so much that they would wager the souls of their children on it? Abberline says he interrogated him- he obviously was suffiently happy with his responses that he believed him. You can't claim 'probably at some point' Abberline began to have doubts as there is no evidence for that. You may suspect he did- but we will never know unless an official document comes to light. So all we have is Abberline's word from the night in question and with Hutchinson also speaking to the press we can compare that to his Police statement for irregularities. The statements are pretty much the same. That is an indicator of a truthful story.

actually in his press statement hutch now claims to have gone and stood by her door. indicating he knows exactly where she lives. a rather important point to leave out for the police.


to me this change indicates that he may have been worried someone saw him close to her place and changes his story to account for it. classic guilty behavior. or at least untruthful behavior.

[Wickerman]

Lewis was in Dorset Street when she saw Wideawake Man and the couple "further on". She did not say that she saw the couple turn the corner and enter Miller's Court, which would be a pretty obvious - and significant - thing to have said had it been true. Yet she didn't.

Excuse me Gareth, but when her words are right there in black and white. How can you possibly say "she didn't say that"?

"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, 13 Nov.

It's not like what she said is taken in isolation, it perfectly agrees with what Hutchinson said the night before (12th). They saw the same couple.
Once you have two independent sources who agree, they confirm each other, then that is the anchor to proceed to interpret further claims.

I have never tried to convince you that Lewis didn't say "further on", of course she must have, or at least implied the same. Therefore, her "further on" must be interpreted in conjunction with the fact she watched them pass up the court.

And, in my view, the best interpretation for her use of "further on" is to understand she meant "further on ahead of me was a couple......", not "further on past the loiterer" because that would conflict with the already established anchor between the two witnesses (Hutchinson & Lewis).

This is how a sequence of events is established, find something common between two sources and proceed from there.

Lewis is not providing a chronological story, she is responding to specific questions, as all witnesses do.
The first point noted in her police statement is her noticing that loiterer, and the first question she is asked at the inquest concerns this same loiterer.
Lewis makes no mention of another couple in her police statement, so the fact she does at the inquest can only be due to the coroner asking, "did you see anyone else in the street?" - to which she, in my view, obviously replied, "yes, further on ahead there was a couple......I saw them pass up the court", or words to that effect.
One reporter wrote "further on there was a couple", a different reporter wrote, "I saw a couple pass up the court".

Each reporter adds a small piece to the overall picture and we must collate all the press sources, along with the original court record, to gain a better understanding of what Lewis saw that morning.

When Lewis did reach the court, and walked up the passage, she noticed the couple she saw previously were not in the court, it was empty. Therefore, this couple must have gone indoors. Exactly like Hutchinson said - Astrachan & Kelly went into room 13.

To me it's as clear as day that Hutchinson & Lewis corroborate each other.

[Wickerman]

Hello Wick,

I think Abberline originally believed Hutchinson because he had no real reason not to. In other words, Hutchinson didn't appear to be drunk or mentally unstable or have two heads. Additionally, Abberline probably hoped that Hutchinson's story could be a huge break in the case. But we simply don't know if Abberline believed his story so much so that he would wager the souls of his children on it being true or if he believed it to be true more likely than not or somewhere in between. Probably at some point after the failed attempt by Hutchinson and the detectives to find Mr. A and further questioning of Hutchinson he might have started to lean toward disbelief. Since Hutchinson sort of fades into the sunset I would not be surprised if he confessed to making the whole thing up.

c.d.

Hi c.d.

I think it's this view of Hutchinson "fading" that has me most puzzled.

Given the highly transient nature of doss-house residents, following work as best they can. It must be anticipated that people like Hutchinson will only move on after a short stay at the Victoria Home.

When the police turn up a suspect weeks or months in the future how would you expect they locate Hutchinson, and how long would you expect the police to wait with their suspect in custody for Hutchinson to respond to a 'want-add' placed in the newspapers?

Don't you think that at the end of the day the police resign themselves to accept it must be the same person responsible for all these crimes, regardless of the wide variety of suspect descriptions they received?

If you can accept that, then isn't it only to be expected the police will turn to the one witness they know they can locate without any trouble?
Lawende had a fixed address & he owned a business, they knew where he was if the police ever need a future witness for a suspect I.D.
Lawende was the witness used in the Sadler I.D., because he was available.

So, the very fact we read nothing more about Hutchinson, Cox, Mrs Long, or Schwartz, is due to them not being readily available compared with Lawende?
So, nothing to do with the police changing their mind about the story told by those witnesses.
It's only a practical move by the time-pressed police for a resolution in this case.

[MrBarnett]

He said that he knew her very well, had known her for years and had been in her company a number of times. He also said that he'd sometimes given her a few shillings - shillings! - in the past. If he was telling the truth than it appears that, if they weren't "friends" per se, they were more than mere passing acquaintances.

An overnight stay with a woman in the Highway would have cost a few bob. I doubt Mary would have bestowed her favours for ‘4d or a loaf of stale bread’.

[Sam Flynn]

2) Hutchinson never stated he and Kelly were 'friends'. He just said he knew her.

He said that he knew her very well, had known her for years and had been in her company a number of times. He also said that he'd sometimes given her a few shillings - shillings! - in the past. If he was telling the truth than it appears that, if they weren't "friends" per se, they were more than mere passing acquaintances.

[Sunny Delight]

Abberline also stated he believed Israel Schwartz, which makes him zero for 2 on picking witnesses that have Inquest value. Granted, that boat had sailed when Hutch waits 4 days to come forward to help with his "friends" murder investigation.

Two problems with this:

1) It was not up to Abberline who appeared at the inquest. The reasons for Schwartz not appearing are not known. However interestingly didn't Anderson make reference to Schwartz appearance at the Inquest. Where the Police trying to keep his testimony under wraps due to its importance and its reference to Lipski? We will never know.

2) Hutchinson never stated he and Kelly were 'friends'. He just said he knew her. As for waiting 4 days to come forward- show me one Police force in the world who will dismiss someones evidence because they didn't come forward for four days. That would be a pretty pathetic police force. My God even nowadays people come forward years after the event never mind 4 days and are believed. If waiting 4 days is being used as some sort of stick to beat Hutchinson with then it's a very weak one.

[Sunny Delight]

Hello Wick,

I think Abberline originally believed Hutchinson because he had no real reason not to. In other words, Hutchinson didn't appear to be drunk or mentally unstable or have two heads. Additionally, Abberline probably hoped that Hutchinson's story could be a huge break in the case. But we simply don't know if Abberline believed his story so much so that he would wager the souls of his children on it being true or if he believed it to be true more likely than not or somewhere in between. Probably at some point after the failed attempt by Hutchinson and the detectives to find Mr. A and further questioning of Hutchinson he might have started to lean toward disbelief. Since Hutchinson sort of fades into the sunset I would not be surprised if he confessed to making the whole thing up.

c.d.

Why would any detective fall for a story so much that they would wager the souls of their children on it? Abberline says he interrogated him- he obviously was suffiently happy with his responses that he believed him. You can't claim 'probably at some point' Abberline began to have doubts as there is no evidence for that. You may suspect he did- but we will never know unless an official document comes to light. So all we have is Abberline's word from the night in question and with Hutchinson also speaking to the press we can compare that to his Police statement for irregularities. The statements are pretty much the same. That is an indicator of a truthful story.

[IchabodCrane]

A question about the key to 13 Miller's Court.

Is it reported how and where the key was found or was it just made known that it had been found?

Hi Curious Cat,

from time to time I pass by these boards to see whether the ripper has finally been caught. You didn't receive an answer to your above question yet right?
Maybe there is no further information. And we could speculate that it was a misreporting. As was pointed out in this thread, other newspapers ran the quote from Abberline differently.

Thank you also for bringing some straightforward fresh & analytical thinking to this mystery. I am one of the ones who still shares your initial doubts about the door and the lock. My 2 cents is still: the murderer did lock the door from outside, he took the key away with him, and that is the reason the police had to force the door instead of just reaching through the window. But i am not able to proof.

Because in my world, a spring lock locks when you pull a door shut. In addition, you can prevent opening from inside by locking from outside, which will lock the bolt.

All the best
IchabodCrane

[Sam Flynn]

So whoever the couple was they must have gone indoors.
Where did Astrachan & Kelly go.......?

Lewis was in Dorset Street when she saw Wideawake Man and the couple "further on". She did not say that she saw the couple turn the corner and enter Miller's Court, which would be a pretty obvious - and significant - thing to have said had it been true. Yet she didn't.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

I'll give you three guesses.

Regards,

Simon

[c.d.]

Hello Wick,

I think Abberline originally believed Hutchinson because he had no real reason not to. In other words, Hutchinson didn't appear to be drunk or mentally unstable or have two heads. Additionally, Abberline probably hoped that Hutchinson's story could be a huge break in the case. But we simply don't know if Abberline believed his story so much so that he would wager the souls of his children on it being true or if he believed it to be true more likely than not or somewhere in between. Probably at some point after the failed attempt by Hutchinson and the detectives to find Mr. A and further questioning of Hutchinson he might have started to lean toward disbelief. Since Hutchinson sort of fades into the sunset I would not be surprised if he confessed to making the whole thing up.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

Hello Wick,

There are also degrees of belief. It can run the gamut and doesn't necessarily have to be all or nothing.

c.d.

I was thinking more along the lines of, if you think Abberline may have changed his mind. At what point do you see this happening?

[Wickerman]

I rule out George Hutchinson even existing.

Mr. Astrakhan was an imaginative exercise in deflection.

Small wonder Abberline kept his mouth shut for the last 26 years of his life.

So who, in your opinion, created a false witness statement with all those genuine signatures?