Help On Some Details

[Wickerman]

Nope the scale is fine and based on average male height for the time .In fact I've been most generous
Kelly was no orangutan lol

I was just having fun Nick.

Bob Hinton built a full scale mock-up and physically tried it himself, he said it worked fine.

At the time, back in the early 90's, I worked in engineering. At work I created a 3D computer model of that window & door around a corner.
It worked fine.

Both Bob & I used the size of the typical house brick & the cement line in use in the 19th century, as base for the scale. If you enhance that photo it is possible to count exactly how many bricks for both the height & width of both the window & door.
It works Nick - trust me
Or, trust Bob, either way.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Still waiting for your first guess.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

At the point in time that Kelly was alleged to be at the entrance to the court with her red handkerchief waving ' come mug me' guy .
Dear Hutchinson was at the corner of Commercial Street and Dorset Street ....nowhere near his dot

Yes, I'm well familiar with this argument. Posters like to play one statement off against the other, his police statement against his press statement. They want to argue that one is right and the other is wrong. Or he told one story then contradicted it, or he told the truth in one but lied in the other.

What needs to be done is interpret what he said in both statements, he was only telling one story. So everything he said must be consistent in both stories.

To the police he told them that Astrachan & Kelly went into Dorset street, and he followed them (into Dorset street).
"They both went into Dorset Street I followed them."

To the press he said:
"......they walked across the road to Dorset-street. I followed them across, and stood at the corner of Dorset-street."

If he stayed at the corner, then he didn't follow them into Dorset street.
So he lied?
Rubbish, him stopping at the corner until they got a good distance away, then continued to follow them is quite consistent with both stories.

Thats what you would do, it's what I would do, or anyone. When they go around a corner you would rush to that corner and watch, then when they're a good distance down the street continue to follow them.
Thats what he did.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Still waiting for your first guess.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon.

Guessing its origin is simple, but guessing what you think its origin is, is a little harder
I though you were just going to say, read my book.

The handwriting certainly matches Badham's, the four official signatures; Badham, Ellisdon, Arnold & Abberline all appear genuine.
I have no issue with Hutchinson's signature.
There's no real guessing involved, the evidence speaks for itself.

Hutchinson's statement is genuine.

Now, you want me to guess what you think it's origin is.
I wouldn't know where to begin.

[rjpalmer]

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.

If the police dismissed Schwartz, why is Donald Swanson still discussing him as a valid witness in a report dated October 19th?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

There's only one genuine signature on the Hutchinson statement.

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

There's only one genuine signature on the Hutchinson statement.

All three are by the witness, George Hutchinson. The idea that the police would make them up is silly.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, I'm well familiar with this argument. Posters like to play one statement off against the other, his police statement against his press statement. They want to argue that one is right and the other is wrong. Or he told one story then contradicted it, or he told the truth in one but lied in the other.

What needs to be done is interpret what he said in both statements, he was only telling one story. So everything he said must be consistent in both stories.

To the police he told them that Astrachan & Kelly went into Dorset street, and he followed them (into Dorset street).
"They both went into Dorset Street I followed them."

To the press he said:
"......they walked across the road to Dorset-street. I followed them across, and stood at the corner of Dorset-street."

If he stayed at the corner, then he didn't follow them into Dorset street.
So he lied?
Rubbish, him stopping at the corner until they got a good distance away, then continued to follow them is quite consistent with both stories.

Thats what you would do, it's what I would do, or anyone. When they go around a corner you would rush to that corner and watch, then when they're a good distance down the street continue to follow them.
Thats what he did.

You would expect his police statement to be the more accurate. Police officers are trained to extract much information and to clarify important points when taking witness statements. Abberline was an experienced officer.

Why are people so reluctant to accept official statements, and want to play them off against newspaper reports..

If the matter went to court newspaper reports would not form part of the prosecution case.

Hutchinsons statement would have been taken under police conditions.i,e at the station, newspaper interviews anywhere from a street corner, to someones front door.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[seanr]

Yes, I'm well familiar with this argument. Posters like to play one statement off against the other, his police statement against his press statement. They want to argue that one is right and the other is wrong. Or he told one story then contradicted it, or he told the truth in one but lied in the other.

What needs to be done is interpret what he said in both statements, he was only telling one story. So everything he said must be consistent in both stories.

To the police he told them that Astrachan & Kelly went into Dorset street, and he followed them (into Dorset street).
"They both went into Dorset Street I followed them."

To the press he said:
"......they walked across the road to Dorset-street. I followed them across, and stood at the corner of Dorset-street."

If he stayed at the corner, then he didn't follow them into Dorset street.
So he lied?
Rubbish, him stopping at the corner until they got a good distance away, then continued to follow them is quite consistent with both stories.

Yes, quite consistent with both stories. But not consistent with Sarah Lewis' statement describing this same moment.

[Sunny Delight]

Hi sunny
99 times out of 100 i would too. But not this time.
I think wishful thinking and a good liar got the best of him on this one.

To me its rather obvious that after initially beleiving hutch he probably soon came to question his credibility.

Theres the story soon after in the press of his story being discounted.
Abberline never mentions him again, and when he does mention suspects and witnesses he opts for those who go with peaked cap man.
No mention of this should have been stellar witness again except from dew...who says he thinks he may have got the day wrong.

I think you read too much into Abberline not mentioning Hutchinson when he does the iiinterview stating the only people to get a good view of the murderer only saw his back. I take it this is what you are referring to There are a few issues.

1) There is no guarantee Aman was the killer. There was enough time after Hutchinson left for Kelly to meet someone else according to the medical doctors at the time.

2) If we discount Hutchinson then we discount Mary Ann Cox as well. She was never mentioned again despite getting a great view of Blotchy. Point 1 also stands here.

3) Lawende and Schwartz are also never mentioned by Abberline. In fact he explicitly discounts them by clearly stating the only people to see the murderer saw him from the back only. Were they also liars or killers?

I think by the time Abberline spoke about this he was developing a theory of his own were the Ripper was a man who wore a peaked cap much like a certain man named Chapman. But look I have enjoyed this little discussion Abby so thank you. But I think alas I will continue to believe Hutchinson and you will continue to doubt him. I am sure we will debate this again as Hutchinson seems a popular boy......

[DJA]

Always have a laugh about Abberline and Chapman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas..._(toxicologist)

[Abby Normal]

I think you read too much into Abberline not mentioning Hutchinson when he does the iiinterview stating the only people to get a good view of the murderer only saw his back. I take it this is what you are referring to There are a few issues.

1) There is no guarantee Aman was the killer. There was enough time after Hutchinson left for Kelly to meet someone else according to the medical doctors at the time.

2) If we discount Hutchinson then we discount Mary Ann Cox as well. She was never mentioned again despite getting a great view of Blotchy. Point 1 also stands here.

3) Lawende and Schwartz are also never mentioned by Abberline. In fact he explicitly discounts them by clearly stating the only people to see the murderer saw him from the back only. Were they also liars or killers?

I think by the time Abberline spoke about this he was developing a theory of his own were the Ripper was a man who wore a peaked cap much like a certain man named Chapman. But look I have enjoyed this little discussion Abby so thank you. But I think alas I will continue to believe Hutchinson and you will continue to doubt him. I am sure we will debate this again as Hutchinson seems a popular boy......

Thanks same here sunny.
Ill just add before dropping it is that i actually meant abberlines statement about the peaked cap.lawende and schwartz arent mentioned by him but there peaked cap man suspect certainly is. Amd blotchy is mentioned as a valid suspect later by i beleive dew? Or swanson. Cant remember.
Amyway my point being is hutch should be by far the best witness, no question, and the fact that him and his suspect disapear entirely as valid, speaks volumes about his credibility imho.
Toodles.

[packers stem]

I was just having fun Nick.

Bob Hinton built a full scale mock-up and physically tried it himself, he said it worked fine.

At the time, back in the early 90's, I worked in engineering. At work I created a 3D computer model of that window & door around a corner.
It worked fine.

Both Bob & I used the size of the typical house brick & the cement line in use in the 19th century, as base for the scale. If you enhance that photo it is possible to count exactly how many bricks for both the height & width of both the window & door.
It works Nick - trust me
Or, trust Bob, either way.

Sorry Jon
Building a model is completely unnecessary .
We know the door height would be about 5' 10" or so .
It's then a very simple job to superimpose a figure using an overlay app in front of the window.
If you do this , you'll see what I mean .
It's not possible and again ...... Barnett never said he did this .
Not at the inquest nor in any press account did he ever mention entry to the room or a missing key

[Abby Normal]

Hutch sees kelly and aman enter the court and takes up his vigil about 3:15. Lewis arrives and passes into millers court shortly after 3:30. Both fixed there times by clocks.
Lewis couple couldnt have been kelly and aman.
That really should be the end of it.

[packers stem]

All three are by the witness, George Hutchinson. The idea that the police would make them up is silly.

The signatures are completely different
Whoever signed the name wasn't used to writing it and by the time sheets 2 and 3 were signed he had clearly forgotten how he wrote the capital H on sheet one .
The two capitals are the cornerstone of a signature
The H in the first is rather ornate
The second is bog standard and by the third I suspect he realised his mistake and deliberately made it look messy .
My view is that all three were by the same hand but by someone who was signing a signature that wasn't his own