Witnesses are no use in JtR case

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Can't say I blame the computer! "

Good one, Ben, admittedly!

...but the rest will have to wait!

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

I agree entirely, Heinrich.

The saving grace in this instance is that the police apparently came to ditch Hutchinson’s statement just a few days after giving it the initial thumbs up.

Hi Fisherman,



Can't say I blame the computer!



I’m afraid it isn’t open to question, as far as I’m concerned. A person who is able to memorize details that he can’t even have seen qualifies as very “special” indeed. What bothers me is your unwillingness even to concede that he embellished his description somewhat. Such a concession would certainly assist your overall view of the Hutchinson affair, and is preferable to insisting that he told the squeaky-clean truth all the way down to the eyelashes.



If the conditions are favourable and you’re trying to memorize as much as possible, yes, but Hutchinson met neither of these criteria. That’s why I question the wisdom of all this googling and “experiment”-conducting – it offers no valid comparison with the situation that Hutchinson allegedly found himself in. I don’t know why you would wish to “isolate” the issue of memorization from the circumstances of the sighting. Surely the overall purpose here is to assess the credibility of Hutchinson’s claims? Yes, as I’ve already mentioned, I find it incredibly doubtful that Hutchinson remembered all these details, especially not three days later (which, incidentally, is another factor that your googling experiments have overlooked), but to compound the problem, we also have the issue of a miserable night in a dark street in Victorian London and a very brief window of opportunity with which to notice (let alone memorize) the minutia of Astrakhan’s clothing and accessories.

As far as I’m concerned, the only realistic explanation for these combined implausibilities is fabrication on Hutchinson’s part.



We don’t need precise recordings in order to deduce that the sighting can only have occurred very briefly and in darkened conditions. It really is a fallacy to pretend that in the absence of exact measurements, we cannot make logical deductions. Would you stick your hand into a fierce fire on the basis that you hadn’t calculated the precise degree of heat beforehand? Of course not - you would make a reasonable deduction and abort the “hand-in-fire” idea accordingly. Just so with the premise that Hutchinson could have seen a memorized all that he alleged.



Exactly. But it’s another very good reason not to take Hutchinson and his claims as face value. We clearly do prefer different approaches here – yours asserts that, yes, it would have been an absurdly comical spectacle to have Hutchinson going right up to Astrakhan man in order to peer directly upwards under the latter’s hat, but if that’s how he said he saw the shade of the man's eyelashes, it all makes sense. I think this is an uncritical approach, and seeks to justify one implausible claim on the basis of another. I would argue that he made an implausible claim (registering the man’s eyelash shade) which he then attempted to validate with an equally implausible claim (peering underneath the brim of a hat which had already been pushed down OVER the eyes) and that the obvious conclusion is that he lied about it.



This is more of the same, defending the hopelessly implausible on the basis of the ludicrous. How does one go about registering eyelashes in the shadow of a dark hat pulled down over the eyes on a dark street, incidentally?



The detail in Smith’s description informs us that he must have paid some attention to the man; otherwise he could not have recorded the details. I don’t see how this is an outlandish or incorrect inference.



Absolutely, which is why I regard it as somewhat suspicious that Hutchinson’s description utterly pandered to that image in a very glaring and blatant manner. Is it really credible that any REAL person would be dim-witted and eccentric enough to dress in a manner that amalgamated all or most of the elements that comprised the “widespread picture of the killer”? You seem to like the idea that Hutchinson harboured suspicions that the man might be the killer, and as such, what do you think motivated him to loiter on Dorset Street – to wait and see if the man was the killer?



As opposed to the numerous other “kinds of paper” knocking around the East End, presumably? Newspaper was by far the most common type of paper for wrapping up items, especially food. My impression of Smith is that he probably “noticed” the man more than he gave himself credit for, perhaps because knowledge of the recent crimes was in his subconscious, as you’re contending with Hutchinson. This does not mean he was remotely “untruthful” at the inquest. When I speak of impressive detail, I mean after we’ve taken into consideration the circumstances of the sighting. Had it incorporated a Hutchinsonian wealth of detail, I would be considerably more sceptical.

All the best,
Ben

Uh-oh. Here we go again.

The infamous Ben vs Fish Hutchinson death spiral.

Hold on-let me go grab some popcorn.

(FYI-gentlemen I jest but in all honestly I enjoy your debates, not the least of all because i actually learn alot by following)

[Phil H]

It has to be generally believed that George Hutchinson's story is totally bogus. One wonders what led him to fabricate such a fantasy.

I may be old fashioned - I still think that Hutchinson may have stood for a while opposite the entrance to Miller's Court, he may even have exchanged words with Mary. I see no reason why he should have invented that, it is reasonable and his going to the police might just reflect his awareness that he had been seen.

What I doubt are his descriptions - especially that of Astrakhan Man - which are (IMHO) simply too detailed to be believed.

I don't think we should throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater.

Phil

[Stephen Thomas]

Hatchett:

"It has to be generally believed that George Hutchinson's story is totally bogus. One wonders what led him to fabricate such a fantasy. That the Metropolitan Police at the time gave it some importance only points to their desperation in being so ready to clutch at such a manifestly implausible piece of fiction."

The post there was actually by Heinrich who seems unaware that the Hutchinson/ Astrakhan story in no way interferes with his Barnett Dunnit theory

[Wickerman]

I really don't get this.

I didn't expect you to. You could read up on the subject, how emotion affects memory.

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=emotion+EFFECT+on+memory&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/psychology/9780195326932/toc.html

http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2009/09/memory_and_mood_negative_emoti.php

http://prattpsychology.blogspot.com/2009/04/emotions-and-memory-article.html

The problem here is the strong tendency for some members to contest opinions by arguing that if 'they' cannot do something, no-one can. Pretty shallow basis for a debate.
Whether Hutchinson was aggravated at the stranger taking his 'friend' away from him right under his nose we will never know, but there is bonafide scientific research which shows that Hutchinson's ability to recall detail (memory) is not questionable if his memory was fired by strong emotional feelings at losing the attention of a female aquaintance.

Exactly, David..... but even tests for "photographic memory" don't involve nearly the number of details allegedly recorded by Hutchinson.

Photographic?, there is nothing to compare what Hutchinson saw to make this a 'photographic' argument, are you trying to set up a Straw Man argument?

First, three days is no time at all. For all we know Hutchinson might have forgotten half of what he saw, all he reported to the police might be just what little he managed to remember.

Secondly, at the other end of the scale, witnesses questioned at Inquests are expected to recall events up to a week or over two weeks after the fact.
Three days is nothing, in fact questioning a person's ability to remember over so short a time is a bogus argument to begin with.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

"Hi Fisherman"

Hi Ben!

"I’m afraid it isn’t open to question, as far as I’m concerned. A person who is able to memorize details that he can’t even have seen qualifies as very “special” indeed."

I have two answers for you on this point:

1/ "It has been suggested by modern theorists that it (Hutchinsons description of Astrakhan man; my remark) is in fact too detailed, particularly in regard to the description of the man. However, the basic physical description is not really out of the ordinary and as a working man Hutchinson would be bound to notice signs of affluence such as gold chain, pin, collar ant tie, and gaiters."
Evans and Rumbelow, "Scotland Yard investigates".

Clearly, Ben, some of the most knowledgeable Ripperologists, like Stewart Evans and Don Rumbelow, recommend another approach altogether. Well, in a sense, they don´t leave much open to discussion either. They firmly state, seasoned ex-policemen that they are, that the description is nothing out of the ordinary when it comes to the physical part, and that Hutchinson not only COULD have seen the details, but instead that he was bound to notice it.

2/ Everybody knows that it is open to discussion in your case too - you discuss it 24/7, more or less...

"What bothers me is your unwillingness even to concede that he embellished his description somewhat."

There is no way that I can "concede" such a thing. Nor can anybody else. He MAY have done so, but to me there is nothing to point to any certainty at all in that regard. Just like Evans and Rumbelow, I say that Hutch WOULD have noted the finery.

"If the conditions are favourable and you’re trying to memorize as much as possible, yes, but Hutchinson met neither of these criteria."

Good! You at least sensibly agree that there is principally no problem taking in the number of details as such. This is very important, since it helps us to de-demonize the Hutchinson observation.

It is another thing that visibility and time may have disallowed for the observation. But once again, Evans and Rumbelow see the sense in the rest of my stance: "We simply do not know enough about the ambient lighting conditions to be able to say this categorically", is what they say about your suggestion that the light could never have been enough. Too categorical is their verdict, and I´ll co-sign that any day of the week.

They also allow for observations of useful quality in Dorset Street, where you - once again categorically - claim that Hutchinson could never, ever, have seen anything but a dark coat and a hat: "...what was the quality of lighting in Dorset Street outside Miller´s Court?" is what they ask, indicating that - exactly! - Ben Holme can´t tell. Nor can I. Nor can anybody.

"I don’t know why you would wish to “isolate” the issue of memorization from the circumstances of the sighting"

Because we must assess the sighting factor by factor, and the number factor is the only one where we can prove that people can do what Hutch did.
To prove that the light was enough, we need to travel in time, and the same goes for the timings. These factors will always remain hidden to us. And that is why you may hold your stance, so you should be thankful for that!

"Surely the overall purpose here is to assess the credibility of Hutchinson’s claims?"

Yep. What else?

"... to compound the problem, we also have the issue of a miserable night in a dark street in Victorian London"

Nope, not if Walter Dew was correct.

"... and a very brief window of opportunity with which to notice (let alone memorize) the minutia of Astrakhan’s clothing and accessories."

Once again, the time factor cannot be established with any certainty at all.

"As far as I’m concerned, the only realistic explanation for these combined implausibilities is fabrication on Hutchinson’s part."

So much so, in fact, that the fact that renowned Ripperologists, arguably the best known in the business, and versed ex-policemen to boot, say that what Hutchinson did was nothing out of the ordinary and something he was bound to do, is something you think must be countered by the claim that it is not even open to discussion.
You sometimes accuse me for suggesting, what was it ...? Ah, "impopular" things. Well, welcome to the club, Ben!

"We don’t need precise recordings in order to deduce that the sighting can only have occurred very briefly and in darkened conditions."

On the contrary - that is exactly what we need - and lack. We don´t even have any rough estimation to lean against when it comes to timings, light sources, distances inbetween Hutch and the couple, distances from light sources to the couple. Therefore, the question remains open, the way it must be.

"It really is a fallacy to pretend that in the absence of exact measurements, we cannot make logical deductions."

Sometimes yes, other times no. And this is another time.

"Would you stick your hand into a fierce fire on the basis that you hadn’t calculated the precise degree of heat beforehand?"

No - but you don´t seem to mind such a thing. Because that is exactly what you are doing by claiming that you have a certain answer to what discerning Ripperologists would never call a done deal. You have miscalculated the heat you will be subjected to totally, Ben.

"We clearly do prefer different approaches here – yours asserts that, yes, it would have been an absurdly comical spectacle to have Hutchinson going right up to Astrakhan man in order to peer directly upwards under the latter’s hat, but if that’s how he said he saw the shade of the man's eyelashes, it all makes sense."

Did I say "absurdly comical"? I think not. I also added that it is the contemporary context that counts, and I don´t know how the people alongside Hutchinson would have reacted. Maybe it was everyday stuff to them. Maybe they would not even care if they were told that you would disapprove 123 years later.

"I think this is an uncritical approach"

I think it is much more "uncritical" to rewrite things to fit your purposes.

,"...seeks to justify one implausible claim on the basis of another."

How implausible is it to look another man in the face, if you want to? Just how implausible? Not near enough to allow for your revisionism, I´d say.

"How does one go about registering eyelashes in the shadow of a dark hat pulled down over the eyes on a dark street, incidentally?"

The safest bet would be to take a look.

"The detail in Smith’s description informs us that he must have paid some attention to the man; otherwise he could not have recorded the details. I don’t see how this is an outlandish or incorrect inference."

It is not, nor have I claimed this. I simply noticed that you claimed that Smith would have been very wary of men with women and thus paid a lot of attention to such things when it happened, meaning that he must have observed the man closely.
THAT is what I find outlandish - that you take the liberty to once again use the revisionist angle and turn Smith from a man that did not notice his guy much to a keen observer. This is not true, and we know that because Smith was quite adamant about it - he did not notice the man much.

Has not the time come to admit that this was what Smith said himself, and that the reasonable approach to it is to accept that he was truthful?
Has not the time come to accept that people who do not even make a serious effort can see many details in a short time in a dark street, and that they are able to reiterate it some days later, hat, coat, whiskerlessness, newspaper parcel, size included, flower, height, age and all?
Or must we keep on listening to you rewriting history, labouring to rectify the people who were there in 1888, and making them all dance like puppets to your whistle? And all the time you do this, YOU still find the time to call MY view preposterous!

"Is it really credible that any REAL person would be dim-witted and eccentric enough to dress in a manner that amalgamated all or most of the elements that comprised the “widespread picture of the killer”?

I think hundreds, perhaps thousands of people would have, given the chance. Wealth is a mighty attractor, Ben, you should not underestimate that. Go look in the East end drawings and photographs thread, and you will find ten-year old boys with watch chains in their vests, posing in the gutter with their friends.

"You seem to like the idea that Hutchinson harboured suspicions that the man might be the killer"

I believe that it would have been one of the first considerations many, if not most, people would ponder.

"... and as such, what do you think motivated him to loiter on Dorset Street – to wait and see if the man was the killer?"

I can´t tell. So we agree on something! But I am not opposed to a suggestion that he may have felt nervous about it, especially since the couple did not reemerge. The world is full of people who repent that they did not take action at stages where it would have helped. I do not harbour such feelings myself - I do all I can to help you to realize that you are far too categorical and in all probability hanging on to the wrong end of the stick.

"As opposed to the numerous other “kinds of paper” knocking around the East End, presumably?"

Yes.

"Newspaper was by far the most common type of paper for wrapping up items, especially food."

But was it the only one? Nope. And would Smith have declared as a truth what was a guess? Nope. What reason would he have had to do so? None.

"My impression of Smith is that he probably “noticed” the man more than he gave himself credit for"

Not at all - he listed exactly what he saw and remembered. I don´t think he suppressed one single thing. And the sum of what he mentioned equals what he gave himself credit for. It is all very easy.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Firstly, thanks for quoting the published opinions of other “ripperologists”. I would ask you to bear in mind that a number of authors have their own suspect theories to tout, and in a depressing minority of cases, the authors in question have decided that the thoroughly discredited Astrakhan description meshes up rather well with their suspect of preference, be it Tumblety, Klosowski or whoever. Quite often, the theorists concerned are completely unaware of the strong and compelling evidence to the effect that Hutchinson’s statement was discredited, and yet they still use it to bolster their suspect of preference – and amusingly, the suspect in question never looks anything remotely like the Astrakhan man! If you want to address the subject of modern police treatment of Hutchison’s statement, I would again refer you to Bon Hinton’s book, where he observed that he had spoken to policeman – both retired and serving – all of whom dismiss Hutchinson’s statement as “pure fantasy”.

“You at least sensibly agree that there is principally no problem taking in the number of details as such.”

Only if you’re deliberately attempting to take in a “number of details” in favourable conditions. As for “Evans and Rumbelow” seeing sense “in your stance”, I doubt very much that either of the gentleman in question even know what your “stance” is. I also doubt that they'd be very enthusiastic about your overall take on the Hutchinson affair. On the subject of Dorset Street, my observation was a very sincere one – just when was Hutchinson supposed to have observed the finer details of the Astrakhan man’s appearance after the latter had moved on from the Queen’s Head? The lighting at the time of the alleged Astrakhan sighting was negligible in the extreme because it happened - allegedly – in the small hours of a miserable night at 2.00am. It shouldn’t take a deductive genius that these were insufficient conditions for Hutchinson to have registered all that he alleged.

“You have miscalculated the heat you will be subjected to totally, Ben.”

Sounds like a threat to me. Either that or a very clumsy and very gauche attempt at analogy. Bring it on. If anyone thinks s/he is clever or determined enough to “subject” me to any “heat”, by all means pick a fight with me and we’ll see who ends up on top. Seriously, subject me to this “heat” you’re taking about – it’ll amuse me.

THAT is what I find outlandish - that you take the liberty to once again use the revisionist angle and turn Smith from a man that did not notice his guy much to a keen observer. This is not true, and we know that because Smith was quite adamant about it - he did not notice the man much.

It annoys me deeply to see you describe me as “revisionist”, not least because it’s such a bogus allegation. If I’m “revisionist”, what would that make you? The purveyor of that oh-so-popular theory that Hutchinson mistook the dates? I’m not criticising PC Smith in the slightest. I’m only observing that in order for Smith to record as many details as he claimed, he must have “noticed” the man’s appearance to some degree, and can’t have been an entirely disinterested observer. This has nothing to do with any accusation that PC Smith was a liar.

“Or must we keep on listening to you rewriting history, labouring to rectify the people who were there in 1888, and making them all dance like puppets to your whistle?”

Oh blah blah blah, Fisherman.

Really, what pointless turgid nonsense.

I’m not forcing you to “listen” to anything I’ve said.

You’re the one that took the ill-starred decision to pick a repetitive done-to-death fight with me.

[Ben]

Hi Phil,

I agree with your thoughts entirely.

but there is bonafide scientific research which shows that Hutchinson's ability to recall detail (memory) is not questionable if his memory was fired by strong emotional feelings at losing the attention of a female aquaintance.

Nonsense, "Wickerman".

"Bonafide scientific research" my rosy-red pockmarked bottom.

It is only sane that we should reject the idea that Hutchinson magically increased his ability to memorize and notice that which he could not possibly have noticed and memorized purely on the basis of his alleged emotional turmoil at being "usurped" by the walking, talking amalgamation of every bogus detail that had been associated with the ripper's appearance, which is what the Astrakhan man is, in essence.

You are allowing your preference for a toff-like suspect in the ripper crimes colour your approach to eyewitness evidence.

all he reported to the police might be just what little he managed to remember.

Are you serious?

Are you seriously suggesting that Hutchinson's already impossible detailed description did not reflect the totality of his sighting, and that it actually incorporated more elements?

[DVV]

Hi Dave.

Why would he forget?

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Jon,

because after 3 days we all forget how was dressed an unknown person we have seen passing by...

But Hutch did remember everything. Why ?

Because on the morrow he heard of MJK's death ?

Ok. May be. But then, why not going straight to the police ?

Amitiés
David

[Wickerman]

...You are allowing your preference for a toff-like suspect in the ripper crimes colour your approach to eyewitness evidence.

I don't need to invent people who do not exist. I do think it necessary to take witness statements as honestly given unless contradictions appear to the contrary.
Neither do I see the need to employ a double standard with respect to Abberline's professional abilities. As most members appear to agree that Abberline has enough knowledge & experience to be able to determine Barnett's truthfulness and see through any attempts at subverting the course of justice, then I see no reason to take a different position when it comes to Abberline's abilities with Hutchinson.
I do not apply a double standard, do you?

Your subjective opinion on the well attested, "well-dressed man" scenario is clouding your judgement. What we do agree on is the extent of nonsense that has been written over the years about a killer with top-hat & cape. Hence you reference to a "toff", which Astrachan was not.
Because of this it is more than evident you are running scared of considering for a moment that the man Lewis/Kennedy saw, who has accosted a number of females, could possibly be the same man that Hutchinson saw.

"..Immediately opposite the house in which Mary Jane Kelly was murdered is a tenement occupied by an Irishman, named Gallagher, and his family. On Thursday night Gallagher and his wife retired to rest at a fairly early hour. Their married daughter, a woman named Mrs. Kennedy, came home,.......
Mrs. Kennedy is confident that the man whom she noticed speaking to the woman Kelly at three o'clock on Friday morning is identical with the person who accosted her on the previous Wednesday."
The Evening News, 10 Nov. 1888.

You choose to ignore witnesses who offer statements which show the fallacy of your argument. Yet, we also know some "funny looking" man was seen up the court, and another "well-dressed" man was seen by Bowyer in the court earlier in the week, - Wednesday.
By denying the existence of this witness and this suspect(?), you are closing out one avenue of research.
Lewis/Kennedy, if you recall had said she had met this same man in the Bethnal Green Rd, then later in the evening (afternoon?) Bowyer saw someone suspiciously dressed in the court. The possibility exists that Lewis, an Irish daughter of the Irishman Gallagher, was followed by this Bethnal Green man, back to Millers Court.

Are you seriously suggesting that Hutchinson's already impossible detailed description did not reflect the totality of his sighting, and that it actually incorporated more elements?

If Dave thinks 3 days is too long to remember all that detail then it only stands to reason, by Dave's estimation, that Hutch must have remembered more the previous day, Sunday.

What I think is missing from Abberline's questioning is any hint that Abberline may have asked Hutchinson if this stranger was dressed the same on Sunday morning. And, therefore, leading to the inevitable conclusion that some of the detail provided by Hutchinson was actually seen by him in daylight when he seemed to recognise this same man in Petticoat Lane.
Regardless, Abberline was experienced enough to know whether Hutchinson's detailed claims were possible under streetlamp conditions.
No double standard, both Barnett & Hutchinson were honest and dependable witnesses in Abberline's view.

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

First, three days is no time at all.

Indeed. Enough for Jesus to re-build the Temple.

For all we know Hutchinson might have forgotten half of what he saw, all he reported to the police might be just what little he managed to remember.

Here I have to disagree. Toppy couldn't forget anything.

Et il pouvait voir la Tour de Londres depuis les côtes normandes.

Qu'on se le dise !

Amitiés
David

[DVV]

he seemed to recognise this same man in Petticoat Lane.

Regards, Jon S.

Ah, that Sunday morning sighting !

The most obvious lie of a short but intense career.

Love it.

Amitiés,
David

[Phil H]

It is not MEMORY that call's hutchinson's account into question, it is the unlikelihood of any man being dressed as described at that time of day. The whole description doesn't add up.

There was a suggestion on Casebook, not too long ago, to the effect that Hutchinson might have based his ideas on a tailor's dummy seen in a shop window (in Romford). I find that quite convincing, not least because it would elevate the legs and feet of the dummy to a higher level and thus allow Hutchinson a sight of the boots and spats he might not have had on a rainy night in a darkish street.

Phil

[babybird67]

The whole description doesn't add up.

Exactly Phil. I find it difficult to understand why Hutchinson's account is often divided up into little sections with little justifications: well he 'could have had' a photographic memory; he 'could have' followed them and waited for 3/4 of an hour; he 'could have' seen such an unlikely looking person in such an unlikely place; he 'could have not heard' about Mary Kelly's death until 3 days later etc etc.

Why cannot people contextualise the whole account he gave and recognise it for what it is? The implausibility of the sighting, both presence and detail; the implausibilty of the man being suspicious enough to follow and watch for 45 minutes, but not to suspect of being the killer, despite allegedly carrying a knife sized bag and fitting the bogeyman description of the killer at the time; the implausibility of him not hearing of the death for 3 days and not coming forward until after the inquest, yet seeing the same man on Sunday and allegedly alerting a policeman (alerting him to what? there is a man i saw on Friday, who as far as I know is innocent of everything? because as yet i havent heard about my good friend's death?). Everything Hutchinson says does not add up. It's the entire context that smells.

If people accept George Hutchinson was honest, they have to accept that the Ripper or, at the very least, the killer of Mary Kelly, was not only a man of wealth and high class, but also as thick as two short planks, since nobody intending to kill someone and ravage them in the way Mary Kelly was ravaged, would dress conspicuously like that in order to do so.

No, the killer was the non-descript shabby genteel type seen by every other witness, so vague as to blend in with his surroundings, which is why the Police discredited Hutchinson's statement and continued throughout the investigation to have no clue as to who was responsible for the Whitechapel murders.

[Ben]

Good to see you, Beebs, and with good points as always.

Phil - yes, I too see the merit in the "tailor's dummy" idea. It was first expounded in Bob Hinton's book, From Hell.

Hi Jon,

“I don't need to invent people who do not exist"

Well this is something you may not have in common with Hutchinson, then, because there are many plentiful and compelling reasons to conclude that his statement was less than “honestly given”. I have no idea what “double-standards” I’m supposed to be employing, but as I have found necessary to point out an obscene amount of times, Abberline’s initial endorsement of Hutchinson’s statement was recorded in a missive to his superiors that was written a few hours after his first meeting with Hutchinson, i.e. before any investigation into his statement could realistically have occurred. Over the next few days, however, the statement came to be considerably discounted owing to obvious doubts about its credibility. This was disclosed by the Echo, who had communicated directly with the police, and later backed up by the Star.

Mrs. Kennedy was a bogus witness, and unless we entertain one of those ludicrous “coincidences” that people are often quite happy to take on board here in Hutchinsonia, she was almost certainly one of the witnesses mentioned by the Star reporter who had parroted Lewis’ account, and attempted to pass it off as her own. Clearly the police became aware of this, which is why she did not appear at the inquest. As such, you need to stop referring to “Lewis/Kennedy” because it implies they were the same person. It is only responsible that we don’t revive her as a genuine witness, which she most certainly was not. Astonishingly, you even support the likes or “Mrs. Paumier” and “Sarah Roney” who spoke of men with shiny black bags, do not appear to have any communication with the police, and sunk without trace before the inquest. I wonder why….

All that needs to be taken on board here is that a lot of fiction did the rounds in the immediate aftermath of the murder (such as Kelly having a little boy who had to be removed from Miller’s Court when she conduced her business) which was filtered out by the police in time for the inquest, which only genuine witnesses were called to attend. You want to undo all this and regurgitate the discredited nonsense, for some reason.

“You choose to ignore witnesses who offer statements which show the fallacy of your argument.”

No, I choose to ignore witnesses who offer statements which were dismissed at the time as false.

“Yet, we also know some "funny looking" man was seen up the court, and another "well-dressed" man was seen by Bowyer in the court earlier in the week, - Wednesday”

We “know” this, do we?

Why didn’t Bowyer make any reference to this at the inquest, then?

And why did it only appear in one newspaper?

And why treat this “funny-looking man” account as gospel when it was second or third-hand hearsay? I’m afraid you adopt a rather uncritical approach to eyewitness evidence in my opinion. As much as we’d like all of it to be true and accurate, we need to be a lot more realistic.

“What I think is missing from Abberline's questioning is any hint that Abberline may have asked Hutchinson if this stranger was dressed the same on Sunday morning.”

Ah, but there isn’t even any hint that Hutchinson mentioned seeing the stranger again on Sunday morning. This was an element that crept into the embellished accounts that he gave to the press. The idea that he recognised the man’s detailed accessories for a second time, and yet “could not be certain” if it was the same person is eccentric nonsense. “Yep, there’s that unmistakable horseshoe tie-pin and light buttons over button boots. Oh and there’s that red-stone seal! But maybe this is a different bloke wearing identical items to the bloke I saw with Kelly?"

“Regardless, Abberline was experienced enough to know whether Hutchinson's detailed claims were possible under streetlamp conditions.”

Indeed, this was probably a factor in Hutchinson’s ultimate discrediting.

I think some people are forsaking their reason very badly here.

Regards,
Ben