Choosing which witnesses to believe

[Wickerman]

I'm sorry Jon...for all your worthy reasoning, I simply can't credit Hutch with seeing that much...remembering is one thing...seeing in the first place is another...

All the best

Dave

Thats ok Dave, how boring would it be if we all agreed.


Ruby, how dark was it?

Regards...

[Wickerman]

. So that is why she would take in the body language of the loiterer, although it was too dark to make out anything more than generic details about him.

He was standing across the street at the time, so yes just a shadow figure perhaps leaning against Crossingham's as he watched. We don't know if he stood near a lamp.

Besides, why would Hutch have felt stress or anxiety or annoyance?

I guess you'd need to be a man, down on his luck, with the prospect of sharing a warm bed with a curvy female snatched out of his hands.
Annoyed at not having 6d, and inquisitive about this suspicious stranger who he'd seen around before.

Except, as it was raining on the night of MJK's death, anyone that could be was indoors sheltering.

Only on and off until 3:00am when it was bad enough for him to vacate his vigil.

Is that your excuse for 'stalking' ? (that's what he was doing). There must have been far more interesting places to loiter than outside MJK's room.

I'm not offering any reason, he tells us why he stood there. Its his story not mine.

Common sense would tell you 'why'. There is actually more than one possible reason 'why' -but one of them is inescapably that he was the murderer (the other is that he was never there...but he heard Mrs Lewis's testimony alright, and he grafted himself upon it, which would still point to him fitting her description ).

Another example of making up stories to fit the belief...

Try staying with what we "know".

Regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Wickerman,

You seem to be content to back a story that is at best hard to believe, using all the factors...1) his stated friendship with the murder victim, she was not some mysterious lady to him in his own words, he claimed to have given her money before that night....2) the fact he waits 4 full days to come forward at all.....3) his suspect is described in detail that one might expect with a bright sunny midday sighting, even though it was very dark and he must have been exhausted with his supposed long walks that day...4) the fact he watched that court for some 30-45 minutes even though no-one he supposedly was watching was within sight or earshot, ....5) the fact that we know for a fact that he was a "discredited" witness with 72 hours of his statement.....6) the fact that only George Hutchinson says he saw Mary out of her room again that night after entering it with Blotchy Face,...and many more.

There are quite a few reasons to view his statement and timing as curious, if not overtly suspicious.

It seems to me that he came forward to insert a suspect and try to explain what the hell he was doing there that night, why?....well thats part of the many mysteries in these cases.

Interesting that the Pardon for Accomplices in the Kelly murder was issued November 10th, the Saturday...after police had taken statements from Sarah Lewis and Mary Ann Cox. Would the person who likely knew he was seen that night watching the scene of a soon to be murder be interested in clearing himself?

My best regards,

Mike R

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

You seem to be content to back a story that is at best hard to believe,

Michael.
I don't know how long you have been following "Hutchinson" debates. It is not necessary to back his entire story in order to oppose the fringe hypotheses which spring up around him.

It isn't that I solemnly believe in Hutchinson, actually I tend to agree that he embellished the character to a degree to make the man he saw appear Jewish, I may be wrong, so I refuse to claim certainty in anything, unlike some others.

From what we know, from both Hutchinson himself, Abberline who interviewed him and the statements given by Sarah Lewis & Mrs Kennedy (who may have been Lewis anyway), is this:

1) A well-dressed man existed, standing outside the Britannia at the end of Dorset St., at the time stated (roughly 2:00-3:00 am).

2) Kennedy saw Kelly in the vicinity of this man, outside the Britannia.

3) Lewis saw Kelly & a man pass up Millers Court while a man stood opposite apparently watching the same couple.

4) Hutchinson saw Kelly meet up with this man in Commercial St. and followed them to Dorset St. to stand opposite Millers Court watching them pass up the Court.

5) Sarah Lewis confirms this portion of Hutchinson's story. Therefore, the man existed. Whatever he looked like is immaterial.
So much nonsense is written about how critical the details given by Hutchinson are to the case, but they are not, they are incidental.
The basic story that Hutchinson witnessed a man meet up with Kelly and they both walked to her room is substantiated regardless what the man looked like.

When someone on here tries to argue that such attention to detail is/was not possible, that is pure rubbish. And, we have Abberline's acceptance of the story to substantiate the fact.



The "discredit" is easy to explain.
Primarily, immediately following the murder, and before the Inquest, it was believed that Mrs Cox had seen the killer (Blotchy) about 1:00 am, with MJK.

On Saturday, Dr. Bond with the collaboration of Dr Phillips had created a report for Anderson, which had initially been requested by Warren.
In this report (Bonds post-mortem) Dr. Bond suggested an "estimated" (based on unsatisfactory data?) time of death between 1:00-2:00 am, but the authorities held onto this until the results of the official Inquest on Monday. Correct procedures must be followed.

The Inquest failed to establish a time of death for Mary Kelly.

Hutchinson then comes forward to the police with his story about Astrachan.

This was eagerly taken up by Abberline & perhaps Swanson. However, Swanson's superior Anderson already had Bonds medical report on his desk which conflicted with Hutchinson's story.

So what we have here is Hutchinson hitting the headlines for a little less than 24 hrs before the Home Office stepped in and "induced" Scotland Yard to place more attention on the Cox story than Huchinson's.

Was this decision the correct path?, we will never know.
Hutchinson was never discredited. Scotland Yard had to choose a course of action between the opinion of a trusted medical professional (Bond), and friend of Anderson, or an unknown witness (Hutchinson) who just appeared out of the blue.

As Swanson must answer to Anderson, and Anderson must answer to Charles Warren, when questions are asked of the Home Office as to what course of action Scotland Yard are pursuing, they were (IMO) obliged to follow the opinion of their professional Dr Bond, be it right or wrong, the Home Office is in no way fit to judge.

Hence, within 24 hrs Scotland Yard dropped Hutchinson as their new principal witness. He was relegated to second place in favour of the "Blotchy" suspect given by Mrs Cox.
Alas, this line of enquiry failed to materilize anything of value...

Therefore, nothing was found faulty with Hutchinson. He was the victim of a political move among government officials who pretty much had their hands tied by Dr Bond's report.

All the best, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Jon,

I fully understand your position, but I think thats extending benefit of doubt and our knowledge of what specific individuals may or may not have perceived.

The only part of Sarah Lewis's story that truly corroborates George's is that she saw someone watching. And we dont even know if he owned a wideawake hat or anything similar.

What we do know is that, for whatever reason the authorities chose, his suspect description was abandoned within 72 hours.

Best regards mate,

Mike R

[Rubyretro]

I guess you'd need to be a man, down on his luck, with the prospect of sharing a warm bed with a curvy female snatched out of his hands.
Annoyed at not having 6d, and inquisitive about this suspicious stranger who he'd seen around before.

I am very intrigued by your response to Hutch's self avowed stalking...

Surely any normal person would slink off home, disappointed but wiser ?

I would think that the very last place in the world that they'd want to be is witnessing the object of their desire sloping off with someone else ? (isn't that prurient and masochistic ?).

Hutch didn't just stalk Kelly & her man home ( had A Man existed) -he hung about in the rain, in the early hours, for 3/4 of an hour, outside a room where he must have known that the object of his convoitise was having sex with someone else.

This is what Hutch himself told us -I'm not making it up.

How can that be 'normal' behaviour ?

In the light of the sexually motivated murders in the area at that time, that sort of behaviour has to ring alarm bells.

[Michael W Richards]

Hutch didn't just stalk Kelly & her man home ( had A Man existed) -he hung about in the rain, in the early hours, for 3/4 of an hour, outside a room where he must have known that the object of his convoitise was having sex with someone else.

How can that be 'normal' behaviour ?

In the light of the sexually motivated murders in the area at that time, that sort of behaviour has to ring alarm bells.

Hi Ruby,

I used portions of your post only to punctuate what I believe is a very good observation.....we have, by his own account, what amounts to voyeuristic stalking. One might well imagine that the killer(s) operating prior to Mary Kelly possessed that same characteristic. So why expose himself in that way?

Perhaps it was preferable to being perceived as a killer or accomplice.

Voyeurly speaking ....one could say that the dead body of the occupant in Room 13 may have been posed by the killer for his/her own viewing pleasure...with her head tilted just so to the left, her hair seemingly tidy somehow. Her left arm placed back over an empty midsection. One wonders who the intended audience was.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Wickerman]

Hi Michael.
Kitchener was empty yesterday & this morning, I guess everyone went to Niagara Falls to watch Wallenda walk the tightrope.

The only part of Sarah Lewis's story that truly corroborates George's is that she saw someone watching.

Just a tad more. Lewis saw a man & a hatless woman, worse for drink, pass up the court while the loiterer stood out in Dorset St.

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

Lewis not only confirms Hutchinson standing there, but also him watching a man & woman walk up the passage, like he said.

And we dont even know if he owned a wideawake hat or anything similar.

Indeed we do not, but "we" have been told (by Ben) that Hutchinson also owned a sailor's cap & a deerstalker, so having actual evidence behind these suggestions does not seem to matter to some.
We don't even know if he owned a knife...

What we do know is that, for whatever reason the authorities chose, his suspect description was abandoned within 72 hours.

Less than that actually.
Hutchinson surfaced at around 6:00 pm on the 12th, by the time the evening papers came out on the 13th, which are written up throughout the day, his story had already suffered a setback.

"From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder."Echo, 13 Nov.

Hutchinson's story was not discarded altogether, the papers described it as "suffered diminution", so of lesser importance when compared to that of Mrs Cox.

Over the weekend (10th, 11th?) Anderson had received Dr. Bond's report which included his estimated time of death. Anderson naturally forwarded a copy to Warren who authorised it in the first place. The conclusions were important enough that a copy is also forwarded to Mr Matthews at the Home Office (this letter exists).
So now we have all the high officials senior to Swanson being made aware that Mary Kelly was estimated to have died between 1:00-2:00 am.

What should Anderson do with respect to instructions to his CID at Scotland Yard?

Apparently, The Echo, got wind of something because on the 13th they reported:
“The Metropolitan police, however, have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement.”

Induced by whom?

Whatever it was which caused the change in direction from the Hutchinson suspect to Cox's “Blotchy”, it was something which not even the ordinary constable on the beat had been made aware of.

We know this because the reason was never made public. A simple case of “Hutchinson being found to have lied”, as a storyline holds no significant revelations. Any reporter could have tweaked this nondescript turn of events out of any constable, or even Hutchinson himself.

Whatever the reason was it was never made public. Not that the report by Bond was considered a state secret, but that the reporters at street level had no opportunity to engage the high officials in Whitehall or at Scotland Yard for an interview. Officials from Swanson up to Matthews were out of reach.

Anderson has a private word with Swanson, and wheels are set in motion to realign the investigation. The press are left to wonder what caused the sudden turn of events. As no answers were forthcoming they were left to speculate.

Regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

“The Metropolitan police, however, have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement.”

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Jon,

Thanks for the thoughtful answer, I just clipped the above from your post to suggest why the above would be the case. No-one saw Mary Kelly leave her room or leave the courtyard after she was seen entering her room with Blotchy Face by Mary Ann before midnight.

George claims he saw her out and about after that, but the women who lived in the courtyard that night, and above her room, didnt. Since Sarah Lewis likely asked to identify Mary as the women she saw with a man, and we have no record she did that, all we have is 2 people walking on one of the most crowded streets in the East End at night. We do have reliable evidence that after the singing ended her room went dark not long after. At around 1:30am. Mary Ann comes and goes a few times before and after 1:30am.


Cheers mate,

Mike R

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for the thoughtful answer, I just clipped the above from your post to suggest why the above would be the case. No-one saw Mary Kelly leave her room or leave the courtyard after she was seen entering her room with Blotchy Face by Mary Ann before midnight.

Thankyou Michael.
Now let me ask you, just out of interest, who's conclusion is it when you quote "no-one" saw Mary Kelly?

If we accept no-one saw her, are we then required to believe she never did go out?

Think back to Mrs Cox's statement, she claimed to have returned to her room at 1:00 am.

"Deceased was still singing at one o'clock when I returned. I remained in the room for a minute to warm my hands as it was raining, and went out again."

The same question applies, if no-one saw Mrs Cox, does that mean she did not go out?

Mrs Prater was standing at the street end of the passage from 1:00 - 1:20 am approx. yet she never saw Mrs Cox either enter or leave?

"I left the room on the Thursday at five p.m., and returned to it at about one a.m. on Friday morning. I stood at the corner until about twenty minutes past one. No one spoke to me."

The Coroner did ask her about Cox.

"Could the witness, Mary Ann Cox, have come down the entry between one and half-past one o'clock without your knowledge ? - Yes, she could have done so."

Ah, "yes she could have", but Prater does not remember seeing her.
So, did Cox leave or not?

Another example, Blotchy is now identified as the potential murderer, he was carrying a pot/mug of ale, where did he get it?

The Star, makes this observation.
"As far as inquiries have gone, no man answering the description given by Cox entered any tavern in the immediate neighborhood and took away beer."

Ah, "no-one" saw Blotchy buy this ale in any pub or beerhouse in the immediate area.

Does Blotchy even exist?
Who else saw him? ....no-one !

Just for the record Michael, I don't seriously doubt Cox's story, I have no reason to. However, I am just pointing out that this "no-one saw" argument is one of convenience. Considering that no-one saw Cox enter or leave Millers court, and no-one else saw Blotchy anywhere in the area that night, how much value should "we" put in the "no-one saw Mary Kelly" argument?

Not a lot.

Both Kennedy & Lewis saw a woman who was identified as Kelly in one case (Kennedy), and can be identified as Kelly, in the other (Lewis).

Who was it that left Millers Court after 6:00 am on Friday morning?, footsteps were heard but "no-one" saw him.

No-one seeing Mary leave her room on a miserable night does not mean she did not leave her room.
As miserable as it was, Mrs Cox felt the need to leave so why not Mary?, who was certainly in debt for owing rent.

Best Wishes, Jon S.

[Errata]

Eyewitness testimony can be true, false, a lie, primed, or irrelevant. Or any and all combinations of the above. We don't pay nearly as much attention to our surroundings as we think we do. Change Blindness is a perfect and often hilarious example. We are also incredibly susceptible to subtle differences in language. If a person is asked "Did you see a man hanging around?" he will feel free to answer yes or no, based on his memory of the event. If he is asked "Did you see THE man hanging around?" it implies that there was in fact a man there, and the witness will most likely fabricate a memory of a man at the scene if he did not see one. Typically someone they saw earlier. A majority of witnesses can be completely turned around in their statement by the simple phrase "Are you sure?"

Eyewitnesses don't tell us what they saw. They tell us what they remember. Unfortunately sight is one of the weakest senses in terms of formulating memory. Smell triggers memory more than any other sense. And touch is the sense we are least likely to forget. Sight is a funny thing. We see everything. We notice very little. Typically we store even less than that. Some people who have very good memories are able to store an image, and are then able to interpret the data at a later time. Somewhat akin to walking into a room, taking a polaroid, and then two weeks later examining the photo to see if the cat was in there at the time. But as soon as that person walked out of the room with the picture, they wouldn't be able to answer that question. Their memory is such that they can call up the complete picture and notice things later, but they didn't notice it at the time. For that to happen we need a reason to essentially tag an image for later recall. A guy running down the street on fire, we would remember. If we bumped into someone, or had a strong emotional reaction to someone's presence, we remember them.

When people lie, they include far more detail than someone who is telling the truth. It's a compensation method, they think that the more detailed they are the more likely they are to be believed. Unless something extraordinary happened, the less detailed the description the more likely it is to be the truth. Anyone who can give a detailed description of a couple sitting three tables away from them at a restaurant a few night previous either has a photographic memory, or is lying. Now if the couple was fighting, or they had a screaming kid, or the waiter dropped food all over them, then you would be able to describe them. You had reason to notice them. If someone describes a man she saw, who wasn't outstanding in any way, did nothing to provoke and emotional response, and cannot describe why she remembers that person, odds are it isn't true. Two days ago I passed a man I remember quite clearly. He was just sitting on some steps smoking a cigarette. He had a really bad tattoo on his forehead that said "Hile hItleR". Which just offended me on about five different levels. So I remember him. But I also know why I remember him.

Any JTR witness who had a passive encounter, a just happened to walk past him kind of encounter should also be able to describe a couple of other people they encountered who they do not know. If they can't, they are confabulating. Shwartz had a good reason to remember his encounter, he just doesn't have a good reason to remember the woman involved with any detail. Hutch's testimony, in my opinion is too detailed for too routine an encounter, and I think he's lying. Lawende and co. also had a good reason to remember their encounter. It spawned a conversation, which we remember better than simple sightings. Suddenly remembering certain details is suspicious. We assimilate shapes better than colors. A witness who can't really remember what a guy looked like can be prompted to remember shape. Tall, short, thin, stout, hat, no hat, umbrella, all shape related. A witness who suddenly remembers hair color is suspect, unless they remember context.

It isn't about whether or not their story makes sense or not. It's whether or not it makes sense to store that information. I have no reason to remember what color car I am parked next to. If I remember that information, it has to either be because something remarkable happened, or I store that level of detail all the time. To be frank, if there were people in Whitechapel who stored that level of detail all the time, they had to be severely damaged people. Perfect recall is an amazingly useful skill, and people who have it do well in life. And in a lot of these witness statements, there is no reason for them to have noticed the people they say they noticed.

Give me forensics any day.

[Ben]

Sensible post thoroughly appreciated, Errata! Agreed entirely.

Hi Jon,

Why are you repeating entire arguments as though they were never addressed? Why the sudden urge for yet another Hutchinson debate? Were you annoyed that you didn’t get the “last word” during previous debates, and are now determined to make amends? I’m afraid it just won’t work, since repetition will be met with counter-repetition.

“if Hutch had said he saw anything which could not possibly be seen by contemporary street lighting, objections would have been raised”

But objections were raised insofar as Hutchinson’s account was discredited very shortly after it appeared. The fact that Abberline initially bought into it is neither here nor there. Abberline also believed that Klosowski the Ripper committed the murders at the behest of an organ-collecting doctor from America. He was not, therefore, infallible, and he was certainly not incapable of arriving at faulty conclusions. Unfortunately, a short-lived endorsement from Abberline (and it WAS short-lived) does not bestow on Hutchinson the superhuman powers required to make his “sighting” anything other than wildly implausible. That’s reality, not guesswork.

As James Tully notes in his book, Abberline’s initial belief in Hutchinson is indicative only that the police were obliged to “clutch at any straw” at that stage, given the paucity of good leads.

“Hutchinson walked passed Astrakhan as he was standing on the corner of Thrawl St.”

In the press versions only. There was no mention of him “standing on the corner of the Thrawl Street” in the police statement. It’s all very well to pick and choose which bits you want to be true from the police and press versions, but you'll eventually come unstuck in so doing, because they are so contradictory in places that they contain polar opposites. If Hutchinson really did see Astrakhan man at this juncture, he’d notice little more than a well-dressed dark figure in an overcoat and a hat.

“As Hutch walked on and approached Flower & Dean St. he met up with MJK”

There is no evidence that Hutchinson was looking at the man at this point as he was preoccupied with talking to Kelly at that time, according to his account. Even if he was glancing behind him, he was in no position to notice any detail beyond the very broad basics I’ve already outlined.

MJK walked on south towards Thrawl where she was stopped by Astrakhan, Hutch watched them both meet up. The distance between Flower & Dean St. and Thrawl St. was roughly 175 feet. Hutchinson watched them walk towards him, so he turned and walked ahead of them to stand under the lamp outside the Queens Head PH to get a clearer view as they walked passed.

Really? Well if he said it, of course it must be true…! If you accept that the distance was “roughly 175 feet”, what realistic expectations do you have for the observation and recollection of tiny details at night time…in Victorian London.. in the middle of November…in bad weather…from that distance? I think that just about rules out the “American cloth” for starters. I repeat (because that’s what you seem to doing a lot of for some unfathomable reason) that the only opportunity Hutchinson had to notice anything beyond a dark, overcoat-clad figure with a moustache, hat and parcel, occurred fleetingly as the couple allegedly passed in close proximity to a gas lamp, which would have been a naked flame that emitted a negligible degree of light. Altogether, the conditions were woefully insufficient for Hutchinson to even notice, let alone memorize, all that he alleged.

But then, oh dear, that fleeting window of opportunity was taken up with peering into the man’s face. Too bad for the myriad other accessories, which he superadded to when he came to be interviewed by the press, shortly before he and his account were discredited.

“The first time Hutchinson saw him was as he walked passed Astrakhan standing on the corner of Thrawl St.

The second time was as both Astrakhan & MJK walk slowly towards Hutchinson as he stood just about 100-150 ft away almost near to Flower & Dean St.

The third time was as he stood under the lamp at the Queens Head while they both walked passed.”

No, no, and thrice no. You cannot notice horseshoe tie-pins and linen collars from 150 yards away, Jon. It just can’t be done, especially not when there is no light to illuminate the scene. The first and second times would have enabled Hutchinson to record only the absolute barebones of the man’s appearance (little more than a bloke in a dark coat and hat), and the third time, while better illuminated, occurred too quickly for Hutchinson to have recorded all he alleged in terms of accessorial detail. In any case, he wasted it in gawping into the man’s mug.

“The fourth time was on Sunday morning at the market”

No it wasn’t.

Nooooooooo, it wasn’t.

I’ve already dealt with this. This “Sunday morning” detail appeared in press versions of his account only. It was conspicuously, and suspiciously, absent from his police statement. Hutchinson cannot logically have recognised the same fiddly details of the man's appearance the following Sunday and still harboured uncertainty that it was the same man from Friday morning. That makes no sense at all. Obviously.

“We don't know if he walked there, but obviously he could not afford transportation for the return journey.”

But even more obviously, it was futile and senseless to embark on that “return journey” at that time, knowing full well that he’d arrive on the small hours and have nowhere to stay at end of it.

“But, until or unless we find some sound evidence against his story about a trip to Romford then you are doing nothing but conducting a Witch-hunt”

I’m afraid this is your unique and very eccentric approach yet again. It constantly asserts that everything must be accepted as factually correct until it can be proven false. That’s not how source assessment works, and it certainly isn’t the way the police go about the business of determining witness credibility or lack thereof. Reasonable people are perfectly capable of applying their reason, common sense and analytical skills to separate the wheat from the chaff, and fact from fiction.

“Ben, it is 5 weeks since the "sailor" suspect was seen. It is also 5 weeks since the "deerstalker" suspect was seen, so for goodness sakes Hutchinson is free & clear (if it was him).”

Exactly, so not a bad idea to ensure that a focus in the wrong direction (the generic Jewish bogeyman) is sustained, and that the image of the killer as a local gentile Joe Average is set aside, leaving Hutchinson or anyone like him in the clear. I’m perfectly aware that Lewis’ description was not substantial enough to implicate any particular individual, but as I’ve explained many, many times during the course of these many, many debates, a person may be able to recognise a person again (i.e. Lewis could recognise Hutchinson) without being able to describe them very well. This, again, is pure common sense. If Lewis recognised Hutchinson again, it could potentially have led to an identity parade (or the 1888 equivalent) with Lawende and previous witnesses, and if this had happened before Hutchinson had nailed his colours to the “cooperative witness” mast, it would have resulted in serious questions being asked.

“The sighting by Lawende was far more detailed than that given by Sarah Lewis, so apparently this did not concern Hutchinson when he was seen 5 weeks ago in Duke St. No need to come forward with a bogus "suspect-Jew" story then, so even less reason now. The basis for your argument is worthless”

According to who – you? Well that’s my self esteem in tatters. Such irritating and ill-thought-out condemnations only antagonise. How could Hutchinson possibly have come forward and claimed to be Lawende’s suspect whilst still maintaining his status as an innocent witness? “Yes, that was me talking with the victim ten minutes before the discovery of her body, but Mr. Scary Bollocks must have squeezed in ever so briefly after I left the scene”.

I mean, really. Think.

“I said no-one contested their statements, meaning "at the time".”

Which is even more disastrously wrong. The statements and their authors were discredited before the inquest. In many cases, the statements amounted to second or third-hand hearsay that almost certainty never came into contact with the police. The last we hear of Roney, Paumier and chums was before the inquest; before their evidence was discarded. Mrs. Kennedy was a fraud who parroted the genuine evidence of Sarah Lewis – feck only knows why, publicity most likely. She too was exposed as such, as reported in the Star and as recognised by Philip Sugden, and accordingly discarded. She was certainly - beyond the slightest fart of a doubt - one of the woman referred to in the Star who was discovered to have borrowed material from a genuine witness – Sarah Lewis.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

“It is not necessary to back his entire story in order to oppose the fringe hypotheses which spring up around him.”

If you’re seriously suggesting that the “hypothesis” that Hutchinson might have been lying is in any way “fringe” or minority-endorsed, I’m afraid your embracing a very pointless delusion that you ought really to rid yourself of.

“1) A well-dressed man existed, standing outside the Britannia at the end of Dorset St., at the time stated (roughly 2:00-3:00 am).”

No.

Lewis never described her man as well-dressed, and Hutchinson never described his man as having stood talking outside the Britannia. Even if Hutchinson wasn’t lying, his man cannot be the same individual described by Lewis, since the timings in relation to locations (in both accounts) renders it impossible.

“2) Kennedy saw Kelly in the vicinity of this man, outside the Britannia.”

No, she didn’t, because she was a liar and exposed as such. Had there been any genuine witness who claimed to have seen the actual victim with a man at that time, she would certainly have appeared at the inquest. The author of the account Mrs. Kennedy plagiarized – Sarah Lewis – made it quite clear that she did NOT know the deceased.

“3) Lewis saw Kelly & a man pass up Millers Court while a man stood opposite apparently watching the same couple.”

Oh, for f...

No she didn’t – FACT.

She did NOT see anyone “pass up” Miller’s Court. She said there was no-one in the court. She saw an unidentified couple pass along Dorset Street. It was the Daily News only who misreported this detail and had the couple passing up the court, quite erroneously and quite contrary to her police statement and all other press versions of her testimony. She did not say that “Kelly” went anywhere because she did not know her.

“5) Sarah Lewis confirms this portion of Hutchinson's story. Therefore, the man existed.”

No. Again no. This really is such exhausting nonsense to have to wade through and correct all the time. Sarah Lewis only confirms Hutchinson’s presence opposite the crime scene at that particular moment in time. Her evidence does not, in any shape or form, support the existence of the risible “Astrakhan man” or any reason Hutchinson gave for why he was loitering there.

“When someone on here tries to argue that such attention to detail is/was not possible, that is pure rubbish. And, we have Abberline's acceptance of the story to substantiate the fact.”

It isn’t a matter of pure “detail”. Hutchinson claimed to have memorized items that he couldn’t realistically have noticed. That’s not “rubbish”, and Abberline’s acceptance of Hutchinson’s story was evidently extremely short-lived.

Let me just sort this Bond-related nonsense yet again. The evidence is that the police DID NOT ultimately support the time of death offered by Bond. It therefore had nothing whatsoever to do with Hutchinson's discrediting. The Star reported the police opinion that the murder occurred later than the TOD offered by Bond, and accurately at that. They didn't just make it up for some bizarre, illogical reason, and the police were far from compelled to accept Bond's opinion. The police, then and now, use all evidence at their disposal, and if compelling eyewitness evidence points to a conclusion other than that suggested by medical opinion, it would be reckless and irresponsible to champion the latter purely as a courteous "salute" to a fellow professional. There is absolutely no evidence that the police supported the 1.00am-2.00am time of death, and compelling indications to the contrary.

Yes, the police supported Cox’s evidence over Hutchinson’s, but that is almost certainly because they found Cox’s evidence to be trustworthy and Hutchinson’s not so. Bond’s suggested time of death had absolutely nothing to do with it. Here is the extract from the Star, 13th November:

"As to the time of the murder, it is now generally admitted that Kelly could not, as some have stated, have been alive on Friday morning. The police have come to the conclusion that the woman who made the most positive statement to this effect must have been mistaken as to the day. Dr. Phillips's evidence, together with that of Mary Ann Cox, Elizabeth Prater, and others, proves that the murder was committed SHORTLY AFTER THREE O'CLOCK- a fact which brings into startling relief the murderer's coolness, caution, and tenacity of purpose."

The idea that Hutchinson was discredited because “he was the victim of a political move among government officials” is to be rejected as hopelessly incorrect for all time.

[Wickerman]

Another one of those topsy-turvy aspects of this case is the conduct of The Star newspaper.

The Echo (below) quite rightly, as it turns out, reports that the witness Hutchinson's story is now being viewed as less important than previously thought. Not that his story has been discarded by the police, certainly not, but that as circumstances have unfolded it appears the Met. have now been "induced" to re-align their investigation.

From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder.
Echo, 13 Nov.

But on the same evening The Star are still promoting Hutchinson's story, they say that Astrachan was one of three suspects now entertained by police.
- Cox's, "Blotchy".
- Sarah Lewis's, "well-dressed man".
- Hutchinson's "Astrachan".

The inquest on Mary Janet Kelly has closed, like its predecessors, without throwing any useful light on the crime. Light of a certain sort there is, but it is so confused and shifting as to be almost worse than useless. We have at least three descriptions of an individual who may be the man wanted. There is Mrs. Cox's account of a man who went with the deceased into her room about midnight on Thursday - "a short stout man, shabbily dressed," with "a blotchy face and a full carrotty moustache." There is Sarah Lewis's description of the man who accosted her on Wednesday in Bethnal-green-road, which varies slightly from the preceding, but might fit the same man. Finally, we have the statement by an anonymous witness which has found its way into the morning papers, and which makes the suspected individual an elegantly-dressed gentleman about 5ft. 6in. in height, "with a dark complexion, and a dark moustache curled up at the ends." Why this statement has been made public at this particular juncture is one of those mysteries in the police management of the case which no one out of Scotland-yard can understand. Star, 13 Nov.


The very next day, The Echo, provide another comment consistent with their previous article, concerning Hutchinson's statement (ie; document):

The police do not attach so much importance to this document as some of our contemporaries do; but they think it sufficiently significant to induce them to make it the subject of careful inquiry.
Echo, 14 Nov.

The position is clear in the eyes of The Echo, Hutchinson's story although suffering a setback is still of value to the police.

However The Star are not even aware of the change of heart in favour of Cox's suspect, their current evening edition begins with;

This morning we have a fuller statement respecting the well-dressed man said to have been seen with Kelly early on Friday morning.

The very next morning however, they finally catch up with what has become the infamous line of condemnation:

Another story now discredited is that of the man Hutchinson,
Star, 15 Nov.

The Star would have its readers believe that the police have dropped Hutchinson's suspect altogether, and yet only 4 (four) days later they cover the infamous "Birmingham" suspect by reporting:

"The suspected man was of gentlemanly appearance and manners, and somewhat resembled the description of the person declared by witnesses at the inquest to have been seen in company with Kelly early on the morning that she was murdered."
The Star, 19 Nov. 1888.

Clearly, the Star was more interested in seizing public attention rather than reporting sober facts, still it sold copy, so the end justifies the means.

Which demonstrates how cautious "we" have to be if we adopt a theory where opinions from The Star are used as the principle thrust of the argument.


On a side note, who were these "witnesses at the inquest" who saw Kelly with a man of gentlemanly appearance" early on Friday morning?

Sarah Lewis saw a man of "gentlemanly appearance" outside the Britannia, the Daily News also included a portion of her testimony not included by anyone else;

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

As this activity is what Hutchinson claimed to have also witnessed, Lewis could be one of the witnesses The Star was referring to. Was the other witness Hutchinson?

In the seven days since Hutchinson first appeared, and only four days since The Star had attempted to trash his story altogether, have The Star now completely forgotten that Mr Hutchinson had not appeared at the inquest?

Perhaps, it is once again another example of sloppy reporting by this particular newspaper.

As a footnote in keeping with the spirit of the thread, when we "choose which witness to believe" we must be sure, a) their statements have been accurately recorded, and b) that their statements may have been edited.
Alas, all Inquest testimony has been edited, even the Official version.

Regards, Jon S.

[The Good Michael]

If we go by newspaper accounts only, because they vary from paper to paper, no witnesses are truly credible. If we can debate their validity in a reasoned manner, they aren't credible. If we have actual documentation that we can read, and were signed and taken seriously by police officers; or if we possess facsimiles thereof, perhaps we can count these as more reliable and the witnesses as useful. Yet, how many of these documents do we actually have? Maybe Hutchinson's?

Mike