Choosing which witnesses to believe

[Fleetwood Mac]

I don't find Hutchinsion's supposed recall so hard to believe. I could and would be able to recall such attention to detail regarding an usual sighting.

What I gind hard to believe is that MJK walked up to Hutchinson and asked him for money. I mean, I was born and bred in a mining community with a huge rate of unemployment due to pit closures, not quite the 1880s granted but people simply do not walk up to people and ask them for money. Out of interest, of all of the witness statements do we have another instance of someone asking for a lend of money?

In my eyes, if you break Hutchinsons's statement down it reads like this:

1) I knew MJK to the extent of her asking for money at 2 in the morning.

2) I saw her go into her room with a man very likely to have been the murderer.

3) They didn't come out within 45 minutes, so you can pretty much count on it that she was murdered by the man I saw.

4) I can identify him - take me on a trawl of London, pay me, I'll have your man.

Crank or killer?

In all probability crank, simply because most people who place themselves into this sort of situation are cranks not killers.

[Lechmere]

Simon - if you have not expired then on the question of timings I woulod tend to place littel relianec on the coppers. I think that at this stage in the case they were mostly skiving when on night beat. Neil would be expected to be there at 3.45 so he had to say 3.45. I would place most reliance on Paul when he said he left home at 3.45 which would put Neil there nearer to 3.50 or a little later.

[Rubyretro]

I would love to test your amazing recall, Fleetwood...maybe most of us like to assume that we have amazing recall, when in fact we are just the same as other people i.e.we don't;

Dodgy people come up to me and ask me for money all the time...maybe you just look too frightening ?

Is a down and out prostitute 'dodgy' ? Maybe not so much to a bloke that she is soliciting for money.

I wouldn't know.

[Fisherman]

Simon:

"I'm always happy to be of help."

All jokes and sarcams aside, Simon: I know that!

The best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

Without necessarily casting even more doubt on Hutchinsons recall, I simply marvel at his wonderful night vision...to remember all this lot, he's got to be able to see it first...

Which is why he doesn't convince me...sorry...

Dave

[Simon Wood]

Hi Lechmere,

I agree.

I think we'll find that this whole bugger's muddle was all about PC Neil not being where he should have been at 3.45 am.

Occam's Razor.

Regards,

Simon

[Bridewell]

Getting Wet

Simon - if you have not expired then on the question of timings I woulod tend to place littel relianec on the coppers. I think that at this stage in the case they were mostly skiving when on night beat. Neil would be expected to be there at 3.45 so he had to say 3.45. I would place most reliance on Paul when he said he left home at 3.45 which would put Neil there nearer to 3.50 or a little later.

Hi Lechmere,

Sadly, I suspect you're right. There's an old police saying:
"A good policeman never gets wet",
by which is meant that, if they've got anything about them, they'll always have a 'tea spot' somewhere close by.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Lechmere,

There's an old police saying:
"A good policeman never gets wet",
by which is meant that, if they've got anything about them, they'll always have a 'tea spot' somewhere close by.

Regards, Bridewell.

Hi Bridewell,

The above and Simons suggestion reminded me of another witness who may have found himself caught with his beat bent somewhat, PC James Harvey.

If Harvey was where he said he was at the time he said he was there...then he almost certainly would have seen something across the square. The damage to Catharine to me says that the man was preoccupied with this dead woman and not paying attention he should have to his surroundings. The brief time between Lawendes sighting and Watkins discovery dictates a very speedy dispatch and cut up.

There were 3 entrances/exits to the square, (unless you count hiding in a deserted building for a brief period),...and 2 of 'em had police in them, 1 at 1:40 and t'other at 1:43-:44 approx.

If Lawende saw Kate, the man with her is almost by default the killer, based on the timing alone. And if he did, he saw her at 1:35ish.

Do the math. Almost inconceivable that the killer could have lured her to the spot and done all that he did.... and still leave before 1:40am. Its more probable the murderer was finishing up.

Was Harvey really at Church Passage at 1:40? He didnt know when he stated the time that Lawende may have seen the 2 together at 12:35am.

Hmm.

My best regards,

Mike R

[Wickerman]

....and then there are those who consistently, without thinking, can be relied upon to jump in with both feet...

Well Hi Ben, how've you been?..

Just one? Ok. The Echo sought from the police the truth about their perception of Hutchinson's account. Boom.



Are we supposed to pick our favourite, the most obvious, the "top answer" or what? "We asked a hundred people to list ONE lie known to have been uttered by Hutchinson. You said Sunday Policeman, our survey said....DING! Dark eyelashes...DING! Loitering opposite the crime scene at 2:30am....Uh-Ughr. Oh no! That last one wasn't a lie, which means you go home empty-handed. Thanks for being on the show. You could have won a Daewoo."

If the day ever dawns when you learn to distinguish between your own "personal beliefs" and an "actual fact" our exchanges will become extremely boring.
Somehow, I feel assured you'll never let me down.


Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Without necessarily casting even more doubt on Hutchinsons recall, I simply marvel at his wonderful night vision...to remember all this lot, he's got to be able to see it first...

Which is why he doesn't convince me...sorry...

Dave

Dave.
Hypothetically speaking, lets assume we all agreed that the description Hutch gave was embellished, at least, not entirely accurate.

The premiss of the "Hutchinson Discredited" argument is that he "must" have been found to have lied. But about what?

The police cannot investigate a description, you agree?

Abberline has already accepted it, and given that no-one else saw Astrachan, the police have nothing with which to investigate. Therefore the police are in no position to even accuse him of lying about something they are unable to investigate.

Regards, Jon S.

[Cogidubnus]

Hypothetically speaking, lets assume we all agreed that the description Hutch gave was embellished, at least, not entirely accurate.

Hi Jon

Then by not telling the absolute truth, by not admitting there were things he couldn't have seen, by definition he has lied...It's as simple as that isn't it?

Dave

[Bridewell]

Harvey

Hi Bridewell,

The above and Simons suggestion reminded me of another witness who may have found himself caught with his beat bent somewhat, PC James Harvey.

If Harvey was where he said he was at the time he said he was there...then he almost certainly would have seen something across the square. The damage to Catharine to me says that the man was preoccupied with this dead woman and not paying attention he should have to his surroundings. The brief time between Lawendes sighting and Watkins discovery dictates a very speedy dispatch and cut up.

There were 3 entrances/exits to the square, (unless you count hiding in a deserted building for a brief period),...and 2 of 'em had police in them, 1 at 1:40 and t'other at 1:43-:44 approx.

If Lawende saw Kate, the man with her is almost by default the killer, based on the timing alone. And if he did, he saw her at 1:35ish.

Do the math. Almost inconceivable that the killer could have lured her to the spot and done all that he did.... and still leave before 1:40am. Its more probable the murderer was finishing up.

Was Harvey really at Church Passage at 1:40? He didnt know when he stated the time that Lawende may have seen the 2 together at 12:35am.

Hmm.

My best regards,

Mike R

Hi Mike,

I'm pretty much in agreement with you on this, although Monty has pointed out that, even if he shone his Bullseye Lamp into the Square, it wouldn't have illuminated the corner where Eddowes was slain.

Forgive me, but I don't recall if you were back on the boards when it was up and running, but this was discussed at some length on the "City PC" thread in the Witnesses section. (Apologies if you already knew that).

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

Only If

Hi Jon

Then by not telling the absolute truth, by not admitting there were things he couldn't have seen, by definition he has lied...It's as simple as that isn't it?

Dave

Hi Dave,

He's only lying if he consciously embellished his account, not if he genuinely, but mistakenly, believed he had seen more detail than he actually had.

Regards, Colin.

[Cogidubnus]

That's a mighty fine distinction Colin!

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

Then by not telling the absolute truth, by not admitting there were things he couldn't have seen, by definition he has lied...It's as simple as that isn't it?

Dave

Hi Dave.
We seem to have developed a variety of levels of what lying means.

On the one hand we have East end residents who must, whether or not by upbringing as a necessity for survival, live by telling lies when necessary.

I was meaning, specifically, along the lines of this suggestion that the police dropped him because he lied about something in his statement.

The question then becomes, what is there in his statement that the police could have investigated, and subsequently, have found fault with?

They cannot investigate a description, plainly because no-one else saw Hutch with anyone befitting any description. Therefore, the police have no means to accuse him of lying about that.

No other witnesses surfaced in Commercial St. or in Dorset St. for the police to investigate his story. So likewise, the police have no means with which to accuse him of lying.

So, where is this accusation supposed to have come from?

The very fact we partly or wholly question his "description" means bugger-all because the police were in no position to verify it one way or the other, and, Abberline has already accepted it.
The "description" argument (what he could or couldn't see) from our point of view, is a red herring - it means nothing.

Thats what I was meaning Dave. As a consequence, the suggestion that he was dropped because he lied, is fiction.

Regards, Jon S.