Explain why it had to be Badham that used the phrase,Can be identified?.Your claim seems to indicate that Hutchinson would have been,for some reason you do not state,unable to do so.Why wouldn't he have been?What was the gain in changing,"I would recognise the man if I saw him again",or words to that effect,to,"can be identified".Brevity? The need to save time and paper space? Can we now expect,if it is true that changing a phrase and a whole paragraph occured in that instance,that the hundreds of interviews that were conducted in the Whitechapel murders,suffered the same fate? You of the same mind as Jon,that such practises were common,had formats supplied by the police department,and were encouraged to use them?
Sure I will explain the meanining of prepared statement.One hears of it all the time.So and so arrived at the police station with a prepared statement
is a pretty common description.It is when a person has knowledge of an incident,commits it to memory , in words on paper,or, (today)uses some other form of storage,and passes that information to another party.It can be given orally.
So Hutchinson arrived at the police station,and communicated orally to the police,a remembered prepared statement of an incident that was recorded on paper by a policeman.Satisfied? Hutchinson could of course have posted it,or given it to another person to deliver.Today one can phone a statement to police,email a statement,or use other means.All lawful,and that's all they need do.
and yet nary a peep from Abberline again about hutch. eventhough his favored suspect, chapman, resembled Hutchs suspect Aman, down to curly mustache and peaked cap. and this from when Abberline was going on extensively in the Pall mall interview about the ripper, his appearance, his ideas on it, and suspects/witnesses.
This is a good point, also - One discrepancy only have I noted, and this is that the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another, state that he was a man about thirty-five or forty years of age. They, however, state that they only saw his back, and it is easy to misjudge age from a back view.
So taken at face value Abberline must have believed Astkaran wasn't Mary's killer and that she was killed later in the morning or he came to disbelief Hutch.
Gareth, I find it very noticeable that you did not refer to the subsequent dismissal of those "stories"
There was no deliberate omission on my part, Jon. Suffice to say that those "stories" were out there in the public domain and, even if there were press reports discounting some - or all - of them, the fact remains that the picture was not as clear-cut as you make out, and the inquest was a few days away. The time of death had by no means been established as definitely after 9AM, or any other time for that matter, and Hutchinson's alleged sighting of his pretty friend with a suspicious looking guy who accompanied her to her room in the early morning of her death was assuredly something that could have been of interest to the police - it's not as if the sightings of "Kennedy/Lewis" Prater or Cox were suppressed or dismissed simply because Morris Lewis and Caroline Maxwell allegedly saw her alive much later. Hutchinson could, and should have come forward regardless; indeed, he alleges that he'd already told a policeman his story on the Sunday before the inquest, so - if true - he clearly thought that his account was worth telling.
As regards memory,an article I came across on the web detailing experiments carried out by experienced persons,on an average only seven items can be later recalled exactly,in what they term short memory.
Hutchinson's tally,and anyone can check and count,according to the observation I made ,total over twenty.That is individual items.Puts him(Hutchinson) in the genius bracket.Even allowing Hutchinson the luxury of short term(three days in his case),it was an extraordinary feat.
Ben mentions Bob Hinton.Bob set a challenge to anyone to duplicate Hutchinson's feat, where he(Bob) would set the test.No one,especially those that declare it can be done,to my knowledge,have accepted
Finally, and I really do beseech you on this one, you’ve got to stop with the Sarah Lewis seeing a couple “pass up” the court nonsense. It absolutely, emphatically, and factually did not happen, as all police, press and inquest sources confirm bar ONE instance of simple, editorial error on the part of ONE newspaper - the same newspaper that got other stuff totally wrong about the Kelly murder.
I had hoped over the years we have been exchanging views that you would eventually learn to appreciate what constitutes evidence.
All written accounts, especially press coverage of the inquests constitutes evidence for the historian, or for historical analysis.
The theorist who chooses to dismiss accounts not consistent with their personal view will inevitably produce a defective theory.
There is only one theory which takes into account ALL the recorded evidence. That theory is the correct one.
We do not edit, dismiss or reword anything just because it does not conform to our beliefs.
Remember Ben, it is the evidence which produces the theory, not speculation.
Were it otherwise, Lewis would have been called upon to attempt an identification with Kelly’s body, if only to see if the basics correlated with her “hatless” woman, such as hair colour/length, age and height.
At the inquest it was not realized that the "hatless, tipsy woman" was Kelly. As Lewis only approached her from behind, and at a distance, then identification of a body laying face up in the coffin was impossible.
The same problem was had with Lawende, who only saw the woman (Eddowes?), from behind. He was not called to identify her body either.
You’re making things even worse now by trying to fiddle with the reported times of arrival at the court for Lewis and Hutchinson....
Care to tell us all what this "reported time" was, and from whom it came?
..... to the extent that “about 2.00am” and “about 2.30” are probably “about” right, give or take a minute.
The very fact someone uses "about" signifies they are not sure. At a time when church clocks typically chimed on the quarter-hour, then an "about" only means nearer to one quarter than the other. In our view, looking for precision, we might estimate 1:53 to 2:07 as "about" 2:00. Any earlier, or later would be "about 1:45", or "about 2:15".
As I’ve said, nobody but you argues - or to my knowledge, has ever argued - that Lewis and Hutchinson observed the same couple enters the court. It quite simply did not happen; fact.
Don't let emotions get the better of you.
No-one noticed it before, the wide range of newspapers have never been so readily available. Many new details have been unearthed buried in previously out of reach newspaper columns.
"Further on" from Mr Wideawake meant "further west in Dorset Street". Lewis didnt see the couple enter the Court, nor was anybody in the Court either - indeed, on the latter point, she explicitly said so.
But your self-congratulatory boasting would only be warranted if your “taking apart” crusade hasn’t been so thoroughly “taken apart” itself, as it has, “piece by piece”.
Ben, the measure of an argument is not determined by how many other posters 'pat you on the back'. It doesn't matter how many like-minded posters congratulate each other. All can just as easily be as wrong as the one whom they agree with.
It is the argument that best suits the facts which wins out.
The points I raised are sound, the theory was not.
I still find it fascinating that you dismiss Lawende’s sighting, despite clear indications that it was considered by the police the most likely sighting of the ripper in the company of the victim.
By "clear indications" you must mean this, by Insp. McWilliams on 27 Oct.?
"The enquiry is still being actively followed up, but the police are at a great disadvantage in this case in consequence of the want of identity ........
except three gentlemen who were leaving the Imperial Club in Duke Street at 1:35 a.m. and who state that to the best of their belief they saw her with a man in Church Passage at that time, but took no particular notice of them. One of the gentlemen, Mr Lawende of 79 Fenchurch Street who was nearest to the man & woman & saw most of them, says he does not think he should know the man again and he did not see the woman's face".
Swanson wrote much the same... "Mr Lawende states that he could not identify the man, but also the woman stood with her back to him.........he could not identify the body mutilated as it was, as that of the woman whose back he had seen, but to the best of his belief the clothing of the deceased, which was black was similar to that worn by the woman whom he had seen, and that was the full extent of his identity."
So lets not exaggerate this sighting into something it was not ("similar", is not "the same" as you put it). The majority of women out at night wore black or very dark clothing.
The officials in charge of the case were not impressed or sufficiently convinced that they had a sound case the woman in Duke Street was Eddowes.