PDA

View Full Version : If Mary Kelly really WAS a prostitute....


Phil Carter
04-06-2016, 05:13 AM
All,

A thought to ponder.
If Mary Kelly was a prostitute as claimed on her behalf...
Then why, when Hutchinson saw her talking and walking with her next client..would she ask Hutchinson for money when she knew that the very person next to her would readily supply the dosh required?

The argument that "then she wouldn't have to do anything with the man" is weak. She was a prostitute..desperate for money. That comes first. And a tanner (sixpenny..6d) from Hutchinson would hardly have stopped her turning another trick....after all she is a desperate prostitute so far behind in her rent..she would need every shekel she could lay her hands on.

Something to think about?
Thoughts?


Phil

wigngown
04-06-2016, 05:21 AM
Phil,
If we accept that Hutchinson was telling the truth.
Interesting thought nonetheless,
Best regards.

MrBarnett
04-06-2016, 05:24 AM
Didn't the request for sixpence take place before Kelly encountered the other man?

Rosella
04-06-2016, 05:29 AM
But Mary hadn't met Astrakhan man when she saw Hutch on his way back from Romford and asked him for sixpence, had she? Admittedly Hutchinson saw him standing on the corner and he came up to Mary almost immediately as she moved away from Hutchinson, but she wasn't to know that. I've always taken "Can you lend me sixpence? " to mean, "if you've got the money( fee) I've got the time" if you know what I mean, a euphemism so to speak!

MysterySinger
04-06-2016, 05:34 AM
Kind of "I'm yours for a tanner"? She must have been good, but then she did have her own room.

Jon Guy
04-06-2016, 05:34 AM
Didn't the request for sixpence take place before Kelly encountered the other man?

Yes.
Kelly`s encounter with Hutchinson was before she met Mr A.

Phil Carter
04-06-2016, 05:40 AM
But Mary hadn't met Astrakhan man when she saw Hutch on his way back from Romford and asked him for sixpence, had she? Admittedly Hutchinson saw him standing on the corner and he came up to Mary almost immediately as she moved away from Hutchinson, but she wasn't to know that. I've always taken "Can you lend me sixpence? " to mean, "if you've got the money( fee) I've got the time" if you know what I mean, a euphemism so to speak!

Hi Rosella

Ahh. .you have read my mind. You see. If Hutchinson was being offered a trick by Mary the prostitute, for 6d, then dear old Hutchinson's testimony is again shown to be flawed. By dint of the fact that he didn't speak the truth. Because admitting he was being asked for 6d in return for a turn, and by dint of him refusing because of lack of money, he is hardly likely to cover up the fact. .It isn't HE that is soliciting HER, so he is lawfully safe. He has..in fact. .nothing to hide on this point. So why not just say it in his statement?


If Mary Kelly WAS a prostitute.... she knew where the money would come from anyway. .her next trick. So why ask to borrow it with Mr. Trick seconds away?

Phil

Phil Carter
04-06-2016, 05:46 AM
Phil,
If we accept that Hutchinson was telling the truth.
Interesting thought nonetheless,
Best regards.

And therein lies the crux. IF........


Phil

Jon Guy
04-06-2016, 05:56 AM
So why ask to borrow it with Mr. Trick seconds away?


Where in Hutchinson`s statement does it show that Kelly had acknowledged the presence of Astrakhan Man before she spoke to Hutchinson ?

Phil Carter
04-06-2016, 06:08 AM
Where in Hutchinson`s statement does it show that Kelly had acknowledged the presence of Astrakhan Man before she spoke to Hutchinson ?

Hi Jon,

I readily accept the point you are making.. but look at where she met Hutchinson and where she met Astraken. Logic tells me it was in the very same small area.
No..In his statement it doesn't show she acknowledged such a thing. But likewise it doesn't show it didn't happen seconds later either. Therefore. .vicinity is the question.


Phil

MysterySinger
04-06-2016, 06:14 AM
Hi Rosella

Ahh. .you have read my mind. You see. If Hutchinson was being offered a trick by Mary the prostitute, for 6d, then dear old Hutchinson's testimony is again shown to be flawed. By dint of the fact that he didn't speak the truth. Because admitting he was being asked for 6d in return for a turn, and by dint of him refusing because of lack of money, he is hardly likely to cover up the fact. .It isn't HE that is soliciting HER, so he is lawfully safe. He has..in fact. .nothing to hide on this point. So why not just say it in his statement?


If Mary Kelly WAS a prostitute.... she knew where the money would come from anyway. .her next trick. So why ask to borrow it with Mr. Trick seconds away?

Phil

Yes but she needed 29 shillings for her rent.

Phil Carter
04-06-2016, 06:21 AM
Yes but she needed 29 shillings for her rent.

Hi Mystery Singer,

Yes. But that isn't on her mind is it? Paying her rent when 29 bob in arrears..at that time of night..she'd have to turn tricks every 10 mins to pay for the rent the next day. No?

What I am questioning here is Hutchinson's statement. Hence it is on a Hutchinson thread. But to examine it.. One must..as we do now. .talk of Kelly...The prostitute.

Thanks for the thoughts. ☺


Phil

Rosella
04-06-2016, 06:23 AM
Maybe Mary quite fancied Hutchinson and, if he had a shilling she would have been quite willing to have gone with him, home out of the cold with perhaps a visit to a pub on the way. There's no guarantee that she even saw A man when she was joshing Hutch about lending her a tanner. When Im talking to someone my eyes don't dart all over the place and I doubt Mary's did either!

caz
04-06-2016, 06:36 AM
Hi Phil,

Hope you don't mind me saying, but you may be reading a little too much into this.

Kelly's significant other had recently buggered off, she was behind with her rent and overly fond of the drink, and may have been expecting the tally man's call the very next morning. People used to pawn their Sunday best on a Monday to help them through the week, then use their end of week wages to get the clothes back in time for Sunday again. An extra tanner would have been good news for Kelly, earned or unearned; borrowing as much from a friend the next best thing. She would worry about paying it back after she'd had that drink or given the landlord a modest sweetener. So for me, what Hutch said about it has a ring of truth, whether she was actually begging, borrowing or offering a service for that sixpence. If he made it all up, something similar could well have happened between the two of them on some other occasion.

As luck would have it, when Hutch couldn't oblige, Flash Harry materialised and the rest is ripper history - or myth if you prefer. Hutch said he was surprised to see Kelly picking up such a flashy dresser, so it's not like she would have been expecting to find a better beer ticket than Hutch on every corner. She would have called it her lucky night. :anxious:

Love,

Caz
X

Phil Carter
04-06-2016, 07:03 AM
Hi Phil,

Hope you don't mind me saying, but you may be reading a little too much into this.

Kelly's significant other had recently buggered off, she was behind with her rent and overly fond of the drink, and may have been expecting the tally man's call the very next morning. People used to pawn their Sunday best on a Monday to help them through the week, then use their end of week wages to get the clothes back in time for Sunday again. An extra tanner would have been good news for Kelly, earned or unearned; borrowing as much from a friend the next best thing. She would worry about paying it back after she'd had that drink or given the landlord a modest sweetener. So for me, what Hutch said about it has a ring of truth, whether she was actually begging, borrowing or offering a service for that sixpence. If he made it all up, something similar could well have happened between the two of them on some other occasion.

As luck would have it, when Hutch couldn't oblige, Flash Harry materialised and the rest is ripper history - or myth if you prefer. Hutch said he was surprised to see Kelly picking up such a flashy dresser, so it's not like she would have been expecting to find a better beer ticket than Hutch on every corner. She would have called it her lucky night. :anxious:

Love,

Caz
X


Hi Caz,

No ..I dont mind you saying it... I was pondering about it. And asked for thoughts..yours are equally welcome. :-)

What if I'm NOT reading too much into it? Thats what I am asking you to consider.. not that it is a no hoper before we start. So what if we read it the OTHER way.. not the "nothings wrong with Hutchinson's statement" way?

You see.. all I am doing is something that has been done many times before re Hutchinson. Examining his truthfulness..and thereby the veracity of his comments in this part of his statement..as has been done before for other parts of his statement. Many think it dodgy anyway.

best wishes

Phil

David Orsam
04-06-2016, 09:58 AM
Well this thread seems to have become derailed pretty quickly. From an OP In which there is reference to Mary having had a "person next to her" who could have "readily supplied" her with money, the same poster, a few posts later, without missing a beat, changes this completely so that the mysterious person is now "in the very same small area", thus negating the point he was originally trying to make, although, in fact, it was only after Mary ended her conversation with Hutchinson that she "went away towards Thrawl Street" when a man coming in the opposite direction tapped her on the shoulder.

But the thing that amazes me is the thread title. "If" Mary Kelly really "WAS" a prostitute! In the light of Joseph Barnett's clear evidence, fully corroborated by Julia Venturney, what more proof can anyone possibly need to convince them that she was indeed an unfortunate?

The Good Michael
04-06-2016, 07:48 PM
Hi Rosella

Ahh. .you have read my mind. You see. If Hutchinson was being offered a trick by Mary the prostitute, for 6d, then dear old Hutchinson's testimony is again shown to be flawed. By dint of the fact that he didn't speak the truth. Because admitting he was being asked for 6d in return for a turn, and by dint of him refusing because of lack of money, he is hardly likely to cover up the fact. .It isn't HE that is soliciting HER, so he is lawfully safe. He has..in fact. .nothing to hide on this point. So why not just say it in his statement?

he wasn't hiding anything in this argument. He just wasn't sharing all details. I would think that normal when dealing with something considered sordid by society (outwardly).

Mike

Columbo
04-06-2016, 08:50 PM
I think we should all consider the fact Hutchinson was most likely lying about the whole event. There are no witnesses to this exchange and Astrakhan man disappeared from the picture when the police and Hutchinson couldn't locate Hutch's fantasy man after a day or so.

And I will also say that if MJK asked Hutchinson for money, she didn't ask in such an innocent matter. She probably propositioned him and he didn't have the cash so she moved on.

Parker_Pyne79
04-06-2016, 11:53 PM
What about Joseph Barnett-was he not giving her money?

caz
04-07-2016, 07:23 AM
So an impoverished woman behind on her rent wouldn't have bothered trying tap a pal for sixpence, or a flashy dresser for more, if her ex was giving her a bit to be getting on with? Had Barnett coughed up enough to cover her arrears and the next day's food and drink? Don't think he had.

Love,

Caz
X

ChrisGeorge
04-07-2016, 07:49 AM
So an impoverished woman behind on her rent wouldn't have bothered trying tap a pal for sixpence, or a flashy dresser for more, if her ex was giving her a bit to be getting on with? Had Barnett coughed up enough to cover her arrears and the next day's food and drink? Don't think he had.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

Yes you correctly characterize MJK's circumstances. An "unfortunate" indeed. Carry on, Caz. I hope to catch up with you perhaps at the November conference at St. Botolph's Church in Aldgate.

Best regards

Chris http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3553/3480259031_abf7f5973d_o.gif

Ben
04-10-2016, 02:36 AM
Interesting thoughts, Phil.

If Hutchinson told the truth, Kelly's sudden need to procure funds for imminent rent collection was in stark contrast to her earlier antics with Blotchy, which consisted of walking boozily home with a blotchy-faced companion and then singing for over an hour. If such behaviour doesn't exactly indicate financial anxiety - especially in contrast to that of her neighbour, Mary Cox, who was constantly in and out of the court for that reason - would she have suddenly sobered up after tiring of Blotchy and singing, and reminded herself of her plight? Or was she more likely to have helped Blotchy with his ale pail and fallen into a stupour? My personal guess would be the latter.

On the other hand, if Hutchinson was lying (as I rather suspect), it is noteworthy how signposted everything is. Kelly encounters Hutchinson and asks him for money, but he can't oblige, so she leaves, but not without reminding him (us, the police, whoever) that she "must go and look for some money". So just to eradicate any doubt whatsoever, that's why she's on the streets. (*signpost*). After walking a short distance with the intention of finding some money (remember?!), she bumps into a man whose appearance announces that he has carriage-loads of the stuff. Well, of course she's taking this man home - she was low on money, advertised the fact, walked off and quickly found an unlikely resolution to her problem.

I can't help but have a sneaking suspicion that the neatly packaged, neatly signposted sequence events was contrived by Hutchinson to dupe the unwary into thinking that his story "has a ring of truth" about it.

But this is offered without the intention of starting another "liar or not" thread!

All the best,
Ben

caz
04-19-2016, 04:32 AM
I can't help but have a sneaking suspicion that the neatly packaged, neatly signposted sequence events was contrived by Hutchinson to dupe the unwary into thinking that his story "has a ring of truth" about it.

Hi Ben,

But what about his description of Flash Harry? I'd be surprised if you had the same sneaking suspicion that this was contrived to dupe the unwary (including Abberline The Unwary) into thinking his story had a ring of truth. You have always argued in the past that this description by rights should have reduced any 1888 listener with the brains he was born with to a helpless giggling heap of incredulity. ;)

Love,

Caz
X

Ben
04-19-2016, 04:32 PM
Hi Caz,

But what about his description of Flash Harry? I'd be surprised if you had the same sneaking suspicion that this was contrived to dupe the unwary (including Abberline The Unwary) into thinking his story had a ring of truth. You have always argued in the past that this description by rights should have reduced any 1888 listener with the brains he was born with to a helpless giggling heap of incredulity.

Not quite; I've argued in the past that when taken out of context, an 1888 listener would, in all likelihood, have been reduced to such a heap after being subjected to the Astrakhan description (and story). I've suggested that Hutchinson's description might have been bought into initially because the 1888 police, like everyone else from the period, expected the ripper to have been something wildly out-of-the-ordinary in terms of appearance and habits.

In addition, Abberline was in a sticky spot as far as pressure from his superiors went. If he dismissed Hutchinson out of hand, he risked a potential trail going cold, however "iffy" it might have appeared on the surface. There was no time for such leisurely contemplations as "Hutch, this seems like so much bollocks to me - I won't get my men to pursue your suspect until after we've gone all the way to Romford and investigated your story". As James Tully noted in his book (which promoted an entirely different suspect), Abberline's initial endorsement of Hutchinson was "not significant" as the police were prepared, at that stage, to "grasp at any straw"

All the best,
Ben

The Snapper
06-02-2016, 08:09 AM
I could believe that Hutchinson was indeed asked for sixpence if only as a cute ploy by Kelly to eliminate him as a potential customer. However I struggle with the context he puts his story in.

miss marple
06-17-2016, 01:39 AM
Did Hutchinson really walk from Romford. I remember an article a few years ago in The Whitechapel Journal that suggested he spend all his money getting pissed at The Romford Arms 3 Heneage St. That seems more logical. If he was pissed, his detailed description of Mr Astrakan is quite remarkable!

Miss Marple

Michael W Richards
06-17-2016, 08:28 AM
All,

A thought to ponder.
If Mary Kelly was a prostitute as claimed on her behalf...
Then why, when Hutchinson saw her talking and walking with her next client..would she ask Hutchinson for money when she knew that the very person next to her would readily supply the dosh required?

The argument that "then she wouldn't have to do anything with the man" is weak. She was a prostitute..desperate for money. That comes first. And a tanner (sixpenny..6d) from Hutchinson would hardly have stopped her turning another trick....after all she is a desperate prostitute so far behind in her rent..she would need every shekel she could lay her hands on.

Something to think about?
Thoughts?


Phil

I think what we can gather from Marys history, as it has been provided, is that she was a full time prostitute at one point, while working indoors, at a brothel. Based on the fact that she has been arrears in rent at 2 separate locations since then leads one to surmise that she didn't favor doing this work on the street. Much in the same way a modern call girl wouldn't work on the streets since the perception is that the women of the streets are far below a call girl in perceived status, and as such, of lesser value.

What we can gather from George Hutchinsons statement is that he wishes for the authorities to believe he was Wideawake Hat Man...something that no other witness or fact discovered since that statement was made has been able to authenticate.

Cheers

Paddy
06-17-2016, 10:38 AM
There is always the thought that he mentioned the loan of sixpence to cover himself, as he may have been married?

Pat.....

jason_c
06-17-2016, 11:50 AM
Many of the explanations above are reasonable answers. What we also have to remember is that Kelly was a drunken prostitute with quite serious money issues. She had as much right to chance her arm with Hutchinson(either innocently or not) as any modern day street beggar/occasional sex worker. I dont think it unreasonable to equate Kelly in 1888 with homeless substance abusers we see on the streets today. Many are not averse to both begging and doing a trick.

Im also quite willing to believe that Hutchinson was putting the "best spin" on the retelling of his encounter with Kelly. Little would surprise me.

Garry Wroe
06-17-2016, 12:13 PM
Did Hutchinson really walk from Romford. I remember an article a few years ago in The Whitechapel Journal that suggested he spend all his money getting pissed at The Romford Arms 3 Heneage St.
Hutchinson was quoted in at least one newspaper as having stated that he visited Romford, Essex. This, of course, doesn't prove that he was in Romford on the night under scrutiny, nor that he walked from there back to the East End, but it does undermine any speculation that Hutchinson spent the night in a local drinking den.

Pierre
06-17-2016, 12:47 PM
All,

A thought to ponder.
If Mary Kelly was a prostitute as claimed on her behalf...
Then why, when Hutchinson saw her talking and walking with her next client..would she ask Hutchinson for money when she knew that the very person next to her would readily supply the dosh required?

The argument that "then she wouldn't have to do anything with the man" is weak. She was a prostitute..desperate for money. That comes first. And a tanner (sixpenny..6d) from Hutchinson would hardly have stopped her turning another trick....after all she is a desperate prostitute so far behind in her rent..she would need every shekel she could lay her hands on.

Something to think about?
Thoughts?


Phil

Hi,

1. Why was the source produced after the inquest on the very same day?

2. What is the function of the source?

3. What is the tendency in the source produced by Abberline after the inquest on the same
day?

Regards, Pierre

c.d.
06-17-2016, 03:23 PM
I will go out on a limb here but for me it has always been better to have two dollars in my pocket than just one dollar.

c.d.

GUT
06-17-2016, 03:39 PM
I will go out on a limb here but for me it has always been better to have two dollars in my pocket than just one dollar.

c.d.

Or even five.

Mayerling
06-17-2016, 03:40 PM
Hi,

1. Why was the source produced after the inquest on the very same day?

2. What is the function of the source?

3. What is the tendency in the source produced by Abberline after the inquest on the same
day?

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

Out of curiosity,

1) what do you think was the source produced after the inquest on the very same day?

2) what, if we accept said source, was it's function?

3) what, if we accept the function of said source, would be the tendency it produced on Abberline after the inquest?

Again, best wishes,

Jeff

GUT
06-17-2016, 03:42 PM
I will go out on a limb here but for me it has always been better to have two dollars in my pocket than just one dollar.

c.d.

Or even five.

Even more so when you're an unfortunate way behind on your rent.

Wickerman
06-17-2016, 05:08 PM
I think we should all consider the fact Hutchinson was most likely lying about the whole event. There are no witnesses to this exchange and Astrakhan man disappeared from the picture when the police and Hutchinson couldn't locate Hutch's fantasy man after a day or so.



If Hutchinson was lying then we are left with three comments that require separate explanations.

Bowyer is credited with this comment on Nov. 14th, when the "murderer" was clearly suspected to be Astrachan:

"Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer."

Mrs McCarthy is credited with this remark:

"Mrs McCarthy herself gives a slight clue as to a person who was seen in the court early on Friday morning, as one of her customers remarked to her – before the murder was known - “I saw such a funny man up the court this morning”."

And Sarah Lewis, in more detailed coverage in the press is credited with this:

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

Once, is happenstance; twice is coincidence; three times, from three separate sources is worthy of consideration.

Hutchinson saw someone, at that location on the night in question - Hutchinson, Bowyer, McCarthy and Sarah Lewis, who in fact may have been McCarthy's illusive customer, all saw someone in the court that night.

Ben
06-17-2016, 05:40 PM
Not this again, Jon, surely?

Not that "pass up the court" painfulness again?

That did not happen, as Sarah Lewis's police statement and all other press sources that recounted her inquest evidence make abundantly clear. She absolutely did not claim to have seen anyone "pass up the court". You are relying on a single instance of confusion and misreporting from one single newspaper. Similarly, Thomas Bowyer most assuredly did not see Kelly in the company of a man on Friday morning, less still one that resembled Astrakhan. He made it quite clear at the inquest that his last sighting of Kelly occurred on "Wednesday afternoon". You say that Mrs. McCarthy is "credited" with a "remark" about one of her customers seeing "such a funny man" in Miller's Court on the morning of Kelly's murder; credited by whom? Why isn't the "customer" identified? Why is there no direct interview with Mrs. McCarthy? And why didn't this "evidence" appear at the inquest?

If you're interested in this murder in particular, and keen to make sense of the eyewitness evidence associated therewith, it is essential to filter out the third-hand hearsay dross that appeared in the press (for about five minutes) in the immediate aftermath of the murder.

Regards,
Ben

Garry Wroe
06-18-2016, 01:44 AM
I'll drink to that.

Wickerman
06-18-2016, 04:09 AM
Afternoon and evening were synonymous terms in the 19th century, a fact that is well established.
Maybe it requires a full page in Ripperologist, for anyone too busy to follow Casebook & JTRForums.

Pierre
06-18-2016, 09:40 AM
[QUOTE]Hi Pierre,

Out of curiosity,

1) what do you think was the source produced after the inquest on the very same day?

Hi Jeff,

you mean why I think this source was produced after the inquest on the very same day. My hypothesis is that Abberline, Monro and Warren knew who the killer was on 12 November. But since they could not go public with his name and identity they wanted to conceal that knowledge and to give the public the impression that they still had no clue. Therefore they found a witness who could tell them a story about a plausible suspect.

2) what, if we accept said source, was it's function?

The function of the source is to give the public the impression that there was a man in the room in Millerīs Court together with Kelly shortly before the critical point of the time of death given by to the public by Dr Bond.

The conclusion about this function is drawn from the internal source criticism, showing that there is a tendency in the source. The tendency (apart from the antisemitic tendency) is visible in the statement about Hutchinson standing and waiting for three quarters of an hour in Millerīs Court and in the statement that the man did not come out of the room.

3) what, if we accept the function of said source, would be the tendency it produced on Abberline after the inquest?

The tendency of Abberline, in his source, is to render credibility to Hutchinson and thereby to this whole story. The function thereby becomes obvious: since Abberline says it is "an important statement" and he believes "the statement is true", the tendency of the source is to legitimate the whole story of a jewish looking man being in the room with Kelly at a critical point in time: the approximate time of her death or shortly before that time.

This source by Abberline has the function of showing everyone that Abberline "had no clue" who the killer was.

So there are reasons for the existence of the peculiar Hutchinson-source and the source of Abberline produced at the same time.

Again, best wishes,

Jeff

Thanks Jeff, the same to you.

Pierre

Mayerling
06-18-2016, 05:37 PM
[QUOTE=Mayerling;384925]
Hi Jeff,

you mean why I think this source was produced after the inquest on the very same day. My hypothesis is that Abberline, Monro and Warren knew who the killer was on 12 November. But since they could not go public with his name and identity they wanted to conceal that knowledge and to give the public the impression that they still had no clue. Therefore they found a witness who could tell them a story about a plausible suspect.

2) what, if we accept said source, was it's function?

The function of the source is to give the public the impression that there was a man in the room in Millerīs Court together with Kelly shortly before the critical point of the time of death given by to the public by Dr Bond.

The conclusion about this function is drawn from the internal source criticism, showing that there is a tendency in the source. The tendency (apart from the antisemitic tendency) is visible in the statement about Hutchinson standing and waiting for three quarters of an hour in Millerīs Court and in the statement that the man did not come out of the room.

3) what, if we accept the function of said source, would be the tendency it produced on Abberline after the inquest?

The tendency of Abberline, in his source, is to render credibility to Hutchinson and thereby to this whole story. The function thereby becomes obvious: since Abberline says it is "an important statement" and he believes "the statement is true", the tendency of the source is to legitimate the whole story of a jewish looking man being in the room with Kelly at a critical point in time: the approximate time of her death or shortly before that time.

This source by Abberline has the function of showing everyone that Abberline "had no clue" who the killer was.

So there are reasons for the existence of the peculiar Hutchinson-source and the source of Abberline produced at the same time.



Thanks Jeff, the same to you.

Pierre

I don't usually find myself in agreement with Pierre, but something in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, of Sunday, December 4, 1888, on page 11, col. 1. It seems that a group of New York lawyers met at a dinner and were discussing the news of George Hutchinson's detailed description of the man who went indoors with Mary Kelly. This group included such luminaries as General Horace Porter, the author and diplomat, and Chauncey Depew, the former President of the New York Central Railroad, and (in 1888) the Senator from New York State and favorite son candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination (which went to Benjamin Harrison, who won). The column was a long one, and the men agreed (particularly Porter, when queried about recent chance acquaintances, and even friends) that it was hard to describe in even vague detail what a party looked like. I suggest reading this column in the paper, as it is a contemporary view on the subject, and it even bolsters Pierre's point of view.

Jeff

David Orsam
06-19-2016, 06:40 AM
I don't usually find myself in agreement with Pierre, but something in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, of Sunday, December 4, 1888, on page 11, col. 1. It seems that a group of New York lawyers met at a dinner and were discussing the news of George Hutchinson's detailed description of the man who went indoors with Mary Kelly. This group included such luminaries as General Horace Porter, the author and diplomat, and Chauncey Depew, the former President of the New York Central Railroad, and (in 1888) the Senator from New York State and favorite son candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination (which went to Benjamin Harrison, who won). The column was a long one, and the men agreed (particularly Porter, when queried about recent chance acquaintances, and even friends) that it was hard to describe in even vague detail what a party looked like. I suggest reading this column in the paper, as it is a contemporary view on the subject, and it even bolsters Pierre's point of view.

How does that support anything Pierre has said?

David Orsam
06-19-2016, 06:51 AM
My hypothesis is that Abberline, Monro and Warren knew who the killer was on 12 November.

What a strange situation we have here. On moral and ethical grounds, Pierre refuses to identify his suspect, of whom he claims to have some evidence that he was Jack the Ripper, yet has no problem in accusing by name, on the basis of no evidence at all, three senior police officials of being involved in an illegal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and fail to bring to justice the killer and mutilator of a number of women in 1888, thus allowing him to be at large to commit other murders.

Even worse, his understanding of events in 1888 is all wrong. He thinks that Warren resigned due knowing the killer's identity but it is a historical fact that his resignation was because he had been presented with an ultimatum by the Home Secretary whereby he had to gag himself from writing articles for publication. He was never going to accept this and thus resigned.

Pierre's suspicions about Abberline have been shown to be based on a complete misunderstanding of what happened at the Kelly inquest, something that has been demonstrated quite clearly on this forum yet he ignores it.

In reliance on his suspicions about Monro, he seems to place weight on a comment by Monro's grandson who was born after Monro had died and thus never spoke to him.

No doubt he will tell us that "his sources" lead him to accuse Warren, Monro and Abberline (even though those same sources prevent him from accusing the man he thinks committed the murder) but that's baloney because even if he is right that the murderer was a police officer, there is no way that such an conspiracy of which he mentions existed.

Mayerling
06-19-2016, 07:49 AM
How does that support anything Pierre has said?

Hi David,

In his response to me, Pierre was suggesting that Hutchinson's testimony was sort of pushed by Abberline, Monro, and Warren as a kind of "straw man" to prevent identification of the actual killer (i.e., it was a wrong or questionable identification). The general drift of comments on the thread is that Hutchinson's testimony is highly questionable. My last comment is that the reported event in New York that was discussed in the Daily Eagle showed a current examination of the testimony of Hutchinson showed it was questioned by experts (a group of lawyers) because of the uncertainties of witness identification. Which means people in 1888 did have doubts about Hutchinson's identification, which fits Pierre's dismissal of it's value to just setting it up as a "straw man".

Jeff

David Orsam
06-19-2016, 08:23 AM
Hi David,

In his response to me, Pierre was suggesting that Hutchinson's testimony was sort of pushed by Abberline, Monro, and Warren as a kind of "straw man" to prevent identification of the actual killer (i.e., it was a wrong or questionable identification). The general drift of comments on the thread is that Hutchinson's testimony is highly questionable. My last comment is that the reported event in New York that was discussed in the Daily Eagle showed a current examination of the testimony of Hutchinson showed it was questioned by experts (a group of lawyers) because of the uncertainties of witness identification. Which means people in 1888 did have doubts about Hutchinson's identification, which fits Pierre's dismissal of it's value to just setting it up as a "straw man".

But Jeff, thinking that Hutchinson's testimony was questionable is one thing. Thinking that it was part of a police driven conspiracy to prevent identification of the actual killer, or to deliberately mislead the public, is completely different isn't it?

Mayerling
06-19-2016, 09:55 AM
But Jeff, thinking that Hutchinson's testimony was questionable is one thing. Thinking that it was part of a police driven conspiracy to prevent identification of the actual killer, or to deliberately mislead the public, is completely different isn't it?

Actually I agree with you - but the idea is that if one accepts Pierre's theory, he too is saying that Hutchinson's testimony was made public but secretly rejected by the police. To me it was nice to see people (albeit in New York City, not the British Isles) who were contemporary to these events, and knowing how to handle testimony, questioning it.

Jeff

David Orsam
06-19-2016, 10:26 AM
A but the idea is that if one accepts Pierre's theory, he too is saying that Hutchinson's testimony was made public but secretly rejected by the police.

I understand that you wanted to mention the Brooklyn Daily Eagle story but Pierre is, I think, going much further than that because he says, "there are reasons for the existence of the peculiar Hutchinson-source and the source of Abberline produced at the same time." Pierre, in other words, thinks there was a major conspiracy going on here.

Mayerling
06-19-2016, 12:59 PM
I understand that you wanted to mention the Brooklyn Daily Eagle story but Pierre is, I think, going much further than that because he says, "there are reasons for the existence of the peculiar Hutchinson-source and the source of Abberline produced at the same time." Pierre, in other words, thinks there was a major conspiracy going on here.

I'm willing to go along with that comment of yours. At least Pierre did not suggest it was a man on a grassy knoll. :laugh4:

Jeff

Pierre
06-19-2016, 01:00 PM
I understand that you wanted to mention the Brooklyn Daily Eagle story but Pierre is, I think, going much further than that because he says, "there are reasons for the existence of the peculiar Hutchinson-source and the source of Abberline produced at the same time." Pierre, in other words, thinks there was a major conspiracy going on here.

You know how the word "conspiracy" has been used in ripperology. It is a word I would never use.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre
06-19-2016, 01:03 PM
Actually I agree with you - but the idea is that if one accepts Pierre's theory, he too is saying that Hutchinson's testimony was made public but secretly rejected by the police. To me it was nice to see people (albeit in New York City, not the British Isles) who were contemporary to these events, and knowing how to handle testimony, questioning it.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Yes, in those days the Americans could do some autonomous thinking, certainly.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre
06-19-2016, 01:03 PM
I'm willing to go along with that comment of yours. At least Pierre did not suggest it was a man on a grassy knoll. :laugh4:

Jeff

But times are changing.

Regards, Pierre

David Orsam
06-19-2016, 01:17 PM
You know how the word "conspiracy" has been used in ripperology. It is a word I would never use.

Whether you use the word "conspiracy" or not, that is exactly what you are suggesting happened.

Hence you said:

"My hypothesis is that Abberline, Monro and Warren knew who the killer was on 12 November. But since they could not go public with his name and identity they wanted to conceal that knowledge and to give the public the impression that they still had no clue. Therefore they found a witness who could tell them a story about a plausible suspect."

That's a conspiracy. An illegal one. Thus, you have made a very serious allegation against three named police officials.

Unfortunately, your must vaunted "source criticism" has let you down rather badly here because it's all nonsense.

CommercialRoadWanderer
06-19-2016, 02:46 PM
If i'm not wrong Abberline had access to most of the boloney the police gathered about Jack (letters, witness reports and so on), and since Hutchinson was questioned by Abberline himself, is generally believed that he was considered trustworthy exactly because Abberline judged him so.

Of course, as far as i know there's no indication that Abberline was indeed 100% sure about him, but still.

Karl
06-19-2016, 03:28 PM
There is always the thought that he mentioned the loan of sixpence to cover himself, as he may have been married?

Pat.....
Indeed - even if she was soliciting him rather than the other way around, questions like "what were you doing consorting with prostitutes" could easily have arisen.

Even so, she probably just asked him for a 6-pence. A loan they'd both know she'd never pay back. People in need of money will seek them the easiest way possible, and simply asking for them is far easier than offering one's body for them. And not all of us are fortunate enough to enjoy our jobs, anyway.

Mayerling
06-19-2016, 03:50 PM
But times are changing.

Regards, Pierre

That they are.

Have a nice day, Jeff

Ben
06-20-2016, 03:04 AM
Hi Jeff,

Interesting find.

Do you have a copy of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle article?

All the best,
Ben

MsWeatherwax
06-20-2016, 04:48 AM
Whether you use the word "conspiracy" or not, that is exactly what you are suggesting happened.

Hence you said:

"My hypothesis is that Abberline, Monro and Warren knew who the killer was on 12 November. But since they could not go public with his name and identity they wanted to conceal that knowledge and to give the public the impression that they still had no clue. Therefore they found a witness who could tell them a story about a plausible suspect."

That's a conspiracy. An illegal one. Thus, you have made a very serious allegation against three named police officials.

Unfortunately, your must vaunted "source criticism" has let you down rather badly here because it's all nonsense.

Accusing three senior Police officials of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice WHILE IN OFFICE, and of literally allowing a brutal, sadistic killer to get off scott free = :2thumbsup:

Naming actual suspect who was enabled by the above conspiracy = :shakehead:

Some bizarre ethics going on there, I'm afraid.

Pierre
06-20-2016, 04:54 AM
Accusing three senior Police officials of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice WHILE IN OFFICE, and of literally allowing a brutal, sadistic killer to get off scott free = :2thumbsup:

Naming actual suspect who was enabled by the above conspiracy = :shakehead:

Some bizarre ethics going on there, I'm afraid.

Yes, I know. It is terrible.

Regards, Pierre

Mayerling
06-20-2016, 09:26 AM
Hi Jeff,

Interesting find.

Do you have a copy of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle article?

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

The Brooklyn Daily Eagle has a website, and I gave the date and page and column of the article. Interesting sometimes to read the Eagle, the only major New York City newspaper to be published outside of Manhattan from the middle 19th Century to the 1940s (when it went out of business).

Jeff

Mayerling
06-20-2016, 09:28 AM
Yes, I know. It is terrible.

Regards, Pierre

Yes, it would be true - IF (AND ONLY IF) IT WAS TRUE!

Have a good day,

Jeff

David Orsam
06-20-2016, 10:05 AM
Yes, I know. It is terrible.

From that response, my conclusion would be that your refusal to identify your suspect has absolutely nothing to do with morals or ethics, as you have repeatedly claimed, but is rather due to a realisation that your case against him is so weak that it would not stand up to a moment's scrutiny.

Pierre
06-20-2016, 11:42 AM
From that response, my conclusion would be that your refusal to identify your suspect has absolutely nothing to do with morals or ethics, as you have repeatedly claimed, but is rather due to a realisation that your case against him is so weak that it would not stand up to a moment's scrutiny.

You could ask me, David, if you were interested in knowing what I think. But instead you make the wrong interpretation. That however does not change the past. And I think knowing that is comforting.

David Orsam
06-20-2016, 11:46 AM
You could ask me, David, if you were interested in knowing what I think.

You had your chance in #58 to explain what you think but you didn't take it so I drew my own conclusions.

Michael W Richards
06-20-2016, 12:43 PM
You had your chance in #58 to explain what you think but you didn't take it so I drew my own conclusions.

What exactly are the rest of us gaining by your bear baiting in every thread?

David Orsam
06-20-2016, 12:54 PM
What exactly are the rest of us gaining by your bear baiting in every thread?

What exactly are the rest of us gaining by that post?

Henry Flower
06-21-2016, 12:29 AM
You could ask me, David, if you were interested in knowing what I think.

Indeed, because, Pierre, you definitely do not have a reputation for simply ignoring awkward questions, or, when forced into a corner, offering absurdly generalised abstract answers (usually with tedious and irrelevant homilies on historical method) that avoid the question asked. No, no way. Always a clear, direct, honest answer from our Pierre.

I can't think why David did not simply ask you.... :scratchchin:

GUT
06-21-2016, 01:00 AM
From that response, my conclusion would be that your refusal to identify your suspect has absolutely nothing to do with morals or ethics, as you have repeatedly claimed, but is rather due to a realisation that your case against him is so weak that it would not stand up to a moment's scrutiny.

I still don't believe he even has a suspect.

Ben
06-21-2016, 02:57 AM
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle has a website, and I gave the date and page and column of the article.

Many thanks, Jeff. I tracked down the website and the article - although it appeared in the Sunday 9th December edition. I particularly enjoyed the observation that the debate had been "thrashed out to utter weariness".

Some things never change. ;)

All the best,
Ben

Mayerling
06-21-2016, 08:31 AM
Many thanks, Jeff. I tracked down the website and the article - although it appeared in the Sunday 9th December edition. I particularly enjoyed the observation that the debate had been "thrashed out to utter weariness".

Some things never change. ;)

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

I'm glad you tracked it down - sorry if my date was off, but I actually thought I got the correct date.

Jeff

Ben
06-21-2016, 09:00 AM
No worries there, Jeff. I haven't looked at the 4th yet, and it's quite possible the story was visited more than once.

Wickerman
06-21-2016, 03:21 PM
Interesting that the conclusion arrived at a hundred plus years ago is pretty much the same as is recognised today - "The general inference from this discussion seemed to be that this was like every other phase of memory, a question partly of natural gift but in a much greater degree a matter of habit and cultivation".

The more modern idea that the description given by Hutchinson was "impossible" is driven by theorists not willing to accept science.

Ben
06-21-2016, 03:29 PM
Errr, nope.

Science has feck all to do with it, and even if it did, it certainly wouldn't come down on the side of those insisting that Hutchinson told the squeaky clean truth. Read it properly: "the contention is that it is impossible for a person whose life work is not the keen noting of details to have seen all this in what was little more than a passing glance".

The idea that only "modern" theorists subscribe to the above view is thus totally negated.

Wickerman
09-04-2016, 04:29 PM
Hutchinson's view was considerably more than a passing glance, the encounter appears to have lasted approx. 15 minutes, and please share with us the source which indicates what Hutchinson's "life work" was. The ability to pay attention to detail is a perfectly normal human trait not exclusive to any profession or the result of specific training.

DJA
09-04-2016, 05:46 PM
[QUOTE=Mayerling;384925]
Hi Jeff,

you mean why I think this source was produced after the inquest on the very same day. My hypothesis is that Abberline, Monro and Warren knew who the killer was on 12 November. But since they could not go public with his name and identity they wanted to conceal that knowledge and to give the public the impression that they still had no clue. Therefore they found a witness who could tell them a story about a plausible suspect.


Pierre

Pretty close.

Ben
09-04-2016, 05:58 PM
Give the Hutchinson threads a break, Jon; you're not very good at them. Try the Maybrick diaries, or the Eddowes "shawl", or literally anything else. That "last word" on the subject that you so crave will never be yours - trust me, it won't.

Hutchinson's view was considerably more than a passing glance, the encounter appears to have lasted approx. 15 minutes

That doesn't seem to be based on anything other than your own errant guesswork (and I suspect unfamiliarity with the physical location). The only opportunity for Hutchinson to have noticed anything other than a dark figure in a coat occurred as Astrakhan allegedly walked past him outside the pub at the corner of Fashion Street.


please share with us the source which indicates what Hutchinson's "life work" was

I don't know, but it obviously wasn't the "keen noting of details".

DJA
09-04-2016, 06:05 PM
Accusing three senior Police officials of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice WHILE IN OFFICE, and of literally allowing a brutal, sadistic killer to get off scott free = :2thumbsup:

Naming actual suspect who was enabled by the above conspiracy = :shakehead:

Some bizarre ethics going on there, I'm afraid.

Ever hear of The Cleveland Street Scandal!

Same officials minus Warren who resigned in 1888.

DJA
09-04-2016, 06:10 PM
Give the Hutchinson threads a break, Jon; you're not very good at them.
The only opportunity for Hutchinson to have noticed anything other than a dark figure in a coat occurred as Astrakhan allegedly walked past him outside the pub at the corner of Fashion Street.


As previously mentioned,the original statement had the wrong pub.

Wickerman
09-04-2016, 06:26 PM
As previously mentioned,the original statement had the wrong pub.

Strike-outs are not uncommon in witness statements, they certainly do not reflect on the witness any more than the recorder.

Wickerman
09-04-2016, 06:33 PM
That doesn't seem to be based on anything other than your own errant guesswork (and I suspect unfamiliarity with the physical location). The only opportunity for Hutchinson to have noticed anything other than a dark figure in a coat occurred as Astrakhan allegedly walked past him outside the pub at the corner of Fashion Street.


Considering your entire theory is subjective errant guesswork, I would have thought I was in good company.

Ben
09-04-2016, 06:37 PM
As previously mentioned,the original statement had the wrong pub.

Indeed, DJA.

Hutchinson had obviously said "Ten Bells" initially, but then realised - or had it pointed it out to him - that the pub in question was not on the Commercial/Fashion Street intersection.

DJA
09-04-2016, 06:38 PM
Strike-outs are not uncommon in witness statements, they certainly do not reflect on the witness any more than the recorder.

That is a BIG mistake,given all the detail supplied.

The other worry is that it was not initialed.

Seems likely that Hutchinson knew Mary Kelly from her "gay house" days.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labouchere_Amendment

Ben
09-04-2016, 06:38 PM
Considering your entire theory is subjective errant guesswork, I would have thought I was in good company.

Go away.

Just for a bit (?).

DJA
09-04-2016, 06:43 PM
Indeed, DJA.

Hutchinson had obviously said "Ten Bells" initially, but then realised - or had it pointed it out to him - that the pub in question was not on the Commercial/Fashion Street intersection.

Ten Bell actually.

The correction was not in Badham or Hutchinson's handwriting and a different pen was used.

Wickerman
09-04-2016, 06:51 PM
That is a BIG mistake,given all the detail supplied.

The other worry is that it was not initialed.

Seems likely that Hutchinson knew Mary Kelly from her "gay house" days.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labouchere_Amendment

Given the suggested 'trade' of Hutchinson as a groom, and the story that about three years prior Kelly lived in a house in Breezers Hill where the proprietor had stables at Romford, we have the potential for a connection as he apparently claimed.

Wickerman
09-04-2016, 06:52 PM
Ten Bell actually.

The correction was not in Badham or Hutchinson's handwriting and a different pen was used.

The correction doesn't "indicate" anything, except for the conspiracy theorists.

Have you compared the correction to Abberline's hand?

DJA
09-04-2016, 06:56 PM
please share with us the source which indicates what Hutchinson's "life work" was.

As Toppy was in full employment and not known to have military training,perhaps we might re examine sailor Hutchinson.

Several years ago "Lechmere" conducted some interesting research.
There was a child in the Hutchinson household that could not be explained.

His parents actually lived in Primrose Street.

That is an extension of Hanbury Street and Spital Square.

DJA
09-04-2016, 06:57 PM
Have you compared the correction to Abberline's hand?

Yes I have.

Ben
09-04-2016, 07:00 PM
The correction doesn't "indicate" anything

In your very unvaluable opinion perhaps, but what it actually "indicates" is that Hutchinson slipped up. Innocently or otherwise is for you to decide, but the mistake was obviously his.

Wickerman
09-04-2016, 07:01 PM
As Toppy was in full employment and not known to have military training,perhaps we might re examine sailor Hutchinson.


Having a military appearance only means he looked after himself, kept himself tidy, a well groomed groom I suppose...

DJA
09-04-2016, 07:06 PM
Given the suggested 'trade' of Hutchinson as a groom, and the story that about three years prior Kelly lived in a house in Breezers Hill where the proprietor had stables at Romford, we have the potential for a connection as he apparently claimed.

Are you suggesting that Hutchinson lived with Carthy and that they had stables at Romford?

DJA
09-04-2016, 07:09 PM
Having a military appearance only means he looked after himself, kept himself tidy, a well groomed groom I suppose...

Clutching at straws now :)

Have a little bit of military training and can spot similar.

Strongly suspect Hutchinson was a personal groom.

Wickerman
09-04-2016, 07:11 PM
Are you suggesting that Hutchinson lived with Carthy and that they had stables at Romford?

He doesn't have to live under the same roof, but if he worked for Carthy then he may have frequented the house where Kelly worked.
The potential for a connection cannot be dismissed without further investigation.

Wickerman
09-04-2016, 07:13 PM
Clutching at straws now :)

Have a little bit of military training and can spot similar.

Strongly suspect Hutchinson was a personal groom.

A personal groom is a valet, a groom looks after horses, but the groom must always be presentable as he is a reflection of his master in front of his master's peers at the horse track.

DJA
09-04-2016, 07:15 PM
He doesn't have to live under the same roof, but if he worked for Carthy then he may have frequented the house where Kelly worked.
The potential for a connection cannot be dismissed without further investigation.

So is this plumber Hutchinson who was not out of work or sailor Hutchinson or another?

Were did you get your information on Carthy of Breezer's Hill owning stables in Romford?

Wickerman
09-04-2016, 07:19 PM
In your very unvaluable opinion perhaps, but what it actually "indicates" is that Hutchinson slipped up. Innocently or otherwise is for you to decide, but the mistake was obviously his.

The mistake you make is the use of "obviously".
We have no cause to assume Hutchinson knew the name of the pub he stood outside that night, in fact in his press account he only identifies it as "the public house".
So if it was Hutchinson's mistake we would expect to see it repeated, but we don't.

DJA
09-04-2016, 07:24 PM
A personal groom is a valet, a groom looks after horses, but the groom must always be presentable as he is a reflection of his master in front of his master's peers at the horse track.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/groom

DJA
09-04-2016, 07:26 PM
The mistake you make is the use of "obviously".
We have no cause to assume Hutchinson knew the name of the pub he stood outside that night, in fact in his press account he only identifies it as "the public house".
So if it was Hutchinson's mistake we would expect to see it repeated, but we don't.

Well....there is that gas lamp :)

Wickerman
09-04-2016, 07:38 PM
Well....there is that gas lamp :)

Didn't all pubs have a lamp outside?

DJA
09-04-2016, 07:46 PM
The other gas lamp :)

DJA
09-04-2016, 07:49 PM
Go away.

Just for a bit (?).

Seems to be filling in for Pierre.
Must be his RDO :)
Mine tomorrow.

Wickerman
09-04-2016, 07:49 PM
Were did you get your information on Carthy of Breezer's Hill owning stables in Romford?

I think it was a Ripperologist article, I'll see if I can dig it out...

DJA
09-04-2016, 08:02 PM
Thanks mate!

William Crossingham resided in Romford.
He owned Commercial Street Chambers at 15-20 Dorset Street,across the road from Millers Court.

Wickerman
09-04-2016, 09:45 PM
The piece about Romford came from Neil Shelden's book, Mary Jane Kelly and the victims of Jack the Ripper.
Kelly lived in Breezers Hill, only four houses were in that street, Stephen Maywood lived at No.1 from 1883-87, McCarthy lived at No.2, it was Maywood who was charged with some offense concerning the treatment of his horses at Romford.

I couldn't get all the details as the book was on my wife's ipad and the power ran out, it needs charging.
I'll see if I can expand on that issue tomorrow.

DJA
09-04-2016, 10:04 PM
Thought there were 5 houses on one side of the street with Kelly and Carthy/McCarthy residing in number 1.
Sounds interesting.
Thanks again :)

Seems to be a number of Stephen Maywoods from Romford.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=24207&page=35

MsWeatherwax
09-05-2016, 01:48 AM
Ever hear of The Cleveland Street Scandal!

Same officials minus Warren who resigned in 1888.

Sure have, DJA and I take your point. I still feel that's it's wonky ethics to happily accuse people of conspiracy with absolutely no evidence of such, while continuing to refuse to name an alleged suspect because 'doing so will destroy Ripperology and upset Britain' or whatever it was he thought would happen.

Wickerman
09-05-2016, 05:22 AM
Thought there were 5 houses on one side of the street with Kelly and Carthy/McCarthy residing in number 1.
Sounds interesting.
Thanks again :)

Seems to be a number of Stephen Maywoods from Romford.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=24207&page=35

Shelden writes:
- From 1881 to 1891 Breezers Hill had only four houses.....
- The houses were on the eastern side with number 4 nearest to St. George Street and number 1 being adjacent to 79 Pennington Street. On the western side of the street were warehouses.
- From 1883 to 1887 a couple called Stephen and Sarah Maywood lived at 1 Breezers Hill.

- "Stephen Maywood, a dealer, of Breezers Hill, St. George's, London, was summoned for working a horse in an unfit state at Romford on the 8th Sept."
Chelmsford Chronicle, 8th Oct. 1886.

- Stephen Maywood, Horse Dealer.
Lower Chapman Street School Register - 1888 (for his two sons, Stephen & Henry)

- Seemingly, following the Maywood's into 1 Breezers Hill was a couple called McCarthy. John and his wife Mary were summoned to court in May 1890 for selling liquor without a license, the article also mentions the use of prostitutes to draw in customers. The 1891 census listed "unfortunates" as residents of 1 Breezers Hill.

-A family of Morgenstern's lived at 31 (or 43) Victoria Rd. Fulham in 1881, Adrianus and his wife moved to the East End sometime after. The wife of Adrianus died about 1884 and Adrianus took up with a woman by the name of Elizabeth Felix.

- A brother of Adrianus, Johannes had already taken up residence in the East End in 1874. Two birth certificates for his children gave their home address in Oct. 1885 as 79 Pennington St.
- The maiden name of Johannes's wife was Boeku, Elizabeth Boeku was likely the elusive Mrs Buki.
- - - - - -

So it appears the Maywoods lived next door to the Morgenstern/Boeku family during the time that Mary Kelly is reputed to have lived in Breezers Hill.
The question therefore arises, did Hutchinson have some 'professional' connection to the Maywoods via the horse trade, and if so is this where he first met Mary Kelly.

Ben
09-05-2016, 05:35 AM
We have no cause to assume Hutchinson knew the name of the pub he stood outside that night, in fact in his press account he only identifies it as "the public house".

He must have done, or else "the public house" would have appeared in the police statement too. I'm not making any inferences about Hutchinson's honesty on this particular point. I'm simply stating the obvious, which is that the words "Ten Bells" would not have been committed to paper unless Hutchinson had uttered them himself.

Badham was responsible for recording what Hutchinson actually said, not for manipulating eyewitness evidence and taking presumptuous liberties with regard to what the witnesses in question "must have" meant.

Wickerman
09-05-2016, 07:11 AM
He must have done, or else "the public house" would have appeared in the police statement too. I'm not making any inferences about Hutchinson's honesty on this particular point. I'm simply stating the obvious, which is that the words "Ten Bells" would not have been committed to paper unless Hutchinson had uttered them himself.

A press statement is not expected to be as accurate as a police statement. Assuming Hutchinson was not aware of the name of the pub on that corner it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Badham shouted out to another officer if he knew the name of the pub on that corner.
The interviewing officer is trying to make the statement as accurate as possible. Badham writes the name in, only to be corrected minutes later, or possibly Abberline corrected it when he ran through the statement with Hutchinson in the interrogation.
This is making a mountain out of a molehill, the error has no bearing on the validity of Hutchinson's statement.

Badham was responsible for recording what Hutchinson actually said, not for manipulating eyewitness evidence and taking presumptuous liberties with regard to what the witnesses in question "must have" meant.

Success at last, thankyou for that long-awaited concession - yes, Badham writes down Hutchinson's statement "in his own words".

However, it is also a requirement that Badham questions Hutchinson on specific points for clarification, and, if Hutchinson explains exactly where he was but doesn't know the name of the street, pub, business, or church, so long as Badham is certain of his location the officer is allowed to fill in the missing name. The intent being, to make the statement clear for legal purposes. This is not manipulating the witness, in this you are confused.

If Abberline corrected the error, by rights he should have initialed the change. However, if the change was made prior to Hutchinson signing the statement then no initial is necessary - Hutchinson is agreeing, by his signature, that this correction is what he meant.

Ben
09-05-2016, 07:47 AM
Assuming Hutchinson was not aware of the name of the pub on that corner it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Badham shouted out to another officer if he knew the name of the pub on that corner.

I'm afraid this is yet another example of your crusade to ensure that everyone else must have been mistaken or incompetent for Hutchinson to be revived as star witness, and as with all previous examples, it isn't working. If Hutchinson didn't mention a pub, it was not the responsibility of Badham to "shout out to another officer" to discover its identity. That is the look-out of the investigating officer. If Hutchinson had simply mentioned a "public house", that phrase would have appeared in the statement.

The interviewing officer is trying to make the statement as accurate as possible.

No.

The interviewing officer simply extracts the information and records it. It was Abberline's job to assess its "accuracy". It would have been the absolute height of negligent bumbling incompetence for Badham to have "helped" Hutchinson by supplying him with information on the assumption that he "must have" meant a certain location. If Hutchinson did not provide a pub name, that in itself was important information to provide Abberline with; why, for instance, was he familiar with all the street names (and Kelly, for three years), but not the pubs? If the investigating officer had already tainted the information by helpfully filling in the blanks, Abberline's impression is skewed.

The error was most assuredly Hutchinson's - innocent or otherwise is your choice, but the idea that Badham was responsible for it bears no scrutiny at all.

Now, I'm not interested in hearing from you any further on the subject, Jon. If you think I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill, I suggest you stop piling on the soil. It was all discussed yonks ago here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=296728&highlight=Bells#post296728

Wickerman
09-05-2016, 07:56 AM
Ten Bell actually.

The correction was not in Badham or Hutchinson's handwriting and a different pen was used.

Agreed, the writing was not Badham's, but we only have Hutchinson's signature to use and a signature does not substitute for a sample of handwriting. However, Hutchinson would not be permitted to make changes himself.

I have some examples of Abberline's handwriting and I do not see a sufficient difference to rule him out as the one who made the correction.

Fisherman
09-05-2016, 08:24 AM
About the pub name and the street names - what point is actually being made? Can anybody help out? If Hutchinson was uncertain about the name of the pub where he stood, what does that supposedly imply?

Wickerman
09-05-2016, 09:24 AM
You'd have to step back to page 8 Christer, to see where the "pub name" issue was raised, the point in raising this is not made too clear.

Fisherman
09-05-2016, 09:32 AM
You'd have to step back to page 8 Christer, to see where the "pub name" issue was raised, the point in raising this is not made too clear.

Iīll say! Which is why I was wondering about it.

David Orsam
09-05-2016, 10:13 AM
Ever hear of The Cleveland Street Scandal!

Same officials minus Warren who resigned in 1888.

If it is being suggested here that Scotland Yard under Monro as Commissioner was involved in some form of illegal conspiracy in respect of the Cleveland Street Scandal, this is quite wrong.

Fleetwood Mac
09-05-2016, 12:50 PM
Hutchinson's view was considerably more than a passing glance, the encounter appears to have lasted approx. 15 minutes, and please share with us the source which indicates what Hutchinson's "life work" was. The ability to pay attention to detail is a perfectly normal human trait not exclusive to any profession or the result of specific training.

I would absolutely agree with you, Wickerman, in the sense that it is not implausible that someone could remember such details.

All it takes is for the reader to reflect on the way they are and what they remember.

It depends upon the people involved.

Sometimes I couldn't tell you what someone was wearing an hour after talking with them; other times I could tell you what someone was wearing two weeks ago and describe it accurately. Because something about that person, but not the other person, caused me to take notice of him/her.

My personal opinion is that Hutchinson was in it for the money, and wasn't there at all; but I certainly wouldn't rule out that he could have seen that person and remembered such detail.

Some people have an eye for detail and others don't. And, if you have an eye for detail and someone catches your attention you can remember a lot.

DJA
09-05-2016, 04:32 PM
If it is being suggested here that Scotland Yard under Monro as Commissioner was involved in some form of illegal conspiracy in respect of the Cleveland Street Scandal, this is quite wrong.

Monro was in favor of prosecuting Somerset.

DJA
09-05-2016, 04:51 PM
You'd have to step back to page 8 Christer, to see where the "pub name" issue was raised, the point in raising this is not made too clear.

Because I had already raised the issue previously,as mentioned on page 8.

Hutchinson can notice all those details,yet not know the name of the pub near his lodgings.

Have a good look at the statement.

Hutchinson had to stop and look back from whence he came to see Kelly and A man meet.

I have never seen a legitimate Police statement altered without the alteration being signed. Never!

Wickerman
09-05-2016, 05:42 PM
Because I had already raised the issue previously,as mentioned on page 8.

Hutchinson can notice all those details,yet not know the name of the pub near his lodgings.

I don't see the parallel, the name of the pub above his head and behind him is not his concern when glaring into the face of the intruder who just snatched this woman out of his arms, so to speak.



I have never seen a legitimate Police statement altered without the alteration being signed. Never!

Then you have not studied the witness statements from the Kelly Inquest. Some strike-outs are signed while others are not.
Relatively speaking this was the early days of police work we shouldn't expect those officers to have known what it has taken generations of policemen today to learn.

Wickerman
09-05-2016, 08:12 PM
Police statements taken by Abberline which contain unsigned strike-outs are given by: Barnett, McCarthy, Maxwell, S. Lewis, and Vanturney.

It really is not unusual and Abberline's writing is not too dissimilar to that correction made in Hutchinson's statement.

harry
09-05-2016, 09:16 PM
Hutchinson attended the police station with an already prepared statement,that appears obvious.A statement that he had much time to consider.That he should fail to identify the public house correctly,a significant detail,seems a bit remiss.He resided a short distance away,but it is the only occasion he has to make a close inspection of the man's facial features.Now if the lamp had not been lit that morning,would anyone at the station be aware of that fact. A small lie inserted among several others.
I would expect Badham to have given Hutchinson a chance to read the statement before signing,and if Hutchinson found the wrong name,then Hutchinson had an opportunity to correct it.

DJA
09-05-2016, 10:37 PM
Then you have not studied the witness statements from the Kelly Inquest. Some strike-outs are signed while others are not.


Wasn't aware they are in the public domain.

Fisherman
09-05-2016, 10:49 PM
DJA: Because I had already raised the issue previously,as mentioned on page 8.

Hutchinson can notice all those details,yet not know the name of the pub near his lodgings.

I have two problems with this, DJA. The first one is that it has not been established where Hutchinsons lodgings were situated. In the press interview, seemingly conducted at the Victoria Home, he says: "I told one of the lodgers here about it yesterday, and he advised me to go to the police station, which I did last night". "Here" in this context, seems to be the Victoria Home. But he later in the interview states: "After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed." It therefore appears that the Victoria Home was not his regular haunt.

Any which way, Hutchinson names a number of the streets in the Millers Court area, so he seems to be familiar enough with it. I would still say that we cannot possibly know with what degree of ease he produced the street names - he may have wavered, and been helped by Badham. Such a thing cannot be established by looking at the final statement only. If, for example, Hutchinson said "It was that street where the grocery shop with the green windows are, whatīs it called..?", whereupon Badham could have said "That would be X Street", and Hutchinson could have said "Ah, yes - X Street it is!". I donīt think that the initial uncertainty in such a case would be taken down into the statement.

As for the alteration of the pub name, I find it totally understandable if you mix up the names of two pubs in an area you are perhaps not living in yourself. To me, that is uncontroversial, and I am not sure what sinister implications it could possibly hold. Are you thinking that the story was a total fabrication, is that it?

Have a good look at the statement.

Hutchinson had to stop and look back from whence he came to see Kelly and A man meet.

Yes? Meaning?

DJA
09-05-2016, 10:52 PM
Hutchinson attended the police station with an already prepared statement,that appears obvious.A statement that he had much time to consider.That he should fail to identify the public house correctly,a significant detail,seems a bit remiss.He resided a short distance away,but it is the only occasion he has to make a close inspection of the man's facial features.Now if the lamp had not been lit that morning,would anyone at the station be aware of that fact. A small lie inserted among several others.
I would expect Badham to have given Hutchinson a chance to read the statement before signing,and if Hutchinson found the wrong name,then Hutchinson had an opportunity to correct it.

Agree,however Queens Head was not in Hutchinson's handwriting.

Certainly not in Abberline's either.

Neither does an H like that.

Abberline's "een"s as in "Queens and seen" is similar but somewhat different.
Doubt he would write an H like that either.

DJA
09-05-2016, 11:03 PM
[B][B]I have two problems with this, DJA. The first one is that it has not been established where Hutchinsons lodgings were situated. In the press interview, seemingly conducted at the Victoria Home, he says: "I told one of the lodgers here about it yesterday, and he advised me to go to the police station, which I did last night". "Here" in this context, seems to be the Victoria Home. But he later in the interview states: "After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed." It therefore appears that the Victoria Home was not his regular haunt.


That fact the he stood across Dorset Street outside the Commercial Street Chambers owned by George Wilmott of Romford to view Millers Court, Mary Kelly and A Man ring any bells!

Fisherman
09-05-2016, 11:10 PM
That fact the he stood across Dorset Street outside the Commercial Street Chambers owned by George Wilmott of Romford to view Millers Court, Mary Kelly and A Man ring any bells!

He actually never once said that he stood across Dorset Street - he said he stood at the corner of the court. I suppose the bells I am supposed to hear would go "If you have walked from Romford to the East End, you will probably live in a lodging house owned by a Romford man", but I really donīt think that is any certainty at all. Hutchinson would have been doing all sorts of casual work wherever it surfaced. His words "Thursday last I had been to Romford" does not tell me that Romford was his regular working place. If it was, he would arguably not live in the East End.
So no, the bells you are hearing are not loud and clear to my ears.

DJA
09-05-2016, 11:48 PM
OK. So it's George Hutchinson of The Victoria Home Commercial Street as per the Police Statement.

Sarah Lewis failed to notice him at Millers Court,yet saw someone else across the street.

Brilliant :)

Fisherman
09-06-2016, 12:31 AM
OK. So it's George Hutchinson of The Victoria Home Commercial Street as per the Police Statement.

Sarah Lewis failed to notice him at Millers Court,yet saw someone else across the street.

Brilliant :)

If i didnīt have eternal hopes for the flexibility of the human mind, Iīd say that you seem pretty stuck in your thinking. ;)

Hutchinson stayed at the Victoria Home when he was interviewed. That is mirrored in the statement. He was a transient figure, which can be seen by how he speaks of the place where he "normally" stays. Apparently, there are other places where he stayed when he was not in his "normal" haunt. That fits his occupation as a casual labourer like a glove.

Look at the main issue in this way:
The police secured Sarah Lewisī statement before the inquest. It changed somewhat between the initial statement and the inquest statement, but the overall impression was a clear one - Lewis had walked into Millers Court on the murder night, and as she did so, there was a man standing outside the lodging house across the street from the entrance to the court.

This knowledge was in in the public domain, and the police was quite familiar with it.

Then along ame George Hutchinson. He gave a statement that was initially considered to be true by Frederick Abberline, and that statement involved how Hutchinson monitored the entrance to Millers Court for 45 minutes, involving the moment in time (around 2.30) when Sarah Lewis entered the court.

The implications are clear - if Hutchinson did what he said he did, then he would have been in place outside the court as Lewis passed into it. Ergo, the logical conclusion must be that Hutchinson was the man Lewis saw.

So which are the problems? Well, they are numerous. Letīs look at a few of them:

Hutchinson said that he stood at the corner of the court, and not where Lewis said she saw her man: on the opposite side of the street, outside the lodging house. This of course can be overcome - Hutchinson may have moved about. But there is also the possibility that he did NOT move about, and that affects the errand very much, as you will see.

Abberline believed Hutchinsons story from the outset. He was aware, of course, that a crucial witness had placed a man outside Millers Court at 2.30, and so that may have helped Abberline to overcome any doubts he may (or may not) have had about the veracity of the groom. Hutchinson fit in.

So why then does Abberline loose faith in the grooms story? Well, reasonably because something surfaced that disproved that Hutchinson was the man Lewis saw. For example, Hutchinson could have stated that he was never across the street. That would have been game over for the credence Abberline afforded the story - in such a case, there would have been TWO men outside the court, and Lewis would have missed the one standing right outside the entrance!

At any rate, Hutchinson lays down that he saw only two people during his vigil: a PC in the distance and a lodger outside the lodging house opposite Millers Court (note that it sounds as if he observes the lodger from a vantage point that is not the doorway of the lodging house). When we ask ourselves why Abberline lost faith in the story of the groom, this would have served as the litmus paper. Was he the man Lewis saw or was he not? If he was, he should confirm Lewisīobservation by acknowledging her passing into the court, but he does not. He says not a word about her, but instead states as a fact that the only people he saw were a PC and a lodger.

Apparently, Hutchinson was not the man Lewis saw, therefore. And Walter Dew offers an explanation: Hutchinson mistook the day.
There were other people than Lewis around on the murder night. Hutchinson failed to mention them too, and so the suggestion that he was not there becomes solidified.

With a closed mindset, you say: "Sarah Lewis failed to notice him at Millers Court,yet saw someone else across the street. Brilliant!"
Of course, you are being sarcastic, saying that Lewis could not have seen any other man than Hutchinson. And as long as we accept that he was there between 2 and 2.45 AM on the murder night, you have a great point.
But once we realize that the signs point away from him having been there, since he paints a picture of another clientele in the street than the one we are aware of, we are faced with another question: If Hutchinson was NOT there, could it be that there was a man standing outside the lodging house at 2.30 on the murder night, or is that plain impossible?

DJA
09-06-2016, 12:58 AM
Quite happy with Hutchinson being there as a lookout and telling lies.
Doubt the whole A Man tale,including the meeting in Commercial Street.

Do you have a national game where the goal posts are moved around the ball :)

They played one of those Lechmere TV shows the other month.
Can I have that hour of my life back :)

Fisherman
09-06-2016, 01:05 AM
DJA: Quite happy with Hutchinson being there as a lookout and telling lies.

Well, we are all entitled to our own takes on things, and if you have chosen to believe in this, then that is your prerogative. If you do not want to touch any of the other possible scenarios with a long stick, held with a pair of pliers, be my guest.

Doubt the whole A Man tale,including the meeting in Commercial Street.

Once again, feel free!

Do you have a national game where the goal posts are moved around the ball :)

No. Do you have one where you take away the goal posts?

They played one of those Lechmere TV shows the other month.
Can I have that hour of my life back :)

I didnīt realize that we were discussing the real killer, I thought that we were discussing Hutchinson.

GUT
09-06-2016, 01:11 AM
DJA: Quite happy with Hutchinson being there as a lookout and telling lies.

Well, we are all entitled to our own takes on things, and if you have chosen to believe in this, then that is your prerogative. If you do not want to touch any of the other possible scenarios with a long stick, held with a pair of pliers, be my guest.

Doubt the whole A Man tale,including the meeting in Commercial Street.

Once again, feel free!

Do you have a national game where the goal posts are moved around the ball :)

No. Do you have one where you take away the goal posts?

They played one of those Lechmere TV shows the other month.
Can I have that hour of my life back :)

I didnīt realize that we were discussing the real killer, I thought that we were discussing Hutchinson.

Been elevated to the real killer now has he.

Fisherman
09-06-2016, 02:04 AM
Been elevated to the real killer now has he.

Yes, absolutely - did you spit coffee all over your computer again? It must be getting heavily stained!

I think we both know where I stand; Charles Lechmere is by far the best suspect, and I consider him the probable killer. I also consider it to be beyond reasonable doubt that the Ripper and the torso killer were one and the same, meaning that I consider the carman the probable killer of at least around a dozen women.

But that is so tedious to repeat in a discussion like this, which is why I put my tongue in my cheek and pull a leg or two at times. It involves the risk of getting called a liar, but then again, that has happened so frequently that I donīt really care nowadays. I know that people will pounce on every little thing that is offered, and who am I to deny them that exercise?

But now we are once more delving into Lechmere territory, and this is supposedly a Hutchinson thread.

Wickerman
09-06-2016, 05:54 AM
Wasn't aware they are in the public domain.

If you cannot obtain a copy of the originals from London you can look up a used copy of this publication. Smithkey published the original handwritten witness statements and inquest transcript from the Kelly murder.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0966241916/ref=nosim?tag=casebookjackth01&linkCode=sb1&camp=212353&creative=380549

Wickerman
09-06-2016, 06:16 AM
Hi Christer..

At any rate, Hutchinson lays down that he saw only two people during his vigil:.......... Was he the man Lewis saw or was he not? If he was, he should confirm Lewisīobservation by acknowledging her passing into the court, but he does not. He says not a word about her, but instead states as a fact that the only people he saw were a PC and a lodger.

In the years before women got the vote they were much like background noise in Victorian society. Not always seen, barely acknowledged or recognised. As you know this was a distinctly male dominated society.

Seeing "no-one about" can generally be taken to mean no other men, or no other men acting suspicious.
Women came and went as part of the fabric of society, housewives, homeless, unfortunates, midwives, servants, cleaners, all shuffling around the streets at all hours of day and night, barely acknowledged by men.

The press have provided more complete coverage of the Kelly inquest where they reported Lewis did see the man loitering in Dorset St. but also at the same time a couple, where the female was hatless, the worse for drink, and that the couple did walk up the passage.
Bowyer also recalls a stranger in the court about 3:00 am that morning, and Mrs McCarthy remembered a customer remarking that a funny-looking man was in the court early that morning. The shop was open until 3:00am, and sometime till a little later.

So these observations do support the claim by Hutchinson, they certainly do not contradict his story.

DJA
09-06-2016, 06:59 AM
Thanks for that.
Much appreciated.

If you cannot obtain a copy of the originals from London you can look up a used copy of this publication. Smithkey published the original handwritten witness statements and inquest transcript from the Kelly murder.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0966241916/ref=nosim?tag=casebookjackth01&linkCode=sb1&camp=212353&creative=380549

DJA
09-06-2016, 07:30 AM
DJA:
[/B] Do you have a national game where the goal posts are moved around the ball :)

No. Do you have one where you take away the goal posts?



One Mighty Hawks player once snapped one in half.
Well....actually it was a point post.
Now they have padding :)

Fisherman
09-06-2016, 09:29 AM
Hi Christer..


In the years before women got the vote they were much like background noise in Victorian society. Not always seen, barely acknowledged or recognised. As you know this was a distinctly male dominated society.

Seeing "no-one about" can generally be taken to mean no other men, or no other men acting suspicious.
Women came and went as part of the fabric of society, housewives, homeless, unfortunates, midwives, servants, cleaners, all shuffling around the streets at all hours of day and night, barely acknowledged by men.

The press have provided more complete coverage of the Kelly inquest where they reported Lewis did see the man loitering in Dorset St. but also at the same time a couple, where the female was hatless, the worse for drink, and that the couple did walk up the passage.
Bowyer also recalls a stranger in the court about 3:00 am that morning, and Mrs McCarthy remembered a customer remarking that a funny-looking man was in the court early that morning. The shop was open until 3:00am, and sometime till a little later.

So these observations do support the claim by Hutchinson, they certainly do not contradict his story.

I must beg to disagree, Jon. I donīt think that women were left out of witness statements at all, as if they were not worthy of mentioning. I appreciate that these were other times, but not THAT different.
Of course, you also mention a couple who you believe walked up the court at the same time as Lewis arrived. And that couple would involve a man, so Hutchinson should have mentioned him at the very least. And to speculate that a man who was passed by both a couple and then a woman (quite the rush hour!), would afterwards actively deny their existence by specifically saying that a PC and a lodger were the only people he saw, does not ring trustworthy to me. Sorry, Jon, but there you are.

Fisherman
09-06-2016, 09:30 AM
One Mighty Hawks player once snapped one in half.
Well....actually it was a point post.
Now they have padding :)

"Snapped one in half"?

Okay, maybe that explains things. :)

PS. Mighty Hawks..? Whatīs that? Aussie football?

Wickerman
09-06-2016, 11:41 AM
......

Of course, you also mention a couple who you believe walked up the court at the same time as Lewis arrived. And that couple would involve a man, so Hutchinson should have mentioned him at the very least. And to speculate that a man who was passed by both a couple and then a woman (quite the rush hour!), would afterwards actively deny their existence by specifically saying that a PC and a lodger were the only people he saw, does not ring trustworthy to me. Sorry, Jon, but there you are.

Ok Christer, you lost me there.

Hutchinson said a man & woman (Astrachan & Kelly) walked up the court, this is what Lewis said - a couple walked up the court, the woman was hatless & the worse for drink, so was Mary Kelly.

Fisherman
09-06-2016, 12:37 PM
Ok Christer, you lost me there.

Hutchinson said a man & woman (Astrachan & Kelly) walked up the court, this is what Lewis said - a couple walked up the court, the woman was hatless & the worse for drink, so was Mary Kelly.

But Hutchinson arrived at Millers Court at arund 2 AM or shortly thereafter, and Lewis got there half an hour later. It seems to me they cannot be speaking of the same couple.

Hutchinson fixes the time by two separate matters:
I am able to fix the time, as it was between ten and five minutes to two o'clock as I came by Whitechapel Church. When I left the corner of Miller's court the clock struck three o'clock.

Lewis leaves little doubt too:
I was at her house at half past 2 on Friday ... I know the time by having looked at Spitalfields Church clock as I passed it.

Could more than one woman be without headgear? Yes. Could more than one woman be drunk? Yes. And it seems that is what we are dealing with.

Wickerman
09-06-2016, 01:25 PM
Christer, if Hutchinson's story occupies an hour and ten minutes, and halfway through that time Lewis walks through the scene, by what measure can we assume Lewis didn't see Hutchinson?
I guess I don't see how it could be argued that they missed each other.

By her own admission, she was at Millers court by 2:30, and Hutchinson claims to have been at Millers court from 2:15-3:00, roughly, then how could Lewis miss Hutchinson?

Fisherman
09-06-2016, 01:37 PM
Christer, if Hutchinson's story occupies an hour and ten minutes, and halfway through that time Lewis walks through the scene, by what measure can we assume Lewis didn't see Hutchinson?
I guess I don't see how it could be argued that they missed each other.

By her own admission, she was at Millers court by 2:30, and Hutchinson claims to have been at Millers court from 2:15-3:00, roughly, then how could Lewis miss Hutchinson?

Realistically, he could not. Ergo, he was not there on the night, he was there the night before, as indicated by Dew.

It explains why he did not see Lewis.
It explains why Astrakhan and Kelly stopped outside the court to chat - the weather was quite nice the night before.
It explains why Hutchisons story was dicredited, while he was still thought of as an honest man on whom Dew would not reflect.
It explains why Hutchinson walked the streets after having left Dorset Street - he would not have done that in the gruesome Friday night weather.
It explains why the PC on the Dorset Street beat did not see Hutchinson as he passed.
It explains why Abberline did not cement the meeting of Lewis and Hutchinson as proof that the grooms story was true - since the two never met.
It explains why no policeman makes the connection.
It explains every little thing attaching to the perceived Hutchinson enigma.

It is by far the best solution.

Wickerman
09-06-2016, 03:15 PM
Realistically, he could not. Ergo, he was not there on the night, he was there the night before, as indicated by Dew.


It explains why Astrakhan and Kelly stopped outside the court to chat - the weather was quite nice the night before.

Let me quote you the weather forecast for Nov. 8th and 9th from both the London Evening Standard & Daily News - it's the same as indeed it should be, there was only one source, the meteorological office.

England South, London & Channel - Easterly winds, strong to a gale, squally, dry.
Temp. 40 deg at York and in London. It has fallen considerably at our south-eastern and continental stations generally.

The London Evening Standard published a weekly weather chart on Wednesdays and temps. were taken daily at 7:00 (looks like pm, but could be am, but it was the same time every day).
At 7:00 on the 8th the winds were from the S/E, Max temp 44, min 37, rainfall 0.
At 7:00 on the 9th the winds were from the E, Max temp 46, min 39, rainfall 0.17.

So it appears to have been warmer on the 9th in London than it was on the 8th, the only difference being a bit of rain.

It doesn't look to me like the weather can be used in the argument, and I suspect a few other points don't quite measure up either.

Wickerman
09-06-2016, 03:33 PM
It explains why he did not see Lewis.

As I offered previously, I do not believe the omission of Lewis in his statement is to be taken to mean he did not see a woman pass by.


It explains why Hutchisons story was dicredited, while he was still thought of as an honest man on whom Dew would not reflect.

My offer is still open to everyone, show me the evidence that he was discredited, something more than tabloid speculations, and I will readily accept it.
As it stands the earlier time of death offered by Dr. Bond remains thee most likely reason for the press speculation of Hutchinson's "reduced importance".

It explains why Hutchinson walked the streets after having left Dorset Street - he would not have done that in the gruesome Friday night weather.

The homeless walked the street in all weathers, in some cases the phrase is just a euphemism for being out at night, even for those who slept in doorways or under stairs.

It explains why the PC on the Dorset Street beat did not see Hutchinson as he passed.

Where do we find this opinion?

It explains why Abberline did not cement the meeting of Lewis and Hutchinson as proof that the grooms story was true - since the two never met.

How do you know this is not the reason why Abberline did choose to believe Hutchinson?
It strikes me Lewis's story is thee most likely reason for Abberline's belief, whether there was more to his belief will remain unknown.

It explains why no policeman makes the connection.
It explains every little thing attaching to the perceived Hutchinson enigma.

It is by far the best solution.

I'm not sure which policemen you are referring to, do you mean later 'Memoirs'?

harry
09-06-2016, 07:09 PM
Hutchinson does not have to mention Lewis to prove he was outside of Crossingham's.By the time he(Hutchinson) appeared at the police station,Lewis had already placed a male person there,and Hutchinson's self admission that he was that person(2-3 time frame statement),was enough.

Varqm
09-07-2016, 01:58 AM
To me Lewis was more credible than Hutchinson.
I am assuming the police would have shown Hutchinson, maybe from afar,to Sarah Lewis and ask if that man resembles the man she saw in any way shape or form.

I am assuming the police/reporters would ask around if Hutchinson knew Kelly.
Why is there not any tidbit from anywhere that Hutchinson was seen with or knew Kelly from Kelly's friends/acquaintances or neighbors, pubs, etc.
I am assuming they could just have photographed him and showed it around?

I mean how would they have determined if Hutchinson was lying or not or did they even bother?

Fisherman
09-07-2016, 09:39 AM
Let me quote you the weather forecast for Nov. 8th and 9th from both the London Evening Standard & Daily News - it's the same as indeed it should be, there was only one source, the meteorological office.

England South, London & Channel - Easterly winds, strong to a gale, squally, dry.
Temp. 40 deg at York and in London. It has fallen considerably at our south-eastern and continental stations generally.

The London Evening Standard published a weekly weather chart on Wednesdays and temps. were taken daily at 7:00 (looks like pm, but could be am, but it was the same time every day).
At 7:00 on the 8th the winds were from the S/E, Max temp 44, min 37, rainfall 0.
At 7:00 on the 9th the winds were from the E, Max temp 46, min 39, rainfall 0.17.

So it appears to have been warmer on the 9th in London than it was on the 8th, the only difference being a bit of rain.

It doesn't look to me like the weather can be used in the argument, and I suspect a few other points don't quite measure up either.

When I wrote my piece for Casebook Examiner on Hutchinson, I spoke to an archivist at the British institute for meteorology (or whatever it is called). He went into great detail, looking at different citites and even at parts of London. He told me that the night before the murder night was a very much nicer night, a night when people would certainly appreciate walking the streets.

I had a computer crash half a year ago, and all that material was lost. So I can only say that I researched the matter thoroughly. And you will have to take my word for it - or not.

Fisherman
09-07-2016, 09:54 AM
I will take your points one by one, Jon:

As I offered previously, I do not believe the omission of Lewis in his statement is to be taken to mean he did not see a woman pass by.

This was a major murder inquiry with a very high profile. Hutchinson would have been asked about people of BOTH genders, and he would have been obliged to answer accordingly. I donīt think Abberline would settle for less.
To draw the errand to itīs extreme end: What if there was a suffragette demonstration, with 3000 women walking down Dorset Street - would Hutchinson say that there was nobody there...?
I am not going to take the trouble to look for other cases, where men said that they had seen women. It can easily be argued that perhaps Hutchinson would be stubborn in this matter, and so I will refrain from any such effort.



My offer is still open to everyone, show me the evidence that he was discredited, something more than tabloid speculations, and I will readily accept it.
As it stands the earlier time of death offered by Dr. Bond remains thee most likely reason for the press speculation of Hutchinson's "reduced importance".

Ah - nota bene that I am not saying that Hutchinson was discredited - I donīt think he ever was. It was his story that suffered the fate to become of lesser interest. And I think we have corroboration for this, in how Dew says that Hutchonson was wrong, and how Reg Hutchinson says that his father said that it saddened him that nothing ever came of his testimony.

The homeless walked the street in all weathers, in some cases the phrase is just a euphemism for being out at night, even for those who slept in doorways or under stairs.

I find it a bit convenient to pronounce it a euphemism - but I cannot rule out that this may have been so to a smaller or lesser degree. But when somebody says "I walked the streets", I think that what it primarily suggests is that the streets were walked.

Where do we find this opinion?

There was a PC interviewed, who had Dorset Street on his beat and who - if I remember correctly - stated that he had seen noone in the street as he passed.

How do you know this is not the reason why Abberline did choose to believe Hutchinson?
It strikes me Lewis's story is thee most likely reason for Abberline's belief, whether there was more to his belief will remain unknown.

I agree - and I said so earlier, I believe. But I think that if Abberline accepted that Hutchinson was the loiterer, then he would be inclined to go along with the rest of the story too. But he only did so initially, after which the story suffered a lessened credence.
The important part to remember is that it did NOT vanish totally from the radar - some little interest remained, which is entirely consistent with the police having come to the conclusion that Hutchinson was out on the dates; they would nevertheless want to speak to Astrakhan man, to hear what Kelly and he had spoken about on the evening before the murder: Had she feared somebody, had she seemed nervous, had anybody knocked on the door as the two were in the room, such matters.


I'm not sure which policemen you are referring to, do you mean later 'Memoirs'?

Indeed I do, Jon! If the police had accepted that the man outside Millers Court had been identical with Hutchinson, I would have expected this to go into at least some of the memoir books.

MysterySinger
09-07-2016, 11:58 AM
Supposition, of course, but what if Astrakhan Man did exist and came forward to the Police?

Maybe a well to do gent who stated that he was the man seen by Hutch but it was established that he left MJK alone by a certain time - long before the Police believe she met her end.

The Police would, presumably, be under no obligation to publish either this fact or the man's name. In these circumstances, though, Hutchinson's evidence would prove both correct and assume less importance at the same time.

Another possibility perhaps.

Fisherman
09-07-2016, 12:31 PM
Supposition, of course, but what if Astrakhan Man did exist and came forward to the Police?

Maybe a well to do gent who stated that he was the man seen by Hutch but it was established that he left MJK alone by a certain time - long before the Police believe she met her end.

The Police would, presumably, be under no obligation to publish either this fact or the man's name. In these circumstances, though, Hutchinson's evidence would prove both correct and assume less importance at the same time.

Another possibility perhaps.

Well, it makes for the same kind of scenario I am proposing, with Hutchinson remaining an honest witness who tried his best, but got it wrong. But if this happened, Dew would not be left to guessing...

Wickerman
09-07-2016, 01:36 PM
Supposition, of course, but what if Astrakhan Man did exist and came forward to the Police?

If something of that nature did occur then it must have happened before Nov. 15th, the date of the press conjecture that Hutchinson was discredited. Yet, the press were still under the impression that Astrachan was a suspect four days later on the 19th, and Abberline as far out as Dec. 6th retained the belief that Astrachan was responsible, having just arrested Josef Isaacs whom he believed was the long sought missing lodger being sought in the hours after the Kelly murder.

So, on balance, your suggestion seems unlikely.

GUT
09-07-2016, 02:24 PM
If something of that nature did occur then it must have happened before Nov. 15th, the date of the press conjecture that Hutchinson was discredited. Yet, the press were still under the impression that Astrachan was a suspect four days later on the 19th, and Abberline as far out as Dec. 6th retained the belief that Astrachan was responsible, having just arrested Josef Isaacs whom he believed was the long sought missing lodger being sought in the hours after the Kelly murder.

So, on balance, your suggestion seems unlikely.

But why would they still be looking for A man, if Hutch wasn't believed?

Wickerman
09-07-2016, 02:46 PM
I will take your points one by one, Jon:

This was a major murder inquiry with a very high profile. Hutchinson would have been asked about people of BOTH genders, and he would have been obliged to answer accordingly. I donīt think Abberline would settle for less.

Neither do I, but we do not have Abberline's interrogation. We only have the voluntary statement taken by Badham, and it was not his place to interrogate a witness who has volunteered a statement to police.
That being the case we cannot know what Hutchinson told Abberline, when he eventually showed up, than was captured in the initial statement.


There was a PC interviewed, who had Dorset Street on his beat and who - if I remember correctly - stated that he had seen noone in the street as he passed.


I do have that PC's name somewhere, but I don't recall a statement from him.
His picture is drawn in the I.P.N. of Nov. 24th, and attached to his pic. are the words, "I was on duty all night and never heard a sound", which isn't quite the same thing. He could still have seen men & women going about their business, people not acting suspicious.


I agree - and I said so earlier, I believe. But I think that if Abberline accepted that Hutchinson was the loiterer, then he would be inclined to go along with the rest of the story too. But he only did so initially, after which the story suffered a lessened credence.

Ok, so it is just the reason for the eventual lack of interest (reduced importance), that we disagree on.


The important part to remember is that it did NOT vanish totally from the radar - some little interest remained, which is entirely consistent with the police having come to the conclusion that Hutchinson was out on the dates;

Ironically, if Isaacs was Astrachan, then clearly Hutchinson WAS out on his dates. Isaacs was behind bars over night of the 8th-9th Nov.

Also, IF Isaacs was Astrachan, then this would be the first confirmation that Hutchinson actually made an erroneous claim, either intentional or not.
The catch-22 though is, that some will indeed have to concede that Isaacs must have been Astrachan in the first place. Only then can it be claimed as the first true confirmation of a lie by Hutchinson, or was it an honest mistake?
An amusing set of circumstances.

The fact that we have reports of a man seen in, or entering the court with a female, by three separate witnesses on the same night tends to be consistent with that part of Hutchinson's statement.
Which means to me that he had the night correct, which then begs the question, why give a description to police that so closely resembles a man who did live on the street, and but for pure happenstance, could have been implicated in the crime?


Indeed I do, Jon! If the police had accepted that the man outside Millers Court had been identical with Hutchinson, I would have expected this to go into at least some of the memoir books.

It's a shame that Abberline has not left any worthy recollections of this case.

Wickerman
09-07-2016, 02:54 PM
But why would they still be looking for A man, if Hutch wasn't believed?

What I was meaning is, that if Astrachan had come forward before the 15th and shown, by some means to be innocent, then the police will loose interest in him as a witness, and the press may reasonably conclude something was wrong.
However, police & press interest in the pursuing of Astrachan as a suspect is evident long after the 15th Nov.
So he couldn't have come forward.

GUT
09-07-2016, 02:55 PM
What I was meaning is, that if Astrachan had come forward before the 15th and shown, by some means to be innocent, then the police will loose interest in him as a witness, and the press may reasonably conclude something was wrong.
However, police & press interest in the pursuing of Astrachan as a suspect is evident long after the 15th Nov.
So he couldn't have come forward.

Thanks Jon, follow you now.

harry
09-07-2016, 07:12 PM
If Hutchinson had come forward 50 years later,when Dew made his observation,then a wrong day might be acceptable.
When he came forward on the Monday,the third day after the killing,it would have been clear to him that Kelly had been dead since Friday, Thursday was the day he had gone to Romford,and it was on his return from Romford that he had last seen Kelly.The only reasonable cause for a mix up of dates then,was if Hutchinson forgot entirely what he did on Thursday,and substituted events of Wednesday with that day.Credible?,not likely.Was Lewis also mistaken or lying. Doesn't seem Badham or Aberline were misled,and they too were not remembering 50 years later.

Fisherman
09-08-2016, 12:51 AM
But why would they still be looking for A man, if Hutch wasn't believed?

Once again, we must be careful with the distinctions here. Hutchinson and the story he told should be regarded as separate elements. It does not follow, if the police took a lessened interest in Hutchinsons story, that the police did not consider Hutchinson an honest and credible source.

If, as I suggest (and as Dew also suggests), Hutchinson got the days mixed up, then the police would have every reason to be interested in A man, but NOT as a potential suspect or a witness belonging to the murder night. They would have good reasons to look for him, in order to secure what Kelly said and did on the night before her murder.

Fisherman
09-08-2016, 01:03 AM
Wickerman: Neither do I, but we do not have Abberline's interrogation. We only have the voluntary statement taken by Badham, and it was not his place to interrogate a witness who has volunteered a statement to police.
That being the case we cannot know what Hutchinson told Abberline, when he eventually showed up, than was captured in the initial statement.

I think Badham would be every bit as interested to get the full guest list, Jon. And I think he got it. We will just have to disagree here.


I do have that PC's name somewhere, but I don't recall a statement from him.
His picture is drawn in the I.P.N. of Nov. 24th, and attached to his pic. are the words, "I was on duty all night and never heard a sound", which isn't quite the same thing. He could still have seen men & women going about their business, people not acting suspicious.

Ah, yes, thatīs him. Well, if that was all it amounted to, I agree - it is not the same thing. He would nevertheless have given his view on the clientele of the street on the night in question, and so he may have played a role in the diminshed interest in Hutchinsons story, I guess.

Ok, so it is just the reason for the eventual lack of interest (reduced importance), that we disagree on.

I would not say that we disagree, only that we have different suggestions for it. Either one of us may be right.

Ironically, if Isaacs was Astrachan, then clearly Hutchinson WAS out on his dates. Isaacs was behind bars over night of the 8th-9th Nov.

Also, IF Isaacs was Astrachan, then this would be the first confirmation that Hutchinson actually made an erroneous claim, either intentional or not.
The catch-22 though is, that some will indeed have to concede that Isaacs must have been Astrachan in the first place. Only then can it be claimed as the first true confirmation of a lie by Hutchinson, or was it an honest mistake?
An amusing set of circumstances.

It is!

The fact that we have reports of a man seen in, or entering the court with a female, by three separate witnesses on the same night tends to be consistent with that part of Hutchinson's statement.
Which means to me that he had the night correct, which then begs the question, why give a description to police that so closely resembles a man who did live on the street, and but for pure happenstance, could have been implicated in the crime?

I think more speak against his presence than for it, but thatīs just my take on things, of course. I know you have quoted your witness evidence before, but could you do it again, so I can look at it?


It's a shame that Abberline has not left any worthy recollections of this case.

You can say that again!

Fisherman
09-08-2016, 02:02 AM
If Hutchinson had come forward 50 years later,when Dew made his observation,then a wrong day might be acceptable.
When he came forward on the Monday,the third day after the killing,it would have been clear to him that Kelly had been dead since Friday, Thursday was the day he had gone to Romford,and it was on his return from Romford that he had last seen Kelly.The only reasonable cause for a mix up of dates then,was if Hutchinson forgot entirely what he did on Thursday,and substituted events of Wednesday with that day.Credible?,not likely.Was Lewis also mistaken or lying. Doesn't seem Badham or Aberline were misled,and they too were not remembering 50 years later.

So you think that people may mix up the days when trying to remember things fifty years afterwards? Wow, Harry - are you not being a bit frivolous now?

Tour argumentation is a very careless one. You say that it would have been clear to him that Kelly had been dead since Friday. I agree - it would have been totally clear to him.

You then say this means that Thursday must have been the day he spent in Romford, and that Hutchinson must have known this, since he went to Dorset Street on returning from Romford - case closed! He could not have been wrong on the dates.

You the try to seal the deal by saying that "the only reasonable cause for a mix up of dates then, was if Hutchinson forgot entirely what he did on Thursday,and substituted events of Wednesday with that day", and you decide for all of us that such a thing is not credible.

What you are faced with is the fact that we normally do not do these kinds of mistakes.

What you are further faced with is that although they are not the norm, they are nevertheless incredibly common. Maybe Hutchinson felt sure that it was on Thursday he was in Romford - but got it wrong, since it was on Wednesday.

You are also faced with the fact that people who do not have even sleeping schedules, and who move from one work and address to another, are the people who are most likely to make this exact type of mistake. In tya respect, it would be hard to find a candidate who would be more likely to err than Hutchinson on these matters.

"Now, letīs see, I remember that I worked on that farm for two days last week. And then I worked half a day for the hawker in Great Pearl Street, but was that before or after the farm job? Letīs see... Oh, I remember now - it was before, because I worked half a day for the Butcher in Aldgate, and got payed with them cutlets...but wait...I told the farmer that I had had cutlets for supper...then that must have been before the farm job...? But how does that work...?"

This is the reality for many people who work odd hours for varying employers, Harry.
If you ask them fifty years on which they the did what, you should not expect too much.

Wickerman
09-08-2016, 12:09 PM
I think Badham would be every bit as interested to get the full guest list, Jon. And I think he got it. We will just have to disagree here.


And that's ok, but we have the police statements from the Millers Court residents and they are simple, brief and not very detailed. The reason is the same, in this case Abberline himself was merely taking statements, he was in the role of interviewer, not interrogator.


Ah, yes, thatīs him. Well, if that was all it amounted to, I agree - it is not the same thing. He would nevertheless have given his view on the clientele of the street on the night in question, and so he may have played a role in the diminshed interest in Hutchinsons story, I guess.


It is only one line, presumably a reporter asked him something and this is all the press published from what he said. If the constable had seen anything suspicious we would expect him to mention it, or the press to publish that too. Though if he only saw people going about their usual business, the press would have no cause to publish something so mundane. So this single line cannot be used to suggest no-one else was on the street at the time.


..... I know you have quoted your witness evidence before, but could you do it again, so I can look at it?


Sure, extra details concerning who Sarah Lewis saw as she walked down Dorset St., from her inquest testimony is provided by the press.

- Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink. - Daily Telegraph.

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


Other paragraphs concerning a man being seen in the court around the hour of the crime do exist.

- ...Bowyer, the young man in Mr. McCarthy's employ was out at different times up Miller's-court on the Thursday night for the purpose of getting water from a tap there-the only available supply.Indeed, Bowyer vistited that spot as late-or, rather, as early-as three o'clock on the morning of the murder. This early visit to the water-tap is by no means an unfrequent thing, as Mr. Mccarthy's shop, which supplies the wants of a very poor and wretched locality, whose denziens are out at all hours, late and early, does not at times close until three o'clock in the morning,while occassionally it is open all night. Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer. Bowyer has, he says, described this man to Inspector Abberline and Inspector Reid. Bowyer, who is known as "Indian Harry" has travelled a great deal, and formerly lived in India. He said to an Echo reporter this morning. "The murderer couldn't have come to a worse place (for escaping) than this court. There is only this narrow entrance, and If I had known he was there when I went to the water tap at three o'clock, I reckon he wouldn't have got off."
[...at the time of this writing, Nov. 14th, "the murderer" was clearly a reference to Astrachan, not Blotchy nor the Packer suspect]

- Mrs McCarthy herself gives a slight clue as to a person who was seen in the court early on Friday morning, as one of her customers remarked to her – before the murder was known - “I saw such a funny man up the court this morning”. Mrs McCarthy says she has been so worried by the shocking affair that she cannot now remember the customer who thus spoke to her.


Then we have sources who claim to have seen Kelly out on the street after her liaison with Blotchy, about 1:00 am.

- Although no evidence was produced at the inquest as to her having left her room after one o'clock, at which time she was heard singing, the police have obtained statements from several persons who reside in Millers Court, that she was out of her house and in Dorset street between two and three o'clock. It appears almost certain that her life was taken about the last named hour.

Claims which appear to corroborate the story attributed to Mrs Kennedy, that she saw Kelly outside the Britannia about 3:00 am.

harry
09-08-2016, 07:14 PM
I doubt it was an every day walk to Romford and back for Hutchinson,and he is so particular as to detail,it appears amazing that he would forget which day,just three days later.He is not recallin just one incident,of standing outside Crossinghams,but a whole series of events,starting with the journey to Romford and back.WAs Thursday such a blank to him that he mistook it for Wednesday or some day previous.Or is it to be presumed that he got everything right,the journey and the day,then on returning and reaching Whitechapel,the rest became a blank,and the days jumbled in his mind?
But if not Hutchinson seen by Lewis,who else? Cross maybe?,and what of Kelly's movements that night? Who was the last person reported in her company.
Congratulations Fisherman,you have succeeded where no one has done before.
You have solved the riddle.It was the Thursday she was killed,not the Friday.We have all been Bamboozled.

Fisherman
09-08-2016, 10:15 PM
I doubt it was an every day walk to Romford and back for Hutchinson,and he is so particular as to detail,it appears amazing that he would forget which day,just three days later.He is not recallin just one incident,of standing outside Crossinghams,but a whole series of events,starting with the journey to Romford and back.WAs Thursday such a blank to him that he mistook it for Wednesday or some day previous.Or is it to be presumed that he got everything right,the journey and the day,then on returning and reaching Whitechapel,the rest became a blank,and the days jumbled in his mind?
But if not Hutchinson seen by Lewis,who else? Cross maybe?,and what of Kelly's movements that night? Who was the last person reported in her company.
Congratulations Fisherman,you have succeeded where no one has done before.
You have solved the riddle.It was the Thursday she was killed,not the Friday.We have all been Bamboozled.

What I have done, Harry, is to suggest that he could have muddled the days. I have suggested this against a backdrop of knowledge that tells us that these things frequently happen, and supported by the information that it happens more often to people who live a vagrant life, like Hutchinson did.
I can prove that this is so, there is research on it.

What you are doing is trying to deny that it could have happened to Hutchinson. I think you will find that too hard a task for you.

You can of course admit that it COULD have happened, only to then add that it would be extremely odd if it happened to Hutchinson of all people. And you are welcome to that delusion, since it is not something that overshadows the fact that these things happen. And when the facts point to it having happened here, and when we even have a policeman who served during these years, and who will have infinitely more knowledge about the details of the Hutchinson drama, and who suggested that Hutchinson WAS wrong about the time when he was there ... Well, Harry, then your take on things kind of fade away, petty sarcams and all.
I donīt know if I should congratulate you on that...?

Fisherman
09-08-2016, 10:45 PM
Wickerman: And that's ok, but we have the police statements from the Millers Court residents and they are simple, brief and not very detailed. The reason is the same, in this case Abberline himself was merely taking statements, he was in the role of interviewer, not interrogator.

I think we are veering away from the true issue here - I donīt think that anybody would leave out women from their accounts of who were present at a murder scene or close by it, as if they were non-entities. I just donīt think that is true, Jon. It seems another matter we will have to disagree on.


It is only one line, presumably a reporter asked him something and this is all the press published from what he said. If the constable had seen anything suspicious we would expect him to mention it, or the press to publish that too. Though if he only saw people going about their usual business, the press would have no cause to publish something so mundane. So this single line cannot be used to suggest no-one else was on the street at the time.

Agreed - it is too little to decide such a matter.


Sure, extra details concerning who Sarah Lewis saw as she walked down Dorset St., from her inquest testimony is provided by the press.

- Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink. - Daily Telegraph.

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


Other paragraphs concerning a man being seen in the court around the hour of the crime do exist.

- ...Bowyer, the young man in Mr. McCarthy's employ was out at different times up Miller's-court on the Thursday night for the purpose of getting water from a tap there-the only available supply.Indeed, Bowyer vistited that spot as late-or, rather, as early-as three o'clock on the morning of the murder. This early visit to the water-tap is by no means an unfrequent thing, as Mr. Mccarthy's shop, which supplies the wants of a very poor and wretched locality, whose denziens are out at all hours, late and early, does not at times close until three o'clock in the morning,while occassionally it is open all night. Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer. Bowyer has, he says, described this man to Inspector Abberline and Inspector Reid. Bowyer, who is known as "Indian Harry" has travelled a great deal, and formerly lived in India. He said to an Echo reporter this morning. "The murderer couldn't have come to a worse place (for escaping) than this court. There is only this narrow entrance, and If I had known he was there when I went to the water tap at three o'clock, I reckon he wouldn't have got off."
[...at the time of this writing, Nov. 14th, "the murderer" was clearly a reference to Astrachan, not Blotchy nor the Packer suspect]

- Mrs McCarthy herself gives a slight clue as to a person who was seen in the court early on Friday morning, as one of her customers remarked to her – before the murder was known - “I saw such a funny man up the court this morning”. Mrs McCarthy says she has been so worried by the shocking affair that she cannot now remember the customer who thus spoke to her.


Then we have sources who claim to have seen Kelly out on the street after her liaison with Blotchy, about 1:00 am.

- Although no evidence was produced at the inquest as to her having left her room after one o'clock, at which time she was heard singing, the police have obtained statements from several persons who reside in Millers Court, that she was out of her house and in Dorset street between two and three o'clock. It appears almost certain that her life was taken about the last named hour.

Claims which appear to corroborate the story attributed to Mrs Kennedy, that she saw Kelly outside the Britannia about 3:00 am.

Okay, many thanks for taking the trouble to post these snippets, Jon! :)

Now, you are working from the assumption that Hutchinson was the man outside the lodging house, and that the couple Lewis saw "passing up the court" was Astrakhan man and Kelly.

There are a number of things that do not sit well with such an interpretation.

1. Astrakhan man was described by Hutchinson as a man who seemingly was very well aware of what he did, and there is nothing at all to implicate that he was severely drunk. His way of walking, his courteous offering of his handkerchief, it all seems to describe a man who is sober. And Hutchinson says not a word about him being drunk.
About Kelly, he says that she was perhaps a bit spreeish (or was it tipsy?). At any rate, she was not badly affected by alcohol, but instead maybe just that little bit too loud and too happy.
But the man and woman Lewis describe are badly drunk.

2. Hutchinson stopped at the corner of Commercial Street/Dorset Street as Astrakhan man and Kelly walked down to the entrance to Millers Court. It was not until the couple turned into the court that Hutchinson proceeded to the corner of the court, and as he arrived there, then couple were not to be seen.
Lewis has her man standing outside the lodging house, on the opposite side of the street, as she arrived and the couple she spoke of passed up the court. That is completely wrong, therefore - Hutchinson should have stood up at the corner of Dorset Street and Commercial Street at that stage, and Lewis should have seen him hurrying down Dorset Street to the corner of the court. She should definitely NOT have him in place outside the lodging house before the couple walked up the court.

3. Lewis should have said that there was a couple standing outside Millers Court as she arrived, a couple who subsequently walked up the court as she drew closer. But she says nothing about how the couple stood outside the court before they passed into it.

Her story does not corroborate Hutchinsons ditto. They differ totally on vital points, and therefore it seems to me that she is not speaking of Astrakhan and Kelly. Nor is she speaking of Hutchinson, since she has her man on the wrong side of the street.

As for Bowyers testimony, it detracts from his credibility that he did not mention the man at the inquest. Moreover, "around three" could well mean that Hutchinson was no longer in place. And of course, Mrs McCarthys hearsay is even sketchier.

If Indian Harry was telling the truth, then maybe it was the killer he saw, even - who knows? What we DO know is that this case is filled to the brim with odd coincidences...

Wickerman
09-09-2016, 05:50 AM
Okay, many thanks for taking the trouble to post these snippets, Jon! :)
I've had practice.....
:)

Now, you are working from the assumption that Hutchinson was the man outside the lodging house, and that the couple Lewis saw "passing up the court" was Astrakhan man and Kelly.

That appears to be the case.


There are a number of things that do not sit well with such an interpretation.

1. Astrakhan man was described by Hutchinson as a man who seemingly was very well aware of what he did, and there is nothing at all to implicate that he was severely drunk..... And Hutchinson says not a word about him being drunk.

Neither does Lewis, though the Daily News version may be a touch ambiguous, the Telegraph reported, "...the latter being in drink", meaning the woman. And that agrees with Hutchinson's account.


2. Hutchinson stopped at the corner of Commercial Street/Dorset Street as Astrakhan man and Kelly walked down to the entrance to Millers Court. It was not until the couple turned into the court that Hutchinson proceeded to the corner of the court, and as he arrived there, then couple were not to be seen.

Now this I don't agree with, primarily because in his police statement he says he followed them into Dorset St.
"They both went into Dorset Street I followed them.", only later does he say, "I then went to the Court to see if I could see them", which I take to mean he crossed the road from some point in Dorset St. (outside Crossinghams?), to the Court entrance.

The confusion comes with the press version where he says they crossed Commercial St and entered Dorset St., and, " I followed them across, and stood at the corner of Dorset-street."
True, but are we to now assume he stopped following them?

The distance from this corner to Millers Court is approx. 125 ft, so from such a distance he is unlikely to hear conversation between the two, so why would we insist he did not follow them into Dorset St. when his police statement tells us he did?

Then he adds, "I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not.", which again agrees with the police statement, and I take to mean he crossed the road to the court entrance.

Therefore, at some point Sarah Lewis passed down Dorset St. and as she arrived at the court she noticed a man standing opposite, as she said in her police statement...
"...when I came up the Court there was a man standing over against the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset St.".


[by the way, the police statement by Sarah Lewis is a fine example of a statement taken by an interviewing officer (in this case Abberline), which lacks detail. When we then compare this with her inquest testimony, we can see the Coroner (who is now the interrogator), extracts considerable detail from the witness.
This parallels Badham as the interviewer, and Abberline as the interrogator, with respect to Hutchinson's statement]
Abberline knows when to interview, and when to interrogate.

An interviewer injects questions to clarify the story given by the witness, but the statement is still in the witness's own words. An interrogator uses questions to test the veracity of the witness and his story, but the responses must still be in the witness's own words.


Lewis has her man standing outside the lodging house, on the opposite side of the street, as she arrived and the couple she spoke of passed up the court. That is completely wrong, ......

It only sounds wrong if you "assume" Hutchinson did not follow the couple down Dorset St., - but why do this when such an assumption is contradicted by Hutchinson's own words - "They both went into Dorset Street I followed them.". Plus the fact he was close enough to hear conversation between the two. Dorset St., from Crossinghams to Millers Court, is only 25 ft wide, enabling Hutchinson, standing outside Crossinghams, to hear what passed between the two on the opposite side of the street.

Lewis does not mention seeing a man standing as she walks down the street, only the couple walking ahead of her, "Further on there was a man and a woman, the latter being in drink"..
Only when she arrived at the court does she mention seeing this "loiterer", "when I came up the Court there was a man standing over against the lodging house".
Lewis did notice the couple walk up the passage, "I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court.".

There is nothing here which contradicts Hutchinson's account.

Also, from this we can take it that Lewis is behind this couple, by how much we cannot say, but by the time she reached the court and walked up the passage after the couple, she observed..."There was nobody in the court.", and in another version, "..She did not hear any noise as she went down the court,".
Which suggests that this couple that had passed up the passage ahead of her had gone inside to one of the houses, that they were not still in the court - 'up to no good' as they might say.

The main problem with witness testimony is that the recorded responses are erroneously understood to be a continuous narrative, as if the witness is telling a continuous story, this is not the case.
What we have is a series of replies to unknown questions, and it is these often unrelated replies which have been woven into a narrative by modern theorists, which subsequently present an inaccurate sequence of events.


As for Bowyers testimony, it detracts from his credibility that he did not mention the man at the inquest. Moreover, "around three" could well mean that Hutchinson was no longer in place.

Bowyer only answered questions, which is what he is expected to do. The witness is not expected to tell the court what happened to him hours before the assumed time of death - which if you recall, was said to be sometime after 9:00 am Friday morning.
This is what the press were reporting over the weekend. Only after Hutchinson's story hit the streets did Bowyer's recollection become important, which is why we read his account on the 14th.


What we DO know is that this case is filled to the brim with odd coincidences...


Agreed.

Fisherman
09-09-2016, 07:16 AM
Wickerman: I've had practice.....
:)

Yes, I do not rule out that you can do it by heart! ;)


Neither does Lewis, though the Daily News version may be a touch ambiguous, the Telegraph reported, "...the latter being in drink", meaning the woman. And that agrees with Hutchinson's account.

Not all that much, if he just said that she seemed a bit spreeish. It seems the couple - or at least the woman - was worse off.

Now this I don't agree with, primarily because in his police statement he says he followed them into Dorset St.
"They both went into Dorset Street I followed them.", only later does he say, "I then went to the Court to see if I could see them", which I take to mean he crossed the road from some point in Dorset St. (outside Crossinghams?), to the Court entrance.

He DID follow them into Dorset Street - but only after having stood at the corner of Commercial and Dorset first. I fail to think he would make that up for the papers, and it is in accordance with the police statement too. Here we go:
I walked on to the corner of Fashion street, near the public house. As they came by me his arm was still on her shoulder. He had a soft felt hat on, and this was drawn down somewhat over his eyes. I put down my head to look him in the face, and he turned and looked at me very sternly, and they walked across the road to Dorset street. I followed them across and stood at the corner of Dorset street. They stood at the corner of Miller's court for about three minutes. Kelly spoke to the man in a loud voice, saying, "I have lost my handkerchief." He pulled a red handkerchief out of his pocket, and gave it to Kelly, and they both went up the court together. I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not.


So he clearly said he stood at the corner of Dorset Street, a long was away from the lodging house where Lewis saw her man.

The confusion comes with the press version where he says they crossed Commercial St and entered Dorset St., and, " I followed them across, and stood at the corner of Dorset-street."

True, but are we to now assume he stopped following them?

Not at all, and nor does Hutchinson say so - he says he stood at the corner of Dorset Street, which was a rational thing to do, since the couple ALSO stood still. Then, when they turned into the court passage, Hutchinson went to the corner of the court, following them (!) - but could not see the couple - meaning that they had had the time to walk down to Kellys door, open it and pass into her room, closing the door behind them before Hutchinson got there. If he had been there from the outset, he would realistically not tell us how he could not see them as he looked down the court.

The distance from this corner to Millers Court is approx. 125 ft, so from such a distance he is unlikely to hear conversation between the two, so why would we insist he did not follow them into Dorset St. when his police statement tells us he did?

He could easily have heard it - I spoke to an accoustics specialist about that some years ago, and he said it wouod easily work. Plus Hutchinson said that Kelly spoke in a loud voice, did he not?
Of course, in gale force winds he would NOT have been able to hear them... ;)

Then he adds, "I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not.", which again agrees with the police statement, and I take to mean he crossed the road to the court entrance.

...some time AFTER the couple had turned into the court, yes - otherwise, he WOULD have seen them walk all the way down to the door and open it.

Therefore, at some point Sarah Lewis passed down Dorset St. and as she arrived at the court she noticed a man standing opposite, as she said in her police statement...
"...when I came up the Court there was a man standing over against the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset St.".

"I stood at the corner of Dorset Street..."

Which I always thought was worrying. :)

This parallels Badham as the interviewer, and Abberline as the interrogator, with respect to Hutchinson's statement]
Abberline knows when to interview, and when to interrogate.

An interviewer injects questions to clarify the story given by the witness, but the statement is still in the witness's own words. An interrogator uses questions to test the veracity of the witness and his story, but the responses must still be in the witness's own words.

The problem is, we donīt know what was extracted and what was ffreely offered. But we DO know that changed testimonies are very often totally unreliable.



It only sounds wrong if you "assume" Hutchinson did not follow the couple down Dorset St., - but why do this when such an assumption is contradicted by Hutchinson's own words - "They both went into Dorset Street I followed them.".

There is no contradiction, Jon: Hutchinson DID walk from the corner of Dorset Street to the corner of the court, and that means he followed the couple. So either he lied or was misquoted in the press versions, if we are to go with your version. Plus the police version does not disagree with the press version, as you will seemingly have it.

Plus the fact he was close enough to hear conversation between the two. Dorset St., from Crossinghams to Millers Court, is only 25 ft wide, enabling Hutchinson, standing outside Crossinghams, to hear what passed between the two on the opposite side of the street.

A street works like an accoustic tunnel, Jon. As I said, an accoustic expert had no problems with this. In a quiet street, sound carries a very long way. This was 125 FEET, and Neil heard Thains steps from 125 YARDS away in Bucks Row.

Lewis does not mention seeing a man standing as she walks down the street, only the couple walking ahead of her, "Further on there was a man and a woman, the latter being in drink"..
Only when she arrived at the court does she mention seeing this "loiterer", "when I came up the Court there was a man standing over against the lodging house".

He would have walked before her, in such a case, Jon, and Lewis says n othing at all about that - she only notices the man as she walks into the passage. I donīt think she could realistically have missed him!

Lewis did notice the couple walk up the passage, "I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court.".

But she should have seen them posting outside the court BEFORE they walked up the passage!

There is nothing here which contradicts Hutchinson's account.

We will have to differ on that one... :)

Also, from this we can take it that Lewis is behind this couple, by how much we cannot say, but by the time she reached the court and walked up the passage after the couple, she observed..."There was nobody in the court.", and in another version, "..She did not hear any noise as she went down the court,".
Which suggests that this couple that had passed up the passage ahead of her had gone inside to one of the houses, that they were not still in the court - 'up to no good' as they might say.

But Lewis could not have walked behind the couple, since they were not walking - they were standing outside the court. Then they went into the court passage, and if Hutchinson had been there, outside the passage at tbhis time, he would not have said that he could not see the couple. So, basically, you have Lewis AND Hutchinson walking side by side up to the passage, aggeeing as they arrive that there was noone to be seen. And on top of that, you think that Hutchinson would regard the woman walking beside him as a non-entity, a person he did not need to mention to the police...?
It makes absolutely no sense to me. All I see is a set of coincidences that are not closely connected.

The main problem with witness testimony is that the recorded responses are erroneously understood to be a continuous narrative, as if the witness is telling a continuous story, this is not the case.
What we have is a series of replies to unknown questions, and it is these often unrelated replies which have been woven into a narrative by modern theorists, which subsequently present an inaccurate sequence of events.

To me, this does not mean that we are at liberty to make as basic changes as the ones you make. It remains a case of "close, but no cigar" to me. Sorry.


Bowyer only answered questions, which is what he is expected to do. The witness is not expected to tell the court what happened to him hours before the assumed time of death - which if you recall, was said to be sometime after 9:00 am Friday morning.
This is what the press were reporting over the weekend. Only after Hutchinson's story hit the streets did Bowyer's recollection become important, which is why we read his account on the 14th.

That makes a lot of sense - but it does not nail the man he supposedly saw as Hutchinson.


Agreed.

Ah - good!

harry
09-09-2016, 07:06 PM
Fisherman,
You should know about sarcasm,it's a frequent use by yourself.You just do not like it when it's returned.
As against Dew ,I prefer the acceptance of Aberline and Badham,who themselves would be remembering from three day's separation,and not 50 years.Such was the importance of Hutchinson's account,to them,that I believe they would have made every effort to e stablish that it was indeed the morning of Friday,that he was returning from Romford,saw Kelly return to her room with a male person,and then lingered for some 45 minutes in the vicinity of Millers Court.
I am not trying to prove anything.Did Hutchinson suffer from' An altered state of consciousness' .You seem to think so.(Yes I used the medical term).
Even Dew remarked IF such a state of affairs existed.If Hutchinson had the date wrong.Even Dew seems doubtfull. IF........

Fisherman
09-10-2016, 12:00 AM
harry: Fisherman,
You should know about sarcasm...

Oh, I DO know about it!

it's a frequent use by yourself.

It happens, yes.

You just do not like it when it's returned.

Itīs more a question of quality, Harry.

As against Dew ,I prefer the acceptance of Aberline and Badham,who themselves would be remembering from three day's separation,and not 50 years.

Not sure what you are saying here, but if we move on, it may perhaps become clearer...

Such was the importance of Hutchinson's account,to them,that I believe they would have made every effort to e stablish that it was indeed the morning of Friday,that he was returning from Romford,saw Kelly return to her room with a male person,and then lingered for some 45 minutes in the vicinity of Millers Court.

Yes, of course they would. And as you will admit, establishing such a thing is a process. You check and you try to find verification. And when they had checked it all out, it transpired that Hutchinson was out on the days.
Abberline said from the outset that he was of the meaning that Hutchinsons story was a true one, but at that stage, he would not have had the time to run any exhaustive checks. If he had had all the cards on hand, he would for example have been baffled by how Hutchinson forgot Lewis.

I am not trying to prove anything.

Thatīs just as well.

Did Hutchinson suffer from' An altered state of consciousness' .You seem to think so.(Yes I used the medical term).

An altered state of consciousness? That sounds ambitious. I think that his occupation and his vagrant lifestyle made him less able to keep track of what he did than he would been if he had a fixed work and living place. The reason for my thinking so is that it has been proven scientifically that this is how we function. Hutchinson was therefore more prone to these kinds of mistakes than the average man (albeit the average Eastender was probably much like Hutchinson).

Even Dew remarked IF such a state of affairs existed.If Hutchinson had the date wrong.Even Dew seems doubtfull. IF........

To be fair, what Dew says is that this was his "considered view". That does not make it true, but it tells us that when Dew - who was there, who knew the details, who participated in the work - weighed everything together, his best guess was that Hutchinson was out on the days. And when I say that he weighed "everything" together, then that involves how Dew accepted that Hutchinson must have been able to mistake the Wednesday Romford excursion for a Thursday ditto.
There is every chance that Dew too felt that it would be unexpected if Hutchinson made this kind of a mistake, but given the rest of what Dew knew, it was nevertheless the most credible solution to the enigma.
Of course, it may also be that Dew had seen dozens or hundreds of examples of people who muddled the days. If you remember our earlier exchanges, I posted information about a contemporary police officer who said the exact same - that these things happen very frequently, and that he had personal experience a plenty of it.

Then, as now, you said something like "Yes, but HUTCHINSON would not make that kind of a mistake!"

It is totally disingenuous, Harry.

richardnunweek
09-10-2016, 01:20 AM
Hi,
What it boils down to is regardless if Hutchinson saw Kelly in the early hours of Thursday morning , or Friday morning, he states he saw her, in the company of the man we call Mr A.
As Mary Kelly was found at 10.45 a.m on the Friday , and clearly not the 8th[ Thur] and was very much alive on the 8th,and as the man Hutchinson claims to have seen is the last person seen alive with Kelly, according to medical reports, he has to be the person that has to be eliminated from enquiries.
Was he ever traced, was he ever eliminated if found was he placed in a institution, out of harms way.?
I have never believed Hutchinson made a mistake on days, he was too meticulous a person for that, its not that difficult even in Victorian London for a person by the process of elimination, to form an opinion, with such a small time frame involved.
Regards Richard.

MysterySinger
09-10-2016, 03:19 AM
Quote - Wickerman: And that's ok, but we have the police statements from the Millers Court residents and they are simple, brief and not very detailed. The reason is the same, in this case Abberline himself was merely taking statements, he was in the role of interviewer, not interrogator.

Do we have statements from the Millers Court residents? Are they available on line? There must have been well over 40 residents.

Fisherman
09-10-2016, 04:30 AM
richardnunweek: Hi,
What it boils down to is regardless if Hutchinson saw Kelly in the early hours of Thursday morning , or Friday morning, he states he saw her, in the company of the man we call Mr A.
As Mary Kelly was found at 10.45 a.m on the Friday , and clearly not the 8th[ Thur] and was very much alive on the 8th,and as the man Hutchinson claims to have seen is the last person seen alive with Kelly, according to medical reports, he has to be the person that has to be eliminated from enquiries.

Not if Hutchinson made his observations on Thursday, Richard - in such a case, A man was decidedly NOT the last man seen with her.


I have never believed Hutchinson made a mistake on days, he was too meticulous a person for that, its not that difficult even in Victorian London for a person by the process of elimination, to form an opinion, with such a small time frame involved.
Regards Richard

Once more (for the umpteenth time, I believe... :) ), detail memory and sequence memory are different types of memories. A person with a great detail memory can be worthless at remembering times.
Just read up about what is said about muddling days on the net, Richard, and you will find that it is very, very common, even with short time perspectives.

Do you really think that Kelly and Astrakhan man would stand OUTSIDE the court, chatting away quietly, in gale force winds and rain showers...? And would Hutchinson have forgotten about Lewis, who must have stepped on his toes to get into Millers Court?

Itīs okay to find it hard to believe that people muddle the days, but we should at least read up on the underlying psychology and check out how common it is before we comment on it, I find.

richardnunweek
09-10-2016, 09:49 AM
Hi Fisherman.
I feel we should go by the official statement of Hutchinson, not to alter that, in order to give an explanation how we believe he was a day out.
Who are we to say that Hutchinson was mistaken, he may have been, or he may have been entirely accurate.
I would say he was reliable.
Regards Richard.

MrBarnett
09-10-2016, 10:18 AM
Thought there were 5 houses on one side of the street with Kelly and Carthy/McCarthy residing in number 1.
Sounds interesting.
Thanks again :)

Seems to be a number of Stephen Maywoods from Romford.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=24207&page=35


Hi,

There's quite a bit about Maywood on that JTRF thread, including a photo. He was a bit of a rogue, as was his son, also Stephen. Beyond those two I'm not aware of any others.

Judging by the 1891 census, all four of the houses remaining on the East side of the street may well have been brothels.

Gary

Fisherman
09-10-2016, 10:50 AM
Hi Fisherman.
I feel we should go by the official statement of Hutchinson, not to alter that, in order to give an explanation how we believe he was a day out.
Who are we to say that Hutchinson was mistaken, he may have been, or he may have been entirely accurate.
I would say he was reliable.
Regards Richard.

That is my impression too, Richard - I think Hutchinson WAS a reliable man. But with that I simply mean that I believe he could be relied upon to try his best and to be honest.
Such things are not affected negatively by muddling the days, as far as Iīm concerned. That is not a mischiveous or malignant thing - it is a mistake, nothing else, and we all make mistakes.
I donīt think that we can judge Hutchinsons reliability when it comes to such things. There is nothing to compare with, we donīt know to what extent he was good at keeping track of the days.
I donīt know what you mean by saying that we should go by the official statement and not alter it. Such a thing would rule out that anybody ever made any mistakes when it come to timings and days, and we know that these mistakes are quite common. So it would be decidedly disingenuous not to allow for that possibility.

Bridewell
09-10-2016, 12:53 PM
Neither do I, but we do not have Abberline's interrogation. We only have the voluntary statement taken by Badham, and it was not his place to interrogate a witness who has volunteered a statement to police.

Just need to clarify something here. A "Voluntary Statement" (VS) is one taken, not from a witness, but from a suspect. Such a statement is either written by the suspect himself or taken down verbatim by a police officer. A witness statement is not recorded verbatim. The officer taking the statement elicits an account by means of question and answer. Only when he or she is satisfied that he/she knows what the witness is telling him/her does the officer put the information divulged into a structured and intelligible account. It was, therefore, very much Badham's place to interrogate the witness; he would have been a very poor statement-taker had he not done so.

Wickerman
09-10-2016, 01:54 PM
Thankyou for the input, we don't see you around often enough.

Just need to clarify something here. A "Voluntary Statement" (VS) is one taken, not from a witness, but from a suspect.

On that point yes, the Police Code book for 1889 does not specifically cover the questioning of witnesses. The assumption therefore is that at the time no difference existed between the two, from the perspective of 'taking statements', and indeed, why should it?
If there was a difference then the Police Code book is sorely missing a paragraph of importance, and I fail to see that as possible.
The 'Description' form in use in 1888 was also multi-purpose, used to describe the victim and a suspect.


Such a statement is either written by the suspect himself or taken down verbatim by a police officer.

I take the Sutcliffe (Yorkshire Ripper) examination as an example, the police took down his story, more or less verbatim, but as you point out, this was a suspect not a witness.
As the story being taken down by Badham, in a period where many citizens could not write, it is necessary to get the details clear and in a readable format for legal purposes - my view, am I wrong?


A witness statement is not recorded verbatim. The officer taking the statement elicits an account by means of question and answer.

I have make this distinction:
"However, it is also a requirement that Badham questions Hutchinson on specific points for clarification,..."

In 1888, there was a legal distinction between Interview and Interrogate, which I believe does not exists today?
I'm saying Badham does not interrogate Hutchinson, his questions are only to aid clarification so the statement is usable.

Please bear in mind, Abberline made haste to get to Hutchinson that evening in order to interrogate him - Abberline was the interrogator, not Badham.

Only when he or she is satisfied that he/she knows what the witness is telling him/her does the officer put the information divulged into a structured and intelligible account. It was, therefore, very much Badham's place to interrogate the witness; he would have been a very poor statement-taker had he not done so.

May I ask...
Are you saying this is what we/you do today?

And, is this what you see in the statement taken by Badham on Nov. 12th, that it looks like a re-write, in Badham's own words of Hutchinson story?

Wickerman
09-10-2016, 03:00 PM
Now this I don't agree with, primarily because in his police statement he says he followed them into Dorset St.
"They both went into Dorset Street I followed them.", only later does he say, "I then went to the Court to see if I could see them", which I take to mean he crossed the road from some point in Dorset St. (outside Crossinghams?), to the Court entrance.

He DID follow them into Dorset Street - but only after having stood at the corner of Commercial and Dorset first. I fail to think he would make that up for the papers, and it is in accordance with the police statement too. Here we go:
I walked on to the corner of Fashion street, near the public house. As they came by me his arm was still on her shoulder. He had a soft felt hat on, and this was drawn down somewhat over his eyes. I put down my head to look him in the face, and he turned and looked at me very sternly, and they walked across the road to Dorset street. I followed them across and stood at the corner of Dorset street. They stood at the corner of Miller's court for about three minutes. Kelly spoke to the man in a loud voice, saying, "I have lost my handkerchief." He pulled a red handkerchief out of his pocket, and gave it to Kelly, and they both went up the court together. I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not.


So he clearly said he stood at the corner of Dorset Street, a long was away from the lodging house where Lewis saw her man.

The confusion comes with the press version where he says they crossed Commercial St and entered Dorset St., and, " I followed them across, and stood at the corner of Dorset-street."

True, but are we to now assume he stopped following them?

Not at all, and nor does Hutchinson say so - he says he stood at the corner of Dorset Street, which was a rational thing to do, since the couple ALSO stood still. Then, when they turned into the court passage, Hutchinson went to the corner of the court, following them (!) - but could not see the couple - meaning that they had had the time to walk down to Kellys door, open it and pass into her room, closing the door behind them before Hutchinson got there. If he had been there from the outset, he would realistically not tell us how he could not see them as he looked down the court.


It appears we differ on the length of time Hutchinson stood at the corner of Dorset St. You seem to think he stayed there until Astrachan & Kelly entered the passage, whereas I agree, he did stop, but did not stand there for any length of time. He was in audible range when he heard them talking so to my mind he had to have been standing opposite them by that time.


The distance from this corner to Millers Court is approx. 125 ft, so from such a distance he is unlikely to hear conversation between the two, so why would we insist he did not follow them into Dorset St. when his police statement tells us he did?

He could easily have heard it - I spoke to an accoustics specialist about that some years ago, and he said it wouod easily work. Plus Hutchinson said that Kelly spoke in a loud voice, did he not?
Of course, in gale force winds he would NOT have been able to hear them... ;)


If you recall, the wind was easterly that night, so his words would have carried to them, but not theirs to him (against the wind). Hutchinson was east of Millers Court when he was standing at the corner, so he wouldn't have heard a thing from that corner.


Then he adds, "I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not.", which again agrees with the police statement, and I take to mean he crossed the road to the court entrance.

...some time AFTER the couple had turned into the court, yes - otherwise, he WOULD have seen them walk all the way down to the door and open it.


Thats where we disagree, he was standing opposite while they were talking, then they entered the passage, and giving them a minute or so - just incase they came back down, he then crossed the road and waited at the entrance.
In his press statement he says he walked up the passage to her door, but all was quiet.
I'm sure it might have been, they likely heard footsteps outside.


It only sounds wrong if you "assume" Hutchinson did not follow the couple down Dorset St., - but why do this when such an assumption is contradicted by Hutchinson's own words - "They both went into Dorset Street I followed them.".

There is no contradiction, Jon: Hutchinson DID walk from the corner of Dorset Street to the corner of the court, and that means he followed the couple. So either he lied or was misquoted in the press versions, if we are to go with your version. Plus the police version does not disagree with the press version, as you will seemingly have it.


You seem to think "I followed them", means only to the corner, whereas I take him to mean also down Dorset St. He does say "into Dorset St.", so I take him at his word, which means to me he did not stop and wait, but stopped, then continued on so as to be near enough to hear their verbal exchanges.


A street works like an accoustic tunnel, Jon.

Also, a wind tunnel Christer, and the wind was blowing the wrong way. :)


Also, from this we can take it that Lewis is behind this couple, by how much we cannot say, but by the time she reached the court and walked up the passage after the couple, she observed..."There was nobody in the court.", and in another version, "..She did not hear any noise as she went down the court,".
Which suggests that this couple that had passed up the passage ahead of her had gone inside to one of the houses, that they were not still in the court - 'up to no good' as they might say.

But Lewis could not have walked behind the couple, since they were not walking - they were standing outside the court. Then they went into the court passage, and if Hutchinson had been there, outside the passage at tbhis time, he would not have said that he could not see the couple. So, basically, you have Lewis AND Hutchinson walking side by side up to the passage, aggeeing as they arrive that there was noone to be seen.

No Christer, I did not say the couple was walking when Lewis noticed them. The couple was standing at the court as she approached, but from behind them.

Lewis says there was a couple further on, so presumably she has not reached them yet, and then she says the couple walked up the passage. So Lewis is some distance behind but how much we do not know.
Lewis only noticed the loiterer as she arrived to enter the passage, so the loiterer has been in position before Lewis came on the scene - they did not arrive at the same time.


To me, this does not mean that we are at liberty to make as basic changes as the ones you make. It remains a case of "close, but no cigar" to me. Sorry.


I fail to see what it is you think I'm changing. I thought I was sticking as close to both their stories as is reasonably possible.


That makes a lot of sense - but it does not nail the man he supposedly saw as Hutchinson.


No you have me wrong, I think the man he saw was Astrachan, not Hutchinson.

harry
09-10-2016, 06:12 PM
Fisherman,
You say you are not sure what I mean.It's simple.Badham and Aberline spoke with Hutchinson three days after his (Hutchinson's sighting),Dew was memorising after 50 years.Both Badham and Aberline were in confrontation w ith Hutchinson.Dew w as not.
It was not a mistake in thinking a different time period.It would be a case of memory lapse,and a significant one.Not of forgetting a key,or leaving a light on,or such trivial matters as you allude to.As I said,An altered state of consciousness,in which he remembered what he was doing but not when.All very well,if he made the journey to Romford every day,but his trip that day w as a singular one,in which he remembered and detailed in full three days later.and which was accepted by two experienced officers.
If you cannot accept that,bad luck,it w ould be a waste of my time to explain further,when the only response is,I don't know what you mean.

Fisherman
09-10-2016, 11:52 PM
Wickerman: It appears we differ on the length of time Hutchinson stood at the corner of Dorset St. You seem to think he stayed there until Astrachan & Kelly entered the passage, whereas I agree, he did stop, but did not stand there for any length of time. He was in audible range when he heard them talking so to my mind he had to have been standing opposite them by that time.

Why did he stop at the corner? He stopped at the corner because Kelly and A man stopped outside the court. So when would he feel at ease to leave the corner and walk to the court? He would do so when the couple left the corner of the court.
Thatīs how I reason. Why else would he have stopped at the corner?
As for hearing them talking, well Hutchinson does actually not say that they DID talk, he only says that Kelly did. It is a reasonable assumption that they did talk together, since they stood out in the gale and rainshowers for three minutes :amconfused:, but the one and only thing Hutchinson heard was how Kelly spoke of her lost handkerchief, and he specifically mentions that she did so in a loud voice. Now, Jon, we have a distance of roughly forty yards or so. Place yourself in a quiet street, and place a friend of yours forty yards away, and ask him to say something loud and clear. After that exercise, we should be done with this issue, I believe... :)


If you recall, the wind was easterly that night, so his words would have carried to them, but not theirs to him (against the wind). Hutchinson was east of Millers Court when he was standing at the corner, so he wouldn't have heard a thing from that corner.

"That night"? But I am saying that it was not "that night", it was the night before. When the wind was not an issue.

Thats where we disagree, he was standing opposite while they were talking, then they entered the passage, and giving them a minute or so - just incase they came back down, he then crossed the road and waited at the entrance.
In his press statement he says he walked up the passage to her door, but all was quiet.
I'm sure it might have been, they likely heard footsteps outside.

There is not one source where Hutchinson prefesses to ever have been outside the lodging house. There ARE sources telling us that he went to the corner of the court. The corner of the court is where you would go, if you want to look down the court and see if you can spot somebody in there. There is also a source (at least) that says that Hutchonson left from the corner of the court too. And there are sources, I believe, where Hutchinson says "I stood THERE for three quarters of an hour", after having said that he stood at the corner of the court.
The idea that he should ever have crossed the road is a latter day invention with no support at all in the sources.


You seem to think "I followed them", means only to the corner, whereas I take him to mean also down Dorset St. He does say "into Dorset St.", so I take him at his word, which means to me he did not stop and wait, but stopped, then continued on so as to be near enough to hear their verbal exchanges.

Hereīs the quote from the Daily News:
"they walked across the road to Dorset street. I followed them across and stood at the corner of Dorset street"

The couple walked across Commercial Street and proceeded into Dorset Street. Hutchinson followed them across Commercial Street, and then he stopped at the corner to Dorset Street. Commercial Street was quite wide, so assuming that he let the couple pass him by and then cross Commercial Street, they would easily have been 40 yards ahead of Hutchinson, and they would have reached the entrance to the court and stopped there as Hutchonson reached the corner of Commercial and Dorset, where he stopped short since the couple had done the exact same. If the couple had not stopped, then why would Hutchinson do so? And why would he start following them again until they moved again?

Also, a wind tunnel Christer, and the wind was blowing the wrong way. :)

The next day, it was, yes. And the couple would not have made a stop outside the court.

No Christer, I did not say the couple was walking when Lewis noticed them. The couple was standing at the court as she approached, but from behind them.

Then why did not Lewis say so? "There was a couple standing outside the court, and as I approached them, they turned into it".

Lewis says there was a couple further on, so presumably she has not reached them yet, and then she says the couple walked up the passage. So Lewis is some distance behind but how much we do not know.
Lewis only noticed the loiterer as she arrived to enter the passage, so the loiterer has been in position before Lewis came on the scene - they did not arrive at the same time.

I take "further on" to mean that she said that there was ALSO a couple, Jon. And I donīt think that Hutchinson would have taken up his vigil five or so yards from the couple, it would have been far too obvious. And why would he have stopped at the corner of Dorset Street and Commercial Street? Who does that - follow somebody as they are walking away, with the intention to check then out, and then you suddenly make a stop at a corner before you proceeed? It makes no sense whatsoever. Very clearly, what he did was to stop as THEY stopped, so as not to become to apparent to them.


I fail to see what it is you think I'm changing. I thought I was sticking as close to both their stories as is reasonably possible.

I have been thinking lot about this over the last few days, and I realize that we both work in much the same way - we make an interpretation of things, where we select some bits and pieces and look away from others to reach a possible conclusion. Some will say that it is cherry-picking, but I ordinarily say that itīs never a bad idea to choose the juiciest and ripest cherries from a basket... Basically, I am certain that if the solution lies hidden in the material, then we MUST "cherrypick" to find it. That is to say, we must choose the correct combination of facts to make sense of things, while we discard other matters. And it is not until we finish the puzzle that we can see if we have been correct to do what we did.
I am fine with letting people damn me for it, since I am much more interested in finding the solution than I am in agreeing that if we use all the facts amd material that it is traditionally used, the case is unsolvable. That was always so, and it was always very dreary.
So I command you for your ingenuity - but I think you are wrong nevertheless. There are matters in your solution where I feel certain that you are wrong. And I can only go by my own intuition here, Iīm afraid.
I think you are a very well read up student of the case, and I think you are completely honest about it. Moreover, you are a true gentleman, surpassing myself in that genre by a country mile. So I would love to agree with you. But I canīt.

No you have me wrong, I think the man he saw was Astrachan, not Hutchinson.

Aha...? So Bowyer would have seen Astrakhan man alone in Millers Court, at around three o clock? Leaving after having slaughtered Kelly?

Fisherman
09-11-2016, 01:26 AM
harry: Fisherman,
You say you are not sure what I mean.It's simple.Badham and Aberline spoke with Hutchinson three days after his (Hutchinson's sighting),Dew was memorising after 50 years.Both Badham and Aberline were in confrontation w ith Hutchinson.Dew w as not.

Dew, however, had the benefit of hindsight - he had sifted the matter for fifty years and he supposedly had weighed all aternatives numerous times. Abberline and Badham did not have that advantage.

It was not a mistake in thinking a different time period.It would be a case of memory lapse,and a significant one.Not of forgetting a key,or leaving a light on,or such trivial matters as you allude to.As I said,An altered state of consciousness,in which he remembered what he was doing but not when.

Yep, exactly so.

All very well,if he made the journey to Romford every day,but his trip that day w as a singular one,in which he remembered and detailed in full three days later.and which was accepted by two experienced officers.

How do we know that he made the Romford trip every day, Harry? As for two officers accepting the story, what were they to do if he said "On Thursday, I went down to Romford"?
Of course, they could say "Are you sure it was on Thursday?"
And then he would go "Yes, I am sure" - and he would neverthless be wrong.

Just how do you propose that Abberline and Badham would know that he was wrong? Why would they question what he said? Their expertise would be of no value until he said something that proved him wrong, or until somebody else surfaced and did that.

If you cannot accept that,bad luck,it w ould be a waste of my time to explain further,when the only response is,I don't know what you mean.

But that was not the only response, was it? Fair enough if you find it straining to hang on to an untenable position of how George Hutchinson of all people was unfallable in this respect, but donīt blame me for it.
As an aside, you are already wasting your time, so there would be no change in that respect.

Wickerman
09-11-2016, 06:39 AM
Why did he stop at the corner? He stopped at the corner because Kelly and A man stopped outside the court. So when would he feel at ease to leave the corner and walk to the court? He would do so when the couple left the corner of the court.

I understand your thinking on this, I just feel you are allowing too much time & distance. As Hutch reached the corner of Dorset St. he only needs to check that they don't stop, and turn back towards him for some reason. He doesn't say, nor is it implied that he stands at that corner for any appreciable time. You think he did, I think he didn't, there's no resolving that point.


Now, Jon, we have a distance of roughly forty yards or so. Place yourself in a quiet street, and place a friend of yours forty yards away, and ask him to say something loud and clear. After that exercise, we should be done with this issue, I believe... :)


If you recall, the wind was easterly that night, so his words would have carried to them, but not theirs to him (against the wind). Hutchinson was east of Millers Court when he was standing at the corner, so he wouldn't have heard a thing from that corner.

"That night"? But I am saying that it was not "that night", it was the night before. When the wind was not an issue.


This is the post where we see the gale force winds were from the S/E on the 8th, and East on the 9th, so the wind was still strong and blowing the wrong direction on both nights.
http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=391938&postcount=142


There is not one source where Hutchinson prefesses to ever have been outside the lodging house. There ARE sources telling us that he went to the corner of the court. The corner of the court is where you would go, if you want to look down the court and see if you can spot somebody in there. There is also a source (at least) that says that Hutchonson left from the corner of the court too. And there are sources, I believe, where Hutchinson says "I stood THERE for three quarters of an hour", after having said that he stood at the corner of the court.
The idea that he should ever have crossed the road is a latter day invention with no support at all in the sources.


Agreed, though nothing you have hi-lited can be taken to show what position he came from to stand "at the corner of the court".
Hutch did not mention stopping at the corner of Dorset St. in his police statement, so clearly that statement was not thorough or complete. If we did not have the subsequent press story then we wouldn't be having this disagreement, so it is fortunate that we do have more details, but....you are saying that because he didn't mention standing outside Crossinghams, then it didn't happen.
My response is simply that we already know some details were omitted from his story, so we cannot assume we have the complete story even now.

Consider, Hutchinson tells us, as you rightly point out, that he came to the court,....and stood there for 45 minutes, then went away.
Only in a later paragraph does he inject that he also walked up the court and stayed there, watching and listening, for a couple of minutes.
We wouldn't know that but for the added paragraph.

Given that the corner of Dorset St. was too far to hear conversation, and against the wind on a night of "strong & gale force winds", I feel it is only reasonable to say he must have been nearer to the couple, which I believe is confirmed by Sarah Lewis.
I appreciate you are trying to recreate the scene without using Lewis's statement, and I understand why.


I fail to see what it is you think I'm changing. I thought I was sticking as close to both their stories as is reasonably possible.

I have been thinking lot about this over the last few days, and I realize that we both work in much the same way - we make an interpretation of things, where we select some bits and pieces and look away from others to reach a possible conclusion. Some will say that it is cherry-picking, but I ordinarily say that itīs never a bad idea to choose the juiciest and ripest cherries from a basket... Basically, I am certain that if the solution lies hidden in the material, then we MUST "cherrypick" to find it. That is to say, we must choose the correct combination of facts to make sense of things, while we discard other matters. And it is not until we finish the puzzle that we can see if we have been correct to do what we did.
I am fine with letting people damn me for it, since I am much more interested in finding the solution than I am in agreeing that if we use all the facts amd material that it is traditionally used, the case is unsolvable. That was always so, and it was always very dreary.
So I command you for your ingenuity - but I think you are wrong nevertheless. There are matters in your solution where I feel certain that you are wrong. And I can only go by my own intuition here, Iīm afraid.
I think you are a very well read up student of the case, and I think you are completely honest about it. Moreover, you are a true gentleman, surpassing myself in that genre by a country mile. So I would love to agree with you. But I canīt.


Thankyou Christer, the consideration is mutual, even though we do not agree on a number of points - or suspects :)

There are a variety of press versions of Lewis's testimony, some more complete than others, my view is that because the reporters are all reporting on the same event - her testimony, then we must collate these versions not compete them one against the other.

For example, if her 'actual' testimony, heard by the court, contained 50 lines of testimony, the official record provides only 40, it was compiled in long-hand so had to be abbreviated for expediency.
The press used short-hand so were able to provide more detail, but the newspaper editors cut out bits here and there so the end result is a press version that provides only 25 lines, another maybe 28 lines, yet another 30 and 35 lines, much of them the same, but some of them different.

The important point to keep in mind is that all these versions complement each other, so to gain a more complete understanding of her story it is necessary to put them together, not use one against the other.
That is my position - so it isn't so much as cherry-picking, as trying to assemble individual comments she made into a rational sequence of events.


No you have me wrong, I think the man he saw was Astrachan, not Hutchinson.

Aha...? So Bowyer would have seen Astrakhan man alone in Millers Court, at around three o clock? Leaving after having slaughtered Kelly?

Bowyer's report said... "Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer."
By the 14th, Astrachan was clearly the new suspect - the assumed murderer.
The press are only interested in the fact he saw a man, they do not even mention that the man was with a woman, or perhaps Kelly had just gone into her room and Bowyer walked passed a saw the man as he was just stepping in behind her - I don't know, the important point is that he saw a man who fit the description of the new suspect. And, the time he gave "about 3:00 am", is consistent with what Hutchinson said.

harry
09-11-2016, 07:08 PM
Fisherman,
Nothing did surface to prove Hutchinson wrong,though his story was widely published.His story did come to be doubted however,but not on the score of forgetting which day he stood outside Crossingham's,and as much as Dew had 50 years afterthought,other's have had even more time,and still no one but yourself appears to support him(Dew).
But IF you and he were right,what a great time for Ripperology.WHAT A STORY.

Fisherman
09-11-2016, 10:22 PM
Fisherman,
Nothing did surface to prove Hutchinson wrong,though his story was widely published.His story did come to be doubted however,but not on the score of forgetting which day he stood outside Crossingham's,and as much as Dew had 50 years afterthought,other's have had even more time,and still no one but yourself appears to support him(Dew).
But IF you and he were right,what a great time for Ripperology.WHAT A STORY.

Letīs see what you are saying here, Harry, so we all can understand what value to ascribe to your thoughts!

Nothing did surface to prove Hutchinson wrong,though his story was widely published.

Do you know this? No, you do not. There is not a living soul on this planet who knows the answer to the question whether something surfaced tp prove Hutchonson wrong or not, so you are simply misleading.

His story did come to be doubted however,but not on the score of forgetting which day he stood outside Crossingham's,and as much as Dew had 50 years afterthought,other's have had even more time,and still no one but yourself appears to support him(Dew).

Once more, there is nobody who knows on what score his story came to be doubted, so you are once more misleading.

Contrary to you, I am suggesting a scenario, instead of laying it down as fact. And that scenario cannot be shaken - he COULD have gotten the days wrong. And such a scenario is in accordance with what the only policeman involved in the case to comment on the matter suggested himself.

There really is nothing more to say, unless you have more misleading to do?