A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[The Good Michael]

As to the Hutchinson element, I realize that it cannot be agreed upon by both sides now, so Im not going to bother getting into the rhetoric. Ill just say that I can see easily why Abberline was taken in by the description of the suspect by GH, I can see no good reason for waiting 4 days to give that statement, on the basis of the delay I question whether GH actually knew Mary or had simply seen her around, and I cannot believe the detail that the description contains, certainly not from that distance, at that time of night and with the available light.

Right. Then if you take everything Hutchinson said he saw out of the equation, you must remove him completely from the story leaving you with Blotchy. You didn't need my opinion to come to that quick conclusion.

Mike

[Wickerman]

Hi Michael.

Rather than make Hutchinson the focus of a debate, I would rather just include him along with other witnesses rather than leave him out altogether. So in an attempt to not let this slip into another wasted "Hutchinson" discussion, let me just say.

I see nothing wrong in questioning the detail provided by Hutchinson, but this was not a brief encounter. In fact if we measure from the time Hutchinson claims to have first seen Astrachan, at the corner of Thrawl St. to the couple disappearing up Millers Court, we are looking at possibly fifteen minutes.
This length of time includes Hutch waiting under a street lamp as the couple walked passed, his intention being to get as good a view as possible of this man.
So, the vantage point was the best that could be obtained at that hour.

We, today, are in no position to say "that depth of detail could not be seen", and Abberline knew perfectly well what can be seen at night, he spent many a night walking the streets himself.

So, the length of time Hutchinson had this man in view, and being viewed from both front and rear, and from a distance and up close, we would have to admit the potential for anyone to come up with a good description is certainly there.


Then the second person, Mrs Kennedy, she is attributed as seeing Kelly by one press report, this doesn't make it a fact, but nor does it make it fiction.

Neither does the timing of Kennedy's sighting directly conflict with Hutchinson's story of when he left Dorset St.
The times attached to Kennedy's sighting, and the places associated with those times tend to place her arrival between 3:00-3:30 am.
She is said to have arrived at Dorset St. "at 3:00", elsewhere, "about 3:00". Then arriving at her fathers house "about 3:00", and when talking to Abberline, it was "about 3:30".
As we cannot be certain what the actual time was, we can at least assume a time window of between 3:00-3:30 for her arrival and seeing Kelly.

Hutchinson claimed to have left "the corner of Millers Court" at 3:00, why the corner of Millers Court, perhaps this is a misprint for Dorset St?
Leaving the corner of a passage is a strange reference point. The normal expression would be to leave the corner of the street.

So, if Hutchinson left Dorset St. as the Spitalfields clock struck 3 o'clock, and Mrs Kennedy arrived at the scene shortly after 3:00, she could have seen Kelly follow up Dorset St. within minutes of Hutchinson leaving.

We might have cause to question Kennedy if her sighting was timed any earlier, it would conflict with other testimony, but as it stands it does not.
We either choose to believe her, or we don't. If we choose not to, what grounds do we have?
Her statement is not contradictory. So do we fall back on bias?

When we choose to dismiss two witnesses, when neither witness can be proven or even demonstrated to have been wrong, or that they had lied, then our judgement is impaired.
What we are doing in such a case is molding the evidence to suit our theory.

Remember, Cox's story was not corroborated by the police either. So, we have no basis with which to argue that the existence of Blotchy at that hour, or even at all.... is reliable.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Oh fantastic, another Hutchinson debate.

My absolute cherished favourite.

Let's see if we can fully achieve what other people are seemingly hell-bent on doing, which is to derail the thread in the direction of previously-thrashed out debates over Hutchinson's and Kennedy's discrediting. Those cold, uneventful winter nights are clearly just flying by for some bored keyboard warriors around here...

I keep reading that George Hutchinson was a "discredited witness", but no-one has detailed the evidence which discredits him.

Yes, they have, Bridewell.

Many many many times. I'm sure if you registered the sheer volume of posts in the Hutchinson forum, and typed in the word "discredited" in the keyword search engine, you'd have saved yourself some bother. I noticed you asked me the same question about Hutchinson's discrediting in post #356, and I had entertained some forlorn hope that you'd wait for me to respond to that before repeating the exact same question several posts later. In fact - wait! - I've just found a long and very detailed response to you in the "eyewitness" thread. Let's have it again, just in case you missed it.

Hutchinson was discredited because we're told so by a newspaper which we know for an absolute ironclad indisputable certainty obtained their information from the police, and because another newspaper reported the same observation, and because the later interviews, reports, and memoirs of senior police officials all bear this "discrediting" out.

Had Abberline's police superiors considered "Astrakhan" man a possible ripper sighting, they would certainly not have used one of the Jewish witnesses (all of whom garnered considerably more fleeting sightings and far less detailed descriptions) in subsequent identity attempts with Grainger and possibly Kosminski.

Macnaghten stated that nobody saw the ripper unless it was a witness (the "City PC") at Mitre Square, not "nobody apart from that brilliant witness we were all so exited about called George Hutchinson".

Then there's Abberline, Hutchinson's original advocate. By 1903, he stated that the only witnesses to have described a foreigner had only acquired a rear view (Hutchinson had offered a frontal view of an obviously foreign-looking suspect). Then he talks about comparisons between Klowoski and sailor's caps (of the order described by non-discredited witness Joseph Lawende). This obviously rules out Hutchinson. Naturally, this undermines the validity of Abberline's original assessment of Hutchinson's evidence. He expressed his opinion that the statement was true on the evening of 12th November, well before any detailed analysis or "checking up" on Hutchinson's claims could realistically have occurred. He could only have made his assessment on the basis of demeanour and body language, which is essentially worthless unless we're stupid enough, annoying enough, and naive enough to bestow upon Abberline psychological and criminological insight that he did not possess. Hutchinson had only made his appearance at 6.00pm that evening, making it impossible to "check out" the bulk of his claims.

And no, sorry, it is not possible to both notice and memorize all that Hutchinson alleged in the time and conditions he reported. It just can't be done. Even the tests for photographic memory don't require anything like as much.

The Echo stated they they approached Commercial Street police station in order to ascertain the truth about the origin of Hutchinson’s statement, and were informed that the "fuller" account which appeared on the 14th proceeded from the same source as the briefer description that surfaced a day earlier, and which didn't have Hutchinson's name appended to it. We know now that this is true. Some of their press contemporaries had formed the mistaken impression that they were two independently supportive accounts from two separate Astrakhan spotters, and the Echo, having approached the police to seek clarification, were assured that this was not the case. They were also informed that the statement had been “considerably discounted”.

Since the former confirmation could only have originated from the police, there can be no realistic doubt that the Echo did approach the police station, and that they were supplied with what we know for certain to be accurate information. And what was that information? Well, here goes again for the benefit of people who have time to waste dredging up old debates:

"From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?"

- The Echo - 13th November.

Anyone who still asserts that Hutchinson's discrediting amounts to press "speculation" either hasn't digested the facts, has read my post too hastily, or is spoiling to a pick a fight at any cost.

There was no rational motive for the newspapers to invent the detail that Hutchinson was discredited. Both the Echo and the Star were originally enthusiastic in their reporting of Hutchinson's account, evidently accepting it as a valuable clue to the killer's identity. It would make no sense for them to undermine these observations just a day later and report that the account was "now discredited" unless it were true.

Yes, the evidence "exists" that Hutchinson was discredited.

It is as compelling as it is wholly irrefutable.

We can only hope this strained line of inquiry has fizzled out. Sadly, there will always be the 'odd' cinder in the ashes who will try to keep the flame burning.

Oh just hush your repugnant triumphalist rhetoric for once, Jon. It's not becoming. The "line of inquiry" involving Hutchinson as a dishonest witness is as popular, current, and as mainstream as ever. Gutted for you and your attempt to depict the killer as some well-dressed toff with a black bag, but there it is. Any suspect theory is guaranteed to enjoy minority support only, but as it happens, Hutchinson remains the most discussed suspect on this website as well as the most written about in suspect books. Pooh-pooh it if it helps you sleep at night, but don't, for phuck's sake, delude yourself into thinking that this particular theory has "limited" appeal in comparison to other suspect theories. Less still delude yourself into believing that you have been in any way, shape or form successful in exposing its perceived flaws.

I'll deal with your latest Kennedy nonsense tomorrow and after that I'll explain - for the umpteeth wretched time - why Hutchinson could not have seen all that he alleged, but if I see any more attempts to initiate another repetitive Hutchinson debate, I'll simply dig into the archives and regurgitate previous arguments wherever appropriate.

And what a crying shame if the thread descended into that?

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I cannot argue with Ben's defence, it is sound, I would be in the same camp ,if it were not for a certain ''fact''[ that word adamant in my mind].
18 years prior to the Ripper and the Royals, there existed a oral account on radio featuring the words [ either live or taped] of the son of George Hutchinson the witness, which absolutely proves that the account given to Fairclough in his publication were not a ''first''.
It is unfortunate [ to say the least] that nobody on Casebook, or indeed forums was aware of such a broadcast, and it is 'unfortunate' say the least that no record of such a airing remains.
It is on record that albeit younger members of the Hutchinson family are not surprisingly unaware of the tale, but both Toppings sons were.
All of the above, does not make Hutchinson's account of the morning of the 9th November a truthful account, but the broadcast casts aside any suspicion that Reg invented the tale himself as a addition to the book.
It was/is not my intention to hi-jack a thread, but I am endeavouring to make clear, why I agree with anyone who finds little fault with Hutchinson's statement, even if a sound case is put forward for the prosecution .
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

Hi,
I cannot argue with Ben's defence, it is sound, I would be in the same camp ,if it were not for a certain ''fact''[ that word adamant in my mind].
18 years prior to the Ripper and the Royals, there existed a oral account on radio featuring the words [ either live or taped] of the son of George Hutchinson the witness, which absolutely proves that the account given to Fairclough in his publication were not a ''first''.

I believe I heard this program as well. It would have been in the 70s when I was a small child. Either that or you've repeated it so often that I've come to believe I've seen it.

Mike

[richardnunweek]

Hi Mike,
You are absolutely right in suggesting that I have repeated this account countless times, which I am sure irritates many.
The airing was at 8pm on a weekday, and was based on the Hutchinson sighting, and featured an account from the son of the witness[ Reg?] the final words are implanted in my memory'' It was my fathers regret ..that despite his efforts , nothing came of it''
The payment was mentioned ''one hundred shillings'', and this was approx 18 years prior to the book publication.
The broadcast came during a time when ''The great Victorians'' was a popular series, although was not a part of that [ as far as I can remember].
To be fair I jump at the chance to repeat my claim whenever , as it may stir someone's memory ,if not from existing members of Casebook, newcomers.
Although the mid 1970s is a long time ago, and only the elder of us, would have any chance of a recollection.
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

Hi Mike,
You are absolutely right in suggesting that I have repeated this account countless times, which I am sure irritates many.
The airing was at 8pm on a weekday, and was based on the Hutchinson sighting, and featured an account from the son of the witness[ Reg?] the final words are implanted in my memory'' It was my fathers regret ..that despite his efforts , nothing came of it''
The payment was mentioned ''one hundred shillings'', and this was approx 18 years prior to the book publication.

Richard, I absolutely believe this. The story is completely logical and no one would make it up.

Mike

[Michael W Richards]

I believe I heard this program as well. It would have been in the 70s when I was a small child. Either that or you've repeated it so often that I've come to believe I've seen it.

Mike

Hi Mike,

I find that part emboldened by me to be really relevant to any discussion here.

The influence that repeated exposures to the same data has upon ones ability to objectively deal with individual components of any of these murder investigations.

To wit....there has been so much written about Millers Court and the glut scene there as evidence that the killer on the loose was completely losing his ability to function normally. Which we must assume he did during the days. That allows for Druitt, and any suspect institutionalized after the murders to be viable.

But in the murder evidence of Mary Kelly there are strong indicators that the killer used his left hand as his knife hand. That in and of itself suggests either the right handed Ripper was ambi, (less than 1% of any given population), or it wasnt a right handed man.

I know you have a penchant for recreating scenarios via experimentation....who can forget the raw meat stories when you were examining the mass of material on the night table ......so try this. Position a small table behind you, to your right. Place some loose materials directly in front of you, it doesnt have to be entrails, but if you want....then using your own primary hand imagine slicing, cutting and turning to place the guts behind you.

If you are right handed, I believe that you will find the action unnatural and slightly awkward. The same could be said for the materials placed under head head by a right handed man.

The story here has to join all the dots, and when you have even incremental suggestion that we have a different beast here then its important to remain objective about the overall answer.

Its not enough to assume Mary was killed by the same man just because of the murders place in time.

Cheers

[Lechmere]

My apologies for intervening in this thread so many posts and pages in, and for addressing some long buried points.

Sally said
“It is quite reasonable to think that she did not return to the streets.”
Which is true.
But by the same token it is reasonable to propose that she might well have returned to the streets.
Like them or not there are witnesses who claim to have seen her on the street post Blotchy so such a proposition is not without foundation.

It is a fair assumption that for each murder the killer was solicited by a prostitute in the street and then taken to a relatively secluded spot where she indented to conduct her business but which met his requirements as a suitable location to carry out his attack.
There is nothing in the Kelly case to push us away from this scenario. The only difference being that unlike the other victims she had her own room.
Prostitutes who have their own private premises will be more likely to take their customer their rather than conduct their business in a public place. The very lowest end of the market were those who conducted their business in the open.
From the perpetrator’s point of view, he would probably not have been aware that Kelly had her own place when initial contact was made.

There is good evidence that she met punters outside and brought them back to her place – Blotchy.
Just because Cox didn’t seem to opt to take her customers back to her place does not mean that Kelly wouldn’t.

There is no reason to suggest she was ‘blind drunk’ – whatever that should be defined as. She was seemingly drunk when seen by Cox. Heavy regular drinkers can often sober up quickly. There is no evidence to suggest she drank further alcohol from Blotchy’s pot.

It is of course possible that the perpetrator knew her, particularly of he was a local, or that unlike the other cases he sought her out specifically. But there is nothing to specifically point in that direction.

As for the undressing business, many punters would not want to undress – this was the repressed Victorian era for heaven’s sake.

I somewhat doubt he had carpentry tools secreted about his person though.
“Is that a cooper’s draw knife in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me.”
“Meet my friend Stanley and call me Jack the Slasher.”

Although Sarah Lewis says she saw someone (Wide-awake man) near Miller’s Court not a single person at the time connected that sighting with Hutchinson. Not the police, not the press. The press were pouring over every aspect of the case at this stage and if there was a connection – if the Wide-awake man and Hutchinson were one and the same – then we can be fairly sure it would have been said. That the connection was only made many years later by ‘Ripperologists’ pouring over one dimensional dry pieces of paper is not a good reason for thinking they were identical. Are folks now superior – are they bright enough to make the connection, while our ancestor’s we too dumb to see?
My conclusion is that they were not one and the same.

On the historical record.
We have a bona fide police document suggesting Ostrog was a likely suspect. This is part of the historic record. It tells us something about the police’s thinking at that time.
We have other historical records that prove that Ostrog was in custody in France during the Autumn of terror. This tells us that the police’s investigative powers at the time left something to be desired.
These two historic sources can be regarded as contradictory, yet both are important parts of the historic record with respect to this case.

On ruling out suspects (or even people who are 'just’ interrogated) – some could have been ruled out quickly (or had their credentials checked) – some would take longer. If they were a householder or had relatives who could vouch for them nearby, then one might expect them to be released swiftly. If the suspect had no one to vouch for them, for example had they no job and no permanent residence, then one would expect the police not to release them or accept their statements so readily. Particularly by the time Kelly was killed and the investigation was at its height.

The Star was certainly a controversial newspaper and one that enjoyed engaging on ‘one-upmanship’ with the competition. It liked to break new stories or take a new angle or get extra information. For example it was the only newspaper to get Charles Cross (Lechmere’s) address at the Nichols’ inquest and they didn’t just get an approximation, they got it exactly right.
On other occasions with stories that other newspapers would all follow, it would barely give any coverage (e.g. some of the later sessions in the Nichols inquest).
One consequence of its style of reportage was that some of its stories are economical with the actualité. The Star tended to be over eager and was sometimes careless.
On the issue of Kennedy, with the Star warning about bogus witnesses parroting claims to various journalists and Kennedy’s story being repeated so regularly, I would have expected the Star to have blown her out of the water – if she was a bogus witness.

I don’t accept the proposition that Kelly wasn’t – always – in need of extra money and wouldn’t have felt compelled to go out whenever she could to earn some more.
And if no one in Miller’s Court saw her go back out, is that really so strange at that time in the morning?

Regarding Hutchinson’s discrediting – or perhaps more accurately his reduced importance as a witness – is it surprising the police did not use him as a witness in later cases?
Firstly was there any specific reason to think that the A-man – presuming he existed and that Hutchinson did see him on the night in question – was also the murderer?
The Police’s ability to use witnesses in later cases would be predetermined by their ability to contact the witness at a later date.
Hutchinson was a lodging house dweller in 1888. Would the police have been able to trace him in 1895 or whenever Kosminsky was supposedly identified? (I could have traced him but that’s another story).

Dew suggests that Hutchinson was discounted as well – based on an honest mistake of getting his days mixed up.

[Wickerman]

Oh just hush your repugnant triumphalist rhetoric for once, Jon. It's not becoming. The "line of inquiry" involving Hutchinson as a dishonest witness is as popular, current, and as mainstream as ever. Gutted for you and your attempt to depict the killer as some well-dressed toff with a black bag, but there it is. Any suspect theory is guaranteed to enjoy minority support only, but as it happens, Hutchinson remains the most discussed suspect on this website as well as the most written about in suspect books. Pooh-pooh it if it helps you sleep at night, but don't, for phuck's sake, delude yourself into thinking that this particular theory has "limited" appeal in comparison to other suspect theories. Less still delude yourself into believing that you have been in any way, shape or form successful in exposing its perceived flaws.

Like a moth to a flame...

Shot full of holes, burned to ashes, cast to the four winds. In fact, one of the symptoms of a failed theory is when the general plot fractures into any number of variations on a theme.

Others have proposed, Hutchinson Might have lied a little, but that does not make him the killer. Maybe he was an accomplice, Maybe he planned to mug the stranger, Maybe he really was there but exaggerated his story, Maybe this....Maybe that....

That no real consensus exists among those fingering Hutchinson demonstrates the argument is unsatisfactory.

Enough said... lets get back to, Access to Mary Kelly, etc.

Like them or not there are witnesses who claim to have seen her on the street post Blotchy so such a proposition is not without foundation.

Thats the reality of the situation.

There is good evidence that she met punters outside and brought them back to her place – Blotchy.
Just because Cox didn’t seem to opt to take her customers back to her place does not mean that Kelly wouldn’t.

That observation by "Margaret" is the only possible confirmation that Blotchy may have existed. There are those who point the finger at unverified newspaper stories (witness observations), yet Cox's story is precisely that, an unverified story.

Should we believe Mrs Cox, even though we have no confirmation from any source? And, even the claim Cox made about Kelly still singing after 1:00 am is contradicted by Mrs Prater.
It is a shame that the "Margaret" story did not provide more detail, or even a time. Whoever this woman was she may be the only confirmation of Blotchy's existence. Or, was "Margaret" actually Mrs Cox? The Cox story does begin in Dorset St.

Mary Ann Cox was (apparently) 31 yrs old in 1888, so she may qualify as "the young woman" (Margaret), who chose not to give her real name because this was before the inquest.

A young woman who goes by the name of Margaret says:- I saw Kelly on Thursday night in Dorset street. She told me she had no money, and intended to make away with herself. Shortly after that a man of shabby appearance came up, and Kelly walked away with him.

If "Margaret" was another woman entirely, which is perhaps more likely, then it is unfortunate no time was given for this sighting.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Although Sarah Lewis says she saw someone (Wide-awake man) near Miller’s Court not a single person at the time connected that sighting with Hutchinson. Not the police, not the press. The press were pouring over every aspect of the case at this stage and if there was a connection – if the Wide-awake man and Hutchinson were one and the same – then we can be fairly sure it would have been said.

That 'connection' is something I had looked for too, but we do not know what George Hutchinson looked like. Maybe he was tall and skinny.
Lewis described this loiterer as:
"He was a stout-looking man, and not very tall."

The police will have had Lewis's statement to hand, but when Hutchinson appeared on the 12th they would be able to see at a glance that he did not fit the meager description offered by Lewis. If so, then this may be the reason no connection was made.
As it is, we have just no idea what Hutch looked like (leaving aside Richard's "Topping" for the moment).

Are folks now superior – are they bright enough to make the connection, while our ancestor’s we too dumb to see?

Well, we've read of plenty who think just that

On the historical record.
We have a bona fide police document suggesting Ostrog was a likely suspect. This is part of the historic record. It tells us something about the police’s thinking at that time.

In all fairness though, we have no idea if Ostrog was suspected in 1888, we only have Mac's belated list appearing in 1894.
It's easy to look back and pick out three names of people who might have been guilty, but where they actually suspected at the time?
I think not.

Regarding Hutchinson’s discrediting – or perhaps more accurately his reduced importance as a witness – is it surprising the police did not use him as a witness in later cases?

If my suspicions are correct, and that Scotland Yard (Swanson, etc.) were "induced" by their top officials (Warren/Anderson), to follow the conclusions arrived at by Dr. Bond as to Kelly's possible time of death (1:00-2:00 am), then any witness sighting after that time becomes immaterial.
The police are not in a position to call these witnesses all liars, their hands are tied by official procedure, they have been 'told' to follow the "Blotchy" line of inquiry. Thereby placing the description given by Hutchinson as secondary, ie, of reduced importance. Not discredited in any way, because they cannot be absolutely sure Dr. Bond's estimate was correct, and concerns about Kelly's time of death had been expressed by the medical men.

Dew suggests that Hutchinson was discounted as well – based on an honest mistake of getting his days mixed up.

I take that as very unlikely. His sighting is associated with his return from Romford, which distinguished this night, apart from any other night.

Regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

Sorry...but when the conversation suggests we discount a witness that the police clearly did not, in favor of one they did, then we enter bizarro world.

There is not one reason to question Mary Ann Cox's remarks, and there is no way someone who lived outside the court, someone we cannot be sure even knew Mary Kelly, should have their "sighting" supercede Ms Cox's.

Lets review. Sarah Lewis, ...no way of knowing if she knew Mary Kelly or what she looked like. No way of knowing who she saw. Caroline Maxwell, a virtual stranger to Mary in her own words, someone who spoke to Mary twice during the past 4 months living on the same street....likely a "good day". George Hutchinson, someone who claims to have been at the location his story takes place at, without corroberation,... someone who claims he has known Mary,... something we have no way of validating, and someone who gave a story based on that knowledge of her 4 days after his "friend" was brutally murdered. A story so rich in detail and specifics that it took in the investigators for a few days. Until of course they investigated it, and presumably, him.

Legitimate witnesses, or witnesses that we have no grounds to suspect manufactured tales from....Julia, Maria, Mary Ann, Elizabeth, Bowyer, McCarthy, Phillips, Abberline. Additionally we have Sarah Lewis, who was in place to hear what she said when she said she heard it....corroborated by a witness we can trust. Barnett may or may not have an idea what happened in that room....but as her most recent live-in he needs a pretty good corroborated alibi.

There is absolutely no logic in dismissing trustworthy witnesses because their statements dont feed the particular fire some group or individual wants burning. I for one can see the Long's, Packers, Schwartz's, Hutchinsons and Maxwells...and others, for what they are in terms of the investigations. Diversions. Costly ones too. This study is still suffering from the wounds they caused....in some cases though perhaps with mal intent, but certainly all, collaterally.

Best regards

[Bridewell]

Believing

I cannot believe the detail that the description contains, certainly not from that distance, at that time of night and with the available light.

You can't, but Abberline did - and he'd been working the streets of 'H' Division for 20-odd years.

What distance are you referring to?

"I stood against the lamp of the Queen’s Head Public House and watched him. They both then came past me and the man hid down his head with his hat over his eyes. I stooped down and looked him in the face. He looked at me stern."

That reads like close proximity to me.

No offence, Michael, but I'll go with Abberline.

[Michael W Richards]

You can't, but Abberline did - and he'd been working the streets of 'H' Division for 20-odd years.

What distance are you referring to?

"I stood against the lamp of the Queen’s Head Public House and watched him. They both then came past me and the man hid down his head with his hat over his eyes. I stooped down and looked him in the face. He looked at me stern."

That reads like close proximity to me.

No offence, Michael, but I'll go with Abberline.

None taken BW, but consider that Abberline would have known someone that fit the description given to him by GH, he was.. if anyone was, the authority on the local figures. The close proximity was a pass, and thats not the distance he based his description of the man on.

Abberline also supported Schwartz strongly, ....and how did his Inquest testimony affect that investigation?

Abberline is reported to have given many opinions on whether anyone knew who the killer was, or who he might have been, but as the man on the ground with the community counting on him the most....this is where he became an up and coming star of the force based on his Fenian investigations, they threw him a party when he was promoted....I believe he was the most susceptible to evidence that on its appearance could be vital to solving the cases.

However, neither Israels witnessed tussle nor Marys alleged hustle are vital, as has been proven by the absence, and the withdrawl of support, respectively.

Cheers BW

[Wickerman]

Sorry...but when the conversation suggests we discount a witness that the police clearly did not, in favor of one they did, then we enter bizarro world.

Michael.
We shouldn't discount a witness which the police accepted?
You have just thrown your support behind Hutchinson - well done!


With respect to Cox, specifically, no-one suggested discounting Cox, what is being suggested, if you follow the context is, that "unverified" stories are no less acceptable that those which were verified. Which has been my position from the start.

The police accepted Cox's "unverified" story, therefore, this stigma suggested on the Boards against repeating stories which appeared in the press, and are therefore "assumed" to be unverified, is unsubstantiated.
(The truth is, we actually do not know whether various stories published in the newspapers were verified by the police, all the files being lost).

Actually, its an excuse. The true reason is to stop anyone considering a story which conflicts with 'certain' closely held theories.

Regards, Jon S.