A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[Observer]

Very hard Fisherman! The thing is all the police reports are lost. I would take everything the Echo reported with a very very large pinch of salt though. Wasn't it the Echo which reported that the piece of envelope bearing the Sussex Regiment address was found next to Polly Nichols body. And the interview with John Kelly melodramatic or what?

John Kelly: " Towards the afternoon I told Kate to take my boots and pawn them. She wouldn't for a long time, and offered to pawn something of hers, if I'd let her. I wouldn't hear of that, so Kate took my boots and got 2s. 6d. for them. Well, we sat here by this very table, and my old woman had the very same seat as you're in now, Sir. We had our tea, and then she said she thought she'd go and see a daughter of hers-a married daughter, I think she is. She used sometimes to go there, for her daughter only lived across in Bermondsey, and is very well off. I didn't want her to go that night, somehow. I was a bit afraid because of the Hanbury-street affair. However, she said she'd go, because she could get some help there, and the last words I said to her as she went out of the door were, "Don't be late, Kate, because of the knife!'"

"What did that mean?"-"Well, that's how we talk about the man who's done all these murders, Sir. She turned round just before she went out and said, 'Don't you trouble, Jack; I won't be late, and I shall be all right.' Then she left the house, and I saw her next in the mortuary."

Intrepid Echo reporter sat in the same seat as poor Catherine Eddowes no less! Yeah right.

And Kelly believed whoever had killed Kate Eddowes had killed the others eh? Where does that leave Sinn Fein? But he would say that seeing as he was part of the plot (he he) But thats for another thread.

Regards

Observer

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

Listen if Hutchinson admitted being opposite Millers Court on the morning in question at 2:30 a.m. and was later considered by Abbeline as having told a pack of lies regarding Astrakhan, the he would have become a suspect. No ifs and buts, it's pure unadulterated common sense.

That only follows if the police continued to believe that Hutchinson really was there that night. The overwhelmingly strong likelihood, however, is that after his credibility was doubted and his account discredited, he was adjudged to have been a mere two-a-penny publicity/money-seeker who wasn't there when he said he was. Were they wrong in making that determination? Perhaps so, but it there is no indication that Hutchinson was ever connected to Lewis' wideawake man (as he ought to have been), and the precedent for fame-seeking witnesses had been very much set.

I'd ask you to consider the case of Emmanuel Violenia. He claimed to have been at the scene of the Chapman murder around the time it was committed, and yet when his account was discredited, he did not become a suspect. They didn't suspect him of lying about his reasons for being at the crime scene. They suspected him of lying about being at the scene of the crime altogether, and the same undoubtedly occurred with Hutchinson.

Incidentally, it wasn't the case that either Violenia or Hutchinson were "found" to have been telling lies. They were merely suspected of same.

Hi Fisherman,

I think, if you don't mind, we've already done that one to death. You know precisely how I feel about Hutchinson's location. I feel that it would be taking pedantry to the absolute extreme if we attempt to make any meaningful distinction between the area immediately in front of Crossingham's and the area immediately in front of the Miller's Court entrance. A matter of eight feet separated these two locations, and most sane people who remain STANDING in one spot for any length of time tend to move around a bit, especially if it's cold. In short, there is not the remotest contradiction between Hutchinson and Lewis with regard to the loitering man's location.

But I'm sure you know very well that this is how I feel on the subject, just as you know how I feel on the subject of the proposed "date confusion". The Echo report makes clear that the reason for Hutchinson's discrediting was inextricably linked to the question of his honesty.

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

Hi Observer

I'm at a total loss here. Who exactly is Abberline's suspect mentioned above? Astrakhan?

Well yes - since we know that Abberline considered Hutchinson's statement and found it to be credible at the time. Ergo, the man with the Astrakhan coat was the Person of Interest - not the witness.

Listen if Hutchinson admitted being opposite Millers Court on the morning in question at 2:30 a.m. and was later considered by Abbeline as having told a pack of lies regarding Astrakhan, the he would have become a suspect.

No ifs and buts, it's pure unadulterated common sense.

Well, perhaps - but personally I think more likely suspected of being a time waster than a killer if that's what happened. He wouldn't have been the only one. It would've been a huge risk to insert himself into the investigation had he killed Kelly - it isn't the most immediately obvious solution, even though we know now that it does happen.

I've heard the comment that the Victorian detectives were unaware that killer's sometimes inserted themselves into murder inquiries, subsequently deflecting the inquiry from themselves. They thus are taken at face value and are not suspected by the police. Fair enough, but Hutchinson falls into a different catergory, he was later found to be telling lies, and discredited. Suspicion would then have fallen on him.

And yet there is apparently no sign that he was ever considered a suspect. I mean, it's not as if the police didn't know where he lived, is it? Yet no reports of his having been taken into custody as a suspect. So again, if he was discredited, it seems more likely that he was considered to be a time waster, perhaps hoping to make some money out of it - a chancer.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Hutchinson accounted for his extended loitering presence opposite the court on the very grounds ..."

That is a bit premature, I think, Ben. We do not know if Hutchinson ever placed himself "opposite the court". We only have him admitting to standing directly outside it, at "the corner of the court".
And the difference is potentially very important, as you know.

Observer:

"... if Hutchinson admitted being opposite Millers Court on the morning in question at 2:30 a.m. and was later considered by Abbeline as having told a pack of lies regarding Astrakhan, the he would have become a suspect."

Absolutely, Observer. But if he claimed that he never did stand outside Crossinghams for a split second, but instead spent the whole time directly outside the court, then Abberline would know that he was not the same man that Lewis saw.
And that would mean that Lewis could not have missed him, passing a foot from him - IF he stood on the coner of the court.

Faced with such testimony, Abberline would sooner or later have ebntertained the suspicion that one of the witnesses was not telling him the truth. And since the Keylers could confirm Lewis´arrival, that would have left him with just the one person with that sort of culpability - Hutchinson.

And we have Walter Dew implicating that he was probably mistaken on the days, but an honestly mistaken witness of a good character, just as we have the Echo saying that a diminished importance suddenly attached to the testimony, and we have a paper report that tells us that there were police officials who kept up the hunt for Astrakhan man after that trail had suffered a blow that diminished it´s importance greatly - but without dispelling it totally.

So how hard can it be?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Observer]

Nope, not 'most certainly' at all, I'm afraid. Why should Abberline have seen him as a suspect when he already had his suspect?

I'm at a total loss here. Who exactly is Abberline's suspect mentioned above? Astrakhan?

Listen if Hutchinson admitted being opposite Millers Court on the morning in question at 2:30 a.m. and was later considered by Abbeline as having told a pack of lies regarding Astrakhan, the he would have become a suspect.

No ifs and buts, it's pure unadulterated common sense.

I've heard the comment that the Victorian detectives were unaware that killer's sometimes inserted themselves into murder inquiries, subsequently deflecting the inquiry from themselves. They thus are taken at face value and are not suspected by the police. Fair enough, but Hutchinson falls into a different catergory, he was later found to be telling lies, and discredited. Suspicion would then have fallen on him.

It makes no difference which age he lived in. Given the same set of circumstances the ancient Egyptian police would have suspected Tel El Hutch. The ancient Hebrew police would have suspected Hal Ben Hutchy (relative of Ben?). But the old Irish police, yes they would have had the right idea, they would have retired to the nearest bar, and got blotto on Guinness. And rightly so.

Observer

[Ben]

So, why make Kelly's client look so different to anyone else in the neighborhood, or why make up a character that nobody else will see?

Three reasons, Jon:

1) Hutchinson accounted for his extended loitering presence opposite the court on the very grounds that the man "looked so different" to everyone else in the neighbourhood. That was the excuse that he gave to the police for being there. If he'd made the man out to be another scruffy local, he'd have negated his entire reason for being there, as provided to the police

2) If he wished to deflect suspicion away from himself, for whatever reason, it made obvious sense to describe someone very different to his own appearance.

3) The Astrakhan man pandered to existing impressions of the ripper's likely appearance as circulated in the press.

The loiterer will see Kelly & client disappear into the Court, but there was no guarantee another tenant in the Court would not see the same couple, so why tell a lie which could be found out immediately?

I'm not sure I understand the point. If Hutchinson lied about Kelly entering the court at a particular time with Astrakhan man, that lie was only vulnerable to exposure if "another tenant in the Court" happened to be looking out of his/her window at that time, which wasn't very likely after 2.00am.

On the other hand, Ben here seems confused with Lewis's "other couple" he places in Dorset St. - well, if he's correct, we have two more potential witnesses who could easily come forward and blow Hutchinson's charade out the window by giving more accurate descriptions of all involved and what took place.

How could the couple possibly have undermined Hutchinson's claims? The most they could possibly have seen is Hutchinson himself standing where he claimed to have stood ("Just like I said I was, guv!"), and they might have noticed Lewis going into the court.

Of course, he actually had no worries about this because the "couple" Lewis saw were Kelly & Client, there was no other couple.

NO.

Please let's not have this truly deplorable nonsense again. The couple seen by Lewis were NOT Kelly and her client. They had nothing to do with the court. They were a random couple passing along Dorset Street, which was full of unisex lodging houses. Lewis did "not know the deceased", nor did she identify her at the morgue as someone she might have seen on the night in question.

Thats the lie that would potentially get him found out and locked up.

Only if the police could PROVE it was a lie, which they didn't, and couldn't.

And, living in the area, like Hutchinson claimed, it is rather ludicrous for anyone to maintain the character was invented. Isaac's only lived around on Little Paternoster Row, he may well have been Kelly's penultimate client.

Sadly no, if you look at the other thread, you'll see that we've pissed on that bonfire. Sorry. Isaacs was in prison at the time of the Kelly murder.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Nope, not 'most certainly' at all, I'm afraid. Why should Abberline have seen him as a suspect when he already had his suspect?

Then it is plain you have no understanding how the police operate.

Regards, Jon S.

[Sally]

Well Sally, if I'm not mistaken, you clearly stated your support for the theory that the police did not make a connection between Hutchinson and Lewis's Loiterer, correct?

A theory? I hardly think so Jon. It's merely an idea. I happily admit to having no idea what actually happened - it's the only sensible response to the paucity of information in this case.

And then, you try tell me, you don't have a theory?

Absolutely. I don't. No horses to back here, I'm afraid. It's far too burdensome for me.

Hutchinson stepped into Commercial St. Stn. as a witness, the police saw him as a potential suspect, seeing that he admitted to being one of the last persons to see Kelly alive.

Most certainly, Abberline had him in his sights as both witness & suspect.

Nope, not 'most certainly' at all, I'm afraid. Why should Abberline have seen him as a suspect when he already had his suspect?

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
I think that he would have needed a cover story for placing himself at the scene watching Marys room Jon, a protector of sorts seems to be his choice for that story.

Hi Mike.
I agree, he needs to provide a reason for standing and apparently intently watching up the passage. So, why make Kelly's client look so different to anyone else in the neighborhood, or why make up a character that nobody else will see?
The loiterer will see Kelly & client disappear into the Court, but there was no guarantee another tenant in the Court would not see the same couple, so why tell a lie which could be found out immediately?

On the other hand, Ben here seems confused with Lewis's "other couple" he places in Dorset St. - well, if he's correct, we have two more potential witnesses who could easily come forward and blow Hutchinson's charade out the window by giving more accurate descriptions of all involved and what took place.

The loiterer (Hutch) will need to give as accurate a story as he is able, or he will potentially get himself thrown in the slammer.
The last person to see Mary Kelly alive, found out to be telling lies? - lock him up!

Nobody is going to be that stupid.
Of course, he actually had no worries about this because the "couple" Lewis saw were Kelly & Client, there was no other couple.

I dont however believe that the man was seen by Hutchinson, with Mary, and under the circumstances he describes.

Thats the lie that would potentially get him found out and locked up.

As has been said before, the description is almost identical to that of General Millen, the double agent likely known by Inspector Abberline, or perhaps one Mr Isaacs who moved into a lodging house just down the road about the time that Joe left Mary and then disappeared leaving some belongings behind the night she is murdered.

I though Millen was out of the country?

Astrachan may have been Joseph Isaac's, he apparently convinced Abberline that he was not the man they were looking for.
And, living in the area, like Hutchinson claimed, it is rather ludicrous for anyone to maintain the character was invented. Isaac's only lived around on Little Paternoster Row, he may well have been Kelly's penultimate client.

I don't think Astrachan killed MJK, but I agree he did exist.

We know Mary was seeing another "Joe". Most, including myself, have at one time or another imagined that Joe was Flemming. Perhaps though.. it was a Joe Isaacs.

now there's something I had not read before, and Isaac's was single - maybe she was looking for a sugar daddy?

Thanks for that, you have shone a light on an obvious parallel for the local Mr Astrachan - Joseph Isaac's.
Although we have discussed the resemblance of Isaac's to Hutchinson's suspect, we have assumed this was nothing but coincidence.
I had overlooked the fact he lived around the corner from Dorset St. and, as Hutch claimed, he could be a frequent visitor around the market.

It might be interesting to find a date when Isaac's he disappeared from his lodging house, was it the same day that the description of Astrachan appeared in the press?

Regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

Most certainly, Abberline had him in his sights as both witness & suspect.

Regards, Jon S.

I think that you are partially correct with the above Jon, the only correction I would offer is that Abberline did not consider him as both simultaneously.

Cheers mate

[Wickerman]

Right you are Jon. And I don't have a theory - do you?

Well Sally, if I'm not mistaken, you clearly stated your support for the theory that the police did not make a connection between Hutchinson and Lewis's Loiterer, correct?

And in support of that theory, you speculated that the reason might have been 'overwork' on the part of the whole police in general, or Abberline in particular, or something of that nature.

Theory supported by speculation! - see what I mean.

And then, you try tell me, you don't have a theory?


And, as to your earlier response..

Neither were suspects - they were witnessess. An important distinction.

Hutchinson stepped into Commercial St. Stn. as a witness, the police saw him as a potential suspect, seeing that he admitted to being one of the last persons to see Kelly alive.

Most certainly, Abberline had him in his sights as both witness & suspect.

Regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Mike.

Hypothetically then, lets just say he chose to place himself in the role. What is the need for this Astrachan-looking-guy, when everyone knew what the real suspects looked like from the various descriptions published by the police?

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Jon,

I think that he would have needed a cover story for placing himself at the scene watching Marys room Jon, a protector of sorts seems to be his choice for that story. A-Man is extremely interesting if not an entirely accurate representation of a man Hutchinson says he saw, or more specifically says he saw when he says he was there watching...the minute detail, to me anyway, seems to be an indicator that the man Hutch was describing actually existed.... pretty well as described.

I dont however believe that the man was seen by Hutchinson, with Mary, and under the circumstances he describes. Which leaves me wondering whether Hutchinson suspected that the person he described was actually Marys killer, or someone he wanted the police to believe was responsible.

As has been said before, the description is almost identical to that of General Millen, the double agent likely known by Inspector Abberline, or perhaps one Mr Isaacs who moved into a lodging house just down the road about the time that Joe left Mary and then disappeared leaving some belongings behind the night she is murdered.

We know Mary was seeing another "Joe". Most, including myself, have at one time or another imagined that Joe was Flemming. Perhaps though.. it was a Joe Isaacs.

I wonder if Hutchinson had any connection to the landlady in Little Paternoster's Row where this Isaac's stayed...she found him very odd, even contacted the police when he left his violin behind.

Best regards

[Sally]

Surely not Sally, a more likely explaination is that the Police were incompentent.

Monty

Oh yeah. Silly me!

[Monty]

You're quite right Ben. I think it's easy for us to forget just how fraught the situation was at the time from the comfort of our latter day armchairs. Mistakes can be made under pressure - and frequently are.

Surely not Sally, a more likely explaination is that the Police were incompentent.

Monty

[Sally]

Agreed 100%, Sally.

The fact that we focus so much attention on it these days is because we have, potentially, all the time in the world to do so. We're under no pressure to catch the offender, and we're not having to wade through tons of paperwork and fend off mounting criticism. Moreover, even modern-day serial killer investigations are rife with examples of minor details and potential connections being overlooked midst the mayhem.

All the best,
Ben

You're quite right Ben. I think it's easy for us to forget just how fraught the situation was at the time from the comfort of our latter day armchairs. Mistakes can be made under pressure - and frequently are.