A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[Ben]

Let's see how much of this nonsense I can sort out before bedtime, and there's a truly terrible amount of it.

We'll start off with the "detailed description provided by Hutchinson":

I repeat (because that’s what you seem to doing a lot of for some unfathomable reason) that the only opportunity Hutchinson had to notice anything beyond a dark, overcoat-clad figure with a moustache, hat and parcel, occurred fleetingly as the couple allegedly passed in close proximity to a gas lamp, which would have been a naked flame that emitted a negligible degree of light. Altogether, the conditions were woefully insufficient for Hutchinson to even notice, let alone memorize, all that he alleged.

But, oh dear, that single fleeting window of opportunity was taken up with peering into the man’s face. That was his ONLY opportunity, and he spent it fixating on the man's face, trying to peer into it. Too bad for the myriad other accessories he claimed to have seen, and which he super-added to when he came to be interviewed by the press, shortly before he and his account were discredited. Too bad for horseshoe tie-pins, red stone seals, and "light buttons over button boots".

You can utterly dispense with the idea that Hutchinson noticed anything besides a dark figure in a overcoat as he allegedly followed the couple from behind to Dorset Street, and we certainly don't embrace the absurd suggestion that he could spy tiny, fiddly accessories from a supposed vantage point on Dorset Street looking towards the entrance to Miller's Court...in miserable conditions, in darkness, at nighttime, in Victorian London. The horrible argument that Abberline was so incredibly amazingly and knew the streets like the back of his hand (blah blah blah) fails to take on board the reality that his initial, premature faith in Hutchinson's account was evidently short-lived. Remember that the Echo, who indisputably communicated with the police, reported that the account had suffered a "reduced importance" in light of "later investigations".

Then we move on to "Toppy" (if people really want to do that again):

No, Richard, I'm afraid the faith you invest in an untraceable radio show from the 1970s remains as misplaced as it is thoroughly inadmissible as any sort of evidence for a Toppy provenance that predates the abysmal, laughed-out-of-town "Ripper and the Royals". And yes, sorry, I DO believe that Reginald Hutchinson's implication of the royal family and Lord Randolph Churchill coincided suspiciously with Fairclough's and Gorman-Sickert's attempts to finger precisely those people for the Whitechapel murders.

I’d only add that a researcher who has been in contact with the Topping Hutchinson family has expressed the view that the radio interview never occurred, at least not as you remembered it. I'd respectfully submit that your memory is playing tricks on you, and that the evidence squarely points in that direction.

Then there's the ongoing Kennedy nonsense:

Prater spoke to the press alright on the 10th, but she told them she heard nothing through the night, skirting the intent of the rule.

It doesn't make a scrap of difference, Jon. Prater still communicated with the press against the wishes of the police, and yet she was still called to appear at the inquest, unlike Kennedy who was exposed as a plagiarizer of someone else's account (as I'm prepared to reiterate until hell freezes if necessary - seriously, let's see whose pettiness lasts longer. My money's on me).

Was he even asked about Lewis?

He wasn't asked about anyone.

Had he been, the press would have discovered that his name was Keyler, not "Gallagher". Fortunately, the overwhelming indications are that the press didn't interview Mr. Keyler, less still had him confirm any aspect or the risible "Mrs. Kennedy" account. My point is that if we entertain the fantasy that it happened, it would be nonsensical and illogical for him to mention the arrival of one woman (Kennedy) and not the other (Lewis). Once again, anyone who professes any true familiarity with the evidence would know how unutterably outlandish to suggest that these were two women who had virtually identical experiences, which is presumably why none of the ripper authors of note have ever advanced it. One can only stretch "coincidence" so far, and it goes way beyond breaking point in the Kennedy/Lewis case.

Ah, you must have a different copy of the Daily Telegraph than everyone else, Lewis makes no reference to Dorset St. in fact the context is "looking up the court":
"The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. Further on there was a man and woman..."

No, Jon.

You have completely misinterpreted Lewis' evidence as reported in the Daily Telegraph:

"When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake. There was no one talking to him. He was a stout-looking man, and not very tall. The hat was black. I did not take any notice of his clothes. The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink".

She saw the man in Dorset Street, and the couple were further along Dorset Street.

You need to digest and understand this as everyone else does.

If I say that I saw Jack in Dorset Street, and that "further on" I saw Jill, I obviously mean that Jill was further along Dorset Street. It doesn't matter if Jack was staring down some alley. "Further on" irrefutably meant further on from where he actually was, not further on from his assumed line of vision or beyond what he might have been gawping at.

The Coroner then would ask, where did this couple go? - to which the response would be that Lewis could not say, "there was no one in the court".

But that's precisely what she did say, and she would certainly not have said it if she'd seen anyone walk up the court (to venture once again into "extremely obvious" territory).

The intention of the police to 'gag' witnesses is to stop the spread of potentially critical evidence, which includes speaking to everybody, not just the press. Prater, talked a little, but not of the details which concerned the police.

No offence, but I suspect you are pronouncing rather weightily on matters which you may not be very clued up on. Who says the police would request that a witness refrain from speaking to friends and family in addition to the press? Can that realistically be implemented, or is it far far more reasonable to conclude that the "gagging" order extended to the press only?

It is the Coroner who, after reading all statements, chooses which witness he wants to speak to, and Macdonald kept his witness selection to a minimum when compared to Baxter

...In consultation with the police, who would supply them with actual police statements as opposed to press poopoo, and after sifting out the obvious crap which, in this case, included "Mrs. Kennedy" and one or two others.

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".

And the evidence that she "talked" to Abberline comes from...?

That's right - Kennedy herself, which is worthless because we know she was nothing more than a parrot of Sarah Lewis' genuine account.

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.

It just gets worse. Not only are you relying on discredited evidence, you're actually changing it yourself in order that it might accommodate other, equally discredited evidence. Either you accept Hutchinson's claim that he left the corner of Miller's Court at 3.00am or you reject it as the probable fabrication it clearly was, but don't attempt to "fiddle" with it to make it seem more plausible.

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?

No. We fall back on the very clear and very compelling evidence that her press claims were the result of an attempt to plagiarize and parrot the genuine experience of a genuine witness - Sarah Lewis. But still you cling to the woeful misconception that "not being contradicted" is the crowning virtue by which we assess the truthfulness or accuracy of evidence. It just isn't, nor has it ever been.

Remember, Cox's story was not corroborated by the police either.

But she gave a police statement and appeared at the inquest, and there is no indication that her evidence was ever doubted.

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.

Exactly, your theory is "shot full of holes, burned to ashes" etc, so it might be advisable if you popped yourself along to new posting pastures. Stride perhaps, or the Swanson marginalia. You might have better luck with those.

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

What are you on about?

So, because there are minor variations in the arguments put forward by those who refuse to view Hutchinson as a squeaky-clean honest-to-goodness truth champion, those arguments must be unsatisfactory?

What?!?

I really hate to break it you, but there's not a whole lot of unity going on among the pro-Hutchinsonian arguments, and their exponents aren't exactly bum chums either.

[Wickerman]

Yes, Jon, his sighting IS associated with the return from Romford.

But when was that...?

Hi Christer.
Well, his claim reads like it was a single day trip.

"On Thursday last I had been to Romford, in Essex, and I returned from there about two o'clock on Friday morning, having walked all the way."

He may have been there for several days, or just journeyed down there on the Thursday, as his claim appears to suggest.
I understand your point, but this Tesco would have to be a 14 mile walk.

Now, if you compared Hutchinson's journey with a longer trip, the equivalent of a journey where some considerable effort and discomfort was involved (pain & suffering tend to be remembered), rather than a shopping spree, there may be a parallel.

Rather than build a case on 'what ifs', why not stick with what we have?


Regards, Jon S.

[Bridewell]

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.

As I was replying to your claim that Hutchinson was discredited, I don't think I can be accused of derailing the thread by introducing another Hutchinson debate.

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,

I don't share your confidence in the integrity of The Star.

Hutchinson claimed to have had significant contact with Kelly on the night of her death, and to have spent some time watching Millers Court. He is relevant to the subject of this thread, as is Abberline's formal, official and hand-written statement that Hutchinson was, in his opinion, a truthful witness.

[Fisherman]

Jon:

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

Yes, Jon, his sighting IS associated with the return from Romford.

But when was that...?

That´s where the possbility of a mistaken day lies. Some people will say things like these.
"I know that I saw Charlie on Tuesday, because I had been to Tescos before and I only go to Tescos on Tuesdays."
"Yes, dear, but don´t you remember that you had a headache on Tuesday, so you went to Tescos on Wednesday instead?"
"Blimey!"

It seems quite apparent that the event was connected to the Romford business, but Hutchinson was out of a regular job and perhaps he filled in here and there, working at odd hours, making his whole schedule float somewhat. Regular habits would not have been something he enjoyed, and in such situations, things very easily get muddled.

And he didn´t see Lewis, did he?

I won´t add any statments about how I will copy and paste my former reasoning if anybody should want to challenge me on this point, Jon - I just want to explain how I see it, and then I´ll go do something else.

Just like that!

All the best,
Fisherman

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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,
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