A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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

[The Good Michael]

Hello Michael.

"In my scenario, the killer hadn't killed indoors before because he was opportunistic, taking what was available. When Kelly brought him to her room, he was presented with a new opportunity. It's absolute simplicity."

Very well. Then an indoor massacre is not what he wanted all along.

I can live with that.

This is what I think...at this time. I don't believe he knew what he wanted exactly and improvised each time.

Mike

[Michael W Richards]

Hi again,

What I did Michael is put what you said you believed in terms that fall within the realm of accepted evidence. Ergo, if you believe she brought a man home with her, you have only Blotchy to use as your man. Cox lived in the court, knew Mary and spoke with her..the last person we can say did that.... and she described him, all the while admitting that she was herself out soliciting that night. I dont think it gets better than that. Self incrimination with the account, at least on moral if not legal grounds, is a pretty powerful combination when the witness has nothing personally at stake when giving her statement.

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. There are no courtyard witnesses that heard Mary leave after midnight, and none that heard or saw Mary arrive again later with company. I wonder why everyone was now so silent... when Mary arrived earlier she sang for over an hour. The only sound that is not recorded as being from the courtyard witnesses was a cry at around 3:45, likely Mary since she is the only woman that couldnt speak for herself that Friday afternoon. No sounds followed the scream..which erodes the attack commencement assumed linkage.

So, when its reported that same week that the "witness was discredited", the only thing left that makes me curious about him is why he would do this.

The crux of the thread case is was he a stranger to Mary or not..I havent seen any evidence that I know was accepted as valid that makes the case for a Stranger.

Best regards

[Wickerman]

I keep reading that George Hutchinson was a "discredited witness", but no-one has detailed the evidence which discredits him. What we do have is the following, from Abberline:

"An important statement has been made by a man named George Hutchinson which I forward herewith. I have interrogated him this evening and I am of the opinion that his statement is true".

Abberline's words, in his own hand, on an official document - notes taken at the time. How and why is Hutchinson discredited? What evidence, of equivalent stature to the above, exists which discredits him? Speculation based upon contemporary press reports doesn't cut the mustard; nor does the argument which insists that he cannot have seen what he claims to have done under the prevailing lighting conditions - Abberline was as familiar with those conditions as any man alive at the time, and he placed on record his opinion, formed after interrogation, that Hutchinson was truthful. If there is evidence that Hutchinson was discredited, please can someone publish it; if there is only opinion, please can it be acknowledged to be such.

Many thanks.

And many thanks to you Colin. Sober sensible sentiments are what that old Hutchinson debate was short of.

Why some choose to wave The Star around as some kind of trustworthy source is the subject of continuing amusement.

One contemporary detractor of this New Journalism, E.T. Raymond, described the use of "questionable journalistic practices", and that the Star was "half a joke and half a crusade".
Ref: Papers for the Millions: The New Journalism in Britain, 1850s to 1914, Ed. Weiner, 1988.

It was only the Star who chose to use the word "discredit". The Echo, being less controversial and more accurate simply described Hutchinson's statement as now of reduced importance, which, considering what we have learned about the unpublished medical opinion is a reasonable position to take.

And, as you rightly point out, we have no comment from the police which retracts Abberline's initial opinion. There is no indication the police lost faith in his statement, only that the police (the Met.) had been "induced" to follow a different line of inquiry.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Bridewell,
Would it come to a surprise to anyone , that I agree one-hundred -percent.
Over the years we have[ as I have mentioned countless times] persecuted the man Hutchinson, and tarred him with all kinds of foul deeds.
He was ''interrogated'' by Abberline, and he believed the man, and as Bridewell said, the sighting in darkness was not considered abnormal, and the inspector was not stupid.
I have been on this site since before the millennium , and we are still disputing statements made to the police as suspicious, instead of attempting to make sense of what we have.
Regards Richard.

Hello Richard.
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.
Hutchinson as a suspect has a very limited appeal, its not that he couldn't have been involved, but its the quality of the arguments used to incriminate him where this whole modern case against him collapses.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

not what I really want

Hello Michael.

"In my scenario, the killer hadn't killed indoors before because he was opportunistic, taking what was available. When Kelly brought him to her room, he was presented with a new opportunity. It's absolute simplicity."

Very well. Then an indoor massacre is not what he wanted all along.

I can live with that.

Cheers.
LC

[richardnunweek]

Hi Bridewell,
Would it come to a surprise to anyone , that I agree one-hundred -percent.
Over the years we have[ as I have mentioned countless times] persecuted the man Hutchinson, and tarred him with all kinds of foul deeds.
He was ''interrogated'' by Abberline, and he believed the man, and as Bridewell said, the sighting in darkness was not considered abnormal, and the inspector was not stupid.
I have been on this site since before the millennium , and we are still disputing statements made to the police as suspicious, instead of attempting to make sense of what we have.
Regards Richard.

[Bridewell]

Discredited Witness

I keep reading that George Hutchinson was a "discredited witness", but no-one has detailed the evidence which discredits him. What we do have is the following, from Abberline:

"An important statement has been made by a man named George Hutchinson which I forward herewith. I have interrogated him this evening and I am of the opinion that his statement is true".

Abberline's words, in his own hand, on an official document - notes taken at the time. How and why is Hutchinson discredited? What evidence, of equivalent stature to the above, exists which discredits him? Speculation based upon contemporary press reports doesn't cut the mustard; nor does the argument which insists that he cannot have seen what he claims to have done under the prevailing lighting conditions - Abberline was as familiar with those conditions as any man alive at the time, and he placed on record his opinion, formed after interrogation, that Hutchinson was truthful. If there is evidence that Hutchinson was discredited, please can someone publish it; if there is only opinion, please can it be acknowledged to be such.

Many thanks.

[The Good Michael]

Ahh, I see. Well then I guess youve solved the case to your own satisfaction,... so, for you, Mary Kelly was killed by Blotchy Man. Since he is the ONLY man that legitimate witnesses ever stated they saw Mary enter her room with aside from Barnett perhaps, youve narrowed it down to that one man. Or another premise is that without any pressing urgency concerning her financial welfare at that time, she is after all fed and watered without any appropriate funds that we know of..and she does have a bed, arrears or not....Mary decides in her drunken state to go out into the rain and trying earning some money which she cannot spend after 1:30am. Seems logical to you, does it?

If you take into account the witnesses that were warned about their statements and ones that had their statements "discredited", then I guess you could make a loose case around that supposition.

Id prefer to use the witnesses that lived in the court or in 26 Dorset myself, since they are the only ones I can be safely confident that actually knew Mary to some degree.

All the best Mike, thanks for the explanation.

I have no idea what you're going on about. It all started with me stating that it is logical for prostitutes to bring men home on occasion providing they have one. Blotchy and witnesses and lack of money urgency...I said nothing about such things.

Cheers,

Mike

[Michael W Richards]

This is in response to both of your responses. It seems you haven't read my posts well enough to put together my logical answer. In my scenario, the killer hadn't killed indoors before because he was opportunistic, taking what was available. When Kelly brought him to her room, he was presented with a new opportunity. It's absolute simplicity.

Mike

Ahh, I see. Well then I guess youve solved the case to your own satisfaction,... so, for you, Mary Kelly was killed by Blotchy Man. Since he is the ONLY man that legitimate witnesses ever stated they saw Mary enter her room with aside from Barnett perhaps, youve narrowed it down to that one man. Or another premise is that without any pressing urgency concerning her financial welfare at that time, she is after all fed and watered without any appropriate funds that we know of..and she does have a bed, arrears or not....Mary decides in her drunken state to go out into the rain and trying earning some money which she cannot spend after 1:30am. Seems logical to you, does it?

If you take into account the witnesses that were warned about their statements and ones that had their statements "discredited", then I guess you could make a loose case around that supposition.

Id prefer to use the witnesses that lived in the court or in 26 Dorset myself, since they are the only ones I can be safely confident that actually knew Mary to some degree.

All the best Mike, thanks for the explanation.

[The Good Michael]

Which means you have an explanation how a total stranger entered her room without her permission, without waking her, without an alarmed cry that is then followed by sounds of scuffling...with 2 locked windows, and a door likely locked by a spring latch set to "off".

Really...its so easy to state a position and yet so difficult to explain how in the hell the idea actually works in real life, aint it Mike?

There are only a few logical answers and youre avoidance of them is interesting... but not an argument.

This is in response to both of your responses. It seems you haven't read my posts well enough to put together my logical answer. In my scenario, the killer hadn't killed indoors before because he was opportunistic, taking what was available. When Kelly brought him to her room, he was presented with a new opportunity. It's absolute simplicity.

Mike

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben.

Other witnesses did precisely that, including Elizabath Prater, and they were still called to the inquest - evidently because they weren't exposed as plagiarizers of other peoples' eyewitness accounts, as Kennedy was.

That's not the case though is it, 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.
Whereas, Kennedy told the whole story. All I'm saying here is you are not comparing apples with apples.

Of course, if the police did interview "Gallagher", it would be rather odd that he mentioned Kennedy arriving at a "late hour" whilst conspicuously omitting any reference to Lewis who also arrived a late hour, making at least four people attempting to sleep in a cramped room the same size as Kelly's!

Was he even asked about Lewis?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
There is actually nothing strange about a press article only reporting on answers to questions asked.

Take a look at Kozebrodski's story to the press:
"I went to look for a policeman....."
"I took the direction towards Grove-street ...."

There's no mention of Diemschitz, Kozebrodski's account reads like he was alone.

The same is noticeable when Diemschitz tells the same story:
"I ran off at once for the police...
I could not find a constable...
I shouted out "Police!" as loudly as I could....
A man whom I met in Grove- street returned with me..."

Anyone reading these accounts would swear these men were alone. In fact some may have chosen to label one a liar because his story 'parroted' the other (sound familiar?).
Except, that Spooner tells us that two men came running towards him, both shounting "murder", "police", and they both ran as far as Grove St., then turned back.

See how easy it is to get the wrong idea, if there are not enough 'Spooners' in the world?

I just provided a quote from the Daily Telegraph that establishes as much very clearly indeed. Lewis described the loitering man as being on Dorset Street, and she then describes the other couple as being "further on".

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..."

Further on "up the court", nothing to do with Dorset St.

Due to these inquest testimonies being conflated, when each comment was separated by another question, it is easy to get the wrong impression.
The press often publish these accounts as if they were continuous statements, they were not.
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".

As for the Star, nobody but you has suggested that they invented...

Their past record for "inventing" details is already established.
One point was not replacing the other, you may take it as two separate points.

Even if Hutchinson did approach the court as he claimed in the press (not in his police report), it is quite clear that Sarah Lewis ONLY saw him when he was standing opposite the court on the other side of Dorset Street.

No, we've already reported on what was clear.

And those same witnesses - conveniently for my dastardly "theories" - just happen to have been discredited by the police at the time.

More unsupported claims?
You're ancestors didn't happen to work for the Star, did they Ben?

I said she honoured her agreement not to speak to the press. I never said she was prohibited by the police from talking to friends and possibly family about her experience.

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.

Indeed. They were comparing testimony to determine which of it was worth including in the inquest, .....

No they don't.
The police gather as many statements as they can. And, investigate as many as they are able.
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.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

hear ye, hear ye

Hello Jon.

"Of course the man is going to uphold her dignity when the whole world (figuratively speaking) is watching."

Makes sense to me. In fact, it makes one wonder why he even let it be know that she had been a prostitute at all.

Cheers.
LC