A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

There is not one reason to question Mary Ann Cox's remarks,

Reason 1.
Cox:
"...Deceased was still singing at one o'clock when I returned. I remained in the room for a minute to warm my hands as it was raining, and went out again. She was singing still,..."

Prater:
"...I went to bed at half past one – I did not hear any singing – I should have heard any one if singing in the deceaseds room at 1 oclock, there was no one singing. "

Reason 2.
"...Inquiry has equally failed to obtain evidence of Kelly or any person similar to the man described having bought beer at any of the neighbouring public-houses."

Two reason's, the very existence of her principal character at this time and, the time she heard Kelly singing, are enough to question Cox's story, if it is ever deemed necessary.
I am quite satisfied that unverifiable stories such as this were still accepted by the police. It also goes to show that just because a story cannot be verified, the police will not reject it.

We have a number of witness observations (in the press) which are considered 'unverified', without actually knowing whether that is true or not. So, claiming a story was unverified is not sufficient reason for rejection - that has been my point.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

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.

I don´t mind sticking with what we have, Jon. And we have Dew pointing to Hutchinson being out on the days, just as we have Lewis passing right over the toecaps of his shoes, without him noticing her. We have a lot of things that speak for a muddling, actually, with Hutchinson not nailing one single person of the ones others nailed on the night in question, and not describing any bad weather at all, although we know that this was so.

However, I realize that you don´t really understand what I am getting at on the main issue here, Jon. I am not saying that there was not a sequence involved that tells us that he probably DID go down to Romford, perhaps worked there and then started out on a nightly trek home, arriving at an early hour. Just like you, I find it very reasonable that this was so.

What I am saying is that if somebody - just like in the Texco case - stepped in and said "But Toppy, dear, Romford must have been on Wednesday; on Thursday you were at my place, fixing the pipes!", then Hutchinson may have gone "Blimey!".

The sequence will be correct - but not necessarily the dating of it.

All the best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hello Ben,
I cannot let your impression of my memory go unanswered , I appreciate that after all of the years gone, there is no trace of such a programme, although I can assure you it was advertised in the Radio times, it had to have been, as I would not have been aware of the forthcoming airing.
If anyone wants to take up the challenge of looking through several years of the publication, feel free, it is so annoying that I cannot place a date, after all one would never have realised that some 40 years down the line that precision would have been of importance .
You suggest that a researcher has been in touch with the Hutchinson family and they can not recall a programme ...at least as ''I remember it''
I would like to know what that exactly means ..
The programme was entitled ''The man that saw Jack'' [ or something similar] and featured a interview with the witnesses son.
The whole encounter was discussed, and it is an absolute , that as it included an exact recollection of what is included in The Ripper and the Royals'', it has to be the tale handed down to Reg Hutchinson via his father Topping. that being ''18 years or more'' prior to his interview with Fairclough.
With respect, it is one thing being adamant that the broadcast never happened just because nobody on Casebook, including yourself never heard it, and the actual reality.
I will conclude in accepting, that the 1970s was a time for speculation on the Royal family involvement, and several programmes were aired with the'Hushed up theme' and It would not be surprising that as the Hutchinson statement referring to a ''better class of suspect'' it would have been included.
My whole point in referring to my hearing such a broadcast, is to dispel beliefs that the tale from Reg Hutchinson was exclusive to Fairclough.
Regards Richard..

[Lechmere]

Ben can you show me where Kennedy (Kennedy specifically) was exposed as a plagiariser – not by your convoluted theorising – but by a contemporary source.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

The issue here is one of provenance. Unless it can be demonstrated that your radio show existed, it will remain wholly inadmissible as any sort of evidence of a pre-Fairclough acceptance on the part of the family that Toppy had anything to do with the witness from 1888. As the evidence stands, the idea did not surface until 1992 when Fairclough published a book that attempted to implicate the royal family and Lord Randolph Churchill, with Reg's help. "It was someone like Lord Randolph Churchill" said Reg of Toppy's alleged sighting, and - what an interesting coincidence! - that was precisely who Fairclough was trying to implicate in the murders, and whose photograph was featured on the back cover of the book.

I understand that several people, including your good self, have attempted to trace the elusive show with no success. Somebody located a viable candidate in terms of time and date, but it contained no reference to Hutchinson, Toppy or Reg. The researcher I referred to was David Knott, who has been in touch with the family, and does not believe the radio show existed as you remember it.

My whole point in referring to my hearing such a broadcast, is to dispel beliefs that the tale from Reg Hutchinson was exclusive to Fairclough.

But you haven't dispelled those beliefs, and nor can you until evidence for the show's existence is provided.

But all this would be better discussed on the Toppy threads if it needs repeating at all.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

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.

Never mind, Bridewell.

We're here now, nicely entrenched in yet another Hutchinson debate.

We're back to Toppy, the discredited issue, and we're even seeing "date confusion" again.

It was fun while the "A theory - the access to Mary Kelly" lasted, but...

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere,

Ben can you show me where Kennedy (Kennedy specifically) was exposed as a plagiariser – not by your convoluted theorising – but by a contemporary source.

I've demonstrated that Kennedy must have been one of the woman reported by the Star to have parrotted an "oh murder" account. It is, beyond reasonable doubt, the only explanation that accounts for both the strong similarity between the Lewis and Kennedy accounts, and the absence of Mrs. Kennedy from the inquest. No, I'm not going to repeat myself at your behest. You'll just have to read the thread from the beginning. We've wasted enough time on this off-topic Kennedy nonsense already. And don't antagonise me by accusing me of "convoluted" theorizing. If you can't get your head around a basic, inescapable deduction, I'm afraid that's not my problem.

Repetition war, anyone? I'm game.

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.

But the "post-Blotchy" witnesses were all discredited, making the foundation very shaky indeed. Looking at the inquest evidence only, there is no indication that Kelly ventured out afterwards.

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.

But if you examine other serial cases, you'll observe that the offenders do alter their tactics when targetting indoor locations. Ted Buindy was accustomed to hoodwinking his victims into accompanying him after adopting a false guise, but when it came to the Tallahassee murders, he simply "broke in" and attacked. The point being that different crime venues will often call for a different approach.

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.

No.

We know that doesn't follow at all. Mary Cox had her own room and it clear she serviced her clients on the street, and the obvious reasons for this have been discussed at length already. 1) It was her only "sanctuary" away from work and didn't want it sullied. 2) It was more lucrative as it meant more clients could be "got through" quicker. It isn't unreasonable to suggest that Blotchy was a client, but there are obvious indications against it. She started singing very shortly after closing the door and evidently carried on for some considerable time thereafter. Doesn't seem very contractual to me.

Cox observed from Mary's speech that she was "very much intoxicated", or in other words "blind drunk". There is nothing remotely problematic about this observation, and there is no credible evidence to contradict it. In all likelihood, a heavily intoxicated Kelly went home for the last time at 11:45pm with Blotchy, from whose pale she consumed yet more alcohol, rendering it unlikely that she would emerge at 2.00am in "spreeish" mode. The idea that Kelly allowed Blotchy home but permitted him to drink all the booze without offering her any is very, very improbable.

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

Since when did you become American, Lechmere? "Folks".."dumb".

It's not that we've become superior, but rather the simple fact that we have many years on our hands in which to assess the evidence. We're not a beleaguered police force having to sift through many hundreds of leads, most of them bogus, and being pressured from all sides. Anyway, you're hardly the best person to argue the case that contemporary police and press could not have failed to overlook a detail. Everyone "looked past" the possibility of Charles Cross' guilt according to you, remember? If they could do that, they could certainly overlook the Lewis-wideawake connection.

And there is a connection.

Very obviously so.

The "coincidence" of timing and detail between Lewis's wideawake man and Hutchinson is too great for it to be argued credibly that they were too separate individuals.

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.

If the statements were made by actual suspects, yes, I agree entirely.

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.

She was, and they did.

They may have assumed, incorrectly, that Kennedy was the original witness, and that other women had parrotted her account (an issue that was cleared up when Lewis appeared at the inquest and Kennedy didn't), but the Star's report unquestionably clears up the issue of the startling Kennedy/Lewis similarity. Whatever faults the Star may have had, they were often first on the scene and uncovered details missed by their rivals, and here is an obvious case in point.

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.

But the inquest evidence of Kelly's behaviour that night is wholly at odds with the image of her as someone anxious to earn more money. Compare her "very much intoxicated" behaviour and extended song-singing with Mary Cox going in and out, "upset", by her own admission, because she owed money. Her behaviour was utterly consistent with immediate money-related anxieties. Kelly's wasn't.

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?

That's not the point.

Had the statement not been discredited, Astrakhan man would have been the last person to be seen in Kelly's company before she died, making him an obvious person of interest. They certainly had no reason to rule him out as the killer. There was not the slightest guarantee that the man from Mrs. Fiddymont's pub had anything to do with the Chapman murder, but the police were still keen to have the witnesses from that case look over suspects, such as Piggott.

The Police’s ability to use witnesses in later cases would be predetermined by their ability to contact the witness at a later date.

That's not the point either.

Macnaghten stated that nobody saw the Whitechapel murderer unless it was the City PC from Mitre Square (evidently conflating the PC Smith and Lawende sightings). While Anderson make it clear that the only person to get a good look at the Whitechapel murderer was Jewish. They didn't then add "...unless we include Ripper-Spotter Extraordinaire George Hutchinson who nobody can locate". They had evidently ruled out the very idea of Astrakhan man being a potential ripper, which coincides perfectly with the revelation at the time that Hutchinson's account had been discredited.

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.

Well, Jon, that would put one pesky spanner in the works of your theory that the evidence of Kennedy and Lewis establishes Hutchinson's identity of the wideawake man, wouldn't it? Fortunately, you needn't panic. There is no evidence that Hutchinson's appearance was incompatible with Lewis's description. Quite the reverse actually. You'll notice that the more reliable of the two press sketches of Hutchinson depicts him as not tall but stout...and wearing a wideawake, funnily enough!

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.

Your suspicions aren't correct, as I've explained many times. Hutchinson's discrediting had absolutely nothing to do with Bond's time of death, which, incidentally, was not accepted without question by the police. On the contrary, it is quite clear from other sources that the police considered the mutually corroborative evidence of Lewis and Prater to be a rough guide in that respect. The Echo makes perfectly clear the reasons for Hutchinson's evidence being "considerably discounted", and it involved his lateness in coming forward and the inevitable impact this had on his credibility.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

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:



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).



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.



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.



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).



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?



...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.



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.



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.



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.



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



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.



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.

A beacon of light in a sea of fog

[Ben]

A beacon of light in a sea of fog

Thanks, Abby!

As meteorologists will tell us: "Fog forms when the air temperature is the same as the Dew point."

[Lechmere]

Howdee Ben!
As I suspected you have nothing to back up your claim that Kennedy was exposed as a plagiariser beyond your highly convoluted 21st century theorising.
As you seem to be basing your theory on the Star’s report of 10th November 1888, please allow me to knock that spoke out of your band wagon.
This report is written in a highly sceptical style. Everything is sneered at...

Between the hours of one and four nothing which may be termed unusual occurred. Women of the unfortunate class paraded the several highways with an unconcernedness which may be termed remarkable considering the recent hideous crimes. The drafts of auxiliary detectives which have been requisitioned since the perpetration of the Mitre-square and Berner-street tragedies from the suburban districts performed their unenviable duties in the regulation manner, and to a casual pedestrian who may have passed through the district after midnight nothing whatever existed to denote the commission of such a crime as that of the morning. Everyone seems to be perfectly certain that the police possess no clue, and will discover no clue to the identity of the murderer. The only reason for thinking that the popular impression is not correct is that it is confirmed by the statements of the police themselves. They confess themselves to be wholly in the dark.
"We know no more than you do," they say, in answer to inquiries, and the reply is given in so mournful a manner that one is almost constrained to accept it for truth. But, however much or little they know, the police have devoted themselves energetically to the task of preventing other people from knowing anything. The row of policemen who during the greater part of yesterday blocked Dorset-street had been withdrawn last night, but the entrance to the court - which is variously known as Miller's-court or McCarthy's-court - was vigilantly kept by two constables, who allowed no one to pass except by special favour, and showed especial zeal in the exclusion of reporters. The desire to be interesting has had its effect on the people who live in the Dorset-street-court and lodging-houses, and for whoever cares to listen there are a hundred highly circumstantial stories, which, when carefully sifted, prove to be totally devoid of truth. One woman (as reported below) who lives in the court stated that at about two o'clock she heard a cry of "Murder." This story soon became popular, until at last half a dozen women were retailing it as their own personal experience. Each story contradicted the others with respect to the time at which the cry was heard. A Star reporter who inquired into the matter extracted from one of the women the confession that the story was, as far as she was concerned, a fabrication; and he came to the conclusion that it was to be disregarded.

I quoted this at length to illustrate the manner in which the Star initially approached this murder. But who was this woman (‘as reported below’) who heard the cry of ‘Murder’? The cry which their reported regarded as ‘a fabrication’? Why it was Mrs Kennedy!

She states that she did not retire to rest immediately she reached her parents' abode, but sat up, and between half-past three and a quarter to four she heard a cry of "Murder" in a woman's voice proceed from the direction in which Mary Kelly's room was situated. As the cry was not repeated she took no further notice of the circumstance until this morning, when she found the police in possession of the place, preventing all egress to the occupants of the small houses in this court. When questioned by the police as to what she had heard throughout the night, she made a statement to the above effect.

It would seem that the Star reported caught up with Kennedy in the vicinity of Miller’s Court – perhaps after she managed to leave the inside of the police cordon which would explain why they so readily accepted that she came from the Court, if not the ‘murder’ cry.

If you do not restrict yourself to the 10th November issue of the Star but read further editions, you will notice that on 12th November they reported from the inquest:

Elizabeth Prater, a young married woman living apart from her husband, in 20 Room, Miller's-court, said: My room is just over that of the deceased. On Thursday night I slept in my clothes, having barricaded the door with two tables, as I generally did. My kitten disturbed me by putting its cold nose on my mouth, and as I turned over I heard a cry, "Oh, murder!" the first ejaculation being one of surprise, and the second a rather faint cry. Being used to cries of alarm in that neighbourhood, I did not take much notice, but dropped off to sleep.

That strongly implied that the Star jumped the gun by disregarding the ‘Murder’ cry and soon led to a re-evaluation on their part.

On 14th November they printed the following:

Dr. Phillips's evidence, together with that of Mary Ann Cox, Elizabeth Prater, and others, proves that the murder was committed shortly after three o'clock... Long before the murderer began his deadly work the victim must have been in a deep sleep, from which she was awakened by the murderer's onslaught, but only for a moment, as she was able to utter only one cry of murder, as said to have been heard by several dwellers in the court.

So the Star withdrew its earlier disregarding of the ‘murder’ cry!
And besides Prater who else do you suppose told them of it?
They say it was heard by “several dwellers in the court”.
And who do you think are the ‘others’ whose evidence suggested to the Star that the murder happened after 3 am?
It is fairly clear they were referring to Kennedy.

Kennedy exonerated.

[Wickerman]

There is no evidence that Hutchinson's appearance was incompatible with Lewis's description. Quite the reverse actually. You'll notice that the more reliable of the two press sketches of Hutchinson depicts him as not tall but stout...and wearing a wideawake, funnily enough!

Hi Ben.

"The more reliable of the two" ...would you like to expand on that?

Regards, Jon S.