A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[Sally]

However over burdened the whole police force was, Abberline had his own duties to perform independent of the rest of the force. He interviewed potential suspects, and in this case, both Lewis and Hutchinson.

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

Abberline had both statements in his possession, that of Lewis and that of Hutchinson, the only two people who claimed to have been in Dorset St. that night, at that time. We cannot possibly entertain the idea that he forgot what Lewis had claimed.

Right. So you know, do you, that Abberline had both those specific statements in his hand at the same time and made a direct comparison? Of course you do

So, firstly, who suggested that Abberline had 'forgotten' Lewis' testimony? Nobody.

Secondly, remember that Hutchinson only came forward once the inquest was over - once the initial comparison of witness statements had been made.

Thirdly, you assume that Lewis/Hutchinson were the only people to have claimed to be in Dorset Street, but this you cannot possibly know. What about the c.52 unamed witnessess in the case who claimed to have seen 'suspicious men' in the company of Kelly? We have no idea whether any, some, or all of them claimed to have been in Dorset Street that night - so we don't actually know how many witness statements Abberline had to 'remember' to come to the conclusion that Lewis' man and Hutchinson were one and the same - always assuming, of course, that they were.

The reality is, as it almost always is, that we simply do not know. All we can do is speculate at the end of the day.

[Wickerman]

Right. So you know, do you, that Abberline had both those specific statements in his hand at the same time and made a direct comparison? Of course you do

No, you're probably right, after the inquest he just threw them away (good grief!)

So, firstly, who suggested that Abberline had 'forgotten' Lewis' testimony? Nobody.

Not making the connection is the same as slipping his mind, which is the same as forgetting.

Secondly, remember that Hutchinson only came forward once the inquest was over - once the initial comparison of witness statements had been made.

There is no time limit for the police to make comparisons to witness statements - .....so long as they don't chuck them out....

Thirdly, you assume that Lewis/Hutchinson were the only people to have claimed to be in Dorset Street, but this you cannot possibly know.

The reason you are here, like myself and everyone else, is for the same reason, none of us can possibly know.
These are the only two witnesses who testified which placed themselves in Dorset St. on that night, at that time.
How can you possibly choose to argue about this?

What about the c.52 unamed witnessess in the case who claimed to have seen 'suspicious men' in the company of Kelly?

The article does not say they were seen with her, or in Dorset St.
Just that 53 suspicious men were "thought to be her assassin".

The reality is, as it almost always is, that we simply do not know. All we can do is speculate at the end of the day.

Speculation is intended to provide direction for investigation, not, to be the basis for a theory.

regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

You have to ask why it took so long for modern commentators to come up with the connection - maybe it wasn't so immediately obvious as some of us are assuming. The impression I get is that the police at the time were more interested in that naughty well-dressed foreign chap than the witness who'd encountered him.

Agreed 100%, Sally.

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

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

Speculation is intended to provide direction for investigation, not, to be the basis for a theory.

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

[Sally]

Agreed 100%, Sally.

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

All the best,
Ben

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

[Monty]

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

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

Monty

[Sally]

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

Monty

Oh yeah. Silly me!

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Mike.

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

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Jon,

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards

[Wickerman]

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

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

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

Theory supported by speculation! - see what I mean.

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


And, as to your earlier response..

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

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

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

Regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

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

Regards, Jon S.

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

Cheers mate

[Wickerman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I though Millen was out of the country?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards, Jon S.

[Sally]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Wickerman]

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

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

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

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

Three reasons, Jon:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NO.

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

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

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

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

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

All the best,
Ben

[Observer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Observer