The press, what they knew and how they knew it.

[Fisherman]

Ah, but my dear Christer, we're talking of George "Hawkeye" Hutchinson...! who supposedly knew MJK enough to follow the guy in Petticoat Lane - after all, that would have been a good and hutchinsonian idea. Didn't he wait 45 minutes in the cold before the murder ? Other reports say he even talked to a policeman, or search one but couldn't find any - can't remember exactly, he told so many things...

All the best

It matters not a scintilla how hawkeyed he was, David. The pure and simple fact is that no matter how well you know somebody by sight, if the conditions do not allow for anything but half a brief glance, you may well come up with a "wasnīt that ...?"

So letīs bury that argument of yours, shall we? Deep.

The rest you offer is supposition, nothing else. None of us knows if he followed the man or not. On a crowded day, that could have been impossible, and anybody could easily slip away and blend into the crowds on a market day, disappearing into a side street. Besides, why would he follow the man at all? What possible use would that be of? At that stage, he did not know about Kellys fate, did he? So why run after the guy, eh?

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Four eyes and no ears

At that stage, he did not know about Kellys fate, did he? So why run after the guy, eh?

All the best,
Fisherman

On Sunday ?
All England was aware of the Dorset Street murder.

Cheers

[Fisherman]

On Sunday ?
All England was aware of the Dorset Street murder.

Cheers

No. Very many Brits were aware of it, while some were not. And some of them never got around to any knowledge. Some did not even get to know the name Jack the Ripper. Itīs pretty much like that Japanese fellow who still fought the second world war when he was found on a remote Pacific island in the seventies or whenever it was.

We cannot allow ourselves to argue like this.

"He said he would recognize the man anywhere, but then he didnīt - liar!"

Not at all. As I have shown.

"He must have known of the murder when he saw the man in Petticoat Lane."

He "must" have done no such thing - he says he made the observation on Sunday morning, and he says the exact same thing about when he approached the PC on Sunday morning, meaning that we do not know which event preceded the other. So thereīs learoom for him having seen the man first, and only after that have learnt about what had happened to Kelly before he spoke to the policeman.

Come to think of it, if Hutchinson had known that Mary had been killed when he made his observation of the man at the market, he should have raised the alarm - but he does not say that he did any such thing. He apparently made a casual observation and that was that. Hardly a case of a man making out Jack the Ripper in a crowd, is it?

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Then you're arguing that Hutch, who dossed in Whitechapel, wasn't aware of the murder on Sunday.
That's your right.
But don't expect me to agree with you on this.

Cheers

[Fisherman]

Then you're arguing that Hutch, who dossed in Whitechapel, wasn't aware of the murder on Sunday.
That's your right.
But don't expect me to agree with you on this.

Cheers

I expect you to admit that the possibility is there, just as I expect you to admit that saying that youīd recognize a person anytime is wholly and totally dependant on the quality of the sighting.

I do not expect you to agree with me otherwise. Why would I? Youīre dead stuck on Hutchinson, and thatīs your prerogative. I suppose thatīs what makes you say that Hutchinson dossed in Whitechapel as if that was established for the whole period of time - which it is not. We loose track of him on Thursday (though many will say Friday ...) and he resurfaces on Sunday morning.
Do you know where he slept on the nights in question?

I know I donīt.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

On Sunday ?
All England was aware of the Dorset Street murder.

Cheers

But when did the murder occur Dave?

All the papers were carrying the same stories about Kelly last being seen alive between 8:00 am and 10:00 am Friday morning.

".....although a tailor named Lewis says he saw Kelly come out about 8 o'clock, and go back. Another statement is to the effect that Kelly was seen in a public house about ten o'clock yesterday morning, and that she there met Barnet, and had a glass of beer with him."
Daily News, 10 Nov.

(Maxwell)
"This (Friday) morning, as near as possible about half past eight, I saw Mary Jane (the murdered woman) standing outside the court."
Daily News, 10 Nov.

" Some persons have reiterated the statement that the unfortunate woman was seen between eight and nine o'clock yesterday morning. One of her companions, more positive than the rest saw Mary Jane Kelly at nine o'clock, and the officers of justice are this afternoon inquiring into the truth or otherwise of the woman's assertion."
The Echo, 10 Nov.

Almost every paper was carrying these stories.
Why should anyone seeing Kelly at 2:30 in the morning feel compelled to go to the police if she was seen alive six to eight hours later, between 8:00 and 10:00 Friday morning. They'd laugh at him.

That only stands to reason - doesn't it?

[DVV]

Almost every paper was carrying these stories.
Why should anyone seeing Kelly at 2:30 in the morning feel compelled to go to the police if she was seen alive six to eight hours later, between 8:00 and 10:00 Friday morning. They'd laugh at him.

That only stands to reason - doesn't it?

Hi Jon,

if you seriously think they (the police) would have laughed, I have nothing to add.

1. A mutilated corpse had been found in MJK's room

2. The police welcomed any info concerning MJK (where was she that night ? Has somebody seen her in a pub ? etc etc)

Cheers

[DVV]

Do you know where he slept on the nights in question?

I know I donīt.

All the best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish

in all probability in the VH.
Or somewhere else around.
Well, it could be in a cave, or in the middle of nowhere where there were no newspapers, you're right.
But how likely is this ?

All the best

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish

in all probability in the VH.
Or somewhere else around.
Well, it could be in a cave, or in the middle of nowhere where there were no newspapers, you're right.
But how likely is this ?

All the best

He was in Romford, remember? He moved around. He was unemployed and would arguably have gone wherever there was work to be had, be that in the East end - or in a cave.

So the "in all probability" you propose is as viable as the proposition you made about being able to recognize somebody at any given time; itīs as full of holes as a Swiss cheese, David.

We donīt know where he slept these nights. We donīt know when he was informed about Mary Kellysī fate. And when we donīt know, we cannot conclude. You are welcome to suspect Hutchinson as much as you want to as long as you respect that.

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

He was in Romford, remember? Fisherman

I remember he said he was, Fish.
But chose to walk back to Whitechapel, hoping to doss there, even taking the risk of getting there too late to have a bed.

Since he was in Petticoat Lane on Sunday, chances are that he slept in the East End on Saturday night. And in all probability he has spent his Friday in or around Whitechapel too (unless, as he wasn't tired enough, he went back to Romford or somewhere else again).

The idea that he wasn't aware of the murder on Sunday is untenable, I'm afraid, even considering he was nothing but a honest witness.

All the best

[Fisherman]

I remember he said he was, Fish.
But chose to walk back to Whitechapel, hoping to doss there, even taking the risk of getting there too late to have a bed.

Since he was in Petticoat Lane on Sunday, chances are that he slept in the East End on Saturday night. And in all probability he has spent his Friday in or around Whitechapel too (unless, as he wasn't tired enough, he went back to Romford or somewhere else again).

The idea that he wasn't aware of the murder on Sunday is untenable, I'm afraid, even considering he was nothing but a honest witness.

All the best

Untenable? Not at all. To establish that it is untenable, we would need to know exactly where he was and exactly what he did.

If we find out that he was not in London at all, but instead on an isolated farm in Kent, providing labour - then how "untenable" would it be that he stayed uninformed?

You see, before you know, you should not guess. And you wonīt know sometime soon, Iīm afraid. "Chances are" and such loosisms wonīt do the trick, unless you - based on nothing at all - allow for it to do.

And basically, thatīs your very own choice. You either admit to not knowing, or you draw conclusions from imaginary knowledge.

Establishing a story without having the facts does not work. Claiming anything else is ... untenable!

That should put an end to this particular discussion, I hope.

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Neolithic farming

Untenable? Not at all. To establish that it is untenable, we would need to know exactly where he was and exactly what he did.

If we find out that he was not in London at all, but instead on an isolated farm in Kent, providing labour - then how "untenable" would it be that he stayed uninformed?

Fisherman

How convincing, Fish.
Wouldn't he had informed the press and the police, he who talked so much, to explain why he came forward on Monday evening only, if such was the (extraordinary) case ?

All the best

[Fisherman]

How convincing, Fish.
Wouldn't he had informed the press and the police, he who talked so much, to explain why he came forward on Monday evening only, if such was the (extraordinary) case ?

All the best

But there is every sign that he DID inform the police, David. If he had not, how do you propose that Abberline would have put faith in his honesty? "Nah, Gov, I ainīt gonna tell you why I waited, guess youīll just have to take my word for it when I say I had my reasons."

It is very evident that the police bought whatever reason it was he gave them, thus.

And why do you think he "talked so much"? He answered the questions asked, end of story. And he gave a very reliable and trustworthy impression when doing so. This we KNOW as opposed to your concoction of suggestions and suppositions.

Donīt you prefer knowledge to guesswork, David? Or does that depend on the questions asked?

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

There is nothing that I could call "knowledge" in your post, Fish.
You are merely guessing that Hutch has given plausible reasons for his coming forward after the inquest.
But Abberline did not clear this point in his report. And neither did the press.
Again, you cannot "know" that Hutch had alluded to the Sunday sighting on Monday, in front of Abberline.
And I guess he had not.

All the best

[Ben]

Please put an end to this fallacy by demonstrating to every living breathing soul on the face of this Earth just what this 'record' you allude to looks like.

Wow, Mike, I think we're in trouble here.

In order to demonstrate the indisputable validity of your argument that Hutchinson was discredited, it is now necessary to demonstrate as much to "every living breathing soul on the face of this Earth"!!

In the Amazonian rain forest there are tribes of Indians as yet untouched by civilisation, but I'll guess we'll have to recruit their support somehow in order to meet Jon's request. I think we'll have a devil of a trouble convincing the new born babies from Mongolia, and as for the feral goats that inhabit the Marquasas Islands of French Polynesia, many of them probably haven't even heard of Hutchinson.

But that's not going to stop us trying!