Where was Jack the Ripper's payment? How much did Mary Jane Kelly charge?

[Ben]

Still not sure quite what the problem is here, Jon.

According to Hutchinson himself, he followed a ripper murder victim back to her home in the small hours and stood outside it, without her knowledge, for 45 minutes, shortly before two of her neighbours were awoken by cries of "murder". When those cries (or that cry) was heard, Hutchinson claimed to have been "walking about", which was perhaps the only activity, in those circumstances, that could be neither verified nor contradicted. Unless you can think of another one, of course.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Well yes Ben, that is the shortened version, but not the whole story.
It is easy to make Hutchinson look, at worst like the villain, or at best like a liar, if you leave out the rest of the story.

Which takes us back to our exchange on another thread where you steadfastly maintain certain published details "never happened". Yet we both know the press often provided more details than the official record, and this fact extends to all criminal cases not just the Ripper murders.

No-one, meaning no serious researcher ever takes the official record as the complete written record. It is well known to be limited as to content of all the spoken evidence. I am not the only one on this website to be disappointed at the sorely depleted content of an official record as compared to a press account.
Press coverage of the various inquests has been a godsend for researchers.

Nelson's "I see no ships" is not an acceptable approach in research Ben.

Bowyer, Lewis, Kennedy & McCarthy - perhaps referring to Lewis, all provide statements consistent, or at least not inconsistent with Hutchinson's story.

I'm not denying him loitering around for 45 minutes seems suspicious in light of the fact we do not know his intentions, but that is just the point, we do not 'know' his intentions.
If his intention had been to mug Astrachan on his way out, which is quite possible, that doesn't make him the killer.

I wonder how eager we would be to run to the police if our intention had only been to mug this character we knew by sight in the area. Only to realize, as events unfolded, that this character was the likely murderer, and armed with a seriously lethal knife.
Hutchinson may have figured he had a close call that night, that he could be the one lying on a slab instead of Mary Kelly.
And should he now come forward to the police and let this killer know that he would be the only witness - putting a target on his back?

These circumstances may have given him cause to reflect over the weekend whether he should even come forward at all.

There are many ways to interpret what we know, much depends on whether the theorist is intent on fair play, or leading Hutchinson to the gallows.

[Ben]

It is easy to make Hutchinson look, at worst like the villain, or at best like a liar, if you leave out the rest of the story.

Exactly Jon, you've nailed it.

It is when his "story" is stripped to its bare, reductive essence that the grounds for doubt and suspicion reveal themselves; a man peering intently at the entrance to what would later become a crime scene is suspicious in the context of that crime - it just is. But after that person eventually makes himself known to the police and fleshes out that story with weird and not-so-wonderful details of a more overtly "suspicious" man in the vicinity, we're supposed to go "oh, it all makes so much sense now". Why? Because he provided more detail, more explanation, more legitimisation, more "story". And the source for all this is...? Guess who? That's right; the very same man who was seen loitering opposite the crime scene by a witness who would relate her sighting at the inquest - the inquest he only just missed.

No-one, meaning no serious researcher ever takes the official record as the complete written record.

A serious researcher is one who adopts a discerning, and therefore selective, approach to source material. S/he doesn't accept any old baseless, third-hand, discredited press tattle as gospel in the hope that it might lend weight to a previously jumped-to conclusion. I don't intend going through that utter nonsense attributed to "Bowyer, Lewis, Kennedy & McCarthy" again here; I did so only yesterday on the other soon-to-be-Hutchinsonized thread. Suffice to say none of it bears any relation to reality. I'll only add that Mrs. McCarthy's unidentified "customer" - from that risible extract - could not possibly have been referring to Lewis, since the latter made it very clear in her actual evidence that she saw nobody in the court.

Let's not go over that again, please.

I wonder how eager we would be to run to the police if our intention had only been to mug this character we knew by sight in the area. Only to realize, as events unfolded, that this character was the likely murderer, and armed with a seriously lethal knife.

But if our intention was to mug "this character", would we have been silly enough to make as much obvious to the police by way of reference to thick gold chains and expensive-looking clothes? And if we were venturing into a district famed for its "vicious semi-criminal" element, and more recently famed for having a serial killer haunting those very streets, would we be silly enough to dress in expensive clothes and parade our thick gold watch chain; or would we rightly suspect that even in the unlikely event that we survived the muggers, we would likely be pursued by twitchy vigilante types, all eager to hunt the ripper and seize upon anyone vaguely out of place?

And should he now come forward to the police and let this killer know that he would be the only witness - putting a target on his back?

"Let this killer know"??

So just how startlingly oblivious must Astrakhan-the-Ripper have been that he failed to notice Hutchinson peering down to look him in the face, and then following him to the very place he intended to murder his newly acquired victim? Or alternatively, how startlingly oblivious must Hutchinson have been if he seriously thought his snooping antics weren't spotted by this now-presumed murderer?

There are many ways to interpret what we know, much depends on whether the theorist is intent on fair play, or leading Hutchinson to the gallows.

I realise that; I'm simply explaining why I find those particular interpretations unlikely.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

A serious researcher is one who adopts a discerning, and therefore selective, approach to source material.

And does not jump to preconceptions you mean, yes I agree. Let the evidence speak for itself. And today, we have no way of verifying all those reports, which therefore means they are all included.
There are no grounds, baring personal emotion, to dismiss any of them.

S/he doesn't accept any old baseless, third-hand, discredited press tattle as gospel in the hope that it might lend weight to a previously jumped-to conclusion.

And that's the emotion I am talking about.
When you only have emotion and no evidence, you have nothing.
You choose to dismiss their statements, there are no known facts which contests their statements, therefore they are all admissible.

But if our intention was to mug "this character", would we have been silly enough to make as much obvious to the police by way of reference to thick gold chains and expensive-looking clothes? And if we were venturing into a district famed for its "vicious semi-criminal" element, and more recently famed for having a serial killer haunting those very streets, would we be silly enough to dress in expensive clothes and parade our thick gold watch chain; or would we rightly suspect that even in the unlikely event that we survived the muggers, we would likely be pursued by twitchy vigilante types, all eager to hunt the ripper and seize upon anyone vaguely out of place?

Why not, I don't see what Astrachan's appearance has to do with Hutchinson hiding his (possibly) real intention from Abberline.
It's not as if Hutchinson was being investigated as a 'mugger'.

"Let this killer know"??

So just how startlingly oblivious must Astrakhan-the-Ripper have been that he failed to notice Hutchinson peering down to look him in the face, and then following him to the very place he intended to murder his newly acquired victim? Or alternatively, how startlingly oblivious must Hutchinson have been if he seriously thought his snooping antics weren't spotted by this now-presumed murderer?

Whoever the killer was, he was obviously seen by someone, yet to the best of our knowledge no-one was murdered as a result of their encounter with him.
The killer only cares about being publicly identified, someone speaking up, not minding their own business. Of course Astrachan saw Hutchinson, but Hutch is safe so long as he keeps his mouth shut.
To be clear, this is assuming Astrachan was the killer, which is not a certainty by any means. Though Hutchinson may have believed this over the weekend.

[Ben]

And today, we have no way of verifying all those reports, which therefore means they are all included.

No, Jon, that isn't how it works.

Sensible researchers do not simply "include" everything on the grounds that none of it can be "verified". They consider the sources on their individual merit. They assess whether they are of reputable or questionable origin - in other words, from a public inquest or police statement, or an unverified press quote from an unnamed source. Surely I'm not suggesting anything controversial here? How do you propose the police of 1888 separated the wheat from the chaff? Or are you suggesting they didn't bother? Maybe they adjudged everything equal regardless of origin, with official police witnesses being considered on a par with unattributed press quotes?

Why not, I don't see what Astrachan's appearance has to do with Hutchinson hiding his (possibly) real intention from Abberline.

I'm simply making the point that it is hugely unlikely that anyone would make themselves such an obvious target for mugging in such an obvious mugger's paradise; an act of chronic implausible stupidity to which Hutchinson-the-mugger's act of drawing attention to glittering accessories (as per your suggestion) pales in comparison.

The killer only cares about being publicly identified, someone speaking up, not minding their own business. Of course Astrachan saw Hutchinson, but Hutch is safe so long as he keeps his mouth shut.

But what strange brand of naive optimism would lead Astrakhan to assume that Hutchinson would "keep his mouth shut"? Did he imagine that looking at him "stern" under a gas lamp would do the trick? What if Hutchinson had taken his curiosity just that little bit further and followed him to his murder location? What if he was a mugger, and went off to recruit some chums while Mr. Oblivious was ensconced in room #13? What if he was a vigilance committee member of plain clothes policeman?

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

No, Jon, that isn't how it works.

Sensible researchers do not simply "include" everything on the grounds that none of it can be "verified". They consider the sources on their individual merit. They assess whether they are of reputable or questionable origin - in other words, from a public inquest or police statement, or an unverified press quote from an unnamed source. Surely I'm not suggesting anything controversial here? How do you propose the police of 1888 separated the wheat from the chaff? Or are you suggesting they didn't bother? Maybe they adjudged everything equal regardless of origin, with official police witnesses being considered on a par with unattributed press quotes?

None of which negates anything I have said. What is disreputable or questionable about Bowyer, about Mrs McCarty, about Sarah Lewis?
It must have escaped you but the police used press reports to locate witnesses for the obvious reason there were more reporters attached to the media than available detectives. Bowyer, McCarthy, Lewis & Kennedy all gave statements to the police.
Only the Coroner decides which witnesses are required to appear at the inquest, and....only the Coroner decides what questions to ask them.

And considering all the information we have about all four witnesses, none of them were considered questionable, dishonest, or unreliable. And, more importantly for us, nothing in their statements was found to contradict what was known from other sources.
Put simply, there is no viable reason to question their statements - that is the simple fact of the matter.

On the other hand, if you have clear statements to the effect that Bowyer did not or could not have seen a stranger in the court early on Friday morning, or that Sarah Lewis actually said "I saw nobody in Dorset St.", or that Mrs McCarthy did not speak to an unidentified customer, then by all means share your argument.

I'm simply making the point that it is hugely unlikely that anyone would make themselves such an obvious target for mugging in such an obvious mugger's paradise; an act of chronic implausible stupidity to which Hutchinson-the-mugger's act of drawing attention to glittering accessories (as per your suggestion) pales in comparison.

There is nothing more stupid than people Ben. How many have you seen wander across a road absorbed in their text messages and wearing earphones - how stupid is that?
You need to read the press of the time, innocent passers-by were repeatedly mugged in that part of town.

It's human nature Ben, some people just think they are fireproof, "it'll not happen to me".

But what strange brand of naive optimism would lead Astrakhan to assume that Hutchinson would "keep his mouth shut"?

Fear.
This was the East End, where you keep your nose out of other peoples business. Anyone who remembers living in the East End when the Kray twins controlled the area will know exactly what "keeping your nose clean" means.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

What is disreputable or questionable about Bowyer, about Mrs McCarty, about Sarah Lewis?

As human beings? Nothing as far as I'm aware, but I wasn't questioning their characters; I was questioning the bogus statements falsely attributed to them in dubious press sources. I did say I wasn't anxious to engage in yet another protracted debate over why we should discount the particular examples you keep bringing up, but since I'm entreated to "share (my) argument", I'll do so once more.

Bowyer did not see a stranger in the court on Friday morning. The idea that the coroner - being fully conversant with the witnesses' police statements - did not think to quiz him along those lines is beyond absurd; unless you're suggesting that Bowyer himself never thought to include the sighting in his statement, which is more absurd still.

"Mrs. Kennedy" we've done than one to death and we're not going there again. You appear to treat as fact her press claim to have given a statement to the police; is there some evidence I'm missing to support that press claim? Lewis we've been over just as many times. She most certainly did not say what she was reported to have said in one errant press source.

If Mrs. McCarthy's customer had seen "such a funny man" in the court on Friday morning, the likelihood is that the customer would have appeared at the inquest and related as such. Instead, neither Mrs. McCarthy nor her unidentified customer were present on the stand. What we're left with, therefore, is second or third-hand hearsay printed in the newspapers and attributed to an unnamed, unknown source.

It is one thing for modern day commentators to insist that third-hand press hearsay should be considered equally as valuable as police statements and inquest evidence; that's just silly and unscholarly, but for experienced detectives to reason thusly is to abdicate professional responsibility and duty.

There is nothing more stupid than people Ben. How many have you seen wander across a road absorbed in their text messages and wearing earphones

Just one actually, on telly - one of those "emergency rescue" type of programs presented by Nick Knowles. A poor girl was struck by a car and survived. Not too sure how a fleeting moment's absent-mindedness compares to a conscious decision to dress up in the most ostentatious garb possible, and venture into a known slum area with a serial killer on the loose. While we're on the subject of celluloid, you might remember the scene in Die Hard With Avengeance in which Bruce Willis's character strolls into Harlem wearing a sandwich-board reading "I hate (n-word)s". This offers a much better comparison with Astrakhan's reported antics, on the "stupidity" level at least.

Anyone who remembers living in the East End when the Kray twins controlled the area will know exactly what "keeping your nose clean" means.

The Krays could afford to be fearless owing to the presence of a rather large gang of burly thugs in their employ, willing to do their bidding. If that didn't encourage witnesses to "keep their mouths shut", I'm sure a substantial bribe would have done the trick just as nicely. The ripper had no "gang" in all likelihood, and he certainly didn't "control the area"; he was a solitary and cowardly mutilator of defenceless middle-aged women. If he instilled any emotion in an another adult male, it was much more likely to have been anger than fear.

Surely Astrakhan would have had the nous to deduce from Hutchinson's aggressively intrusive behaviour that he might not be the timid wuss he hoped all witnesses would be?

I wonder what was going through Astrakhan's mind when he dolled himself up, attached his thick gold watch chain, and ventured out for the night, fully expecting ALL potential witnesses to be too scared to dob him in after they spot him drawing glaring and unnecessary attention to himself? Perhaps this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6jYoagXmZE

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

I find everything suspicious about Hutch, and especially the 45 minute wait/stalking behavior. as a matter of fact when I was first into ripperology and first learning about hutch, when I learned of his account of following and waiting outside for mary, and its corroborated by Mary Lewis waiting man, it had an almost visceral effect on me. Heres a man that knew the victim, spoke to her, followed her, waited for her for 45 minutes, on the night of her murder.

He told the police this story and later tells the press the same but adds he actually stood outside her door! Now revealing that not only did he know the victim, he knows where she specifically lives. all on the night of her murder.

add to this , he waits just until the inquest to come forward, and of course the ridiculously detailed account of A-man. Major yellow flags-three of em!

Hi Abby,

With respect, the police, including Abberline, were acutely aware of all this (except - apparently - the 'connection' with the man Sarah Lewis saw), yet we are asked by modern-day theorists to believe that none of them at any time even considered that Hutch's presence at or near the crime scene, followed by belatedly telling the police one story about it, then giving the wider world a more detailed version, might indicate he was up to no good.

I would bet if he wasn't her killer(and I think theres a good chance he was), and just an attention seeker, then marys killer was probably Blotchy man.

In which case hutch went to marys place for a place to crash, maybe to get lucky, found out she was still preoccupied with Blotchy and/or just not answering her door, waited around for 45 minutes then left. then later realizing later after her murder how to profit. Great friend.

This sounds more likely, and I still think he may have come clean about it and admitted - after the fruitless search for Flash Harry - that he hadn't in fact seen the man who was inside with Kelly while Hutch was waiting in vain outside. That would account for a discrediting of his account, without it resulting in him becoming a suspect himself.

Alternatively, if profit was his motive, he may have been paid by Blotchy to invent a suitably ripperish 'last man in' - for the public in general and the police in particular.

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben.
Your arguments would read better if you followed them up with 'just cause'.

I was questioning the bogus statements falsely attributed to them in dubious press sources.

You throw out these baseless accusations without ever, in several years, ever, offering a tangible reason for your use of "bogus", "false" or "dubious".
These arguments are nothing but emotional outbursts, and you have nothing to substantiate referring to any witness statement as "bogus" or "false".
Due to the repeated lack of 'just cause' your criticism falls flat.

I did say I wasn't anxious to engage in yet another protracted debate over why we should discount the particular examples you keep bringing up, but since I'm entreated to "share (my) argument", I'll do so once more.

Oh ye of short memory, it was you who replied to one of my posts, which kicked off this particular round

Bowyer did not see a stranger in the court on Friday morning. The idea that the coroner - being fully conversant with the witnesses' police statements - did not think to quiz him along those lines is beyond absurd; unless you're suggesting that Bowyer himself never thought to include the sighting in his statement, which is more absurd still.

"Mrs. Kennedy" we've done than one to death and we're not going there again. You appear to treat as fact her press claim to have given a statement to the police; is there some evidence I'm missing to support that press claim? Lewis we've been over just as many times. She most certainly did not say what she was reported to have said in one errant press source.

If Mrs. McCarthy's customer had seen "such a funny man" in the court on Friday morning, the likelihood is that the customer would have appeared at the inquest and related as such. Instead, neither Mrs. McCarthy nor her unidentified customer were present on the stand. What we're left with, therefore, is second or third-hand hearsay printed in the newspapers and attributed to an unnamed, unknown source.

It is one thing for modern day commentators to insist that third-hand press hearsay should be considered equally as valuable as police statements and inquest evidence; that's just silly and unscholarly, but for experienced detectives to reason thusly is to abdicate professional responsibility and duty.

How many times have I reminded you that a town hall inquiry is not a criminal trial. No-ones life hangs in the balance here, the Coroner has no need to investigate the case, that is the responsibility of the police.
You talk about the Coroner as if he is a prosecutor in a trial, which betrays your misunderstanding of the process.

A Coroner's Inquiry has a very limited scope when compared to a criminal trial. The inquiry is not intended to be exhaustive, the witnesses is not required to give a minute-by-minute account of the hours leading up to the crime. The Coroner is not looking to convict a killer here, all he is required to do is identify the victim and find out the when, where & by what means she met her death.

Bowyers did not say he saw Kelly on Friday, so naturally he was not questioned about his sighting of a man in the court. Therefore the Coroner used Cox as the last known witness to state the victim's whereabouts.
Hence, no need to question Bowyer about the stranger.

Sarah Lewis saw the loiterer which trumped her sighting over Kennedy's who did not see the loiterer. She also claimed to see a couple enter the court while the loiterer stood opposite, which Kennedy did not.

However, Kennedy claimed to see Kelly outside the Britannia about 3:00 am, but this sighting was likely trumped by Prater & Lewis again, who heard a scream from room 13 about 4:00 am - obviously placing Kelly in her room at that time.

Finally, you may ask why the Coroner would not have shown interest in the man Kelly was said (by Kennedy), to have been with? Is that reason enough to call Kennedy? - no need.
The Coroner pursued his interest in this man with Sarah Lewis, and he did seem to show an inordinate interest in this man.
Hence, no need to call Kennedy to the inquest - it does not matter where Kelly was at 3:00, she was quite reasonably in her room at 4:00 am.

Surely Astrakhan would have had the nous to deduce from Hutchinson's aggressively intrusive behaviour that he might not be the timid wuss he hoped all witnesses would be?

Sure but we are only making allowances for Astrachan being the killer from Hutchinson's point of view. Astrachan in all probability was not the killer, so a potential threat from Hutchinson is immaterial.

[Ben]

Your arguments would read better if you followed them up with 'just cause'.

Your condemnations of my arguments are utterly valueless because you never actually address them. I’ve explained in very patient detail why no serious researcher, and certainly no professional investigator, would treat your precious unattributed press quotes as gospel. You do so only because of your unhealthy and disturbingly entrenched obsession with “Gentleman Jack”, which causes you not only to dredge up worthless sources and present them as proven fact, but to dream up lame excuse after lame excuse for dismissing and trivialising genuine evidence, such as that offered by Lawende and Cox. These police-endorsed witnesses are invariably cast aside by you as irrelevant and unrelated to the murders, and always on spurious grounds, but the moment you get wind of a “black bag” being wielded by “such a funny man” with “peculiar eyes” in an unattributed newspaper article, you lap it up like a Basset Hound. It annoys me, Jon. Nobody else is doing what you seem intent on doing, Guess why? Your chief criterion for placing any piece of evidence in the “worth taking very seriously” pile is whether or not it corresponds to your image, obstinately struck in the 1970s, of what the ripper looked like.

“Oh ye of short memory, it was you who replied to one of my posts, which kicked off this particular round”

Oh ye of monomaniacal fixations with Posh Nosh/Dashing Doc rippers, I think you’ll find it was you who decided to bring up these long-discredited irrelevancies, but since I’ll never tire of killing the nonsense whenever I see it, feel free to keep bringing them up.

“How many times have I reminded you that a town hall inquiry is not a criminal trial.”

And how many times have I reminded you that the nonsense you keep dredging up would have been extremely pertinent to the “town hall inquiry” had it been true, since it related directly to the time, and therefore cause, of death. Why do you think the coroner questioned the witnesses regarding the appearances of the suspects they described? That’s right, because it potentially had a crucial bearing on the cause of death; which is why sightings of men in the company of the victim were considered of critical importance to the inquest, as were sightings of men at the crime scene close to the accepted time of the victim’s death.

But notice how you undermine and contradict your own palpably daft arguments; you argue, on the one hand, that Bowyer’s alleged sighting of a man in Miller’s Court did not merit inclusion at the inquest because he was not seen in Kelly’s company, but then you claim that Lewis’s evidence was included because she saw “the loiterer”, despite said loiterer also not being seen in Kelly’s company or even in the court itself. You further undermine that argument by claiming that the only reason her evidence appeared at the inquest - while honest-to-soddery “Mrs. Kennedy”’s did not - was because she saw “the loiterer”; clearly forgetting that Mrs. Kennedy claimed to have seen Kelly herself talking to a man at 3.00am, and clearly forgetting that “being seen with Kelly” was your all conquering criterion for being considered inquest material in the first place.

“However, Kennedy claimed to see Kelly outside the Britannia about 3:00 am, but this sighting was likely trumped by Prater & Lewis again, who heard a scream from room 13 about 4:00 am - obviously placing Kelly in her room at that time.”

What’s this “trumped” nonsense you keep talking about? If the police concluded that Prater and Lewis heard the last dying scream of Kelly “about 4.00am”, and also concluded that she was last seen alive an hour earlier in the company of Kennedy’s suspect, how do you even begin to argue that Kennedy was not a crucial witness for the inquest? You don’t, because you can’t. What you’re forced to accept instead is that Kennedy did not appear at the inquest for a completely different reason, and my money’s on the obvious one; that she was exposed as bogus, and thus not did not see Kelly with a man at 3.00aam.

Sarah Lewis did not see anyone enter the court, as her police statement and all press reports of her inquest testimony – bar the Daily Hilarious News – make astoundingly clear.

“Sure but we are only making allowances for Astrachan being the killer from Hutchinson's point of view.”

Yes, but this “point of view” that you’re projecting onto Hutchinson, minus any evidence, still makes no sense. Even if Astrakhan was not the killer, he was still an insanely irrational pillock for dressing to the nines in that environment, and Hutchinson equally so for concluding it might be better to wait for the inquest to finish before dobbing in the scary man who might – if timid little Hutch wasn’t careful – return to the district wearing the same Astrakhan coat, and duff him up. Just a heads-up by the way; killers tend to dispose of witnesses in order to prevent them blabbing to the police and press. To dispose of them afterwards is just a bit, well, irrationally petty and not especially worth the risk? I mean hell-uh-oh!, the damage was done, so how best to draw minimal attention to himself thereafter?

[Errata]

There is nothing more stupid than people

simpler and truer words were never composed.

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

Why, if the police were suspicious of some or many aspects of his story, would they continue to accept so uncritically his claim to have been there at all? That certainly wasn't what happened with earlier dodgy witnesses; the moment the police started smelling rats in those cases, the next question to arise immediately was were they there at all? Invariably, they weren't. Since the precedent for money/publicity-seeking "witnesses" was vastly more established than serial killers approaching the police under "witness" guises, it follows that the police were infinitely more likely to consign Hutchinson to the former category once they came to doubt his story.

I still think he may have come clean about it and admitted - after the fruitless search for Flash Harry - that he hadn't in fact seen the man who was inside with Kelly while Hutch was waiting in vain outside. That would account for a discrediting of his account, without it resulting in him becoming a suspect himself.

Quite possibly, but much like the rest of Hutchinson's story, the police would have been relying purely on his already-considered-dubious word that his "coming clean" claim was sincere. Astrakhan or not, the police had only Hutchinson's say-so that his role was an innocent one.

Alternatively, if profit was his motive, he may have been paid by Blotchy to invent a suitably ripperish 'last man in' - for the public in general and the police in particular.

Quite possible too. I just think it's a lot simpler if you cut out the "middle man" in that equation - Blotchy - and have Hutchinson inventing a "suitably ripperish last man in" for his own self-preservation, rather than anyone else's.

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

And the source for all this is...? Guess who? That's right; the very same man who was seen loitering opposite the crime scene by a witness who would relate her sighting at the inquest - the inquest he only just missed.

Hi Ben,

I'm not sure you can have it both ways. You may make a reasonable case for Hutch being 'the very same man' seen by Lewis, but it's not reasonable to state it as a fact. This is especially true given your penchant for weakening your own case by insisting that the police did not even consider the possibility of the two men being one and the same.

Does it never occur to you that there may have been a sound explanation for this, connected with Hutch's actual physical appearance, to name but one possibility, about which we both know sweet f... all?

I've noticed another couple of dodgy arguments you make, which would come across better if you were not quite so dogmatic and dismissive about the alternatives. Hutch supposedly introduced the failed lending of the sixpence to lend credence to Kelly's subsequent encounter with a better financial bet. The loan request was supposedly safe as houses to invent because nobody would read anything remotely sordid into it, oh no, even though the very next bit of the story was overtly all about Kelly offering sex to obtain the funds she had just failed to get from Hutch.

Similarly, it can't have been Hutch's intention to mug Flash Harry, hell no, or he wouldn't have been such a fool as to [in your own words] 'make as much obvious to the police by way of reference to thick gold chains and expensive-looking clothes', would he?

Yet he did refer to those things, and the police didn't read your 'obvious' mugging intention into it, so what's going on here? Did he think he was safe as houses to describe this invented bling in detail because if he knew mugging was never on his agenda, the police would somehow instinctively know that too (but then suspect sod all about his real agenda)? What's that all about, if not the sheerest, self-serving nonsense?

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

With respect, the police, including Abberline, were acutely aware of all this (except - apparently - the 'connection' with the man Sarah Lewis saw), yet we are asked by modern-day theorists to believe that none of them at any time even considered that Hutch's presence at or near the crime scene, followed by belatedly telling the police one story about it, then giving the wider world a more detailed version, might indicate he was up to no good.



This sounds more likely, and I still think he may have come clean about it and admitted - after the fruitless search for Flash Harry - that he hadn't in fact seen the man who was inside with Kelly while Hutch was waiting in vain outside. That would account for a discrediting of his account, without it resulting in him becoming a suspect himself.

Alternatively, if profit was his motive, he may have been paid by Blotchy to invent a suitably ripperish 'last man in' - for the public in general and the police in particular.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

I still think he may have come clean about it and admitted - after the fruitless search for Flash Harry - that he hadn't in fact seen the man who was inside with Kelly while Hutch was waiting in vain outside. That would account for a discrediting of his account, without it resulting in him becoming a suspect himself.

Wow. Really? If hutch had admitted to police about lying about a-man I would think that would put him right in the cross hairs of the police as a suspect. Ok hes now an admitted liar-what else is he lying about would be the first thing I would of thought. maybe hes the one in there with Mary then. again big uh-oh.

Alternatively, if profit was his motive, he may have been paid by Blotchy to invent a suitably ripperish 'last man in' - for the public in general and the police in particular.

Interesting-not really thought of that before. accomplice though before the fact or after?

[Ben]

Ok hes now an admitted liar-what else is he lying about would be the first thing I would of thought. maybe hes the one in there with Mary then. again big uh-oh.

Indeed, Abby; which is why I suspect the police came to believe he was probably fibbing about the whole thing, including his presence there. Emanuel Violenia all over again, in other words.

Cheers,
Ben