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

[Ben]

“I was referring to the fact the press articles reported both Bowyer and Mrs Kennedy had provided statements to police.”

Exactly, Jon – delighted that this particular penny has finally dropped, even though you clearly couldn’t resist making the concession without an irrelevant attack on my thoughts regarding Hutchinson. There is no evidence beyond the say-so of the press "witnesses” in question (Bowyer excepted) that they ever gave a “statement” to the police. No, I do not suggest that Bowyer himself was discredited, and nor do I suggest that there is anything wrong with the evidence he provided at the inquest. What I do have a problem with is false statements attributed to genuine witnesses in the press.

“Whether you like it or not, Lawende was the only witness of the group we were discussing who was stable, had a permanent address, had a business - was traceable, the others were more transient.
That remains a fact, regardless how 'bad' you think it is.”

I didn’t say there was anything “bad” about our knowledge of Lawende’s circumstances; I said there was everything bad about the idea that the police seniority lied to the public and to each other by claiming to invest his account with such importance, when the “truth” – according to the recent loopy conspiracy theory – was that Lawende was the only witness the clumsy, incompetent police didn’t lose track of.

“Any witness statement (Bowyer?) is taken on faith and treated with the respect it deserves.
If two witness statements contradict each other (Cox and Prater) then obviously there is a degree of doubt on both sides which does not exist with the singular statement (Bowyer) previously mentioned.
The value of both statements by Cox and Prater are devalued (by 50%?) until one or the other is proven correct.”

I’m afraid this is all rather silly and simplistic. Firstly, it is not the case that “any witness statement” is “treated with the respect it deserves”. If it’s patently bogus it doesn’t receive any respect at all, and it is certainly not "taken on faith”. Secondly – and I realise you’re only using it to illustrate a point - Cox and Prater do not contradict each other at all; even if they did, it wouldn’t “devalue” both witness statements “by 50%”. That isn’t how actual police investigation works. I ask again, are you seriously suggesting that two statement-providing, inquest-attending witnesses who “contradict” each other on one relatively trivial detail rank lower in importance, because of that contradiction, than a single instance of third-hand newspaper hearsay?

“Bowyer's statement is accepted while those of Cox and Prater are subject to a degree of doubt.
Likewise, there is nothing to contest or contradict the statement by Mrs Kennedy either.”

Bowyer’s actual statement isn’t questioned, no, but then nor is Prater’s and nor is Cox’s, despite the bad excuses you keep dreaming up for "devaluing" the latter two (although, let’s face it, it’s really because they didn’t describe your favourite well-dressed black-bag carrying man). There is no evidence that Bowyer ever gave a statement to the police about seeing a man in the court on Friday morning; had it been otherwise, he would certainly have mentioned it in his statement and at the inquest. Kennedy fares even worse inasmuch as there is no evidence that she ever came into contact with the police, whereas there is evidence that she was either Sarah Lewis herself, or a plagiarist who simply passed Lewis’s evidence off as her own. Those are your only possible options, so I suggest you pick one. I also suggest you don’t keep derailing every Kelly thread with more repetition on that subject.

“Yes Ben, you may like to refresh yourself on the Friday press accounts, Echo, Star, etc.

The rumor on the street, the press sources from Dorset St., were under the impression this was a morning murder.”

Perhaps you may like to “refresh yourself” on the previous discussion we had on the subject two years ago. This one, to be precise:

(a) That is complete nonsense. The early morning time of death was covered far more extensively than the Maxwell/Lewis version, and the papers made clear the fact that the former was considered indicative of the likely time at which the victim was murdered, as opposed to the latter, which was only offered in the spirit of reporting all available witness evidence. There is simply no way that (Bowyer) remained oblivious to the cry of "murder", Kennedy etc, IF he was reading the newspapers.

(b) What sort of tit-head decides for himself - after reading in the newspapers that several times of death had been suggested for Kelly - that despite his small-hours sighting being utterly crucial to one of those suggested TODs, he irrationally picks another as the correct one, and uses his irrational adherence to this minority-reported time of death as an excuse for sitting on his arse and assuming his experience must be irrelevant?

That, as I’m sure you’ll have noticed, was a cut-and-paste from a previous thread, and you can expect a lot more of those if you insist on reviving long buried arguments (and long-discredited bits of press tattle). Since the previous discussion related to Hutchinson, I’ve exchanged his name for Bowyer’s.

“I didn't say she feared him, the man was looking up the court and she said he appeared to be waiting for someone, that is being suspicious.”

It is “suspicious” in the context of what happened later in the court, yes, but she gave no impression of being “suspicious” at the time of the sighting. Just so with Bowyer – prior to the news of Kelly’s murder, there was no need to “suspect” anything about a man standing in the court in the small hours of Friday morning, but in the context of what happened later, it assumed a new significance.

“Tell me Ben, what could the Coroner deduce from that fact, and how does that help him resolve the questions, "when", "where" & "by what means" she met her death?”

The last sighting of the victim alive would have been of tremendous importance to the coroner’s inquest, and it’s frankly scary that I should have to point out such an obvious fact. It was determined that Kelly was murdered by “person of persons unknown”. If MacDonald was as reductive and unimaginative as you are in his interpretation of “by what means” (who are you quoting there, anyway?), he needn’t have bothered mentioning the fact that an unidentified person was responsible; he could have just said “by sharp knife”.

“I compared them line-by-line, there was no contradiction among the press. They all mention another couple, some say the woman was drunk, another that she wore no hat, and again that the couple went up the court.”

No, not up the court.

Only one newspaper got that hopelessly wrong, as I’ve had to explain an obscene number of times. The couple in question “passed along” Dorset Street, past the man in the wideawake; there is no suggestion that the woman was Kelly or the man a murderer.

Don’t pretend you have the stamina to duplicate that entire “debate” all over again, because I know you don’t.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Ben 'believes', that the police 'believed', Hutch was lying.
Pure supposition in other words.

[Abby Normal]

Hang on a minute, Ben. What do you mean "Indeed, Abby"? Abby is suggesting here that if Hutch had admitted to inventing Flash Harry (for whatever reason) the police would instantly have treated him as a suspect, asking themselves 'what else is he lying about?'. Yet you are suggesting the police came to their own conclusion that he was a liar, without any admission from Hutch, and that he had invented Flash Harry, not because he was the one in with Mary, but because he 'probably' wasn't there at all! Nothing to suspect, in other words.

That seems to be the polar opposite argument from Abby's.

Love,

Caz
X

I think Ben means hutch didn't admit to police he was lying, but that police came to believe he was lying about it all anyway, even being there.

[Errata]

Why would Jack not take his money back after murdering assuming he didn't pay upfront?

That gives me an idea...
huh.

[Wickerman]

Why would Jack not take his money back after murdering assuming he didn't pay upfront?

Maybe the coin her gave her had his face on it...

[John Wheat]

Why would Jack not take his money back after murdering assuming he didn't pay upfront?

[caz]

Hi Caz

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.

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.

Hang on a minute, Ben. What do you mean "Indeed, Abby"? Abby is suggesting here that if Hutch had admitted to inventing Flash Harry (for whatever reason) the police would instantly have treated him as a suspect, asking themselves 'what else is he lying about?'. Yet you are suggesting the police came to their own conclusion that he was a liar, without any admission from Hutch, and that he had invented Flash Harry, not because he was the one in with Mary, but because he 'probably' wasn't there at all! Nothing to suspect, in other words.

That seems to be the polar opposite argument from Abby's.

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

What "statement" are you talking about, Jon?

I haven't been discussing "statements"; I've been discussing press interviews with discredited witnesses, third-hand press-reported gossip and hearsay -

I was referring to the fact the press articles reported both Bowyer and Mrs Kennedy had provided statements to police. And here you go again (above), tell me Ben, at what point was Bowyer discredited, and by whom?
More misleading exaggeration?

Where is the evidence that "Mrs. Kennedy", Mrs. McCarthy or her unidentified "funny man"-spotting customer ever gave a "statement" to the police, or for that matter, ever came into contact with the police?

Last time I looked it was filed away alongside those claims that the police discredited Hutchinson.

but you must stop describing press gossip as a "witness statement", because it's nothing of the sort.

A 'statement' is precisely what it is, whether it is given to the press or police, their words/claims are statements.

No entirely sold, but evidently "sold" enough to consider Lawende to be one of the most important eyewitnesses to emerge from the investigation; perhaps the most important if his use in subsequent attempts to identify suspects is any indication (wait, what was that really bad counter-argument to this? That the police lost track of all other witnesses and so had to pretend that Lawende was the most important; that was it!). Are you suggesting that Swanson and McWilliam considered McCarthy's unidentified customer just as valuable an eyewitness as Lawende?

Whether you like it or not, Lawende was the only witness of the group we were discussing who was stable, had a permanent address, had a business - was traceable, the others were more transient.
That remains a fact, regardless how 'bad' you think it is.

So because Cox "is contradicted by Prater", in your mind, she is automatically relegated to a rank lower down on the “eyewitness importance” scale than a single instance of unattributed press hearsay; is that how it works?

Any witness statement (Bowyer?) is taken on faith and treated with the respect it deserves.
If two witness statements contradict each other (Cox and Prater) then obviously there is a degree of doubt on both sides which does not exist with the singular statement (Bowyer) previously mentioned.
The value of both statements by Cox and Prater are devalued (by 50%?) until one or the other is proven correct.

Obviously any police investigation into all these statements may turn up a few untruths along the way, but we have no information on that score, so making allowances for this is a luxury we are unable to allow for.
We take their statements at face value, and proceed on.
Bowyer's statement is accepted while those of Cox and Prater are subject to a degree of doubt.
Likewise, there is nothing to contest or contradict the statement by Mrs Kennedy either.

You mean to suggest he didn’t “reflect on his sighting” the moment he learned of the brutal mutilation murder of a woman inside the very court in which (you insist) he saw a man?

Yes Ben, you may like to refresh yourself on the Friday press accounts, Echo, Star, etc.

The rumor on the street, the press sources from Dorset St., were under the impression this was a morning murder. That the victim had been seen by a number of people between 8-9 o'clock in the morning, which offers justification for Bowyer not considering his early morning sighting at 3:00 am being anything to do with a murder that took place after 9:00 am.
That is perfectly reasonable, and justifies why Bowyer never thought to mention this man in his police statement.

After Hutchinson came forward on the 12th with his story about a suspicious man entering the court with the victim close to 3:00 am, it is only obvious that Bowyer would now have cause to reflect on this and go tell the police - which his press statement makes reference to.

You’re also wrong to claim that Sarah Lewis was “suspicious” of the loitering man, as there is nothing in her evidence to support such an inference. She was obviously fearful of the black bag man talking to a woman outside the Britannia, but she gave no impression that she felt the same about the wideawake man.

I didn't say she feared him, the man was looking up the court and she said he appeared to be waiting for someone, that is being suspicious.

If Kennedy was a genuine witness who told the truth about seeing Kelly at 3.00am, she would have been the last person to see the victim alive, which would have made her the most important witness - head and shoulders above the rest.

Tell me Ben, what could the Coroner deduce from that fact, and how does that help him resolve the questions, "when", "where" & "by what means" she met her death?

Just think about that.

Now, compare the scream heard from her room about 4:00 am, what can the Coroner deduce from that to help resolve the questions of "when", "where" & "by what means", she met her death?

This shouldn't take you long.

Yep, I know that; which is why it makes sense to reject a particular press claim when it contradicts all other "press coverage of inquest testimony".

I compared them line-by-line, there was no contradiction among the press. They all mention another couple, some say the woman was drunk, another that she wore no hat, and again that the couple went up the court. None of which is contradictory.
How can any of that be contradictory.

[Ben]

When a policeman listens to a witness, their statement is taken in good faith – not thrown back at the witness with argumentative and condescending critisim

What "statement" are you talking about, Jon?

I haven't been discussing "statements"; I've been discussing press interviews with discredited witnesses, third-hand press-reported gossip and hearsay - your inexplicable obsession with which being the cause of this "emotion" that you profess to find so objectionable. Where is the evidence that "Mrs. Kennedy", Mrs. McCarthy or her unidentified "funny man"-spotting customer ever gave a "statement" to the police, or for that matter, ever came into contact with the police? You don't have any; I know you don't, and yet you - and you, as usual, alone - insist that press hearsay must be considered just as important as sworn inquest testimony and police statements. You can derail as many threads as you like with this nonsense, but you must stop describing press gossip as a "witness statement", because it's nothing of the sort.

Worthless sources like the opinions of McWilliam and Swanson?, who are not entirely sold on Lawende seeing Eddowes & the killer.

No entirely sold, but evidently "sold" enough to consider Lawende to be one of the most important eyewitnesses to emerge from the investigation; perhaps the most important if his use in subsequent attempts to identify suspects is any indication (wait, what was that really bad counter-argument to this? That the police lost track of all other witnesses and so had to pretend that Lawende was the most important; that was it!). Are you suggesting that Swanson and McWilliam considered McCarthy's unidentified customer just as valuable an eyewitness as Lawende?

“The fact that Cox's story was contradicted by Prater is hardly a lame excuse.

I question Cox based on the 'just cause' of the statement by Mrs Prater - THAT Ben, is how to conduct an argument.”

So because Cox "is contradicted by Prater", in your mind, she is automatically relegated to a rank lower down on the “eyewitness importance” scale than a single instance of unattributed press hearsay; is that how it works? And if the latter crap - oops, there’s that “emotion” coming through again! – isn’t contradicted by another mystery customer informing the press that there was definitely no “funny men” in the court on Friday morning, it must therefore be true? Cox is not “contradicted by Prater” – I don’t know where you got that idea from – but even if she was, on what basis does Prater’s version “win” over Cox’s?

“More importantly though, Bowyer was not sufficiently disturbed by this man's presence to even mention him in his police statement. Naturally, Bowyer may only reflect on his sighting once he read Hutchinson's statement in the press.”

You mean to suggest he didn’t “reflect on his sighting” the moment he learned of the brutal mutilation murder of a woman inside the very court in which (you insist) he saw a man? You mean to suggest that, prior to the public release of Hutchinson’s press interview, it had never occurred to Bowyer that the murderer must have physically entered the court in order to murder one of its residents? What new craziness is this, Jon?

Also, what’s this about Bowyer withholding any mention of this man in his police statement (made after the murder) because he didn’t consider him suspicious at the time of the sighting (before the murder)? If I see a man walking down Tonbridge High Street at 11pm wearing a blue Puma baseball cap, I’m unlikely to give it another second’s thought, and I’m certainly not about to alert the police. But if I then learned that a brutal murder occurred just off the high street shortly after 11pm, and that a man in a blue baseball cap was seen fleeing the scene in a bloodstained condition, I would immediately alert the police. You would do no such thing if you were in the same position, according to your “logic”, because you weren’t suspicious of the man at the time of the sighting. I’m going to need big help with the rationale behind that one!

You’re also wrong to claim that Sarah Lewis was “suspicious” of the loitering man, as there is nothing in her evidence to support such an inference. She was obviously fearful of the black bag man talking to a woman outside the Britannia, but she gave no impression that she felt the same about the wideawake man.

“No, “Kelly's whereabouts” was important, and as I said, the scream from room 13 about 4:00 am places her at that location at that time. So it didn't matter where she was at 3:00 am.”

This is maddeningly ludicrous – so much so that I’m beginning to suspect a deliberate wind-up here.

If Kennedy was a genuine witness who told the truth about seeing Kelly at 3.00am, she would have been the last person to see the victim alive, which would have made her the most important witness - head and shoulders above the rest. If the police accepted her sighting as genuine, there would have been no question about withholding her evidence for a mythical “second sitting”. Are you seriously suggesting - and please think it through with a bit more care this time – that the last physical sighting of the murder victim “didn’t matter” because the cry of murder - which might not have come from room 13, and might have had nothing to do with the murder - factually established “Kelly’s whereabouts” at that time? Even if the cry was proven to have emanated from Kelly, it was essential to establish where she was prior to that event and who she was with; and that is where Kennedy’s sighting of Kelly and a male companion would have been of critical importance had it been considered genuine.

“All Macdonald wants to know is where, when & by what means Kelly met her death.”

Yes, exactly – by what means, i.e..possibly by a knife carried by the “person unknown” who was last seen in Kelly’s company.

The press coverage of inquest testimony is well known to be extremely reliable and often more complete than the court record.

Yep, I know that; which is why it makes sense to reject a particular press claim when it contradicts all other "press coverage of inquest testimony".

You’re getting worse, Jon, and that’s the worrying thing. This is “come back Joseph Isaacs, all is forgiven” stuff, this is. I suggest a very, very serious re-think. I also suggest that we’re straying wildly from the topic, and that you’re better off placating this emotional wreck by bringing this nonsense to a close – blood pressure and all that.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

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.

It is not a case of treating them as gospel Ben, it is more a case of not dismissing them out of hand – which is what you persistently do.
When a policeman listens to a witness, their statement is taken in good faith – not thrown back at the witness with argumentative and condescending critisim. I suggest you do the same, take the witness statement in faith unless you have statements to the contrary.

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.

Worthless sources like the opinions of McWilliam and Swanson?, who are not entirely sold on Lawende seeing Eddowes & the killer.
The fact that Cox's story was contradicted by Prater is hardly a lame excuse.

I question Cox based on the 'just cause' of the statement by Mrs Prater - THAT Ben, is how to conduct an argument. Offer a factual and tangible reason as 'just cause' when you criticize the statement of a witness. Not snivel about their stories being "bogus" just because their statement does not fit with your theory.

Worthless emotional outbursts count for nothing, but they do speak more about yourself rather than your argument.

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”,...

The difference Ben is, Bowyer only claimed to see a man, no opinion on what the man was doing and no comment as to him looking suspicious. Sarah Lewis was suspicious about the man she saw, that he was looking up the court and appeared to be waiting for someone.

More importantly though, Bowyer was not sufficiently disturbed by this man's presence to even mention him in his police statement. Naturally, Bowyer may only reflect on his sighting once he read Hutchinson's statement in the press. Therefore, Macdonald never knew that Bowyer saw this man in the court on Friday, therefore, no questions on that point.

.... 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.

No, “Kelly's whereabouts” was important, and as I said, the scream from room 13 about 4:00 am places her at that location at that time. So it didn't matter where she was at 3:00 am.

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.

The police investigation is completely separate from the inquest, Macdonald is not investigating a murder – I keep telling you this!
All Macdonald wants to know is where, when & by what means Kelly met her death.
It is the responsibility of the police to identify her killer, not Macdonald.

As I have said before, Kennedy could easily have been slated to appear at a future sitting of this inquest or, Macdonald decided her statement did not contribute anything more than that of Sarah Lewis.

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.

There's another example, no reason, no rationale, no tangible argument, just another condescending emotional outburst. The press coverage of inquest testimony is well known to be extremely reliable and often more complete than the court record.
Anyone who has taken the time to compare original court transcripts with press coverage, as I have on many occasions, can easily testify to that fact.

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

Yes, of course I considered the possibility that it was all secretly resolved - "off record" or in "lost reports" - to the satisfaction of the police that there was no connection between Hutchinson and wideawake man. I just don't consider it very likely for two reasons; the first being that the only reliable press sketch of Hutchinson depicts a stoutish, shortish man wearing a wideawake or billycock hat - in other words a good match for Sarah Lewis's description, brief though it was. The other reason is because not a single newspaper made reference to the possible connection, despite both accounts being in the public domain before there was any opportunity for the police to investigate the link and rule it out.

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.

But that was my original observation, remember?

In my first contribution to the discussion, I made the point that Hutchinson was obviously not "sanitising" his report to prevent "sordid" inferences from being made. It would make no sense to do so considering "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", as you rightly point out. If Hutchinson was lying about the encounter, it wouldn't have made much difference if "can you lend me sixpence?" was substituted for "sixpence for a shag?", provided the fictional exchange had served its purpose as a useful signpost to enable and encourage his listeners to infer that she "must look for some money".

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)?

If Hutchinson was up to nothing more naughty than mugging that night, it probably occurred to him that it might be wise to conceal as much, which realistically meant keeping gold chain references to a minimum: whereas if he was up to something altogether more naughty, even "nefarious", he wouldn't have been perturbed at being considered guilty of a much lesser crime. Let's face it - if Hutchinson was the ripper, he would have been delighted at being told, "Yes we believe your story, but come now, you wanted to rob this man, didn't you?".

Finally, what's with this accusation that I've been "dogmatic and dismissive" about alternative explanations? You'll notice from my most recent post to you that I acknowledged your recent suggestions with a very sincerely meant "quite possibly". If I wanted to be "dogmatic and dismissive" I would have used very different words, like "sheerest self-serving nonsense" for instance.

All the best,
Ben

Edit to an earlier post to Jon - I meant "Die Hard with A Vengeance", of course!

[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

[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?

[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

[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