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

[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!

[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]

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]

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.

[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

[John Wheat]

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

[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...

[Errata]

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

That gives me an idea...
huh.

[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.

[Wickerman]

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

[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]

... 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.

What evidence do you expect?, have you forgotten that there is no evidence except the “say-so of the press”, that Hutchinson was discredited?
Is this “say-so” only good enough for you to use, but not good enough for others?

What I find quite extraordinary is this apparent opinion of yours that the press will attribute fictional statements to actual named witnesses. On what grounds?
Where on earth does this bizarre thinking come from?
There is a distinct liability involved in publishing such falsely attributed statements, have you forgotten that too?

... 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.

And just how would any competant police keep track of transients over two or three years?
Please clarify that Ben.

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”.

It is only patently bogus when, as I said, information is known to the contrary, which is not the case here – so that kicks your first objection out.

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%”.

Cox claimed to pass through the passage at 1 o'clock, Kelly was singing, and it was raining, within minutes Cox left again.
While Prater was at the same passage from 1:00-1:20, heard no singing, and saw no light in the room.
A clear case of contradiction on behalf of one of the witnesses.

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).

Which only serves to hi-lite the fact you learn nothing, all you needed to do was read the press accounts for Friday evening to know what the prevalent rumors were about the murder in the Echo:

Morris Lewis, a tailor, states that he was playing "pitch and toes" in the court at nine o'clock this morning, and an hour before that he had seen the woman leave the house, and return with some milk.

It is confidently stated that the deceased was seen after ten o'clock this morning in company with a paramour, when they were both drinking at the public-house at the corner of Dorset-street.

And again in the Star:

The story of the crime current among the neighbors is that this morning - what time cannot at present be precisely ascertained, but at any rate after daylight, she took a man home to her own room, presumably for an immoral purpose. At a quarter to eleven the landlady of the house went up for the rent, and found her murdered.

Cut-n-paste was not necessary, just read the press accounts as I suggested. The police were telling the press nothing, the reporters obtained their coverage from the public who believed the murder happened in the morning.
You make these exchanges so much more difficult than they need to be.

Who or what Bowyer saw at 3:00 am in the morning was a world away from a murder which had presumably taken place after 9:00 am.

The last sighting of the victim alive would have been of tremendous importance to the coroner’s inquest, .....

Once again, presumably for the hard of hearing, the last sighting of a victim is of extreme importance in a murder trial, but the last sighting does NOT tell the Coroner “when”, “where”, or “by what means”, the victim met her death.
Now.....write that down for future reference.

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.

You can't walk up the passage without first having “passed along” Dorset St. so there is no contradiction on that score. Sarah Lewis saw this couple “pass along” Dorset St., then “walk up the passage”, just as Hutchinson described, after which, apparently Bowyer saw the same man “about 3:00 am” in the court.
The stories by Bowyer, Lewis & Hutchinson are mutually supportive, despite those who repeatedly assert that no-one else saw the Hutchinson suspect.

[Ben]

What evidence do you expect?, have you forgotten that there is no evidence except the “say-so of the press”, that Hutchinson was discredited?

That's not the case, though, Jon.

The "very reduced importance" attached to Hutchinson's account, as reported in the Echo, just happened to correlate remarkably well with the abrupt loss of interest in his story by mid-November, as well as the total absence of any reference to him in all subsequent reports, interviews and memoirs from senior police officials. Whopping great "coincidence" there, I don't think for one moment - although I'm quite sure your fascinating rule book places long-discarded press tattle above everything, even the reminiscences of senior police officials. Indeed, is there any source from the ripper investigation, contemporary or otherwise, that merits greater consideration than your cherished press hearsay? This is bordering on the deeply unfunny, Jon.

What I find quite extraordinary is this apparent opinion of yours that the press will attribute fictional statements to actual named witnesses. On what grounds?
Where on earth does this bizarre thinking come from?
There is a distinct liability involved in publishing such falsely attributed statements, have you forgotten that too?

You're seriously claiming that the very concept of press invention is an alien one to you? You've never heard of journalists embellishing accounts? You've never heard of hearsay, or the Chinese whispering of genuine accounts, which often occurs when the press don't have direct access to the sources?

The aftermath of the Hillsborough stadium disaster of 1989 was littered with examples of the very phenomenon you pretend doesn't exist - the attribution of "fictional statements to actual named witnesses.". In this particular case, second hand (or worse) press claims were invested with a significance they never warranted, and innocent fans were vilified as a result; one report even claimed that drunken supporters urinated on the "brave cops" attempting to alleviate the crush. Fortunately for the truth, much like your press claims of spooky bogeymen, it amounted to little more than bogus sensation-seeking, arse-covering hearsay.

Such lies were peddled to obfuscate the woeful deficiencies of the South Yorkshire police, just as the spew published in the aftermath of the Kelly murder was created for the purpose of sensationalising the ripper's identity. The Sun newspaper lapped up the former nonsense presumably because it furthered their right-wing agenda to uphold the establishment at any cost, just as you lap up the discounted press gossip of 1888 to further your agenda to defend Hutchinson at any cost.

I'm utterly bewildered - although, from experience, I really shouldn't be - at your suggestion that the press would never dare risk the "distinct liability" that would result from publishing unreliable gossip and hearsay. If it wasn't for the dedication of the Hillsborough victims' families (throughout a 20-year plus campaign), the lies published in the Sun might never have been questioned, let alone exposed as false.

And just how would any competant police keep track of transients over two or three years?

I'm not suggesting they would, or did. I'm simply pointing out that the police apparently placed the bulk of investigative focus on Lawende's description because they genuinely considered it a "good view of the murderer", and not because they lost track of everyone else and were then forced to lie about Lawende's importance.

Which witnesses were recorded at the time as being "transient", by the way?

Cox claimed to pass through the passage at 1 o'clock, Kelly was singing, and it was raining, within minutes Cox left again.
While Prater was at the same passage from 1:00-1:20, heard no singing, and saw no light in the room.
A clear case of contradiction on behalf of one of the witnesses.

Not even remotely.

Cox heard Kelly singing “about 1 o’clock”. She then went out again, still about 1 o’clock, but heard nothing after 1 o’clock. This is only problematic for those who wish inexplicably to argue that a couple of minutes either side of 1 o’clock can’t possibly qualify as “about 1 o’clock”. Otherwise, there is no "contradiction" with Prater, who arrived around 1.00am, by which time Cox had departed and Kelly had stopped singing.

Cut-n-paste was not necessary, just read the press accounts as I suggested.

On the contrary, cut-and-pastes are always necessary with you because they save me the bother of wording myself differently when addressing these long buried arguments that you're so intent on reviving.

It is absolute nonsense to claim that the newspaper-reading public were only exposed to accounts of a later morning murder, and managed to remain oblivious to the vast bulk of reports indicating that the crime was committed earlier. Have a look at these - I bet you'll never guess where I just dug them up from!:

"During the early hours of yesterday morning another murder of a most revolting and fiendish character took place in Spitalfields." - The Times, 10th November.

"This much, however, has been found, that some payment was made by the man for the use of the room; that that payment was received by someone residing in the house; and that the murderer and his victim entered the place in the small hours of Friday morning - between one and two o'clock as near as can be gathered." - East London Observer, 10th November.

"The hour at which the deed was done can only be conjectured, as the last evidence of the woman being alive was at one o'clock in the morning, when she was heard singing". - The Daily Telegraph, 10th November.

"CRY OF "MURDER!" HEARD AT 3.30. Our representative has interviewed a woman named Kennedy, who was on the night of the murder staying with her parents at a house situate in the court immediately opposite the room in which the body of Mary Kelly was found. This woman's statement, if true - and there is very little reason for doubting its veracity - establishes the time at which the murderer commenced his operation upon his victim". - The Echo, 10th November.

"Yesterday morning it was discovered that another horrible murder had been committed at Whitechapel. The victim has been identified as Mary Jane Kelly, 26 years of age, who lived for some time with a man named Barnet, otherwise Danny. According to an account on which reliance has been placed, Kelly was seen late on Thursday night with a respectably dressed man." - Daily News, 10th November.

“This woman's statement, if true - and there is very little reason for doubting its veracity - establishes the time at which the murder was committed...

...This description of the man suspected of the murder tallies exactly with that in the possession of the police, and there is very little doubt that the murderer entered Kelly's house late on Thursday night or early on Friday morning.” - St. James' Gazette, 10th November.

On the basis of the above referenced newspaper reports, is is utterly inconceivable that Bowyer deliberately avoided any mention of his Friday "sighting" because he supposedly only read the minority of reports suggesting a later time of death, and decided on that basis that his evidence wasn't relevant. This would also mean that he remained somehow oblivious to Kennedy's account, and the enormous wealth of well-publicized information suggesting that Kelly had been killed in the small hours, in common with all other ripper victims.

Once again, presumably for the hard of hearing, the last sighting of a victim is of extreme importance in a murder trial, but the last sighting does NOT tell the Coroner “when”, “where”, or “by what means”, the victim met her death.

Once again, presumably for the irrationally stubborn and obsessed with exotic ripper identity theories, a coroner investigating a victim's cause of death will always be interested in establishing the last sighting of the victim, especially in murder cases where the person or persons observed in that victim's company might just BE that "cause". What could be more screamingly obvious, seriously? Why do you think MacDonald quizzed the witnesses regarding the appearances of the men they claimed to have seen with Kelly? And why did he ultimately conclude that she was murdered by a "person" and not simply a "knife" - as he ought to have done if he was to adhere to your weird and rigid interpretation of "what means".

Sarah Lewis saw this couple “pass along” Dorset St., then “walk up the passage”, just as Hutchinson described

Who are quoting there? Who said "walk up the passage"? I do hope you're not doing that thing you do again; wrapping your own words in quotation marks and pretending they originate from a primary source. Only one newspaper described Lewis's couple as passing "up the court". All other press reports of her testimony make very clear the fact that that the couple in question simply walked west along Dorset Street. Her police statement also makes this very clear. Her statement that there was "nobody in the court" also makes this very clear. Lewis described the couple as being "further on" from where wideawake man was standing, in other words, to the west of the Miller's Court entrance; another very clear indication that the couple in question had nothing to do with the court.

The stories by Bowyer, Lewis & Hutchinson are mutually supportive, despite those who repeatedly assert that no-one else saw the Hutchinson suspect.

It's your overarching agenda to demonstrate as much by scraping the very bottom of the barrel in terms of source material, I realise that. Trouble is; you don't and can't, because there is not the faintest whiff of evidence that anyone "saw the Hutchinson suspect" besides Hutchinson himself, and that holds true even if your press hilarity was true and accurate. The only point of corroboration between Lewis and Hutchinson is the latter's presence in Dorset Street at 2.30am.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

That's not the case, though, Jon.

The "very reduced importance" attached to Hutchinson's account, as reported in the Echo, just happened to correlate remarkably well with the abrupt loss of interest in his story by mid-November, as well as the total absence of any reference to him in all subsequent reports, interviews and memoirs from senior police officials. Whopping great "coincidence" there,....

Not in the slightest actually, if you bothered to compare how much interest there was in Mrs Long, Schwartz, yes and Lawende, only days after the publication of their respective statements, we read nothing about them or their 'suspects' anymore. Hutchinson is no different.
The press move on to other issues, but the press are in no position to know what the police are doing behind the scenes.

As for the "very reduced importance", we already know the cause of this, Dr. Bond's estimated time of death, which turned the focus back towards Blotchy.

You're seriously claiming that the very concept of press invention is an alien one to you? You've never heard of journalists embellishing accounts?

I've heard of a lot of things, but what I hear in other cases, in other decades, in other parts of the country, has no bearing on what these Whitechapel Murder witnesses said, or didn't say.

Funny that you put a great deal of faith in press conjecture concerning the direction of the police investigation, but little faith in press accounts of what witnesses tell them. It strikes me you have this all backwards Ben.

I'm not suggesting they would, or did. I'm simply pointing out that the police apparently placed the bulk of investigative focus on Lawende's description because they genuinely considered it a "good view of the murderer", and not because they lost track of everyone else and were then forced to lie about Lawende's importance.

Well, if they had so much faith in the description provided by Lawende, why would they ask him to identify Sadler, who looked nothing like the man Lawende described.
Talk about being desperate...

No, just more likely that Lawende was the only witness out of Schwartz, Cox and Hutchinson who could be traced, so long after the murder spree.

Not even remotely.

Cox heard Kelly singing “about 1 o’clock”. She then went out again, still about 1 o’clock, but heard nothing after 1 o’clock. This is only problematic for those who wish inexplicably to argue that a couple of minutes either side of 1 o’clock can’t possibly qualify as “about 1 o’clock”. Otherwise, there is no "contradiction" with Prater, who arrived around 1.00am, by which time Cox had departed and Kelly had stopped singing.

And, I forgot to add, investigations were made around all the pubs in the area to try verify Cox's story that Kelly was with this Blotchy, red headed character around midnight- her story could not be verified.

It is absolute nonsense to claim that the newspaper-reading public were only exposed to accounts of a later morning murder, and managed to remain oblivious to the vast bulk of reports indicating that the crime was committed earlier. Have a look at these - I bet you'll never guess where I just dug them up from!:

By this reply Ben, you just proved you were not listening (metaphorically speaking).

Bowyer gave his statement to police on the 9th, and on the 9th he, like everyone else (evidence the press articles I quoted), were under the impression the victim had been murdered in the morning.

It does your argument no good to produce articles printed on the 10th, the day after Bowyer gave the statement where he made no mention of seeing a man at 3:00 am.
We need to know what the public believed on the day of the murder, the day of his statement - not the day after!

Now be a good chap and go back to the press accounts on the evening of the 9th and see what the public were telling the press (because the police were telling them nothing).
I thought I had saved you the trouble by providing the quotes but apparently you have not read them - so go ahead and look for yourself.

[Ben]

if you bothered to compare how much interest there was in Mrs Long, Schwartz, yes and Lawende, only days after the publication of their respective statements, we read nothing about them or their 'suspects' anymore.

Not so, Jon. Not remotely so.

It is clear from Abberline's 1903 Pall Mall Gazette interview that he still considered Elizabeth Long a valid witness 15 years later. Robert Anderson wrote that the only person to get a "good view of the murderer" was Jewish; clearly referencing either Lawende or Schwartz. Whereas Hutchinson, whose "view of the murderer" would have been vastly superior to those obtained by the aforementioned three - had it been considered genuine - is not mentioned at all.

As for the "very reduced importance", we already know the cause of this, Dr. Bond's estimated time of death, which turned the focus back towards Blotchy.

No.

Still no.

The "very reduced importance" attached to Hutchinson's account still has absolutely nothing to do with Bond's proffered earlier time of death, as we've discussed a million times already. There is no evidence that the police considered the 1.00am-2.00am time frame likely, let alone factually correct to the exclusion of all other evidence. What do you mean "we" already know? You need more than one person for a "we" to "already know", and that doesn't apply here considering that nobody shares your opinion.

I've heard of a lot of things, but what I hear in other cases, in other decades, in other parts of the country, has no bearing on what these Whitechapel Murder witnesses said, or didn't say.

Meaning what, exactly?

That you accept the reality of press invention and unreliable press-reported hearsay (etc) occurring throughout the globe, and throughout history wherever the western media has been present since its inception, but not, for some unfathomable reason, for a few months in the 1888 east end? No, I do not place faith in "press conjecture concerning the direction of the police investigation" unless that conjecture can be demonstrated to have other evidentiary support.

No, just more likely that Lawende was the only witness out of Schwartz, Cox and Hutchinson who could be traced, so long after the murder spree.

Could you please clarify the following by way of a yes/no answer: Is it your position that the police seniority conspired to lie to the public and to each other, in internal documents, by conveying a false impression that Lawende was an extremely important witness - to the extent of using him in identity attempts, and describing him as the only witness to acquire a "good view of the murderer" - when the reality was that they had simply lost track of "better" witnesses? (Y/N) If you answer in the affirmative, could you further explain why this catastrophic "losing track" of witnesses was allowed to happen? I wouldn't have thought the LVP was so primitive a time that the police were powerless to ensure continued contact with them, even if it amounted to a simple request to let them know of any change of address. I can't think of any reason why lovely, honest, co-operative Hutchinson wouldn't have obliged.

You don't explain why you consider it "desperate" for the police have confronted Lawende with Sadler in an effort to identity the Church Passage suspect. It seems like basic investigative thoroughness to me. It's quite true that Sadler's age and facial hair doesn't exactly call to mind the "red-neckerchief" man, but on the other hand, Lawende only admitted to a brief look at the man, and we don't know what Sadler looked like in 1888.

And, I forgot to add, investigations were made around all the pubs in the area to try verify Cox's story that Kelly was with this Blotchy, red headed character around midnight- her story could not be verified.

I realise that, Jon.

I'm pretty sure the police in 1888 realised that too, but that didn't prevent Cox from being a witness at the inquest; evidently because the failure to "verify" that particular aspect of her story didn't lead anyone to conclude that she lied about the whole thing for poos and giggles.

“Bowyer gave his statement to police on the 9th, and on the 9th he, like everyone else (evidence the press articles I quoted), were under the impression the victim had been murdered in the morning.”

I thought I was supposed to be the one with the short memory.

Back we go to your original statement a few posts ago, which read as follows:

“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”

Even in the exceptionally unlikely event that Bowyer was oblivious to news of an early morning time of death when he provided his statement, he would unquestionably have been aware of it long before Hutchinson made himself known, and certainly in advance of the inquest. If he really saw a man in the court on Friday morning, he would certainly have “reflected on his sighting” before he took the stand on the 12th, and would certainly have mentioned his sighting when he did so. The fact that there is no mention from Bowyer of any Friday morning stranger tells us that there wasn’t one.

Another thing that stands out is that whoever wrote that article clearly had no direct contact with Bowyer himself, otherwise he would have known that Bowyer was not a “young man”. A different representative of the Echo may have succeeded in obtaining a direct quote from Bowyer, in which the latter expressed incredulity about the killer’s escape from the cul-de-sac that was Miller’s Court. but it contained no mention of any sightings of strangers; that's because there weren’t any, unluckily for your conclusions.

All the best,
Ben