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

[Ben]

I said – “Divided over two suspects”.

The section even begins with the fact there are now TWO suspects.
“The police are embarrassed with two definite descriptions of the man suspected of the murder. “

That is correct, Jon, but "divided" and "embarrassed" mean two very different things. There was never any suggestion on the 13th that the police were "divided" over which suspect - Blotchy or Astrakhan - to pursue.

It wasn't as if the two were mutually exclusive.

Yes, that whole article was lifted from the Daily Telegraph and republished in the Echo of that same evening.
Then, a week later on the 19th the Echo write that “some” authorities put more reliance on Hutch, and others on Cox. The police are still looking for two suspects after a week.

But not the same "two suspects". The Echo reported on 13th November that the City were still pursuing the man described by witnesses from the "Orange Market", whereas the Met were inclined to investigate the Blotchy suspect. The 19th November Echo article never said a single word about what the police were "looking for", but rather which witness accounts "some" of the authorities continued to invest faith in. Is there are evidence that the remaining "authorities" who continued to endorse Astrakhan had any influence over the direction of the investigation? What evidence is there, for instance, that Astrakhan types were still actively pursued?

What it tells us is that neither the Daily Telegraph nor the Echo were able to find out from police why the witness did not come forward.

...Because the police themselves did not have an answer to that question either, yes.

No indication they are repeating an incorrect 'mantra'. Clearly the Echo are on-board with this belief – they subscribe to it as well.

Clearly not.

Clearly not.

Otherwise, why would they have reported on the previous two consecutive days of reporting that Hutchinson's statement had been "very reduced" in importance and "considerably discounted"? I ask again, why do you think the Echo borrowed more or less the same terminology from their "morning contemporaries" when the latter reported enthusiastically about Hutchinson? To illustrate their folly; to highlight their misunderstanding; to demonstrate, by extension, that they were the better investigative journalists.

Remember that quote from the Echo, 14th November?

"There is not, so it is declared, the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinson's veracity"

"So it is declared", i.e. wrongly, by the morning newspapers, who failed to appreciate that Hutchinson was not corroborating a pre-existing Astrakhan description, as initial appearances might have suggested.

Correct, and nowhere does the Daily News attribute the veracity of the witness to the fact both descriptions agree - two separate issues

No, not "two separate issues". Two very clearly related issues, with one conclusion forming the basis for the other, in the minds of the Daily News. Their erroneous perception that Hutchinson's description "agreed with" someone else's was the primary reason behind their declaration that his "veracity" was not "questioned", as the Echo correctly observed on the 13th.

The fact remains Hutchinson was cleared by Abberline, and the police had no intention of informing the press why he did not come forward

Which part of that is "fact"? Certainly not the second half, because it argues against the contemporary evidence - that the authorities were not satisfied with whatever reason he might have initially provided for his failure to come forward earlier. Believe it or not, and despite what Hollywood might caused you believe, Abberline was not the head of the investigation, and he was certainly not the only policeman capable of expressing an opinion regarding eyewitness evidence.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Asked the police?

No Ben, for goodness sakes.
The Central News reporter, when sitting down with Hutchinson, will have asked him if he was responsible for the description published in the morning papers of that same day.

No.

True to form, another assertion you cannot justify.

So what “final conclusion” are you hoping for then, in this case?

The Echo go to press in the afternoon, so any witnesses located by police after that time who say they saw Kelly in the Ringers Thursday night will not be known by Echo reporters.

So he should have come straight to you first, in other words?

Sugden should have known a witness does not repeat hereasy unless specifically asked to do so. A witness is expected to comment on direct observation, what he/she saw, what he/she heard, not what someone told them.
Thats pretty basic.

If there had been any question of McCarthy being aware of evidence placing Kelly in Ringers on the night of her death, he would have alluded to it in his police statement. The coroner would than have ensured it received a mention at the inquest – no “ad-libbing” required.

You say, ....based on what I can't imagine. Certainly not any legal requirement.

No, it wouldn’t. The report contained no mention of Kelly eating or digesting anything; besides which, Bond’s suggested time of death - typically rejected by you as wrong anyway – has absolutely no bearing on the “returning home from pub with man” report, or vice versa.

The press report didn't have to mention food, the press wouldn't have known why the inquiries were being made or what questions the police were asking the witness.

It is very doubtful that Hutchinson’s failure to come forward in time for the inquest was the man reason for his discrediting; however, the fact that this reason is inextricably linked to the question of his “veracity” is an obvious indication that this was in doubt. It painted Hutchinson in a poor light, and unless the ethics of the police were topsy-turvy, they cetainly would not have publicly impugned a genuine witness just to put the press off the scent.

All conjecture.
We already have the reason for belief in his veracity, here is one example.

“....notwithstanding examination and re-examination by the police, the man's story cannot be shaken, and so circumstantial and straightforward were his assertions that the police believe they have at length been placed in possession of facts which will open up a new line of investigation,...”

His veracity had nothing to do with the similarity of two descriptions, but everything to do with how the police received his assertions and his ability to stick to his story.

The Echo were evidently basing their observations about Hutchinson’s “very reduced importance” on police wisdom ......

Any later investigation would only have turned up the fact that the police were now pursuing two suspects. In the opinion of the Echo for the police to depart from the single Hutchinson line of inquiry, to now dividing their investigation across two equally important lines of inquiry is being interpreted as reduced importance towards Hutchinson's story.
Still sufficiently important to investigate (per 19th Nov. article), but not of singularly prime importance as was first believed.

The police were free as birds to turn away whoever they wished for whatever reason they liked. What has convinced you otherwise?

A police station is not private property.

And yet there is absolutely no trace of any press “opining” that a witness statement diminishes in value due to the existence of another witness statement. I’m afraid that crazy concept is yours alone.

The scenario speaks for itself, when the police are confident about a suspect they do not need an alternate. The fact they now have two quite different suspects makes it clear to the press that the police are no longer so confident.
What the press do not know, is why.
What has caused this sudden turn of events. And the police as usual are not letting on.

So the fact that Bond’s time of death “exists” is “evidence enough” that the police leaped upon it as accurate, discarding in the process any evidence that did not conform to it, cries of “murder” included?

Check the papers, there are several examples of erroneous cries of “murder”, just as Prater said, and the police, who have to respond to these false alarms, knew it.
Dr. Bond's estimate warrants police interest in Cox's statement along with their new surprise witness, Hutchinson.

According to the little rulebook, yes, but what about in the big wide world of actual communication between police and press? Preferential treatment towards individual papers has been a reality of police investigation since the year dot. They didn’t go through a mini-phase in the late 1880s of deciding that was far too naughty.

Here we go again ....”it could have, therefore it did!” - sure Ben, if thats the best you can do.

But it’s a great deal more than just “belief”, which was the expression you used to describe your own opinion of the suggested Hutchinson-Wideawake identification, as well the expression you typically use, disparagingly and reductively, to describe my opinions. So celebration deserved.

Unless it can be proved, it's a belief.
99% of what we talk about is “belief”, a fact that hasn't sunk into you yet Ben.

[Wickerman]

No shortage of false cries of murder in the press, not that every false cry should even gain the attention of a reporter.

- "But," explained Mr. and Mrs. Hewitt in a breath, "the district round here is rather rough, and cries of 'Murder' are of frequent, if not nightly, occurrence in the district."

- The woman shouted "Murder" several times and soon alarmed the neighbours. .....Being taken to Leman-street Police-station, he accounted for his presence in the yard by the fact that he was paying a visit to a friend who is an inhabitant of it.

- Great excitement was created last night about a quarter past nine in Wentworth street, Commercial street, close to Dorset street, by loud cries of "Murder" and "Police" which proceeded from George yard buildings........The mistake, however, was soon explained, and quiet restored in the vicinity.

The police of the time knew this, it was their duty to respond. Prater's cry of "murder" didn't carry much weight without some supporting evidence that a crime took place at that hour.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“The Central News reporter, when sitting down with Hutchinson, will have asked him if he was responsible for the description published in the morning papers of that same day”

Correct, and Hutchinson would have responded in the affirmative. But Central News had no way of knowing or confirming that Hutchinson was telling the truth about being the originator of the description “published in the morning papers of that same day”. Only the police did.

“…so any witnesses located by police after that time who say they saw Kelly in the Ringers Thursday night will not be known by Echo reporters.”

So who was this mystery witness? Why wasn’t s/he named? How was s/he able to produce “conclusive proof” of their sighting? And how did s/he manage to see Kelly in the pub when the management of same had already informed the police that she had not been drinking there that night? As if the landlady isn't going to notice!

“Sugden should have known a witness does not repeat hereasy unless specifically asked to do so. A witness is expected to comment on direct observation”

Questioned regarding, Jon, not just “comment on”. The police questioned the people who lived and worked in and around Miller’s Court. They would have entered into dialogue with them, in the same way that the pressmen who supposedly gathered this hearsay evidence from McCarthy would have entered in to a dialogue with him. “When did you last see the deceased alive?”, would have been one obvious question for the police to ask McCarthy, and he would have informed them of the very same thing he told the press (if the latter was accurate); that while he hadn’t seen her for some time, X or Y witness had apparently seen her in the pub with a man. The police would then have asked who “X or Y witness” was and tracked them down, and well in advance of the inquest. Simple police work of the type that was their professional duty to contact, and yet for some reason, you assert that only the press were capable of extracting the “goods” from these witnesses.

Statement were taken as part of a question and answer session, not a long, continuous recorded monologue, as I've told you before.

“The press report didn't have to mention food, the press wouldn't have known why the inquiries were being made or what questions the police were asking the witness.”

But your claim was that the two press reports that you favour are in some way supportive of Bond’s evidence concerning “digestion”. You have yet to explain how so.

“....notwithstanding examination and re-examination by the police, the man's story cannot be shaken, and so circumstantial and straightforward were his assertions that the police believe they have at length been placed in possession of facts which will open up a new line of investigation,...”

His veracity had nothing to do with the similarity of two descriptions,

Can you please quote your sources? Different papers arrived at different conclusions for why the police initially endorsed Hutchinson. Some of them reported that it was because of his “circumstantial and straightforward assertions” (because liars are never circumstantial or straightforward, as we all know); while some others were clearly of the erroneous impression that his “veracity” is not doubted because his story corroborated an already existing description involving a man in an Astrakhan coat.

“Any later investigation would only have turned up the fact that the police were now pursuing two suspects.”

Not remotely the case.

The investigation - which resulted in Hutchinson’s account receiving a reduced importance - had “turned up the fact” that there was a major question mark over his failure to come forward for three days after the murder. This, believe it or not, related directly to the issue of the witness’s credibility. What’s this “single line of Hutchinson inquiry” that you’re suddenly talking about? There was never any such thing. Where did you get the loopy idea from that the Echo had only just learned of Cox’s evidence, which was never in doubt? They were aware of her evidence long before they had ever heard of Hutchinson, so it's nonsense to claim she had anything remotely to do with the “later investigation” referred to. No sane police force accords a witness a “very reduced importance” purely because of the existence of another witness; in this case, a witness whose evidence doesn’t contradict the first witness’s in the slightest; and in this case, a witness they had known about for donkey’s years.

“The fact they now have two quite different suspects makes it clear to the press that the police are no longer so confident.”

What is there not to be “confident” about?

If Hutchinson’s evidence was not discredited, the sequence of events would have been quite simple: Kelly takes Blotchy home at 11.45pm, gets rid of him in the next couple of hours and ventures out again, this time encountering Hutchinson and (minutes later) Astrakhan man shortly after 2.00am. If the two statements were both true, they don’t contradict or interfere with one another in the slightest; one happened quite some time before the other, that's all. There would not be any credible reason to “reduce” either account in “importance” just because they both exist. That’s insanity. What would be a good reason for such a “reduction”? Well, if one of them was considered potentially bogus, of course. Which is precisely what was reported in Hutchinson’s case.

“Check the papers, there are several examples of erroneous cries of “murder”, just as Prater said, and the police, who have to respond to these false alarms, knew it.”

From which you conclude? What exactly are you trying to convince me of here? That because cries were common, we can dismiss the mutually corroborative evidence of Lewis and Prater concerning of a cry of “murder” that seemed to emanate from the direction of the deceased’s room? That we should listen to Bond instead, and treat his 1.00am time of death as correct? Or are you suggesting that the police wrongly arrived at this conclusion, and that had they been clever enough to figure out that which you’re clever enough to figure out, they have gone with the “murder” cry as the likely time of death – as you do – anyway?

“99% of what we talk about is “belief”…”

But it is belief based on the evidential assessment, or on highly questionable press reports in your case.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Correct, and Hutchinson would have responded in the affirmative. But Central News had no way of knowing or confirming that Hutchinson was telling the truth about being the originator of the description “published in the morning papers of that same day”. Only the police did.

The premise of your scenario being that only the police knew the name of the informer.
Not necessarily true.
The informer told the journalist that he had discussed his story with another lodger before going to police. So the police were not the only ones who knew the informers name, and a “secret” can travel faster than common gossip in places like this, any number of lodgers could have shared this revelation, and likely did make the connection.
Public knowledge.

Only if Hutchinson had said “I told no-one”, would your premise be of value.

So who was this mystery witness? Why wasn’t s/he named? How was s/he able to produce “conclusive proof” of their sighting? And how did s/he manage to see Kelly in the pub when the management of same had already informed the police that she had not been drinking there that night? As if the landlady isn't going to notice!

I take it you have an issue with anonymity? - “I'll tell you what I saw but don't use my name”?
Also, it's not unusual for the licensee of a pub to deny their premises are used by women of low repute.

Questioned regarding, Jon, not just “comment on”. The police questioned the people who lived and worked in and around Miller’s Court. They would have entered into dialogue with them, in the same way that the pressmen who supposedly gathered this hearsay evidence from McCarthy would have entered in to a dialogue with him. “When did you last see the deceased alive?”, would have been one obvious question for the police to ask McCarthy, and he would have informed them of the very same thing he told the press (if the latter was accurate); that while he hadn’t seen her for some time,....

You're speculating again.
McCarthy knows what “when did YOU last see her?” means.
It is possible McCarthy knows the person responsible for the claim (if he knew their name), and was also being held in the court being interviewed by police. So no need to mention what anyone else said they saw, they'll be giving their own story.

You seem to spend an awful lot of time speculating on why something didn't happen. Something that didn't happen, but in your opinion should have, is what is called "negative evidence".
When such "negative evidence" comes from one opinion it does not constitute "evidence" at all.
I'm sure you heard that, "Absence of Evidence is not evidence of absence".

But your claim was that the two press reports that you favour are in some way supportive of Bond’s evidence concerning “digestion”. You have yet to explain how so.

Maybe supportive – it cannot be known for certain.
The police/doctors needed to know if the victim had been in any premises that sold food, and an approximate time.

Can you please quote your sources? Different papers arrived at different conclusions for why the police initially endorsed Hutchinson. Some of them reported that it was because of his “circumstantial and straightforward assertions” (because liars are never circumstantial or straightforward, as we all know); while some others were clearly of the erroneous impression that his “veracity” is not doubted because his story corroborated an already existing description involving a man in an Astrakhan coat.

I have no problem with sources, just as you have no problem high-liting any section of that quote and dropping it in the Press Search window. It's easy to find where it came from.
What you have not done is offered a quote which directly states the veracity of the witness was due to the two duplicate descriptions.
No such statement exists because it was not the case.

The investigation - which resulted in Hutchinson’s account receiving a reduced importance - had “turned up the fact” that there was a major question mark over his failure to come forward for three days after the murder.

Something you have convinced yourself of, thats all.

They were aware of her evidence long before they had ever heard of Hutchinson,

The evening press were aware of Cox's evidence on the 12th, yet not one evening paper believed it important enough to promote.
Likewise, of all the morning papers, none of them saw the significance of Cox's statement on the 13th except, the Daily Telegraph. The Echo only jumped on board later in the day (I've been over this before, or didn't you absorb what was written?).
Thus, plenty of time throughout the day for the journalists of the Echo to witness police investigating the Cox story – ie; their “later investigations.”

No sane police force accords a witness a “very reduced importance” purely because of the existence of another witness;

What on earth are you talking about – that is press interpretation not the police.
I wish you would avoid crediting the words used by the press as if they came from the police.

What is there not to be “confident” about?

The police are not confident about Kelly's time of death.

After leaving the inquest the police had no clue when she died, anywhere from 1:00 until after 9:00 am Friday morning.
Once Hutchinson showed up they would see potential for his evidence to align with the reported scream of “murder” - this is what the police need, to see lines of evidence begin to converge on one particular time.

This potential was disrupted when the T.o.D. estimate by Dr. Bond would filter down through the chain of command which effectively points to the previous client – Blotchy, assuming the estimate is accurate.
And, given the reluctance of Dr. Phillips to commit fully to his T.o.D. estimate in the Chapman case, any caution they had may have been justified.
Now they are split between two suspects and potentially, two times of death.

As for the scream, if the police are acting on the evidence provided by Cox, there was no scream, at least that was what Cox claimed. And if there was, it is the experience of the police that screams of “murder” are not typically associated with an actual murder, it is just a means of getting attention.
The police can't hang their hat on the clue of the “scream” in isolation. The importance of the scream only becomes apparent once the police receive information that places the victim, a client, and the scream, at the same place at the same time.

But it is belief based on the evidential assessment, or on highly questionable press reports in your case.

“highly questionable press reports” are the very basis of your “discredited” argument, as I have been at pains to explain over the last several years.


Any response by yourself may or may not be replied to. I'm not ignoring you, just heading off into the Canadian wilderness for a few days.

[Ben]

The premise of your scenario being that only the police knew the name of the informer.

No, the “premise of my scenario” is that only the police were able to confirm, to anyone’s satisfaction, that Central News’ interviewee was the same person who originated the description circulated by the police on the morning of the 13th. If the Central News were suspicious, for any reason, that Hutchinson was just a money/fame-grabber falsely claiming that the Astrakhan description originated with him, I don’t see how seeking “confirmation” from a fellow lodger would have assuaged those suspicions. “What I say is true – just ask the bloke down the pub!” doesn’t generally cut it. What if the “fellow lodger” was in on the scam?

I repeat: the only people capable of providing a reliable confirmation that the two Astrakhan accounts came “from the same source” was the police.

“So no need to mention what anyone else said they saw, they'll be giving their own story.”

But he did mention it to the press according to you, remember? He was quite happy to pass on hearsay on that occasion, wasn't he? He didn’t withhold it on the grounds that his mysterious informant would “be giving their own story”, so why would he have reasoned any differently when speaking to the police? McCarthy’s expectation (as per your suggestion) that the mystery witness would “be giving their own story” turned out to be misplaced anyway, since nobody gave a statement to the police testifying to Kelly’s presence in Ringers’ pub on the night of her death, and no mention was made of any such sighting at the inquest either. Why not? Almost certainly because nobody had seen Kelly there that night, as the more reliable evidence states.

“Also, it's not unusual for the licensee of a pub to deny their premises are used by women of low repute.”

But the “licensee” in this case made so such denial. There was never any question that Kelly had been in there on occasion; just not on that particular night. I do love the fact that you’re prepared to accept an “anonymous” witness as having told the gospel truth. You’ve done worse than that, in fact; you’ve combined two sources of terrible provenance – both hearsay of unidentified origin, with no sources named – and decided that both equate to “conclusive proof”. You can’t profess a passion for history and still think along these fallacious lines, Jon. It's craziness.

“You seem to spend an awful lot of time speculating on why something didn't happen. Something that didn't happen, but in your opinion should have, is what is called "negative evidence".”

I think you’ll find the accepted convention is that if you insist a certain “thing” happened, it is incumbent on you to provide evidence to that effect. Your evidence in this case is very weak because it is contradicted by more reliable sources, it did not appear at the inquest, and it amounted to second or third-hand hearsay. There is no onus upon me to “speculate on why something didn’t happen” if you’ve singularly failed to demonstrate that it did.

“Maybe supportive – it cannot be known for certain.
The police/doctors needed to know if the victim had been in any premises that sold food, and an approximate time.”

So maybe not supportive, in other words? Neither obscure press report has anything remotely to do with food or digestion, you’ll observe.

What you have not done is offered a quote which directly states the veracity of the witness was due to the two duplicate descriptions.

Yes, I have.

Yes I most certainly have.

Here we go again, and this time please pay close attention to the terminology used, which I’ll helpfully highlight:

"It will be observed that the description of the supposed murderer given by Hutchinson agrees in every particular with that already furnished by the police, and published yesterday morning. There is not the slightest reason to doubt Hutchinson's veracity" – The Daily News, 14th November

“The importance of this description lies (so says the morning papers) in the fact that it agrees with that furnished to the police yesterday but which was considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner. There is not, so it is declared, the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinson's veracity” – The Echo – 14th November.

“The slightest reason for doubting (to doubt) Hutchinson’s veracity”. It cannot possibly be coincidence that the two newspapers arrived at virtually identical terminology independently of one another. When the Echo wrote “so it is declared”, they very clearly meant declared by morning paper like the Daily News. The Echo were taking their “morning contemporaries” to task for expressing such a sentiment on the basis of a mistaken impression that Hutchinson’s interview description “agrees with” a separate Astrakhan description. That’s an indisputable fact, Jon, and you can waste your own leisure time pretending otherwise if you want, but I’d take the Canadian wilderness any day of the week.

“The evening press were aware of Cox's evidence on the 12th, yet not one evening paper believed it important enough to promote.”

What do you mean “promote”? I was under the impression the papers were there to report the news, rather than “promote” it; and report it they did on 12th November, with no suggestion that her evidence was in any way unreliable or irrelevant. I’m not sure what mind-reading powers enable you to state that “none of them saw the significance of Cox's statement”, but you certainly don’t provide evidence in that regard. The “significance” was implied by the fact that hers was the last sighting of the victim, in this case in the company of a mysterious stranger. Or do you think “significance” is only invested in cases where it is spelt-out and narrated for no good reason? Would you only have been satisfied if the Echo had written on the 12th: “And this is obviously really, really important because she was murdered, and the person she was with might have been the murderer”? No “investigation” – "later" or otherwise – was required for anyone with half a brain cell to appreciate the potential significance of her account.

“What on earth are you talking about – that is press interpretation not the police.”

What on earth are you talking about?

Show me where the Echo ever stated, or ever showed the slightest indication of contemplating the possibility, that Hutchinson’s “very reduced importance” had anything remotely to do with Cox’s evidence. They stated that “the authorities” were querying his failure to come forward – his credibility, if we’re to avoid beating about the bush; no “interpretation” required. I’ve told you before; you can either accept or reject the Echo report, but don’t pretend it said something it patently did not.

“Once Hutchinson showed up they would see potential for his evidence to align with the reported scream of “murder” - this is what the police need, to see lines of evidence begin to converge on one particular time.”

Because there wasn’t enough “convergence” before, in the form of two independent witnesses hearing a cry of murder at more or less the same time? You’re suggesting that without “help” from Hutchinson, there was not enough evidence to infer a likelihood that two mutually corroborative witnesses attesting to a cry of “murder” just might have had something to do with the woman who actually got murdered in the same court?

In what way does Hutchinson’s evidence assist in pinpointing 3.30-4.00am as the likely time of death, anyway? It detracts from it if anything, considering how unlikely it is that the killer would “wait” for the best part of two hours before attacking. “One or two o’clock in the morning” would work a good deal better for Astrakhan-as-killer, considering that it was only shortly after 2.00am (Bond’s upper estimate) that Hutchinson alleged to have witness Kelly enter the court with Astrakhan.

“for the scream, if the police are acting on the evidence provided by Cox, there was no scream, at least that was what Cox claimed. And if there was, it is the experience of the police that screams of “murder” are not typically associated with an actual murder, it is just a means of getting attention”

Good point; I always shout "murder" when in need of attention.

Cox’s failure to hear the scream is perfectly explained by her room being situated further away from Kelly’s, whereas Prater and Lewis were situated above and opposite respectively. I have no idea how true it is that “murder” cries “typically” do not involve an actual murder, but in this case it did; in this case, the cry of murder emanated from the direction of the doorway of the woman who actually got murdered.

“The importance of the scream only becomes apparent once the police receive information that places the victim, a client, and the scream, at the same place at the same time.”

…Which didn’t happen.

Anyway, enjoy your time in the wilderness, Jon, and don’t talk to any strange skunks. I saved a one last year – it had fallen down a well in the Blue Mountains near Georgian Bay. It seemed grateful enough!

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

No, the “premise of my scenario” is that only the police were able to confirm, to anyone’s satisfaction, that Central News’ interviewee was the same person who originated the description circulated by the police on the morning of the 13th. If the Central News were suspicious, for any reason, that Hutchinson was just a money/fame-grabber falsely claiming that the Astrakhan description originated with him, I don’t see how seeking “confirmation” from a fellow lodger would have assuaged those suspicions. “What I say is true – just ask the bloke down the pub!” doesn’t generally cut it. What if the “fellow lodger” was in on the scam?

I repeat: the only people capable of providing a reliable confirmation that the two Astrakhan accounts came “from the same source” was the police.



But he did mention it to the press according to you, remember? He was quite happy to pass on hearsay on that occasion, wasn't he? He didn’t withhold it on the grounds that his mysterious informant would “be giving their own story”, so why would he have reasoned any differently when speaking to the police? McCarthy’s expectation (as per your suggestion) that the mystery witness would “be giving their own story” turned out to be misplaced anyway, since nobody gave a statement to the police testifying to Kelly’s presence in Ringers’ pub on the night of her death, and no mention was made of any such sighting at the inquest either. Why not? Almost certainly because nobody had seen Kelly there that night, as the more reliable evidence states.



But the “licensee” in this case made so such denial. There was never any question that Kelly had been in there on occasion; just not on that particular night. I do love the fact that you’re prepared to accept an “anonymous” witness as having told the gospel truth. You’ve done worse than that, in fact; you’ve combined two sources of terrible provenance – both hearsay of unidentified origin, with no sources named – and decided that both equate to “conclusive proof”. You can’t profess a passion for history and still think along these fallacious lines, Jon. It's craziness.



I think you’ll find the accepted convention is that if you insist a certain “thing” happened, it is incumbent on you to provide evidence to that effect. Your evidence in this case is very weak because it is contradicted by more reliable sources, it did not appear at the inquest, and it amounted to second or third-hand hearsay. There is no onus upon me to “speculate on why something didn’t happen” if you’ve singularly failed to demonstrate that it did.



So maybe not supportive, in other words? Neither obscure press report has anything remotely to do with food or digestion, you’ll observe.



Yes, I have.

Yes I most certainly have.

Here we go again, and this time please pay close attention to the terminology used, which I’ll helpfully highlight:

"It will be observed that the description of the supposed murderer given by Hutchinson agrees in every particular with that already furnished by the police, and published yesterday morning. There is not the slightest reason to doubt Hutchinson's veracity" – The Daily News, 14th November

“The importance of this description lies (so says the morning papers) in the fact that it agrees with that furnished to the police yesterday but which was considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner. There is not, so it is declared, the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinson's veracity” – The Echo – 14th November.

“The slightest reason for doubting (to doubt) Hutchinson’s veracity”. It cannot possibly be coincidence that the two newspapers arrived at virtually identical terminology independently of one another. When the Echo wrote “so it is declared”, they very clearly meant declared by morning paper like the Daily News. The Echo were taking their “morning contemporaries” to task for expressing such a sentiment on the basis of a mistaken impression that Hutchinson’s interview description “agrees with” a separate Astrakhan description. That’s an indisputable fact, Jon, and you can waste your own leisure time pretending otherwise if you want, but I’d take the Canadian wilderness any day of the week.



What do you mean “promote”? I was under the impression the papers were there to report the news, rather than “promote” it; and report it they did on 12th November, with no suggestion that her evidence was in any way unreliable or irrelevant. I’m not sure what mind-reading powers enable you to state that “none of them saw the significance of Cox's statement”, but you certainly don’t provide evidence in that regard. The “significance” was implied by the fact that hers was the last sighting of the victim, in this case in the company of a mysterious stranger. Or do you think “significance” is only invested in cases where it is spelt-out and narrated for no good reason? Would you only have been satisfied if the Echo had written on the 12th: “And this is obviously really, really important because she was murdered, and the person she was with might have been the murderer”? No “investigation” – "later" or otherwise – was required for anyone with half a brain cell to appreciate the potential significance of her account.



What on earth are you talking about?

Show me where the Echo ever stated, or ever showed the slightest indication of contemplating the possibility, that Hutchinson’s “very reduced importance” had anything remotely to do with Cox’s evidence. They stated that “the authorities” were querying his failure to come forward – his credibility, if we’re to avoid beating about the bush; no “interpretation” required. I’ve told you before; you can either accept or reject the Echo report, but don’t pretend it said something it patently did not.



Because there wasn’t enough “convergence” before, in the form of two independent witnesses hearing a cry of murder at more or less the same time? You’re suggesting that without “help” from Hutchinson, there was not enough evidence to infer a likelihood that two mutually corroborative witnesses attesting to a cry of “murder” just might have had something to do with the woman who actually got murdered in the same court?

In what way does Hutchinson’s evidence assist in pinpointing 3.30-4.00am as the likely time of death, anyway? It detracts from it if anything, considering how unlikely it is that the killer would “wait” for the best part of two hours before attacking. “One or two o’clock in the morning” would work a good deal better for Astrakhan-as-killer, considering that it was only shortly after 2.00am (Bond’s upper estimate) that Hutchinson alleged to have witness Kelly enter the court with Astrakhan.



Good point; I always shout "murder" when in need of attention.

Cox’s failure to hear the scream is perfectly explained by her room being situated further away from Kelly’s, whereas Prater and Lewis were situated above and opposite respectively. I have no idea how true it is that “murder” cries “typically” do not involve an actual murder, but in this case it did; in this case, the cry of murder emanated from the direction of the doorway of the woman who actually got murdered.



…Which didn’t happen.

Anyway, enjoy your time in the wilderness, Jon, and don’t talk to any strange skunks. I saved a one last year – it had fallen down a well in the Blue Mountains near Georgian Bay. It seemed grateful enough!

All the best,
Ben

Did it not spray you?

[Ben]

No, I managed to get away with it, Abby.

We became aware of a faint whiff of burning tyres coming from a well of sorts, and noticed a little skunk trapped at the bottom. So I slid a branch of a dead tree down at and angle, and then ducked for cover as it scurried up the branch using its claws. I was at the risk of being sprayed by its seven-foot jet of nastiness, but blissfully that didn't happen!

[Wickerman]

I repeat: the only people capable of providing a reliable confirmation that the two Astrakhan accounts came “from the same source” was the police.

And I repeat, the fact the two stories came from the same source was public knowledge.
The drum you are beating is to promote the idea the Echo were in receipt of “inside” information from the Met., which demonstrably is not true.

But he did mention it to the press according to you, remember? He was quite happy to pass on hearsay on that occasion, wasn't he? He didn’t withhold it on the grounds that his mysterious informant would “be giving their own story”, so why would he have reasoned any differently when speaking to the police?

Statements obtained by the press always differ to statements given to police, I can safely assume you already know this. No mystery there.

McCarthy’s expectation (as per your suggestion) that the mystery witness would “be giving their own story” turned out to be misplaced anyway, since nobody gave a statement to the police testifying to Kelly’s presence in Ringers’ pub on the night of her death, and no mention was made of any such sighting at the inquest either. Why not? Almost certainly because nobody had seen Kelly there that night, as the more reliable evidence states.

You have a copy of all the witness statements obtained by police?
All I know of are those used by the Coroner, I don't know of any others that survived, even the Echo reported as many as 53 statements had been given.
Is this another example of you claiming to know something you don't?

But the “licensee” in this case made so such denial.

How do you know?

There was never any question that Kelly had been in there on occasion; just not on that particular night.

The licensee's said this did they? - would you be insisting on this? (bearing in mind what you wrote below).

I think you’ll find the accepted convention is that if you insist a certain “thing” happened, it is incumbent on you to provide evidence to that effect. Your evidence in this case is very weak because it is contradicted by more reliable sources, it did not appear at the inquest, and it amounted to second or third-hand hearsay. There is no onus upon me to “speculate on why something didn’t happen” if you’ve singularly failed to demonstrate that it did.

On the contrary, you are insisting that McCarthy would have mentioned something previously told to him, when questioned by police or at the inquest, without being specifically asked to do so.
That is what the issue is.

Yes, I have.

Yes I most certainly have.

You do know what “attribution” means, I'm sure you do, yet you avoided showing it.

Here we go again, and this time please pay close attention to the terminology used, which I’ll helpfully highlight:

"It will be observed that the description of the supposed murderer given by Hutchinson agrees in every particular with that already furnished by the police, and published yesterday morning. There is not the slightest reason to doubt Hutchinson's veracity" – The Daily News, 14th November

Of course, two separate statements.
There is no attribution in the second statement to show the “reason” was derived from the first statement.
By attribution we need to read a “therefore”, or “due to the above”, or “because of this”, something that attributes the opinion expressed in the latter sentence to the observation given in the former sentence.
What we do have is one observation:
"It will be observed that the description of the supposed murderer given by Hutchinson agrees in every particular with that already furnished by the police, and published yesterday morning”

Followed by another separate statement:
“ There is not the slightest reason to doubt Hutchinson's veracity”.

You claim they are connected, yet not one newspaper attributes the latter to the former.

I provided the reason given for belief in his veracity, it was widely reported:
“....notwithstanding examination and re-examination by the police, the man's story cannot be shaken, and so circumstantial and straightforward were his assertions that the police believe they have at length been placed in possession of facts which will open up a new line of investigation,...”

Without question the only opinion attributed to police as the reason for upholding his veracity is his steadfastness and assertiveness under interrogation, nothing whatsoever to do with the similarity of two published descriptions.

What do you mean “promote”? I was under the impression the papers were there to report the news, rather than “promote” it; and report it they did on 12th November, with no suggestion that her evidence was in any way unreliable or irrelevant.

The press certainly do promote their view of the evidence, but Cox's evidence was not in any way interpreted as of major significance on the evening of the 12th.

Show me where the Echo ever stated, or ever showed the slightest indication of contemplating the possibility, that Hutchinson’s “very reduced importance” had anything remotely to do with Cox’s evidence......

Let me remind you of what you said:
“....No sane police force accords a witness a “very reduced importance” purely because of the existence of another witness ...”

Try to stay on topic, it was the press who came up with the “very reduced importance” not any police.

They stated that “the authorities” were querying his failure to come forward .....

They weren't though, and we know they weren't – this was more guesswork by the Echo.

Because there wasn’t enough “convergence” before, in the form of two independent witnesses hearing a cry of murder at more or less the same time?

Precisely, and for the reason's already explained.
Proof of this can be recognised by the conclusion of the inquest, where the cries of murder had been addressed yet no resolution towards a time of death had been recognised.

In what way does Hutchinson’s evidence assist in pinpointing 3.30-4.00am as the likely time of death, anyway? It detracts from it if anything, considering how unlikely it is that the killer would “wait” for the best part of two hours before attacking. “One or two o’clock in the morning” would work a good deal better for Astrakhan-as-killer, considering that it was only shortly after 2.00am (Bond’s upper estimate) that Hutchinson alleged to have witness Kelly enter the court with Astrakhan.

Check your math, Ben.

Good point; I always shout "murder" when in need of attention.

I wouldn't doubt that for one minute.

Cox’s failure to hear the scream is perfectly explained by her room being situated further away from Kelly’s, whereas Prater and Lewis were situated above and opposite respectively. I have no idea how true it is that “murder” cries “typically” do not involve an actual murder, but in this case it did; in this case, the cry of murder emanated from the direction of the doorway of the woman who actually got murdered.

The broken window(s) faced the direction of Cox's room only some 25-30 ft away. Prater's room was overlooking Dorset St., while only Lewis's faced the open space behind No. 13, none of which tells us where the scream came from, and the police knew this.

Anyway, enjoy your time in the wilderness, Jon, and don’t talk to any strange skunks. I saved a one last year – it had fallen down a well in the Blue Mountains near Georgian Bay. It seemed grateful enough!

You might have been lucky there, though I'll bet the skunk didn't appreciate the gesture.

For us it was a thousand mile round trip drive, up to Sault Ste. Marie and back, and the purpose of the trip was a 228 mile Agawa Canyon train ride.

http://www.agawatrain.com/the-train/

I wasn't impressed, but so long as the wife enjoyed it then – happy wife, happy life, as they say.
If anyone see's a video of the train ride most of it was shot from the air, not from the train – therein lies a clue.

https://youtu.be/7qk6MKZDPd0

[Ben]

Please forgive the late reply, Jon.

And I repeat, the fact the two stories came from the same source was public knowledge.

No, it wasn't.

That would be totally impossible, for reasons already explained.

It might have been public assumption that they came from the same source, but the only people with actual "knowledge" that they had a common origin were the police (and Hutchinson himself, of course). That's an indisputable fact. For all anyone else knew, an opportunist could have claimed the story as his own - a la Kennedy - and approached the press under the false guise of its originator.

If this discussion is to be remotely productive, can you please address the above specific points, rather than always going back to your original claim as though it had never been challenged, or rather debunked in this case?

Statements obtained by the press always differ to statements given to police, I can safely assume you already know this.

Yes, but according to you, it is always some heroic lone journalist who manages to extract the most critical information from an investigative point of view. It implies that the police were frequently incompetent for failing to elicit such "statements" from their witnesses, which is neither fair nor credible.

All I know of are those used by the Coroner, I don't know of any others that survived, even the Echo reported as many as 53 statements had been given.

You and me both, Jon, and if anyone had seen Kelly in the Britannia pub that night with a stranger, it would logically have been included in the body of evidence "used by the coroner", because it might have provided very useful reinforcement of Cox's evidence. If you're so reliant on press reports, what objection do you have to the Echo's report that Kelly had not been drinking in that particular "beershop" on the night of her murder, as the vast majority of researchers accept was the case? Because a mysterious, unidentified "witness" had approached the police on the evening of 13th and "conclusively proved" (somehow??) that she had been in Ringers' that night. You're not even using a poor source this time; it's a complete non-source!

On the contrary, you are insisting that McCarthy would have mentioned something previously told to him, when questioned by police or at the inquest, without being specifically asked to do so.

So the fault lies, once again, with the rubbish old police, who might have made considerably better progress if only they had the gumption to ask the right questions? In this respect, they were hampered by the stupid, deferential, authority-respecting, cap-doffing, head-bowing, speak-only-when-spoken-to dunce that was McCarthy, who didn't think to volunteer such important information himself, despite being mysteriously able to do so when speaking to the press (according to just you)?

"They didn't ask" seems to be your consistent fail-safe (or rather fail-badly) explanation for every occasion in which the press attributed to a witness a claim not found anywhere in that witness's statement or inquest evidence.

There is no attribution in the second statement to show the “reason” was derived from the first statement.
By attribution we need to read a “therefore”, or “due to the above”, or “because of this”, something that attributes the opinion expressed in the latter sentence to the observation given in the former sentence.

Don't be ridiculous.

What senseless pedantry.

Let's examine the following sentence, and try to resolve whatever "attribution" problems you might still be having:

"Jon relies almost exclusively on long-discredited press tattle to formulate his opinions. There is not the slightest reason to consider his conclusions at all persuasive."

Nobody reading the above two sentences will be in the slightest doubt that the sentiment expressed in the second sentence is at least partially "attributable" to that expressed in the first. The journalists at the Echo - who were evidently better versed in the subtleties of Victorian "attributions" than either of us - clearly detected no ambiguity of expression from the morning papers. The Echo recognised that their morning contemporaries had "attributed" their faith in Hutchinson's veracity to the mistaken impression that Hutchinson's interview corroborated an existing Astrakhan description provided by someone else.

Now, as erroneous as that impression may have been, the rationale behind it is logical, at least. The credibility of an account is obviously bolstered if it can be shown to be supported by other evidence from an entirely independent source; unlike the claim that his assertions were "straightforward and circumstantial", which is a pretty ludicrously stupid reason for putting the "veracity" of an account beyond "question".

They stated that “the authorities” were querying his failure to come forward.

They weren't though, and we know they weren't – this was more guesswork by the Echo.

No, that's more nonsense by you. You have yet to offer even a vaguely credible reason for dismissing the Echo's very well-supported statement.

Proof of this can be recognised by the conclusion of the inquest, where the cries of murder had been addressed yet no resolution towards a time of death had been recognised.

But if there had been no "resolution", how were Hutchinson's claims supposed to lend additional support to the premise that the murder cry/cries signalled the time of death?

Lewis and Prater were physically a lot closer to Kelly's bed than Cox was - a fact which ought to eradicate any great mystery over her failure to hear the cry. Or can you - as a self-confessed supporter of the theory that the "cry" was Kelly's last - suggest a better explanation?

"Check your math"

...s.

Sorry to hear the train ride didn't quite strike on your box, but glad the missus enjoyed it! The scenery looks beautiful in that YouTube clip, although I certainly take your point that you'd need to be more "elevated" to get the most from it.

All the best,
Ben

[YomRippur]

Could JTR not have paid the victims at all? If the customary thing to do was to pay before sex, then Jack would never have to pay, since the murder would occur way before sex.