Jack the........ Police Officer??

[Fisherman]

...Hutch hanging out at her door for a couple hours puts him in a good position to have seen something. But either they didn't see him, which given his own statement seems unlikely, or they didn't "see" him.

... or he was not even there in the first place - not on the night in question anyways.

That would provide an excellent reason for nobody seeing him.


The best,
Fisherman

[Michael W Richards]

To be fair, Prater said the "cry" seemed to come from the Court, she didn't say "inside the same house".
Lewis made a similar assumption, that the scream came from outside, not from within Kelly's room.
Neither had any reason to suppose their neighbour had been harmed in any way, and according to Prater such screams were not unusual.

Jon, Prater said "faintly, as if from the court", and Lewis said "as if at the door", using those two statements the sound they heard must have emanated from somewhere in that courtyard..where Marys front door opened to. We also have Diddles being stirred and waking Prater at that same time.

Both women listened for further sounds....so, they didnt just blow it off like we hear many people did when they heard such things at night.

My guess is that they heard Mary Kelly exclaim while at her open front door between 3:30 and 4am...after answering a soft knock on it..or perhaps a tap on the window. Likely not to pleased to be woken by the sounds of it...or perhaps it was the visitor just showing up that she objected to.

At least 2 windows in addition to Marys were on that wall facing the pump and one was in the archway joining 26 and 27 over the entrance tunnel. Sounds from the court could be heard on the second floor based on those windows, open or closed. Windows were not sound barriers at that time...ill fitting frames, poor glass quality,..they neednt be open to have sounds penetrate them

Cheers

[Wickerman]

I'm sure no one was asked if they saw Hutchinson. But I am also sure they were asked if they saw any men hanging around. And even if they knew Hutch and had a fair idea that he was harmless, they would have said something.

They may have seen him and told police, we shouldn't confuse statements given at the Coroner's Inquest for the only statements the police had in their possession.
We do not have all the police statements, only the few selected by the Coroner. A Coroner does not select a variety of witnesses all telling the same story - he picks one. In this case the one was Sarah Lewis.
Lewis & Kennedy both provide similar stories, the Coroner picked Lewis.
Then Morris Lewis & Maxwell both saw the same thing, Kelly out in the morning, the Coroner picked Maxwell.
So, to say no-one else saw a man loitering in Dorset St. is false, given that only one witness is selected to tell a particular story.

If for no other reason that that the police were looking for every possible witness, and Hutch hanging out at her door for a couple hours puts him in a good position to have seen something. But either they didn't see him, which given his own statement seems unlikely, or they didn't "see" him.

The above is an example of what I mean, lets not confuse what the police knew with what we read at the Inquest - they are not the same.

I'm not sure it matters. Neither of them apparently even looked out the window to try and see something. They heard the cries. The cries were not uncommon. Crime in the neighborhood was not uncommon. They didn't check. They didn't check the next morning. They didn't make sure they knew where the women of their acquaintance were.

How different might Prater's reactions have been if she had heard banging on the partition wall? - we can't say can we?, because when you have direct reason to believe your neighbour is in distress you might act more responsibly than for a shout outside in the street or court which could have come from anyone.
These are different circumstances.

They didn't talk about it amongst themselves. They didn't contact the police. The went about their business like it never happened.

These women who typically stayed out till the early hours often slept until 12 noon, this is why the rent collector came in the morning. The best time to catch them in.
Therefore, "these women" had no idea the crime had been committed until they were awakened by the police.

Despite knowing that there was some guy out there mutilating women.

There had been no mutilations for the last six weeks - why would anyone be thinking about the Ripper on this night?

[caz]

Hi Errata,

If Mary Kelly had only very recently begun inviting men back to her room, following Joe Barnett's departure, then there wouldn't have been the constant stream of different strangers to her door as you suggested, for her near neighbours to take for granted and take no notice of. The reverse was more likely to be true, because Kelly's new situation would have been ripe for female gossip. If Cox is to be believed, she certainly took notice of the fact that a pickled Kelly was inviting Blotchy plus beer inside. She may have turned a blind eye had Kelly not been found murdered the following morning, but she had taken in enough to describe the man in reasonable detail. And there was no suggestion that she had seen this man sniffing round Kelly before.

Anyway, the point is not really whether these people made eager or reluctant witnesses concerning their neighbours' comings and goings and nocturnal visitors; the question is whether a frequent or even occasional male visitor to Miller's Court would have taken that risk to murder and mutilate one of the occupants on her own bed, when he would have been far safer killing Kelly on a back street if he was intent on targeting her, as a familiar face.

Hi Fishy,

I'm not married to my scenario for Hutch. Your hunch that he was describing events on the previous night is another possibility, and both to my mind are infinitely more likely than Hutch hanging around all that time and eventually going in and killing Kelly, then coming forward and literally getting away with murder by telling a story that should never have added up in those circumstances.

I can absolutely understand how an innocent Hutch, who had been hanging around for so long without ever entering the murder room, could have felt compelled to describe the man in there with Kelly (whether he had seen him or not) in order to give the police a 'last man in', lest they presume it was him, ie the man loitering long after Cox had seen Kelly with Blotchy.

If Hutch really was there, still waiting for a man to come out of Kelly's room at nearly 3am, he was a very important witness and must have known it. But what, or who, did he actually see? And what would you have done in the same position if you had left the man to it, with or without knowing what he looked like? That situation is not remotely complex or unlikely in itself, if Kelly had company and Hutch wanted her company too. But how bad could it have looked for him if there was nobody else for the police to focus on?

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

The point I'm making Abby is, on what basis?

Cox's story was never verified, and in fact was in conflict with Prater.
So why is her story any more reliable than Hutchinson's - who, by the way does find corroboration in Sarah Lewis.
But where is Cox's corroboration?

To claim Cox IS reliable, is not true - we simply do not know.
And, so long as another witness does claim to see Kelly on the streets at "about 3:00 am" - which is another unverifiable claim, where is the difference?

The difference is that cox story is corroborated by the fact that cox said Mary was singing when she was with blotchy and that is verified by other witness. Sarah Lewis corroborates hutches story only on his waiting and watching and not A man.

Cox gives her evidence of blotchy the day of the murder wheres hutch gives his several days later and in then such incredible detail. Not only the specific description of what he looked like but of what is said and specific actions between MK and Aman.

Cox-typical eyewitness description day of murder and given at inquest.
Hutch-movie script like interactions and computer database like memory description all somehow remembered in such detail several days later and after the inquest.

[Ben]

Spot on as usual, Abby.

It's one of the long-standing myths about serial killers that they only target strangers. Even prostitute-killers will know some of their victims, albeit vaguely in many cases, and this is hardly surprising considering that all known prostitute killers have been prostitute users. There is nothing remotely unlikely about Jack laying low for a month owing to fears he might have of committing further murders on the streets (or perhaps no prostitute would approach him, or vice versa, owing to the mounting terror that pervaded the district), and then taking advantage of an indoor dwelling whose occupant he might know to some extent.

There is certainly no evidence that anyone else saw Hutchinson and related as much to the police. Had it been otherwise, Hutchinson would have been treated very much as a suspect once the police came to disregard the content of his statement as untrustworthy, as they evidently did. Relying on, or hoping for, the mythical "lost report" that "must have" existed once upon a time is a futile exercise. Any "witness evidence" presenting itself as such that did not appear at the inquest invariably found its way into the press (note the Morris Lewis example), and yet we see no evidence anywhere of anyone attesting to the presence of Hutchinson hanging around that night. A sure indication that no such evidence existed. That isn't to say we don't have evidence of Hutchinson's presence there that night. The statement of Sarah Lewis establishes his presence there more or less for certain, in my opinion, although it is equally certain that the police at the time failed to make the connection. Moreover, Hutchinson (assuming he was wideawake man) was evidently seen by others who never made themselves known to police or press, such as the young couple who Lewis saw pass along Dorset Street.

To argue that Cox is no more reliable than Hutchinson is nonsense. Cox was an inquest-attending witness who was taken seriously by the police, whereas Hutchinson apparently timed his appearance to coincide with the termination of the inquest, and after a short-lived clean bill of health, his evidence was discredited owing to doubts about his credibility.

Hi Caz,

both to my mind are infinitely more likely than Hutch hanging around all that time and eventually going in and killing Kelly, then coming forward and literally getting away with murder by telling a story that should never have added up in those circumstances.

Well, you pays your money and takes your choice and all that, but the behaviour you've outlined which you consider unlikely actually has a good deal of historical and criminological precedent. For instance, "hanging around" is precisely what the vast majority of known serial offenders have done when targetting their victim's homes and other indoor locations, because it affords them a measure of surveillance - monitoring the movements of the victim herself as well as her neighbours, thus enabling him to strike at the safest moment. A modern-day investigation would take the Sarah Lewis sighting extremely seriously for that reason.

Serial killers coming forward voluntarily with bogus stories and pretending to be innocent witnesses is also very well-documented, and even anticipated (correctly) on occasion by law enforcement.

But this has all been pointed out before, and we don't really want to get bogged-down in a repetitive suspect debate on a thread that's supposed to be exploring the premise that Jack was a police officer. However, a problem I have with the suggestion that an "innocent Hutch" changed Blotchy into Astrakhan - which is far from unreasonable, to be fair, in comparison to some other "innocent Hutch" explanations touted - is his inexplicable buggering off at 3.00am and then failing to return and check.

He was, by his own admission, "walking about all night" (which dispenses of the trifling matter of an alibi for the accepted time of death, despite such an alibi being fairly easy to procure in any other circumstance), so what was preventing him popping back occasionally for updates on Kelly's nocturnal status? If Hutchinson was the killer, it may be argued that he did precisely that (and that he found her alone shortly before 4.00, Blotchy having departed), but if innocent, popping back continually would have meant that at some point he would have found her murdered and mutilated.

Hutchinson had no reason to wait around for Kelly's company unless he thought there was a better than average chance of Kelly getting rid of her presumed client fairly quickly, and yet there was obviously nothing doing in room #13 according to Lewis (2:30) and Cox (3.00). On that basis, I'd submit that had Hutchinson turned up at 2.00ish hoping to spend time with Kelly, only to find a darkened room with two sleeping forms on the bed, he'd be quite the over-optimistic fool to plonk himself on Dorset Street and expect either to emerge before daylight.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Caz:


Hi Fishy,

I'm not married to my scenario for Hutch. Your hunch that he was describing events on the previous night is another possibility, and both to my mind are infinitely more likely than Hutch hanging around all that time and eventually going in and killing Kelly, then coming forward and literally getting away with murder by telling a story that should never have added up in those circumstances.

Weīll never make the Hutchinsonian club, Caz. Letīs face it. Weīre the wrong material altogether, both of us.

I can absolutely understand how an innocent Hutch, who had been hanging around for so long without ever entering the murder room, could have felt compelled to describe the man in there with Kelly (whether he had seen him or not) in order to give the police a 'last man in', lest they presume it was him, ie the man loitering long after Cox had seen Kelly with Blotchy.

Hmm. In a way, perhaps - if he decided that he needed to come forward, and felt that he would be in a mess by doing so with no suspect to offer.
But I would have thought that he would have chosen the other path - not to come forward at all - if this was the case.
Could be wrong on that, though.

If Hutch really was there, still waiting for a man to come out of Kelly's room at nearly 3am, he was a very important witness and must have known it. But what, or who, did he actually see? And what would you have done in the same position if you had left the man to it, with or without knowing what he looked like? That situation is not remotely complex or unlikely in itself, if Kelly had company and Hutch wanted her company too. But how bad could it have looked for him if there was nobody else for the police to focus on?

To begin with, he must have known that she DID have company, must he not? If he arrived there on a cold, wet and windy evening (he didnīt, but thatīs another story... ), would his first move not be to check on Kelly and ask to be let in? If he simply decided to hang around outside the court, he would not even know if she was in, would he?

And if he DID check and found her doing business, he could of course have decided to wait for his turn. Nothing complex about that.

But would he, when going to the police on realizing that he had been there on the murder night (he wasnīt, but thatīs another story... ), conjure up a very odd personality? The risk was obvious that the customer was NOT the killer, and so he could have come forward afterwards of his own accord. And if he proved NOT to be a toff clad in spats and astrakhan, where would that leave Georgie boy? Right - bogged down in a swamp of lies. And my personal guess is that the police would not take kindly to that.

Now, I am not saying that Hutchinson equalled Einstein - but if he saw noone, then surely a nondescript man (Uuhhh, he was normal, sort of, not tall not small, but it was so dark in the street that I did not make out his clothing) would be a better suggestion on his behalf. I mean, Lewis did exactly that stunt - and got away with it.

This is why I speak of overcomplication.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

The difference is that cox story is corroborated by the fact that cox said Mary was singing when she was with blotchy and that is verified by other witness.

Catherine Pickett said Kelly was singing about 12:30.
Prater said there was no singing at 1:00 or even after.

Meanwhile Cox would have us believe Kelly was still singing at 1:00, when she returned home, and even shortly after when she left again.

So how does this corroborate Cox? - does she get the times all wrong?
Looks like conflict, not corroboration.

And, whether Kelly was singing or not has no bearing on whether this character Blotchy existed. McCarthy said Kelly was always singing when she got drunk.

The police likely believed Kelly was singing before 1:00, they had confirmation of that, but no confirmation of her singing at, or after, 1:00.
The more important issue was of this Blotchy, they had no confirmation of his existence whatsoever.

Cox gives her evidence of blotchy the day of the murder ......

So did Maxwell, so you believe Maxwell too?

No matter which way you look at it, the existence of Blotchy, and the time she saw him, relies solely on the word of Cox, and no-one else.
Which makes her story no more reliable than that of Hutchinson, or Kennedy, or Maurice Lewis, or Caroline Maxwell.
These are all uncorroborated stories.

[Wickerman]

Now, I am not saying that Hutchinson equalled Einstein - but if he saw noone, then surely a nondescript man (Uuhhh, he was normal, sort of, not tall not small, but it was so dark in the street that I did not make out his clothing) would be a better suggestion on his behalf. I mean, Lewis did exactly that stunt - and got away with it.

When you're attempting to con someone, keep in simple, the more detail - the more likely you will screw up.
Commoners in Whitechapel knew all about the 'con', it was a part of day-to-day survival. They were more adept than we could ever be, so they would already appreciate that simplicity is the key.

And this was no game, if Hutchinson screwed up he would hang.
Hutchinson was telling the truth.

[Ben]

You're not taking into account the issue of provenance, Jon, and whether that provenance is good or bad. It isn't all about corroboration or lack thereof. Your argument that all sources must be accorded an equal degree of believability until they can be corroborated, regardless of their origin, is certainly not one that is shared by serious investigators, and for fairly obvious reasons. If you're dealing with a police statement provided by a woman who also have her evidence under oath at a public inquest versus a third-hand piece of hearsay that appeared in a handful of newspapers for a very short time, overwhelming common sense and logic should prompt us to take the inquest witness more seriously - and that's to understate matters! Cox is irrefutably more credible a witness than Hutchinson and "Mrs Kennedy", as the police provably believed themselves.

When you're attempting to con someone, keep in simple, the more detail - the more likely you will screw up.

While that may constitute great advice to any budding liars out there, Jon, I'm afraid you're appealling to the glaring fallacy; that when the lie seems especially implausible, it isn't a lie at all! I remember years ago some of the Maybrickians used to argue along similar lines: because no forger would be SO stupid as to disavow any attempt at the real Maybrick's handwriting, the diary must be genuine. It also appeals to the fallacy that nobody would tell a bad lie under pressure.

Hutchinson gave an implausible statement which was quickly discredited, and no, he did not hang because his evidence was evidently believed to be the work of a publicity seeker, of which there had been several during the course of the investigation.

Regards,
Ben

[Paddy]

Thompsons Weekly News

The Truth about the Whitechapel Mysteries told by Harry Cox Ex-Detective Inspector, London City Police. Specially written for "Thomson's Weekly News"
(15 years later)

We had many people under observation while the murders were being perpetrated, but it was not until the discovery of the body of Mary Kelly had been made that we seemed to get upon the trail.

It would seem that some evidence given regarding Mary Kellys death allowed the police to get upon the trail ?

Pat..................

[Fisherman]

Cox is irrefutably more credible a witness than Hutchinson and "Mrs Kennedy", as the police provably believed themselves.
Regards,
Ben

Irrefutably? You think? Then listen: Mary Ann Cox was a woman and a prostitute. If I donīt misremember things, she was described rather unfavourably by - admittedly - the press.

George Hutchinson was a man and a labourer. He was described as the epitome of truthfulness by the press, and as a truthful source by Abberline (who we KNOW did not regard Hutchinsons story as "implausible" at all, when he heard it - on the contrary).

This was 1888. Women did not have the vote, since they were not relied upon to understand politics, and it would thus be foolhardy to let them have an influence. Historically, women were not even allowed to witness in many cultures. And prostitutes would have been at the absolute bottom of the list when it came to reliability - they were picked as witnesses when nothing else was to be had.

These are not MY sentiments. I merely state what the reality looked like back then. Hutchinson would be considered by far the better and more reliable witness - as mirrored by the interest and trust Abberline put in him from the outset, and as reflected by the press sentiments.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I would place Hutchinson's word over Cox any time.
Mrs Cox comes across as a person that elaborates , the clothing Mary she claims Mary was wearing when she was seen in the passage, differs entirely to what Kelly was seen to be wearing by Prater a couple of hours earlier.
Ah but was Mrs P telling porkies?
The description jacket and bonnet, has the truth confirmed by the presence of the bonnet that was only left by Mrs Harvey that previous evening, and appears to have been left with a purpose if one quotes Harvey's words'' I will be leaving my bonnet then''.
So I have to side with Praters account.
Also we have the oral history related by Cox'x niece.
''A real toff he was'' which hardly relates to Blotchy.
At least Hutchinson's account does not vary, he said the same in the 1930s as he did in 1888.
And yes I do believe without question, that Topping was the witness,I know Ben will strongly disagree, but he was the only man of that name who has admitted to being the man interviewed.
No other Hutchinson in the land has ever claimed to be George Hutchinson. friend of Mary Kelly, so what is the problem with accepting what we have?
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Irrefutably? You think?

Yes, I most assuredly do "think". That's why I fecking said it, for crying out loud, Fisherman!

The press described Mary Cox as a "wretched looking specimen of East End womanhood", which was an insult based purely on her looks. If any modern commentators wish to endorse this repugnant sentiment or otherwise argue that an individual's physical appearance detracts from the credibility of her sworn evidence, then shame on them.

He was described as the epitome of truthfulness by the press, and as a truthful source by Abberline (who we KNOW did not regard Hutchinsons story as "implausible" at all, when he heard it - on the contrary)

Ooh, let's desist with the unnecessary exaggeration if we could. The press did not describe Hutchinson as the "epitome of truthfulness". They were simply reporting the fact that it was initially endorsed by the police. Initially. But as I'm prepared to repeat for an eternity, or at least as long as the futile protestations to the contrary keep coming, this was not to last. The statement was swiftly discredited owing to doubts about his credibility, and the credible newspapers - those with demonstrable communication with the police - reported as much.

This was 1888. Women did not have the vote, since they were not relied upon to understand politics, and it would thus be foolhardy to let them have an influence.

This is completely irrelevant.

Mary Cox didn't need to understand "politics". She was simply called upon to relate what she saw and heard, which, despite the prejudices being what they were in those days, was still considered an expedient that men and women were equally capable of. Or are you suggesting that women were considered more likely to lie than men back then? (N.B. No hasty googling of obscure references please! We're off-topic enough as it is.)

She attended the inquest where she gave her evidence under oath. She was taken seriously by the police, at least certainly more so that Hutchinson, whose 3-day-late post-inquest description of a pantomime villain with a knife-shaped parcel was quickly discredited.

But meanwhile, back on topic, and I think we were exploring the premise that Jack was a policeman. Not impossible, but unlikely, I'd say.

Oh wait...one more.

I would place Hutchinson's word over Cox any time.

Then you'd be - reassuringly - in the extreme minority of opinion, Richard, given how astoundingly obvious it is that the evidence of an inquest witness who was taken seriously by the police should be considered more reliable than that of a non-inquest-attending witness who wasn't.

Exaggerating? Nope, no evidence of that at all in Cox's case. Her suspect description was very basic and scant on detail, whereas Hutchinson's was crammed with all sorts. Mary Kelly was perfectly capable of changing her clothes, and interestingly, Cox's description corresponds very closely to Maxwell's in that regard. But that is for another discussion.

Also we have the oral history related by Cox'x niece.
''A real toff he was'' which hardly relates to Blotchy.

I wouldn't worry about that crap, Richard. Line your birdcage with it. Cox herself obviously said nothing of the sort at any point.

At least Hutchinson's account does not vary, he said the same in the 1930s as he did in 1888. And yes I do believe without question, that Topping was the witness

I know you "believe" that, but it really isn't necessary to keep bringing Toppy up in every discussion that gets derailed in the direction of Hutchinson. While we're briefly - briefly! - on the subject, Hutchinson most assuredly changed his account when speaking to police and press, and Reg's tall tales of connections to royalty and Lord Randolph Churchill (which can be traced only as far back as 1992, not the 1930s) don't correspond in the slightest to what the real Hutchinson said in 1888.

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

Yes, I most assuredly do "think". That's why I fecking said it, for crying out loud, Fisherman!

And that was why I decided to improve upon things.

The press described Mary Cox as a "wretched looking specimen of East End womanhood", which was an insult based purely on her looks. If any modern commentators wish to endorse this repugnant sentiment or otherwise argue that an individual's physical appearance detracts from the credibility of her sworn evidence, then shame on them.

Absolutely. But that does not have any influence on the fact that a female prostitute would have attracted less credibility than just about any other witness back in 1888. Extremely repulsive and ugly drunkard men included.

Ooh, let's desist with the unnecessary exaggeration if we could. The press did not describe Hutchinson as the "epitome of truthfulness".

They used other wordings. He could not be shaken, etc. It adds up to the same, justaboutish. And Dew gave him a nod in his book, as a man not to be reflected upon.

The statement was swiftly discredited owing to doubts about his credibility, and the credible newspapers - those with demonstrable communication with the police - reported as much.

The account was discredited owing to some lack in it. That does not touch on the manīs overall credibility. Honest mistakes are just that - honest.

This is completely irrelevant.

Not to the overall picture of how women were looked upon by society, itīs not. It may be subtle, but not irrelevant.

... are you suggesting that women were considered more likely to lie than men back then?

No. I am speaking of something else altogether - societyīs distrust that women were as accountable as men were. Why do YOU suppose they were not given the vote? Because they were on equal terms with men? Or because they were regarded unequal to men? Itīs an easy enough question.

Mary Cox attended the inquest where she gave her evidence under oath. She was taken seriously by the police, at least certainly more so that Hutchinson...

Hutchinson was taken VERY seriously by the police. Extremely so. It was not until it was discovered that something was amiss with his account that they realized that the story did not hold up in some respect. But as Dew tells us very clearly - that was not something that made him reflect upon Hutchinson.
Do you think that a man nailed as a liar or attention-seeker would get that verdict fifty years later by a top police authority?
Do you think that the police, when finding out that Hutch was a liar or attention-seeker, decided to keep that knowledge from their own ranks?

Yes you do, donīt you? It is the only way that part of the Hutchinson saga will fit into your theory, so thatīs how it has to be - who cares about rationality?

But meanwhile, back on topic, and I think we were exploring the premise that Jack was a policeman. Not impossible, but unlikely, I'd say.

There you go - score!

The best,
Fisherman