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

[Ben]

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.

But three-day-late discredited witnesses like Hutchinson not included. Again, there is no evidence that Cox's evidence was mistrusted by the police. On the contrary, in the same article that declared Hutchinson's statement "discredited", it was observed that the only thing of value to emerge from the inquest was provided by Mary Cox.

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.

But Dew's book is "riddled with mistakes" and he got "lots of things terribly wrong", remember? At least that's what you told me once. If you think that only people who tell the truth "cannot be shaken", I'd guess again.

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

You're about the only modern commentator who thinks Hutchinson made an honest mistake. Fortunately for the truth, however, the Echo makes clear from their direct and irrefutable communication with the police that the reason for Hutchinson's discrediting DID concern his "overall credibility".

Because they were on equal terms with men? Or because they were regarded unequal to men? Itīs an easy enough question.

Women most certainly were considered equal to men in terms of their ability to see and hear things, and then relate those sights and sounds. That's all the police and coroner wanted Cox for. Nothing remotely to do with expressing opinion on political matters.

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?

But Dew wasn't a "top police authority" in 1888. He was a very junior official who needed to be informed that the police need no longer seek a man in an Astrakhan coat, but certainly didn't need to be told why. It wasn't his look-out, and he didn't enjoy a senior enough position. In any case, Dew makes perfectly clear the fact that he was voicing his personal speculations only, and certainly wasn't relating official information obtained from on-high, or else he'd have said so.

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?

Don't aggravate me, Fisherman. I'm not discussing any "theory" of mine. I'm simply correcting the same irritating misconceptions about Hutchinson that crop up whenever the subject is broached. But then, even more irritatingly, the same people always respond by abandoning any attempt at sticking to the original topic in favour of battling Ben instead.

Well, if that's the way the thread's going to go...

Just please don't repeat that Dew stuff again. We've had all that a million times, thanks.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

But three-day-late discredited witnesses like Hutchinson not included.

You are guessing away, as usual. And once again - true to your theory - you try to mail Hutchinson as discredited. His story suffered a loss of value, thatīs all. And that says nothing about Hutchinson himself. So we turn to the sources, and we look for people who can confirm that Hutchinson was either considered trustworthy or untrustworthy after the deal was done. And thatīs when I find things - and you donīt. Once again, as usual.

I wonīt drag this out too long, Ben. I will only answer your point:

Again, there is no evidence that Cox's evidence was mistrusted by the police.

...by saying that I never claimed that it was mistrusted, did I? I responded to your assertion that Cox was a far better witness than Hutchinson, since this is something that cannot be determined. Neither you nor I know whether Cox was on the money or not, since - just like Jon has told you - she was left uncorroborated. Therefore a number of possibilities exist, out of which I will demonstrate two:

A/ Hutchinson lied and Cox was truthful. You win.
B/ Hutchinson was truthful but honestly mistaken, whereas Cox made her story up. I win.

In the end, I of course win the argument whether Cox was a certifiedly better witness than Hutchinson - we canīt tell. Whether she was CONSIDERED a better witness than Hutchinson by the police is another story - but we donīt have the answer to that one either. But we may want to take a peak at the other prostitute volunteer witnesses from Millerīs Court, willing to speak of the "Murder" outcry ...

A piece of well-meaning advice: Dump Hutchinson and your theory. It wonīt wash in a million years. It was yesterdays news - and it was not good news at that stage either. Move on.

Thatīs all I am going to say this time over, Ben. You wonīt find me answering your next post. Just like Toppy Hutchinson the witness, Iīm no time-waster.

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

Hi Caz,

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.

Hi Ben,

Can you shed any light on what movements (in and out of the court or in the room itself) there would have been for Hutch to monitor for so long before deciding it was safe to enter the room and commit the murder? And if he was doing a good job of monitoring them, would he not have been aware that Lewis, for one, had clocked him and would probably go to the police when his crime was discovered and his purpose for loitering there suspected?

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.

Yes, but I suspect they all did so in an age when fingerprinting, cctv or DNA could identify them as indisputably at or near the scene, forcing them forward to give an innocent account of themselves. In 1888, as you yourself have argued ad nauseam, there was no way for the police to put Hutch at the scene rather than 'walking about' aimlessly, and the unsupported word of some old gossip wouldn't have done it, even if Lewis had recognised him and named him to the coppers. If he feared witnesses to previous murders could have fingered him, he'd have been an even bigger fool to show his face and admit to being Lewis's man - but he didn't mention Lewis; she didn't name him; and the police didn't even connect her description with him. Pure bravado doesn't cut it either, because it must have deserted him afterwards and forced him to give up ripping, unless that was the plan anyway.

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.

Why would he return and check if he had no idea she was in danger at the time? He would assume she had an all-nighter with her, particularly if he knew she was in dire financial straits. Of course, we don't know that he didn't return, but maybe when all was quiet and dark he couldn't bring himself to disturb her rest.

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.

If he did pop back while it was still dark, would he have been able to see anything much by moving the curtain aside? Perhaps he did see her body in there and took off again in a muck sweat, wondering over the weekend what the hell he should do.

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.

But that contradicts your earlier point about his failure to return and check. He may well have been that over-optimistic fool, who finally had to concede defeat and conclude that neither would emerge before daylight.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

Can you shed any light on what movements (in and out of the court or in the room itself) there would have been for Hutch to monitor for so long before deciding it was safe to enter the room and commit the murder?

Pre-murder surveillance would typically involve monitoring the various comings and goings of the victim and her close neighbours. Specifically, in this case, that would have meant ensuring that Kelly was alone and probably asleep, and that the last of the Miller's Court residents had entered the passage and had, in all likelihood, dozed off themselves. Were we to make the case for the loitering widawake man as her killer, it could be argued that he was compelled to stall on his own murderous entry into the court in order to allow a decent interval for first Sarah Lewis and, later, Mary Cox to settle down to bed and sleep. This, it can be further argued, would neatly account for a cry of murder being heard after 3.00am but before 4.00am, as Mary Cox didn't arrive home until 3.00am - the killer allowing a period of time to elapse after seeing Cox enter the passage.

Remember that Hutchinson had no way of anticipating who, among the various bods walking up and down Dorset Street, was going to veer off into Miller's Court. This holds particularly true for Sarah Lewis, who was only visiting friends and was not herself a Miller's Court resident. He may have cursed his misfortune when he saw Lewis enter the passage and hoped she'd either failed to notice him (he'd have been in a better position than us, obviously, to determine this) or disregarded him as a doss house skulker. Even if he anticipated the worst, he may have been too intent on his grisly goal to abort things at that stage. Of course, we have no way of knowing if these thoughts ever occurred to Hutchinson, but for the sake of exploring the idea that he was responsible, it would by no means constitute unusual or unlikely serial killer behaviour.

Yes, but I suspect they all did so in an age when fingerprinting, cctv or DNA could identify them as indisputably at or near the scene, forcing them forward to give an innocent account of themselves.

Oh no, none of them were "forced". All of them had the option to lie low, sit it out, and hope that the coppers wouldn't come a' knockin. With the exception of Colin Ireland who was caught on CCTV, there was certainly no inevitability of any of them being captured as a result of modern technology and more sophisticated investigation techniques (none of Ivan Milat's DNA on his shooting victims in the woods of New South Wales for instance).

In Hutchinson's case, he had motivation beyond the need for concealment and the panic that all roads would lead to him. He was attempting to both gain insight into the progress of the investigation, and steer it in quite the wrong direction with the aid of the fictional Astrakhan suspect. And yes, almost certainly bravado played a role too, going on the strength of what we know of other serialists who have injected themselves into their investigations.

I disagree that he'd have been a fool to come forward if he was anxious to avoid other witnesses from previous murders looking him over. That would only happen if he hadn't already come forward voluntarily under a false witness guise; if he'd been identified by Lewis on the streets of Spitalfields or in a lodging house and dragged in as a suspect. I would argue that his proactive efforts avoided that outcome successfully.

but he didn't mention Lewis; she didn't name him; and the police didn't even connect her description with him.

Exactly, which is a bit of a result for Hutchinson of he was the wideawake man and did have something to hide.

Why would he return and check if he had no idea she was in danger at the time?

Not to check that she was in danger, but to check whether or not she still had company. He could have determined if Kelly was having an all-nighter relatively quickly and easily - by listening in and perhaps moving the pilot coat covering the smashed-pane window - without the need for for a 45-minute vigil.

Of course, we don't know that he didn't return, but maybe when all was quiet and dark he couldn't bring himself to disturb her rest.

In which case, he'd have endured a sleepless night on foot for nothing!

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

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?

Hi Fishy,

Oh yes, in any scenario where Hutch was there at all (on either night), he must have known Kelly was in the room and had company, or there would have been no reason for him to hang around - unless he was waiting for Kelly to return from the streets, in which case he could have said quite truthfully that she was still not home when he pushed off at 3am and saved himself the bother of describing a 'last man in'.

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.

Hmm, I think we can safely say that nobody in the room that night, Blotchy especially, would have been fool enough to come forward afterwards of his own accord, proving Hutch a liar and his description false. Quite the reverse in fact. Blotchy must have thanked his lucky stars when he read Hutch's account of the flash harry who entered that room a good hour after he had been seen by Cox. If I were in Blotchy's shoes I might have paid good money for a break like 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.

Yes, but we are stuck with that overcomplication, whether Hutch did see a man matching his description (which you appear to believe he did, but on the previous night) or decided to invent one on the murder night. We can't get inside Hutch's head, but it may be that he had a fixed idea - like so many others then and now - of how the ripper should have looked, and how he could have charmed Kelly into inviting him in. Looking 'normal' was not an option for many people back then.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Use the "quote" feature in future, Fisherman, rather than writing in bold.

It's easier on the eye and ensures that your key points aren't lost in the rubble.

You are guessing away, as usual. And once again - true to your theory - you try to mail Hutchinson as discredited. His story suffered a loss of value, thatīs all. And that says nothing about Hutchinson himself.

It is nonsense to attempt to separate a discredited account from the author of that discredited account. It's akin to declaring Jack the Ripper innocent, but sending his right hand to the gallows for being a bit stabby. There is no mystery behind Hutchinson's discrediting - it was because the police came to doubt his credibility, and not because the poor, hapless nincompoop had made an "honest mistake" and bollocksed up the days. We learn this from a proven police communication between the police and the Echo newspaper.

The Dew Spew - my affectionate term for Dew's purely personal musings on Hutchinson - has been known about for decades, and nobody except you has sought to revive his opinions as accurate. I draw my own conclusions from that.

I responded to your assertion that Cox was a far better witness than Hutchinson, since this is something that cannot be determined.

In terms of provenance, Cox is an irrefutably better witness than Hutchinson because she attended the inquest as opposed to delaying presentation of evidence until after the inquest. In terms of whether she was considered more reliable, that much is certain. Hutchinson was discredited, Cox wasn't. In fact, it was reported that the discrediting of Hutchinson left only Cox's evidence containing anything of value to the Kelly investigation.

A piece of well-meaning advice: Dump Hutchinson and your theory. It wonīt wash in a million years. It was yesterdays news - and it was not good news at that stage either. Move on.

The problem with your advice - aside from it being anything but "well-meaning", and transparently so - is that it's apt to change quite drastically. Your formerly "advised" us all to ignore Dew, forget Stride as a ripper victim, and accept Joseph Fleming as the ripper, but you seem to have changed your tune a bit since then.

But I'm fascinated - if the Hutchinson theory is "yesterday's news", what's today's news? Crossmere? Ouch. I do hope you haven't convinced yourself that making lots and lots of noise about a controversial, unpopular theory and then being met with a barrage of criticism for it means you've alighted on the next "big thing" to be reckoned with?

It doesn't work like that I'm afraid.

[Sally]

You are guessing away, as usual. And once again - true to your theory - you try to mail Hutchinson as discredited.

Nail, Fish, surely? 'Mail' indicates something quite different.

[caz]

In Hutchinson's case, he had motivation beyond the need for concealment and the panic that all roads would lead to him. He was attempting to both gain insight into the progress of the investigation, and steer it in quite the wrong direction with the aid of the fictional Astrakhan suspect. And yes, almost certainly bravado played a role too, going on the strength of what we know of other serialists who have injected themselves into their investigations.

Hi Ben,

Your language so totally gives you away here, and I'm not sure you are even aware of it. You have not even begun to demonstrate what Hutch's motivation was; what he was attempting to do; that bravado played any part at all, except possibly in an attention-seeking sense; or least of all that he was one among other serialists.

I disagree that he'd have been a fool to come forward if he was anxious to avoid other witnesses from previous murders looking him over. That would only happen if he hadn't already come forward voluntarily under a false witness guise; if he'd been identified by Lewis on the streets of Spitalfields or in a lodging house and dragged in as a suspect. I would argue that his proactive efforts avoided that outcome successfully.

But you don't know that Hutch was making any such 'proactive efforts' to avoid that outcome, and he couldn't have had a clue if they would work or make things ten times worse for him. Previous witnesses would always have been a danger to him if he was the ripper and remained in the vicinity; a supporting element if he was innocent. Putting himself in the public eye could have resulted in a reporter describing him in detail, or providing a lifelike sketch, which would have undone all his 'proactive efforts' to hoodwink the police had previous witnesses recognised him in their newspapers.

He could have determined if Kelly was having an all-nighter relatively quickly and easily - by listening in and perhaps moving the pilot coat covering the smashed-pane window - without the need for for a 45-minute vigil.

It rather depends on what Kelly and her guest were doing at the time, doesn't it? Even if they had both dozed off he may have been hoping it was only temporary, then finally gave up when there was no sign of the man calling it a night.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

Your language so totally gives you away here, and I'm not sure you are even aware of it.

I thought I'd made it clear that I was exploring the hypothetical premise that Hutchinson was the killer; how Kelly's time of death, the presence of the wideawake man, and Hutchinson's subsequent behaviour can all be convincingly explained, at least to the satisfaction of those well versed in serial crime and its perpetrators, if he was the killer. If you're concerned that the paragraph you quoted betrayed a total conviction on my part that Hutchinson was responsible, I can assure you that's not the case. It just gets tedious to preface every paragraph with "pursuant to the strictly hypothetical idea we're currently exploring that Hutchinson was the killer".

But you don't know that Hutch was making any such 'proactive efforts' to avoid that outcome, and he couldn't have had a clue if they would work or make things ten times worse for him.

No, he couldn't, but then nor could John Eric Armstrong "know" that detectives wouldn't instantly jump to the conclusion that he was the real Detroit prostitute killer and not the bright-eyed, bushy-tailed helpful informant he presented himself to be. The point being that if we have known proven examples of serial offenders putting themselves "in the public eye" as witnesses, they totally nullify any rationale we non-criminals might have constructed in our minds for not coming forward.

Even if they had both dozed off he may have been hoping it was only temporary, then finally gave up when there was no sign of the man calling it a night.

I know very few people who doze only temporarily in the small hours of the morning. As such, Hutchinson would still be coloured the over-optimistic fool to hover in the cold and wet for 45 minutes, to my mind at least.

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Nail, Fish, surely? 'Mail' indicates something quite different.

It was a "post" thinking error, Sally.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Caz:

Hmm, I think we can safely say that nobody in the room that night, Blotchy especially, would have been fool enough to come forward afterwards of his own accord, proving Hutch a liar and his description false. Quite the reverse in fact. Blotchy must have thanked his lucky stars when he read Hutch's account of the flash harry who entered that room a good hour after he had been seen by Cox. If I were in Blotchy's shoes I might have paid good money for a break like that.

Nope, Caz - we cannot "safely" say this. People who know themselves to be innocent will very often come forward. If you know that you are not the culprit, you donīt realize the risk. There is also the possibility that Blotchy would have passed the next client on his way out, and felt eager to tell the police.
Ruling any of these possibilities out would put Hutchinson at a very obvioius risk. And that risk would be effectively eliminated by the non-descript version of a Mr Nobody, as I said before, whereas he would stand no chance at all with his toff invention - if, that is, it WAS an invention. I think it wasnīt.

Yes, but we are stuck with that overcomplication, whether Hutch did see a man matching his description (which you appear to believe he did, but on the previous night) or decided to invent one on the murder night. We can't get inside Hutch's head, but it may be that he had a fixed idea - like so many others then and now - of how the ripper should have looked, and how he could have charmed Kelly into inviting him in. Looking 'normal' was not an option for many people back then.

Thatīs a fair point, Caz. But it still applies that even nif he did have a fanciful perception, it would be kind of daft to serve it to the coppers.

The best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

Implausible?

Hutchinson gave an implausible statement

This is presumably the argument which states that no-one can be observant under poor lighting conditions and without a specific reason to be so? Yes?

So where was the nearest light source?

Hutchinson:

"I stood against the lamp of the Queen's Head Public House and watched him". (Not them, note, but him)

Was he credible?

Abberline:

"I have interrogated him this evening and am of opinion his statement is true".



So how come he was so much more observant than any other witness?

Abberline's Report:

"Also that he (Hutchinson) was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch them"

So he had a reason for doing so:- He was watching the couple because the man was so well-dressed. I wonder why.

It's often argued that Astrakhan Man couldn't have visited the area dressed as described because he would have attracted the attention of one or more street robbers. Yet this overlooks the obvious possibility that he did exactly that. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that Hutchinson was marking Kelly's client down as a possible revenue source. Would you?

Hutchinson:

"I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away".

Which of them was he waiting for then, penniless Kelly or affluent Astrakhan Man? More likely to have been the latter I would have thought.

According to Abberline Hutchinson was "in no regular employment"; yet he was believed when he claimed that he "had occasionally given the deceased a few shillings". The inference I draw from that is that Hutchinson was a thief and known by Abberline to be such. Why else would be believed?

If he was loitering with intent to commit a street robbery, as seems eminently plausible, that would explain his reticence and delay in coming forward. What we don't know is (a) what he said to Badham and Abberline which didn't make it into his statement or (b) why Abberline believed him to be telling the truth. The fact remains that Abberline was no mug, and, even after interrogation, he believed Hutchinson's account to be truthful.

which was quickly discredited,

By whom?

[Ben]

So, Jack the police officer then - whadda we all reckon?

Whoops, false alarm. We're straight back to Hutchinson.

Jolly good.

Now then...

This is presumably the argument which states that no-one can be observant under poor lighting conditions and without a specific reason to be so? Yes?

No.

This is the argument that relates the obvious and indisputable reality that Hutchinson could not even noticed all that he alleged in the time and conditions available, let alone memorized it all. Not even the tests for photographic or eidetic memory require such a feat of observation and recollection. The only opportunity Hutchinson had to notice anything beyond a dark figure in an overcoat passed fleetingly as Astrakhan and Kelly allegedly walked in closish proximity to a gas lamp. Trouble is, Hutchinson spent that fleeting opportunity, by his own admission, peering intently into the man's face. It is not possible to notice the detailed particulars of a man's upper body as well as the detailed particulars within the space of a few seconds, especially not if you're only paying attention to one aspect.

Moreover, this was an 1888 gas lamp - a negligible naked flame encased in glass, which emitted a piddle-poor degree of light. They served the purpose of beacons and little besides. Matters improved very marginally by 1891, but too late for Hutchinson. Further problems present themselves when we consider the location of the lamp in question, set back several feet into Fashion Street itself, and unlikely to provide much illumination for anyone walking along Commercial Street. I once considered the possibility that there was a separate gas lamp for the Queen's Head pub, but I was informed by experts on this forum that two gas lamps situated so close together was unlikely.

It's often argued that Astrakhan Man couldn't have visited the area dressed as described because he would have attracted the attention of one or more street robbers. Yet this overlooks the obvious possibility that he did exactly that

It's just so unlikely that anyone would be so comically unstreetwise as to risk it, even less likely that he'd depart the area unaccosted if he did, even if not by Hutchinson. Also, if robbery was on Hutchinson's mind that night, would he really have alluded to the man's expensive accessories when speaking with police, incriminating himself so blatantly? And if Astrakhan was aware of Hutchinson following him, just how likely is that he'd corner himself in a small room with the full expectation that he might be hanging around to rob him? And with such a wealth of accessories there for the grabbing, why give up after purely on account of Astrakhan's failure to emerge after 45 minutes? And what obstacle was Kelly to any robbery attempt?

The fact remains that Abberline was no mug, and, even after interrogation, he believed Hutchinson's account to be truthful.

Initially, yes, but evidently not for very long.

By whom?

I'm loath to give any interested parties short shift, Bridewell, but I've been through this one a truly obscene amount of times? If you'll give me a minute, I'll dig up a link to one of the many threads where this was all discussed at great length, rather than writing it all out again.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

You're not taking into account the issue of provenance, Jon, and whether that provenance is good or bad.

Ben, Mary Ann Cox was among the lowest of the low, an admitted prostitute, and, she offers contradictory testimony. First she claims Kelly was singing at 1:00, and after 1:00.
"...I returned about one o'clock. She was singing then. I warmed my hands and went out again, she was still singing."

Then she contradicts herself.
"I heard no noise, it was raining hard. I did not go to sleep at all. I heard nothing whatever after one o'clock."

So this reliable witness of yours insists Kelly is singing after 1:00, then claims to hear nothing whatever after 1:00?
Which is it Ben, which story do you want to believe?
What were you saying about provenance?

She also claimed to hear no scream when both Lewis & Prater said there was one.
Cox: "...I should have heard any cry of murder. I heard nothing."

She would have heard a cry if there was one? Clearly, she is adamant there was no such cry?
Although Vanturney also heard no scream, she at least admitted that she dozed off now and then, but Cox claimed to be awake all night "..I did not go to sleep at all" - She doesn't even allow for the possibility that she could be mistaken. Is she trying to be too helpful and overplaying her hand?

If you're dealing with a police statement provided by a woman who also have her evidence under oath at a public inquest .....

Are you still talking about Cox?
Why are you comparing Cox to "...a third-hand piece of hearsay"?
I was comparing Cox to Hutchinson, Maxwell, Lewis & Kennedy.

Mary Malcolm gave sworn testimony that Liz Stride was her sister - "not the slightest doubt", she said. And, lets not forget Maxwell who felt so certain she was correct.
Remind me again Ben, what were you saying about sworn testimony being the most reliable?
Think again...

Hutchinson gave an implausible statement which was quickly discredited,.....

I hope you are not trying to take us down this dead-end path again.
Your false premise is totally exposed.

[Ben]

Ben, Mary Ann Cox was among the lowest of the low, an admitted prostitute

What are you actually saying here, Jon?

And think very carefully, because at the moment you're scaring me with this outrageously prejudiced nonsense.

Are you saying that because you consider her "the lowest of the low" (in what sense? Class?) this detracts from her credibility? Anything that comes from a "lowly" prostitute has bad provenance? Is that what you're suggesting? Wow. You also remind me, unnecessarily, that Cox was an "admitted prostitute" as though it were a bad thing for her to acknowledge as much in public. So to your mind, Cox loses a point for being honest and circumspect about the nature of her occupation? Really? You'd like it better if the women lied under oath and pretended they weren't prostitutes?

First she claims Kelly was singing at 1:00, and after 1:00.
"...I returned about one o'clock. She was singing then. I warmed my hands and went out again, she was still singing."

Then she contradicts herself.
"I heard no noise, it was raining hard. I did not go to sleep at all. I heard nothing whatever after one o'clock."

I was suspicious of your failure to provide the sources for these quotes, and for good reason, because when I did some digging, I quickly discovered that they are two different versions of the same piece of inquest testimony - Mary Cox's. It's not a case of "first" she said that and "then" she said the other. Since she cannot possibly have made both contradictory statements on the stand at the inquest, it follows that one or the other must be wrong - wholly the fault of the reporter, and certainly not a "contradiction" on the part of Mary Cox.

She also claimed to hear no scream when both Lewis & Prater said there was one

Simply because Prater and Lewis were both closer to Kelly's room. Nothing complicated here at all. Lewis's room was situated opposite Kelly's room, while Prater's was a floor above. Mary Cox's room, by contrast, was located as far away from Kelly's room as it was possible to be within the court. A perfect explanation for Cox's failure to hear the "murder" cry. Did that make her a little overconfident and forthright in claiming there was no cry? Possibly. 40 lashes for "lowly lowest of the low" prostitute Cox! However, in the minds of the sane, and in the minds of the police at the time, she was still a credible witness.

Mary Malcolm gave sworn testimony that Liz Stride was her sister - "not the slightest doubt", she said. And, lets not forget Maxwell who felt so certain she was correct.

Yes, exactly.

They believed that what they were saying was true.

Which makes them honest witnesses who turned up to the public inquest with every intention of imparting what they believed to be a true account. It does not make them inquest-dodging, discredited, Hutchinson-esque witnesses who fell from grace because they were considered untrustworthy.

I hope you are not trying to take us down this dead-end path again.

Well, I was trying to suggest a return to the topic, but people seem to prefer dredging up Hutchinson arguments again. If you don't want to have the "Hutchinson-discredited" argument for the millionth time, don't pick the fight.

Cheers,
Ben