Let's narrow down some Ripper 'facts'

[GregBaron]

Narrative unknown...

Just suppose for the minute that they were the same man.
Lewis leaves BG-man & woman, outside the Britannia while she walks down Dorset St.

Her story then shifts to seeing a man opposite Millers Court and a couple walking up the passage.
If we assume this is a continuous narrative then we would also assume the man up the passage (with a woman) is a different man from the one Lewis left outside the Britannia (BG), also with a woman.

Consider though, McCarthy's shop was open, it often closed about 3:00am. Lewis makes no mention of stepping into the shop, but it is not impossible that she did.
Afterall, Lewis is not telling a continuous story at the Inquest, she is providing answers to specific questions. Much may have happened that is ommitted.

If Lewis stepped into the shop, the same couple, BG-man & woman, followed down Dorset St. a minute or two behind her and walked up the passage.
Hutch follows and takes up his position opposite in Dorset St.

Lewis then steps out of the shop, looks across the road and sees the loiterer (Hutch?) for the first time looking up the court. Lewis also notices a man & woman in the shadows of the passage walking away from her.

If Lewis had been in the shop Mrs McCarthy might have remembered her?

(Quote)
Mrs McCarthy herself gives a slight clue as to a person who was seen in the court early on Friday morning, as one of her customers remarked to her – before the murder was known - “I saw such a funny man up the court this morning”. Mrs McCarthy says she has been so worried by the shocking affair that she cannot now remember the customer who thus spoke to her.
The Echo Wed. Nov. 14 1888

McCarthy only remembers 'a customer' but not 'a lodger', whom she surely would have known by name. Whoever this late night visitor was Mrs McCarthy did not know her, and Lewis was not a lodger.
So was the customer Lewis?

This missing interlude, Lewis stepping into the shop, would explain the shift in narrative, first Lewis is ahead of BG-man & woman, then suddenly Lewis is behind a 'man' (BG?) & 'woman' (Kelly?).
Its a possible solution.

Regards, Jon S.

This is good stuff Wickerman and I like your thinking. A very good point about a question and answer period not mirroring a real life narrative.

Perhaps it was the same man but Hutch merely embellished his appearance for whatever reason.

This could be our ripper and maybe he's Jacob Levy! Oh my gosh, where is that ripperologist....! I've blown the surprise...


Greg

[Wickerman]

I find SL a reliable and beleiveable witness as i do Cox, which also causes me to beleive that Blotchy could also be our man.

We all have believed Cox, tradition is hard to break. The police could not verify her story yet she is written into Ripper lore.
Another inconsistency to add to those already noted, Cox said it was raining heavy after 1:00 am when she went out again. Yet, this is the time Prater was standing outside McCarthy's shop, she makes no mention of it raining.
At 1:20 Prater went to bed "in her clothes", would she sleep in wet clothes?

I think Cox had her times all wrong.

Lastly, Cox said she returned after 3:00, some say 3:10 am. She did not go to sleep, yet within the hour there was a scream (murder) that she claims she did not hear.

Cox also claimed to have heard Kelly singing earlier, and Cox's room was at the far end of a narrow court. Sound travels at night so any noise from Kelly's room should have echoed down the length of the Court to Cox's room. Yet she did not hear the scream.

Cox must have returned later than she claimed (not 3:00, but 4:00am?), the scream had already occured when Cox returned.

There are a lot of problems with Cox's testimony when we analyze it.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Hi Greg
This shady charactor seen by Sarah lewis is known as BG man (Bethnal Green Man), but cant be Hutchs AMan as the timing does not fit. Hutch has already taken his watch outside Millers court after following/watching MK and Aman go into her room, when SL then makes her appearance at Millers court. BG man is still "Behind" in Commercial street.

Just suppose for the minute that they were the same man.
Lewis leaves BG-man & woman, outside the Britannia while she walks down Dorset St.

Her story then shifts to seeing a man opposite Millers Court and a couple walking up the passage.
If we assume this is a continuous narrative then we would also assume the man up the passage (with a woman) is a different man from the one Lewis left outside the Britannia (BG), also with a woman.

Consider though, McCarthy's shop was open, it often closed about 3:00am. Lewis makes no mention of stepping into the shop, but it is not impossible that she did.
Afterall, Lewis is not telling a continuous story at the Inquest, she is providing answers to specific questions. Much may have happened that is ommitted.

If Lewis stepped into the shop, the same couple, BG-man & woman, followed down Dorset St. a minute or two behind her and walked up the passage.
Hutch follows and takes up his position opposite in Dorset St.

Lewis then steps out of the shop, looks across the road and sees the loiterer (Hutch?) for the first time looking up the court. Lewis also notices a man & woman in the shadows of the passage walking away from her.

If Lewis had been in the shop Mrs McCarthy might have remembered her?

(Quote)
Mrs McCarthy herself gives a slight clue as to a person who was seen in the court early on Friday morning, as one of her customers remarked to her – before the murder was known - “I saw such a funny man up the court this morning”. Mrs McCarthy says she has been so worried by the shocking affair that she cannot now remember the customer who thus spoke to her.
The Echo Wed. Nov. 14 1888

McCarthy only remembers 'a customer' but not 'a lodger', whom she surely would have known by name. Whoever this late night visitor was Mrs McCarthy did not know her, and Lewis was not a lodger.
So was the customer Lewis?

This missing interlude, Lewis stepping into the shop, would explain the shift in narrative, first Lewis is ahead of BG-man & woman, then suddenly Lewis is behind a 'man' (BG?) & 'woman' (Kelly?).
Its a possible solution.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wicker
Either Hutch was present and saw Kelly + man himself, or he gained that knowledge from Lewis, who did see them.

Or he was there waiting (confirmed by Lewis) but made up Kelly and A-man story. You left out that option.

Abby.
That cannot be an option because Lewis also saw a "couple" pass up the court, so whoever they were their presence confirms Hutchinson's observations.

Also, isnt funny that the only part of Hutchs story that is corroberated by anyone else is his waiting and watching?

Why would it be funny if there was no-one else around? Who do you suggest should have come forward, Astrachan?

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

...I've asked you this before, but surely you don't seriously dispute that a greater importance should be attached to police statements and inquest testimony over unsourced press snippets? You always seem to be defending the latter, while at the same time calling into question the far more reliable testimony offered by such obviously genuine witnesses as Joseph Lawende and Mary Cox.

Ben.
There are so many issues here, this could be a topic for a separate thread.
"How we view the Case", or "How we interpret issues, and why?".

We are not dealing with a murder trial, this is a Coroners Inquest and you/we know the limits of what are required to be determined at a Coroners Inquest, identification of body, means of death, etc. Because of this only a selection of witnesses are required, only those who witnessed anything relevent to the purpose of the Inquest, all other witnesses are kept back.

To answer your question (above), of course witness statements procured by the police are important, that is not the issue.
My premise with respect to witnesses is that we must assume that they make every effort to be truthful. There is nothing to be gained by assuming witnesses are liars just because this is Whitechapel.
Even if the witness has “sworn to” their statement this does not rule out exaggeration, nor does it rule out mistakes, or heaven forbid, lies. Therefore, a “sworn-to” statement is no more reliable (truthful) than an “unsworn” statement.

Obviously, the police prefer to act, should action be necessary, on “sworn” statements because of legal requirements, but this is not a murder trial. Therefore police action as a consequence of “sworn” statements offered at the Coroners Inquest is unlikely, so not a principle requirement.
As evidenced by the fact Schwartz's statement was accepted as part of the police inquiry, but this acceptance by the police did not reflect on the Coroner's Inquest.

In our debates we are often pursuing issues which are more at home in the realm of police activity, identifying a suspect, tracing Kelly's last associates, timings, etc. Therefore every opinion we can bring to bear is exactly what the police would have done at the time. And they may have done, but sadly all such police records have not survived.

I understand that you do not see the distinction, and you're not alone, but the distinction exists, which is why my views appear at odds with other members on a few issues. I am looking at the case from a policemans point of view. And a policeman would have interviewed all these people who commented anything to the press.
If you notice the press often make a comment about a particular witness and tell the reader if the police followed up with any interest, or rejected the claims.

So long as we do not read any rejection claims in the press (Paumier, Ronay, Best, McCarthy, Bowyer) because this is the only measure that still exists to us, then we might be safe in assuming the police already had these witness statements and were pursuing enquiries. If the press reported “it” the police knew about “it”, whether beforehand or as a follow-up makes no difference. The press were often the unnofficial “investigation” arm of the police, more by necessity than design.

If you read something of interest in the papers, the police will have jumped on it the next day. Conversely, if a witness gave a statement to the police, the press will report it the next day.
Either way, whatever we read in the press, the police knew about, and if they dismissed it, the press will often say so the same day or the following day.
This reality is overlooked by most people. Which is why press interviews with the public are so important and not to be discarded in some altruistic mission.

In other words, witness interviews in the press are a backdoor into some missing police records.
This is not an ideal situation by any means, but given the sparsity of police files this approach is the best use of sources we can apply.

Regards, Jon S.

[Malcolm X]

Yes Malcolm, it appears to be a different bloke by clothing but not visage. Perhaps Lewis did see him on another night when he learned a bit about MJK, then got gussied up and returned on his big night out.....?



Greg

IF GH is telling the truth then yes, it could easily be him...... but this bloke does not match SAILOR BOY or Broad Sholders/Pipeman, but he could be the A.Chapman guy i suppose

also, he looks too much like the tabloid image of JTR and therefore could be stopped after comitting murder, especially with a top hat and carrying a black bag, no this doesn't feel right at all.

it's probably that bloke who was going around scaring women on purpose, who eventually got arrested by the coppers, i think there were at least 3 or 4 of these idiots

[DVV]

So have any Ripper "facts" been narrowed down on this thread?

Quite the reverse, I reckon.

[Scott Nelson]

So have any Ripper "facts" been narrowed down on this thread? I think not.

[Wickerman]

Well, Jon, what about the fact that Mrs Cox appeared before the inquest; or the reality that at least part of her account (that relating to Kelly’s singing) was corroborated by Catherine Picket; or even that her story was never discredited by investigators?

Garry.
- Picket was not at the inquest.
- Picket makes no reference to Blotchy.
- Picket makes no mention of seeing Cox.
- Pickets words are "unsworn" and taken from the press.
This is the same source so often criticized by all those who selectively dismiss press reports, yet in this case deem warranted. Are you now turning face and calling on press reports as now reliable?

I thought I explained earlier why I brought up the Cox issue, not because I disbelieve her, but because you (and others) were so critical of "unverified" press reports being untrustworthy.
Yet, as we clearly see, Cox's story was also "unverified", but still admitted as evidence. The police could not find any evidence concerning this Blotchy character being with Kelly at that hour.
Therefore, if "unverified" stories are acceptable to the authorities and can even be "sworn to" (which makes them no more truthful) then there is no difference between "words on the street" spoken at the Inquest, and "words on the street" spoken to the press.
You chose to make an issue where none exists.

Then, on the other hand, Maxwell's evidence which was verified to a degree, is largely dismissed.

Thankfully, Ben has saved me the trouble of searching out Mrs Cox’s description of Kelly’s demeanour: ‘… she was very drunk and could scarcely answer me …’

Now, would you care to withdraw the allegation of exaggeration on my part?

Have you considered withdrawing the "pre-inquest statement" and resubmit her actual words (which I quoted yesterday), spoken at the Inquest?
Cox could not tell Kelly had been drinking until Kelly opened her mouth. Such a condition is also consistent with Hutchinson's words, "Kelly did not seem to me to be drunk, but was a little bit spreeish."

My opinion? Oh, I see. So you think the overwhelming evidence indicating that Hutchinson was discredited by investigators serves as confirmation regarding the veracity of his story?

There you go again, "overwhelming evidence" (exaggeration). No such thing.

Regards, Jon S.

[GregBaron]

Quick change artist...

No, about 6in to 9in long. His hat was a high round hat. He had a brownish overcoat, with a black short coat underneath. His trousers were a dark pepper-and- salt.

unfortunately GH does not describe this bloke, LA DE DA is different in many ways, maybe because SL saw another bloke but not with MJK/ ON ANOTHER NIGHT, or she is simply totally useless..... the timers aren't right anyway.

no GH is definitely the key here, he's either JTR, saw JTR or JTR is Blotchy, but i think you'll find that he was definitely there, because if not, he would have foulded under interrogation from Abberline, but he didn't' he's too aware and confident..... he definitely knows something!

he's not stuttering around and changing his story later, he's pushing his point all the time, he's very fixated on this foreigner.

Yes Malcolm, it appears to be a different bloke by clothing but not visage. Perhaps Lewis did see him on another night when he learned a bit about MJK, then got gussied up and returned on his big night out.....?



Greg

[Malcolm X]

Thanks for clearing this up Abby. I guess there were lots of dark haired guys with black bags but only if our Hutch was fabricating and of course many believe he was.



Hmm....I just saw this........I guess Michael doesn't agree with this timing?


I suppose even if Astro-Man existed, he isn't necessarily the murderer. He'd probably be done with whatever his business was by 3:15 or 3:30 and be off.

I'm with those who think the unknown assailant let himself in at 4 o'clock...


Greg

No, about 6in to 9in long. His hat was a high round hat. He had a brownish overcoat, with a black short coat underneath. His trousers were a dark pepper-and- salt.

unfortunately GH does not describe this bloke, LA DE DA is different in many ways, maybe because SL saw another bloke but not with MJK/ ON ANOTHER NIGHT, or she is simply totally useless..... the timers aren't right anyway.

no GH is definitely the key here, he's either JTR, saw JTR or JTR is Blotchy, but i think you'll find that he was definitely there, because if not, he would have foulded under interrogation from Abberline, but he didn't' he's too aware and confident..... he definitely knows something!

he's not stuttering around and changing his story later, he's pushing his point all the time, he's very fixated on this foreigner.

[GregBaron]

Black bag brigade...

Hi Greg
This shady charactor seen by Sarah lewis is known as BG man (Bethnal Green Man), but cant be Hutchs AMan as the timing does not fit. Hutch has already taken his watch outside Millers court after following/watching MK and Aman go into her room, when SL then makes her appearance at Millers court. BG man is still "Behind" in Commercial street.

Thanks for clearing this up Abby. I guess there were lots of dark haired guys with black bags but only if our Hutch was fabricating and of course many believe he was.

I agree Greg. I think they are one and the same.

Hmm....I just saw this........I guess Michael doesn't agree with this timing?


I suppose even if Astro-Man existed, he isn't necessarily the murderer. He'd probably be done with whatever his business was by 3:15 or 3:30 and be off.

I'm with those who think the unknown assailant let himself in at 4 o'clock...


Greg

[The Good Michael]

What is your point anyway? Are you actually arguing in favor of Hutch lying about being there? He said he was there?!?

I am not arguing such a thing. I am arguing that no one knows that Hutch was the man Lewis saw. If Hutch was there at the same time, why didn't he mention Lewis? It would have added some credibility to his statement of hers corroborated his. He didn't because he didn't see her. That means he was either not paying any attention or that he wasn't there when she was.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

I know this one has been hammered by Ben and Fisherman but these descriptions do bear a similarity. Black bag? Pale? Dark mustache? Small?

I agree Greg. I think they are one and the same.

Mike

[Ben]

Oh!

And when I said "good point" to Abby, I was referring to his observation a while back regarding Sarah Lewis. It may look as though I was responding to the post that immediately preceded mine, but he merely jogged my memory that I owed him a thumbs-up from a few posts ago.

Please forgive these tedious clarifications, but I have reason to be somewhat paranoid about creating the wrong impression these days.