Let's narrow down some Ripper 'facts'

[Malcolm X]

the bloke walking up the court and back again could have been a policeman on his beat....JTR?... More like leaving only and on tip toes

could have been JTR leaving, but not banging the door, closing it very precisely and slowly. the witness wasn't smart enough to counter the Coroner.

if he's killed her at 4am, you can bet your last dollar that he'd be in there for ages staring at his handy work !

[Abby Normal]

I'm not sure out and about is the same as standing in the rain looking up the court Mike, but you're right, it's not definite, only a likelihood.

In re-reading the Inquest statements a few things jump out at me...

Cox



I wonder if this might have been the ripper? With a 4 o'clock murder and an hour or two of mutilations this may have been the first time the coast was clear...

Lewis



Hutchinson



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

Are these dreams or might this be the same person? Perhaps there were lots of small, dark haired men with black bags meandering about?

I apologize in advance if I rekindle an old argument...


Greg

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.

[Malcolm X]

if anyone sais that he's lieing about seeing MJK/ LA DE DA, but was proven to be still waiting outside by SL, then bang he's had it, he's JTR.

so to check carefully, he has to go to the inquest and to nose around outside and this is when he realises.... ``good, nothing was seen at 2am, but i was seen waiting outside later on, and she saw me well too``

``there's no other tittle tattle going on yet and i didn't hear anything yesterday either, right i'm off to see Dear Boss, but you'd better have a good excuse for being two days late``

maybe, well you never know

[Abby Normal]

If it's good enough for you, that doesn't mean it's the case. Hutch never said he saw her and she never said she saw him. I guarantee in the general vicinity there were more than a few men out and about that exact time of night.

Mike

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

[GregBaron]

Black bag man...

I guarantee in the general vicinity there were more than a few men out and about that exact time of night.
Mike

I'm not sure out and about is the same as standing in the rain looking up the court Mike, but you're right, it's not definite, only a likelihood.

In re-reading the Inquest statements a few things jump out at me...

Cox

[Coroner] How many men live in the court who work in Spitalfields Market ? - One. At a quarter- past six I heard a man go down the court. That was too late for the market.
[Coroner] From what house did he go ? - I don't know.
[Coroner] Did you hear the door bang after him ? - No.
[Coroner] Then he must have walked up the court and back again? - Yes.

I wonder if this might have been the ripper? With a 4 o'clock murder and an hour or two of mutilations this may have been the first time the coast was clear...

Lewis

[Coroner] Was he a tall man ? - He was short, pale-faced, with a black moustache, rather small. His age was about forty.
[Coroner] Was it a large bag ? - 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.
[Coroner] Have you seen him since ? - On Friday morning, about half-past two a.m., when I was going to Miller's-court, I met the same man with a woman in Commercial-street, near Mr. Ringer's public-house (the Britannia). He had no overcoat on.
[Coroner] Had he the black bag ? - Yes.

Hutchinson

He has a pale complexion, a slight moustache turned up at the corners (changed to dark complexion and heavy moustache in the press reports), dark hair, dark eyes, and bushy eyebrows. He is, according to Hutchinson, of "Jewish appearance."

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

Are these dreams or might this be the same person? Perhaps there were lots of small, dark haired men with black bags meandering about?

I apologize in advance if I rekindle an old argument...


Greg

[Malcolm X]

the problem with GH lieing is..........SL could have easily said ``no, that aint the guy i saw outside, looks nothing like him``....... she did not.

i'm presuming that GH thought that it was safe to go to Abberline, because he knew that SL saw him well.... because GH/JTR has to be seen well waiting outside !

therefore it's safe to go to Abberline as the man outside, GH never mentions seeing her....no, but why should he...... but i expect Abberline mentioned her to him, off the record and GH thought ``good i was seen``.... Because if he was seen outside, it makes LA DE DA appear convincing!

he might even have said to Abberline, ``if you dont believe me, ask that woman to ID me, because she saw me well``.

GH also doesn't know ( if he was never there) who else might have walked in or out of millers court from 2 to 3am, so to go to Abberline as a total liar and not knowing this vital information is very risky indeed.... because one of the residents might have gone to Abberline later on, just like him and said, ``nope i didn't see anyone waiting outside, and i was outside with a friend for 15 mins at about 2.30``

i therefore think you'll find that GH was definitely there, because he knows exactly what happened that night, and the only people that walked by him, other that SL were other blokes, that didn't notice him and he wont care less anyway..... because the more that see him the better, but the vital time that nobody else must be around is from 2 to 2.10am.... nobody around to say, ``i didn't see MJK, that GH is a liar``.

and of course..... never seen returning at at 4am !!!!

[The Good Michael]

Hi Mike
But Hutch says he was there. At the exact time doing the exact thing that SL says. Thats good enough for me.

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.

If it's good enough for you, that doesn't mean it's the case. Hutch never said he saw her and she never said she saw him. I guarantee in the general vicinity there were more than a few men out and about that exact time of night.

Mike

[Abby Normal]

That is conjecture. No one mentioned seeing Hutchinson and an intoxicated prostitute (Lewis) who says she saw a stocky guy in the general vicinity, is hardly corroboration.

Mike

Hi Mike
But Hutch says he was there. At the exact time doing the exact thing that SL says. Thats good enough for me.

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.

[The Good Michael]

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

That is conjecture. No one mentioned seeing Hutchinson and an intoxicated prostitute (Lewis) who says she saw a stocky guy in the general vicinity, is hardly corroboration.

Mike

[Ben]

Good point, Abby!.

To all - just a minor clarification: in reference to Jon's bizarre suggestion that I had "backed myself into a corner", I was referencing Lewis' evidence ONLY.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Ben.


I see you have backed yourself into a corner with this.

Some weeks back I seem to recall a type of face-saving counter argument being offered that Hutchinson might have aquired part of his story of events that night from the statement by Sarah Lewis.
It was suggested at the time that Hutch waited outside the Inquest to embellish his story with some facts?
Was that not your suggestion?

Hutchinson saw a couple walk up the passage into Millers Court, this is in writing.

If Hutchinson was not actually present in Dorset St., so could not see the couple walk up the passage then, as you say he must have aquired this info from Lewis?
So you must be admitting that Lewis did see the same couple walk up the passage. How else could he have known?

Either Hutch was present and saw Kelly + man himself, or he gained that knowledge from Lewis, who did see them.
You have painted yourself into a corner with that.

For that observation to be written in Hutchinson's statement he had to have seen it himself, or heard it said by someone who came out of the Inquiry (therefore added it falsely to his statement?). This is circumstantial that it actually occurred.
More likely the former than the latter.



Unsourced?
John McCarthy is quoted as saying;
At eleven o'clock last night she was seen in the Britannia public house, at the corner of this thoroughfare, with a young man with a dark moustache. She was then intoxicated. The young man appeared to be very respectable and well dressed.

Why do you doubt it?, on what grounds, and by what contradictory evidence do you reject this?



Is this the same “Ben” who has been trying to ridicule me for using unsworn statements?

Ben, I check everything, so why you would choose to try pass ”unsworn” words by Cox as if she had said them at the Inquest simply to try to win an argument is to say the least very amusing.

Those words (your quote) were provided to the police in her pre-inquest statement, but when it came to being sworn, she changed her words.
Of course, our trusting Casebook members have not realised you are trying to pull a fast one over on everyone.

I already quoted Cox's “sworn” words in a previous post:

Initially, in her introductory statement, to some degree paraphrased by the press, she indicated Kelly was “very much intoxicated”. Yet when asked specifically what she meant, Cox then replied verbatim:

I did not notice she was drunk until she said good night.

Whether Kelly's (presumed) speech impediment (see Maxwell) contributed in any way to Cox mishearing her words is a point to be considered.
Apparently Kelly was not bouncing off the walls as she walked up the passage with Blotchy, so there was no visible reason for Cox to think Kelly was “too drunk”, and Cox then corrected herself by explaining it was Kelly's words which clued her in that Kelly had been drinking.
Not a strong argument.

Regards, Jon S.

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.

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

[Ben]

Just say "thanks for the correction" next time, Jon. There's no dishonour in it, and it works a good deal better than lashing out with childish accusations. My "trying to pull a fast one" amounts simply to correcting your silly chastisement of Garry for characterizing Kelly's condition as "near incoherent", which as it turns out was precisely accurate. Yes, I was quoting from Mary Ann Cox's police statement, which naturally carries weight, or at least considerably more weight than the preposterous press offerings that you continually dredge up and regard as gospel for some unfathomable reason. She did not change her evidence at all. Kelly could scarcely bid her a simple goodnight, according to Cox's police statement. "Near incoherent" Kelly most certainly was.

Is this the same “Ben” who has been trying to ridicule me for using unsworn statements?

Police statement.

Are you seriously suggesting that a police statement has equal value to a piece of uncorroborated second-hand (or worse) hearsay that appeared in the press? Because if so, you need to lash out far less, and reassess your entire approach.

And no, the idea that drunken incoherence can be confused with a "speech impediment" is very silly and unconvincing, especially given that Mary Cox had known her for some time.

John McCarthy is quoted as saying;
At eleven o'clock last night she was seen in the Britannia public house, at the corner of this thoroughfare, with a young man with a dark moustache. She was then intoxicated. The young man appeared to be very respectable and well dressed.

Why do you doubt it?, on what grounds, and by what contradictory evidence do you reject this?

When will you understand that it doesn't work like that?

You are quoting from a press interview with McCarthy who was passing on gossip. Hearsay. The sighting didn't originate with McCarthy himself, and he didn't even provide the name of the alleged sighting's originator. As evidence, therefore, it is distinctly lacking in value, and only made worse by the fact that McCarthy said nothing of the sighting at the inquest, where such a detail would have been of considerable interest to the jury and coroner. It would be absurd to treat it unquestioningly as accurate just because it can't be proven false, and yet, fascinatingly, this is precisely the approach you adopt and encourage.

Even more fascinating, the only witnesses whose credibility you do cast doubt upon are those who provided both police statements and inquest testimony, and who were generally considered reliable by the police. Hence your attempt to discredit Cox, whilst championing the likes of "Mrs. Kennedy" and the unnamed mystery person who might have claimed to have seen Kelly in the pub with yet another mystery man. It's all hopelessly the wrong way round.

This "corner" that I'm supposed to have backed myself into is nothing of the kind. I was responding simply to your mistaken impression that Sarah Lewis saw a couple enter the Miller's Court passage. She most assuredly did not. She saw a man and a woman at the corner of Dorset Street (couple #1), another couple "passing along" Dorset Street (couple #2), and a man standing near the lodging house opposite the court entrance. "Nobody in the court", though.

It is obvious, incidentally, that the police were in possession of other evidence that related to the Kelly murder, and which did not appear at the inquest, but these would not have included eyewitness sightings of the victim on the streets in the small hours. These would have been prioritized (if considered reliable, obviously) and almost certainly aired at the inquest. So I really wouldn't assume from the early closure of the inquest that there were other genuine small-hours Kelly sightings doing the rounds.

All the best,
Ben

[harry]

Thanks Ben,
So Cox was always behind the couple,plus it seems that Blotchy was already in the room,and Kelly about to enter as Cox turned into the court.Even if the light in the court was on,one author has it that Prater describes the court as being in total darkness,Cox wouldn't have seen much.certainly not the man's features.In addition,Cox would not have been in time to see how the door was opened.

[DVV]

Hi Jon

Thats not quite correct, Kennedy was referenced as seeing Kelly outside the Britannia, and according to the Daily Telegraph there were other witnesses who were never given the opportunity to be sworn & speak, because of MacDonald.
"...it is pointed out that by hurriedly closing the inquest the opportunity has been lost of putting on record statements made on oath, and when the memory of witnesses is fresh."
The police were in possession of other statements, and it appeared to be common knowledge.

In fact we also know that over 50 witness statements were taken by the police in connection with this investigation.
So, saying that 'nobody saw Kelly' is making an assumption that those few lay witnesses (9), were all there was, and that does not appear to be the case.
We don't know what those other witnesses saw except for what we read in the press.
Regards, Jon S.

Nobody saw Mary in the streets, nor in the Court, after 1:00 - except Hutch. Had it been the case, we would know.
Maxwell did testify at the inquest, so why not a witness who would have seen her during the night ?
You're welcome to believe Hutch's story, but don't tell me it was backed up by other witnesses. That's simply not the case.

[Dave O]

Thanks Jon. Disregard my previous post. Likely I misunderstand the point you're making.

"Lastly, I have always assumed that Macdonald was worried about whether his jury could be reconvened if it were adjourned--he had several disgruntled members on his hands, and a lack of alternates. If a full jury could not be reconvened at a later date, the whole process would have to be begun anew from scratch. Is this correct in terms of the law at the time?"

Rya! Yes! The inquest would "drop", and they would have to start all over again--this is described in commentary in Jervis on the Coroner's Act 1887. I also have a similar example of having to start all over because jurors won't return a verdict in a case in Surrey. New jurors would need access to the evidence already presented--in Kelly's case, that would include an exhumation because the jury would need to view the body for the inquest to be valid. It would be a mess.

From the time he takes office, 14 June to 15 Nov 1888, Macdonald is adjourning with 13-15 jurors several times, and in just about all cases, he's never having more than 15, maybe 16 once (jurors weren't paid for their service). Usually it's 13-14. But there are examples of the officer summoning more than that. Perhaps they're either being excused or not showing up, I cannot tell. Their names don't appear on the inquisitions. But Mary Kelly presents a sensational, high profile case AND for the very first time, Macdonald's officer is taking a body from Spitalfields into Shoreditch looking for the nearest mortuary, and he's crossing sanitary districts doing it. For a case like the Kelly inquest to adjourn, they need more jurors, especially when some are objecting, apparently one doesn't take the oath and gets kicked out, and then there's a perceived interference with the jury.

Dave