Let's narrow down some Ripper 'facts'

[The Good Michael]

yea deffo, he has to say he saw him twice, this way he's got the police jumping onto his fish hook......hook, line and sinker so to speak!

Yeah. Topping only told the truth about being across from the Court at about 2:15-3:00. he lied about absolutely everything else. Everything. But he was absolutely trustworthy enough that you believe the time and location and nothing else. hahahaha. So insane. Lewis, the drunken prostitute, told the absolute truth about going into the Court at the same time Topping was there. How do we know? Because she saw a stocky man in the vicinity of where Hutchinson said he was, though he lied about everything else. Hahaha. Great stuff. And he came forward because...he knew Lewis was testifying and...though she didn't mention him and didn't have description... and didn't really see anything....and though he was more clearly seen at other murder sites... this was the one he was concerned about. He waited until after the inquest, but he forgot (because he was stupid) to actually find out if he had been mentioned before going to the police. In effect, he could have been turning himself in for all he knew, but he boldly went. And, here's the good part, he stopped killing because Lewis saw a short stocky man and he thought that was too close of a call. Better to stop this little habit than get caught. Hahahah. Nuts!

Mike

[Malcolm X]

Ah ! this Sunday sighting... How cute.
Hutch's masterpiece.

yea deffo, he has to say he saw him twice, this way he's got the police jumping onto his fish hook......hook, line and sinker so to speak!

there's a lot of mumbo jumbo confusing stuff going on, with Hutch strolling up and down Dorset street, and at each end of the street he's seeing someone walk by, this maybe accounts for him not seing SL, he turned around and came back and saw a guy entering a lodging house, this is maybe the bloke SL saw...... who knows!

if so, then GH may have been far smarter dressed than we think, he wasn't recognised later on by anyone else, i.e the Kennedy woman/ Bowyer/ Cox etc, so i dont think he's BG Man, just a lieing bastard instead !!!

if you add to this Kelly being extremely drunk (and even drunk before she went in), then i very much doubt she was out again at 3am, on a cold wet night, she was fast asleep, GH probably heard her singing earlier on and waited outside for Blotchy face to leave, he knew he was there because he went down the court as he said he did, and heard him talking through the broken window...... it is if you think about it, fairly damned obvious !

it is also extremely odd behaviour for even an innocent person.... he is definitely lurking around stalking her, even if he isn't JTR !

there is so much wrong with GH, the list is endless, i've never read of anyone as guilty looking as him, but if he was never there, then it's sheer fluke that he's painted himself as JTR by mistake..... sheer fluke.

he's not just perfect as a copycat killer, he's also a perfect fit for Eddowes and Stride and if so; this makes him JTR ....... maybe.

but i'm still not happy that these last 3 murders, are the same killer as the first two, because A.Chapman looks like this BG Man...... i think

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

It seems you’re once again promoting “Mrs. Kennedy” as a reliable witness, despite her account being one of the very pieces of “tattle” that Sugden cautioned against paying any attention to. Mrs. Kennedy was almost certainly a false witness who attempted to pass off Sarah Lewis’ genuine account as her own, as per the report in the Star. The nonsensical press claim – again from the 10th of November – that “Mrs. Kennedy” saw Kelly at 3.00am is precisely that, nonsensical. If there was any consideration that a witness had seen the victim at such a crucial hour, the witness in question would certainly have appeared at the inquest, as opposed to sinking without trace well in advance of the inquest after being exposed as false, as occurred in Mrs. Kennedy’s case.

And yet, despite this, you conclude: “The woman without any headgear must be Kelly.”. No it mustn’t be Kelly. It really really mustn’t. There was no “women without headgear” that appeared in the inquest evidence, let alone one who was identified as Kelly. The genuine author of the account, Sarah Lewis, did not even know Kelly, let alone see her with any “well-dressed” man.

There's no such person as "Lewis/Kennedy". There's Sarah Lewis (genuine) and "Mrs. Kennedy" (bogus).

The evidence of Sarah Lewis does not remotely support the contention that Kelly was out after midnight, nor does it support the contention that the assumed “BG man” had anything to do with Miller’s Court or Mary Kelly. If we heed the genuine non-discredited police/inquest evidence of Sarah Lewis, as opposed to press offering of lying plagiarist “Mrs. Kennedy”, we learn that the man in question was talking to one woman, not two, and she was not identified as Mary Kelly. Whoever the BG man (and the Wednesday and Friday men may not even be the same), he was very unlikely to have been the murderer. It is scarcely credible that the real killer would approach two women in the evening, dispatch one, and allow the other to get both an incredibly good look at him and the opportunity to alert passers-by.

All the best,
Ben

[DVV]

Ah ! this Sunday sighting... How cute.
Hutch's masterpiece.

[The Good Michael]

As far as Hutchinson's "inspiration" for Astrachan, this may be largely taken from his daylight sighting on Sunday morning in Petticoat Lane, not as he implied from Friday morning in the dark. He didn't 'lie" in the strictest sense, he just embellished his Friday sighting with his later Sunday morning sighting.

This is quite likely. Topping gave a composite description of the man he had seen twice. How could he NOT have detail?

Mike

[Wickerman]

Perhaps Hutch saw BG man and used him as inspiration for Aman. just an idea.

The biggest problem I see between the two is that according to Lewis your BG-man was standing on the north side of the Dorset St. - Commercial St. intersection, where the Britannia is located. Whereas the man Hutchinson saw was standing at the Thrawl St. intersection with Commercial St.

This Britannia-man was said to be talking with two women, one of whom was Kelly (according to Kennedy). If that was the case then how do we explain this same man walking back up Commercial St. from Thrawl St. towards the Britannia and meeting Kelly walking south?

This needs explaining because Hutchinson's version implies Kelly just met this stranger, yet the Lewis/Kennedy version suggests they are talking together before Hutchinson appears.
There may be a discrepancy in timing that might account for it. Hutchinson timing is set by him passing the Whitechapel church (Matfelon) down on Whitechapel High Street, whereas Lewis/Kennedy make reference to the Spitalfield clock.

I don't see any indication in Kelly's supposed words with Astrachan that they may have just met minutes before, but we cannot say for sure.

However foolish we may view the actions of this BG man accosting women, these actions are far more suspicious and warrant him being viewed as a genuine suspect.

As far as Hutchinson's "inspiration" for Astrachan, this may be largely taken from his daylight sighting on Sunday morning in Petticoat Lane, not as he implied from Friday morning in the dark. He didn't 'lie" in the strictest sense, he just embellished his Friday sighting with his later Sunday morning sighting.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

No, Jon. What this amounts to is that you adhere rigidly to certain views which cannot be supported by the available evidence.

The Inquest testimony of Sarah Lewis is the mainstay of this issue. The fact Lewis confirms Hutchinson implies very strongly that Kelly was indeed out after midnight. The fact you choose to ignore her words in favour of 30 year old memoirs (Anderson) recalling a Jewish witness as opposed to Hutchinson being the principal witness is laughable.

I'm surprised no-one has explained to you why Anderson does not favour Hutchinson. The simple reason is that from a legal perspective no lawyer nor police official can hope to present Hutchinson as their principal witness due to the fact he left the murder scene an hour (+/-) before the murder took place.
Anything could have happened in that time, Hutchinson's suspect could quite easily have left Millers Court and Kelly return to the street to find someone else.

But then again your selective acceptance of what suits your theory and what contests it might have something to do with your preferential treatment of the evidence.

Sarah Lewis claimed she heard the cry of murder "just before 4:00 am", whereas Prater revised her initial estimate to "just after 4:00 am", due to the lodging-house light being out. So around 4:00 am is an approximation for the murder to have commenced.

As Hutchinson left at 3:00 am there is no way the police can insist Hutchinson saw the murderer when there is still a whole hour to account for.
Compare this to both Lawende's & Schwartz sighting's at approximately 10 minutes each before the murders took place, and Hutchinson at an hour does not compare.
That is from the legal perspective, and all the police officials knew it, including Anderson.

And I have never "asserted" Lewis's Britannia-man & Astrachan were the same, only that they might have been.

I don't think it is helpful to dwell on the elaborate "description" given by Hutchinson, a "well-dressed" man obviously existed in the street at that time whatever he looked like, and Lewis saw the same "couple" as Hutchinson walk up the passage.

All we are left with is to agree that the loiterer was Hutchinson, that is admitedly an assumption but a reasonable one given the circimstances. Lewis saw a loiterer watching a couple "pass up the court". Hutchinson was a loiterer watching a couple "pass up the court", both sightings at the same location and same time.
Hutchinson is confirmed, he was telling the truth, and Kelly was outside Millers Court after midnight, regardless of whether you accept newspaper stories.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I can echo Garry's points, and would defer also to the opinion of a qualified historian, Philip Sugden, who wisely cautioned:

“Our search for the facts about the murderr of Mary Kelly must discount the unsupported tattle of the Victorian press"

Hi Ben.
I wonder if it has come to the attention of anyone else that as often as you use this vague reference from Sugden to support your tirade against press reports, you equally as often fail to show precisely what Sugden was referring to.

I like to deal in specific's, so lets see what your hero Mr Sugden actually does say about Lewis, Kelly & Hutchinson.

"...The man in the black widewake hat, whom Sarah Lewis about 2:30 looking up Millers Court 'as if waiting for someone to come out', was probably Hutchinson since by his account he stood outside the court from about 2:15 to 3:00 for precisely that purpose." (p.336)

And again...

"....A more reasonable explanation is that he was George Hutchinson, the labourer, for by his own account Hutchinson was waiting outside Millers Court at precisely this time." (p.366).

In the opinion of this qualified historian, Sarah Lewis confirms Hutchinson with respect to events at Millers Court, which means Phil Sugden also accepts the fact that Kelly was outside Millers Court after midnight.
Sugden accepts that Lewis confirms Hutchinson, you accept the opinions of Sugden, you have made that clear.

I guess we can move on..

Regards, Jon S.

[Malcolm X]

Hello Abby, I do not see any significant similarity between Astrakhan Man and the BG Man. I agree Hutch made up Astrakhan Man but I doubt the BG Man, who lacks the fundamental "Jewish appearance", was the "model".

i dont know, because this description keeps appearing and we dont know at all, what GH looked like, not even beginning to know, stout and military means nothing, he also didn't see SL or even Bowyer...... that is if all of this is true, because it could be tittle tattle and especially from Bowyer!

but GH can not be BG Man, LA DE DA or the bloke seen inside the court by Bowyer before 3am....... because he would have been recognised by loads of people, the reason i say this is; because GH seems very much like this bloke.... because both him and BG Man talked to MJK didn't they and GH is definitely lurking around for no good reason and for 1/2 an hour too long.

but SL saw him outside?..... maybe not, because GH doesn't mention this, maybe the bloke she saw is nothing to do with JTR.

i cant see any normal bloke wanting to wait outside in the cold and rain for an hour, for what is just a downtrodden street Whore.....this makes him so utterly suspicious..... just this one thing! let alone all the rest.

but there is still something not right, (because of SL) I think that GH maybe didn't wait outside all the time, but wandered off and kept returning, maybe he realised like i do, that standing outside on guard duty for so long looks extremely suspicious, this is why he maybe saw the policeman, my guess is he strolled up and down Dorset street and thus SL didn't see him, maybe she saw the same guy entering the lodging house, that GH mentioned seeing too, but from the top end of Dorset st.

[DVV]

Hi DVV
Anyway:
If one believes Hutch made up A-man (I think he probably did)then the next question, at least for me is, where did he get the inspiration for such a detailed charactor? Some have said from press reports of previous "witness" descriptions , possibly from a previous boss or acquantance he didn't like or was jealous of and i beleive someone even said from a store window clothing display. Considering there seem to be some similarities between A-man and BGman, Gregs post just made me think perhaps Hutch had seen BG man that night also and used him as his fictitious A-man thats all.
Where do you think Hutch got his "model" or inspiration for A-man?

Hello Abby, I do not see any significant similarity between Astrakhan Man and the BG Man. I agree Hutch made up Astrakhan Man but I doubt the BG Man, who lacks the fundamental "Jewish appearance", was the "model".

[Wickerman]

Hi Wicker
Thanks for the explanation. Very interesting, but frankly I find this version of how BG man and Aman could be one in the same rather convoluted. Better to just say that after seeing BG man and the woman that SL tarried somewhere nearby (not at McCarthys shop)long enough for BG/Aman, MK and Hutch to get "in front" of her. Would be more probable and simpler dont you think?

Hi Abby.
Where could she tarry?, there was only the shop, nothing else.
When Prater was standing there at 1:00 am, she also said she stepped into the shop and spoke with Mrs McCarthy.
What is so 'convoluted' about that?

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Which is precisely the opposite of what you argued last year, Jon, when insisting that press reports (especially those emanating from The Star) ought to be treated as unreliable. Your contention back then was that information that had emerged from police interviews and inquest hearings should always take precedence.

Garry.
If you are referring to the 'Hutchinson Discredit' debate we were not talking about Witness Statements.

The Star was claiming to be sharing privileged information from authorized sources, yet at the same time complained that the police refuse to share information with them.
They cannot have it both ways, if the police are not talking to them, where are they getting their sources?

At the time I provided a quote from the Star where they said that because the police will not share information the Star will resort to "making it up as they go".
You cannot get any clearer message than that, of course the reports published by the Star professing to be sharing "police opinion" are untrustworthy, they made that clear themselves.
The subject was "police opinion" on the Hutchinson statement.

This is not the same as publishing statements by witnesses & members of the public, here they are providing sources.
All statements to the press by the public should be treated with caution, no question there. What we do not do is treat them all as "rubbish", ignoring them because they were not sworn.
Because some of these stories may not make sense does not mean they are wrong, we actually "know" very little about these murders.

Public statements to the press should be compared with what other information we have, and judge them accordingly.
I don't believe you would disagree with that, this is common sense.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

A very good point about a question and answer period not mirroring a real life narrative.

Hi Greg.
In most versions of an Inquest we do not see the questions posed, only who asked the question.
Witness responses are generally preceeded by a "-" in the original. Modern authors tend to remove those "-" marks and present the answers as a continuous narrative, which gives a false impression of the flow of the discussion.

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

I think he did embellish this mans appearance, for whatever reason can only be guessed at.
However, there are two seperate accounts which place Kelly outside Millers Court with a "well-dressed man" after midnight.

The Evening News (10 Nov) wrote:
"Mrs. Kennedy is confident that the man whom she noticed speaking to the woman Kelly at three o'clock on Friday morning is identical with the person who accosted her on the previous Wednesday."

But interestingly, earlier the same day the Daily News (10 Nov) implied the same situation. Their account is broken up across a few paragraphs but we can piece it together.

The story opens with an account of the coat found in Kelly's room and the question of to whom it belonged, then the line continues...

Even were this not so, the coat would not tally with the description of the man in whose company the unfortunate woman Kelly was last seen - a well dressed man with a long overcoat over an ordinary coat.

This description obviously is not Blotchy, and Hutchinson had not come forward yet. The account is once again from Mrs Kennedy, who stated that:

She noticed three persons at the corner of the street near the Britannia public house. There was a young man, respectably dressed, and with a dark moustache, talking to a woman whom she did not know, and also a woman poorly clad, without any headgear.

The woman without any headgear must be Kelly. Then Kennedy gives that description of the man:

On Wednesday evening about eight o'clock she and her sister were in the neighbourhood of Bethnal green road, when they were accosted by a very suspicious looking man, about forty years of age. He wore a short jacket, over which he had a long top coat. He had a black moustache and wore a billycock hat.

There then we have two newspapers giving the story that Kennedy saw Kelly with a well-dressed man in a long overcoat, over a short coat/jacket.

Certainly the former could have copied the latter, but in cases where this does occur the sentence structure normally remains unchanged or very little changed.
The Daily News account and the Evening News story are presented radically different as if they each may have independently spoke to Mrs Kennedy.

I cannot see two well-dressed men being in the same area, within feet of each other, though why Hutchinson would dress his version up more than he was is a mystery.
Regardless, the description given by Hutchinson is immaterial, the man existed that is what is important, and he was seen with Kelly.

Regards, Jon S.

[Malcolm X]

that thread over there is really good, Bowyer kept going to the water pump and saw the odd/funny man before 3am, but not at 3am..

did he see GH lurking around outside her room earlier on, because he did say that he went down the court as well, but Bowyer supposedly saw the same guy that GH did..... LA DE DA.

Bowyer doesn't mention if Kelly's light was on... he was right outside her room and more than once !

but there's something very crucial here, Hutchinson doesn't mention seeing Bowyer going down the court, and he maybe went down there twice or more, he also as said, doesn't mention seeing SL either, so one of these two looks like he's lieing

what do you think Ben ?

[Ben]

Many thanks, Abby and Greg.

And Greg, I agree, there may well have been a few non-murderous weirdos in the district who derived some sort of a kick from playing the bogeyman. One of the things that struck me in particular about the Bethnal Green man is the sheer unlikelihood that he had anything to do with the Whitechapel murders. Is it likely, after all, that the real JTR would approach two women (as per Lewis' account), request the company of one of them in order to dispatch her, ripper-style, while leaving the other one hovering nearby as a witness? Nah. I'd say Lewis' man simply picked an inopportune moment in the district's history to pick up a prostitute.

Hi Simon,

Welcome back. The "talking to a female" detail is something of a mystery. My suspicion is that Badham simply became confused at the various men and women that featured in Lewis' account (which befuddles people even today, as witness the forgoing exchange!). Lewis had just mentioned that a young man with a female had passed along Dorset Street, and it is possible that Badham confused the young man with this other individual who was stationed opposite the court.

Great to see you back here too, Sally!

All the best,
Ben