Let's narrow down some Ripper 'facts'

[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

[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.

[Scott Nelson]

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

[DVV]

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

Quite the reverse, I reckon.

[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

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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

[Rya]

Well, if you're looking for a Ripper fact, here's one for you: the killer or killers had a great affection for inclement weather. As far as I can tell, all of the canonical murders, plus Tabram, occurred during or immediately after rainy weather. This may have been part of some psychic predisposition, or it may have been deliberate calculation (I'll let the organized/disorganized folks gnaw at that idea). Not that rainy weather is unusual in London during those parts of the year--or anytime--but the Fall of 1888 was apparently uncommonly warm and dry overall.

In any event, the weather on the evening of November 8/9 was simply terrible, with strong winds, heavy rain, and temperatures that dropped close to 0 Celsius. The rain continued until daybreak, after which it seemed to gradually abate to occasional light drizzle in the late morning. So when we consider the various testimony regarding what witnesses claimed to see and hear that night in the wee hours, we should bear in mind that the conditions for doing either were not good. Nobody would have been going out at all except in desperation, and the people hunkered down in those little unheated rooms were probably freezing half to death. Its a good explanation why they might have slept with all their clothes on (however damp), and why they might have ventured to the public houses as soon as such establishments opened for a bit of beer or rum--it was warmer there. Mary's wish for fine weather on Lord Mayor's Day did not come true.

Anyway, we often forget the conditions that night when we read these accounts of the crime--but we should take the weather more into consideration. For example, it is quite unlikely that Mary would have removed all her clothing to go to sleep in those conditions, despite whatever fire she might have managed in the grate; it is much more logical that she disrobed with the intention of having sex.

Also, I would like very much to know why everyone in the discussion of the Kelly murder takes the mythical cry of "murder" at circa 4 am so seriously. Two witnesses claimed to hear it, two other witnesses didn't. Perhaps the police should have taken a poll of everyone in the court. Oddly, more of them seemed to have heard the poor girl singing ballades a few hours earlier.

[DVV]

Hi Jon

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.
Regards, Jon S.

You sure ? Or are you joking ?
I'm sure you are joking.

[Heinrich]

...
Anyway, we often forget the conditions that night when we read these accounts of the crime--but we should take the weather more into consideration. For example, it is quite unlikely that Mary would have removed all her clothing to go to sleep in those conditions, despite whatever fire she might have managed in the grate; it is much more logical that she disrobed with the intention of having sex.

This makes sense.

Also, I would like very much to know why everyone in the discussion of the Kelly murder takes the mythical cry of "murder" at circa 4 am so seriously. Two witnesses claimed to hear it, two other witnesses didn't. ...

What isn't mythical is the testimony of two witnesses' This could mean something.

[Garry Wroe]

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.

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.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Questions.
Why did the police believe the velvet jacket, and bonnet were burnt because they were bloodstained.?
Why did the police believe the murder happened in daylight.?
These are two points that have got to be looked at.
Why would the killer in Millers court, be concerned that these two items of clothing,were smeared with blood so needed to be burnt, in the case of the velvet jacket cut into pieces?
Was these items a clue to the T.O.D?, would these blooded clothes indicate a day time murder , rather then one occurring in the hours of darkness ie, night.
I open this for debate.
My view is as MJK was found wearing just a chemise, with the bedding rolled, and knowing that she had informed residents that she wished to attend the Lord mayors show , and the words of Mrs Harvey ,the previous evening'' I shall leave my bonnet then'', I would suggest that she was in the process of dressing when she encountered her killer , either by letting him in the room, or him entering by invitation ie ''come in '', and her black velvet jacket, and her bonnet were on the bed when attacked, and as a result of that were burnt, because the killer had the soundness of mind, to realize that the items now bloodstained if left where they were, would indicate that she was not killed during the hours of darkness, as leaving these clothes on the bed would indicate a daylight attack, which I believe it was.
Maxwell's sightings, seen talking to a stout man in plaid, may have been the man that killed Kelly. he would not want to be seen walking with her back along Dorset street , and into the passage in daylight, so he waited until she had returned to her room, she had informed the man of its location, an simply walked there by himself completely unnoticed , and entered the unlocked room.
So what led the police to believe my first two questions of this post.?
simply by being a good detective.....[like myself Ha ha]
Regards Richard.