Let's narrow down some Ripper 'facts'

[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".

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[DVV]

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

[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

[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

[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

[Wickerman]

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

Mike

Hello Mike.
If we look at both statements from Hutchinson, first to the police, then to the Star, in neither story does Hutchinson describe how this stranger looked at the time of sighting.
The subsequent description is always appended separate paragraph both to the police & the press.

All we can say with any certainty is that the man Hutchinson saw on Friday morning was wearing a hat & carried brown kid gloves, and a parcel.

If Hutchinson had actually included any details within his story like, "a man wearing a long coat trimmed with Astrachan walked towards me" then it would be abundantly clear how this stranger was dressed on Friday, but as his story is written no such detail is included.

What is also noticable is that a light grey waistcoat is morning-wear, or day-wear. Likewise the horseshoe tie-pin and the gold watch are more consistent with what a man would wear in daylight, more befitting a Sunday morning excursion than a Thursday night/Friday morning stroll through the dark streets.

The appended (composite) description appears to be compiled in such a way as to help police identify how the suspect looks in the daytime.
Abberline did say that Hutchinson had agreed to accompany police immediately after the interview (it was only about 6:00 pm).
On the 14th Hutchinson said to the Star, "I have been looking for the man all day." So this is how the stranger might have looked in daylight.
Precisely how he looked on Friday is not given in the story beyond the fact he wore a hat & carried gloves.

What is also of slight interest is that the press releases on the 13th say that this description is consistent with the type of description already in possession of the police.

"This description, which substantiates that given by others of the person seen in company with the deceased on the morning she was killed, is much fuller in detail than that hitherto in the possession of the police."

The description published by a half-dozen morning newspapers on the 13th is precisely the same as the original given to the police by Hutchinson the night before, but not published.
So this reference to a description "given by others" is another indication that several people saw Kelly in the company of a well-dressed man after midnight.
Even if it was nothing but gossip, this gossip preceeded Hutchinson so originated elsewhere.

Regards, Jon S.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Here ya go.



Regards,

Simon

[curious]

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.?

Regards Richard.

You don't ask the foremost question, why were they bloodstained.

You already believe they were on the bed when the attack occurred. So, how do you see this playing out?

Mary undressed, scrambling up across the bed to the corner to get away from her attacker. Why is she not screaming her head off?

How could this have played out? what scenario are you seeing?

[Malcolm X]

i quote :-

``What is also of slight interest is that the press releases on the 13th say that this description is consistent with the type of description already in possession of the police.

"This description, which substantiates that given by others of the person seen in company with the deceased on the morning she was killed, is much fuller in detail than that hitherto in the possession of the police."

The description published by a half-dozen morning newspapers on the 13th is precisely the same as the original given to the police by Hutchinson the night before, but not published.
So this reference to a description "given by others" is another indication that several people saw Kelly in the company of a well-dressed man after midnight.
Even if it was nothing but gossip, this gossip preceeded Hutchinson so originated elsewhere``

no, nobody other than GH saw LA DE DA.... FACT, the description of the 13th is in reference to Hutch's original statement, simply because this 2nd description is way too close to the 1st, to be from someone else that didn't know.

the description given by others, is of this BG man and not LA DE DA.

nobody else ever saw LA DE DA fact.... only somebody that looks slightly similar, stop twisting things to suit you.

[curious]

The woman appears to have been airbrushed out of the scenario.

Regards,

Simon

Hi, Simon,
Any ideas why the airbrushing occurred?