Hutchinsons statement....

[Sam Flynn]

That's what "not feeling compelled" means Gareth. His experience pretty much half a day before her presumed death would be of no use to police.

Her time of death wasn't "presumed" or in any way official at this time. Besides, as I said, the news would have been rife on the streets around Miller's Court well before any of the papers had printed the misleading stories of Mrs Maxwell and Maurice Lewis.

[Sam Flynn]

In Hutchinsons press interview, he says "My suspicions were aroused by seeing a man so well dressed, but I had no suspicion that he was the murderer"

...could just be a reaction in retrospect, having been told about Kelly´s demise, pointing to how the man gave no impression on any evil at all.

I tend to think that's what Hutch meant, Fish.

[Sam Flynn]

That's fair comment as far as it goes, but do we know where Hutchinson was over that weekend?

He seems to have been in London. After wandering the streets all Friday night, Hutchinson says he gained access to his usual lodgings (Victoria Home) on Saturday. He then says he saw Mr Astrakhan in Petticoat Lane on the Sunday, and to have told his story to a police officer on that same day.

[Fisherman]

Off to bed now - goodnight, gentlemen!

[Fisherman]

Yes, not wearing a hat in public was an indication of an available woman. Even children were induced into prostitution in the East End, and had to be hatless while street-walking.

But Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes all wore hats...?

[Fisherman]

Wickerman: Kelly was seen out at 10:00 am Christer, and not with Astrachan.

Well, so it was said. But was Hutchinson aware of these paper reports? There´s no telling.

That question we will never know the answer to but, the victim was identified as Mary Kelly in the press on Friday, and Saturday.

Yes, she was. And all who took part of that information would thus be aware of that. Was Hutchinson amongst them? There can be no telling.

In Hutchinsons press interview, he says "My suspicions were aroused by seeing a man so well dressed, but I had no suspicion that he was the murderer.
I don´t know how much can be invested in the statement - but it does not seem to imply that Hutchinson, when finding out about Kellys death, was under the impression that Astrakhan man could not have been the killer.

Then again, it could just be a reaction in retrospect, having been told about Kelly´s demise, pointing to how the man gave no impression on any evil at all.

Whichever way we look at it, there can be no certainties whatsoever.

[Wickerman]

Yes, I think it more likely that the second woman referred to is MJK, as much as anything because it was, I believe, unusual for a woman not to be wearing a hat.

Yes, not wearing a hat in public was an indication of an available woman. Even children were induced into prostitution in the East End, and had to be hatless while street-walking.

[Bridewell]

That was still no excuse for not coming forward. Besides, the news would have been rife on the streets around Miller's Court before the papers came out with their confusing stories.

That's fair comment as far as it goes, but do we know where Hutchinson was over that weekend? What if he went back to Romford? Badham and/or Abberline would surely have asked for an explanation of the delay in coming forward.

[Wickerman]

Of course this may have had a impact, Jon. But Hutchinson never saw Astrakhan man leave Millers Court, so for all Hutch knew, he could have seen the killer, right?

Kelly was seen out at 10:00 am Christer, and not with Astrachan.

And yes, Hutchinson knew that Mary Kelly had been killed - but when did he find out? I think that must be a relevant factor.

That question we will never know the answer to but, the victim was identified as Mary Kelly in the press on Friday, and Saturday.

[Wickerman]

That was still no excuse for not coming forward. Besides, the news would have been rife on the streets around Miller's Court before the papers came out with their confusing stories.

That's what "not feeling compelled" means Gareth. His experience pretty much half a day before her presumed death would be of no use to police.

[Sam Flynn]

- The Morning Advertiser even reported, "Kelly....it is believed was killed between 8:00 and 10:30 Friday morning."
- The Star repeat the Friday morning sightings of Kelly at 8:00 am and 10:00 am.
- The Times also repeat the same Friday morning sightings at 8:00 and 10:00 am.

So, the popular press, and as a result, the reading public, which may well include Hutchinson, were well aware of the prevailing belief that Mary Kelly had been seen alive as late as 10:00 am Friday morning.

That was still no excuse for not coming forward. Besides, the news would have been rife on the streets around Miller's Court before the papers came out with their confusing stories.

[Fisherman]

Gentlemen, you are all barking up the wrong tree.
Of course Hutchinson knew that Mary Kelly had been murdered, what no-one knew, except her killer was, when she was murdered.

Just dealing with the Saturday press alone we can learn what the public must have believed about when the murder took place.
- The Croydon Advertiser suggested "the body was not there at 9:00 am".
- The Daily News admits, "Strictly speaking.......nobody knows", yet they further report late morning sightings of Kelly alive at 8:00 am by Maurice Lewis, and again about 10:00 am in the Ringers, by an unknown woman. Plus, an interview with Mrs Maxwell who claimed to have met Kelly about 8:30 Friday morning.
- The Morning Advertiser even reported, "Kelly....it is believed was killed between 8:00 and 10:30 Friday morning."
- The Star repeat the Friday morning sightings of Kelly at 8:00 am and 10:00 am.
- The Times also repeat the same Friday morning sightings at 8:00 and 10:00 am.

So, the popular press, and as a result, the reading public, which may well include Hutchinson, were well aware of the prevailing belief that Mary Kelly had been seen alive as late as 10:00 am Friday morning.

Hutchinson met Kelly about 2:00 am, leaving Dorset street one hour later - 3:00 am.
What conceivable use was his statement to the police when Kelly had apparently been murdered as much as seven hours later?
It only stands to reason he would not feel compelled to go to the police.

However, although there was no resolution towards the time of death at the inquest, it would appear the Star reporter was present for Cox's testimony, and concluded she had seen the victim with her murderer.
The reporter then heard the beginning of Prater's testimony, but left the court and immediately went to press that afternoon/early evening with a paragraph entitled, The Murderer Described, which detailed Cox's testimony.
Did the Star early edition hit the streets before 6:00 pm?

Hutchinson knew that this conclusion was wrong, which may be the reason he decided to go to police and tell his story.

Of course this may have had a impact, Jon. But Hutchinson never saw Astrakhan man leave Millers Court, so for all Hutch knew, he could have seen the killer, right?

And yes, Hutchinson knew that Mary Kelly had been killed - but when did he find out? I think that must be a relevant factor.

[Wickerman]

We do not know when Hutchinson found out about Kelly having been killed.

The part in bold above is what I'm addressing Fisherman, the murder was published in a handful of local papers on Fri, no less than 14 papers that had London distribution on Saturday, and the coverage continued Sun through Monday. Even if he was still in Romford, or Hartford Connecticut for that matter, he could not have avoided hearing about the murder in Millers Court. Its this fact that puts substantial doubt upon his whole story....why would someone who claimed to be a friend of someone who was horribly mutilated on Friday not come forward until 4 days later? If he was afraid too...then why did he come forward at all?

As Michael suggests, it would have been practically impossible for anyone in Britain not to have heard of the Miller's Court murder, never mind someone who lived barely a three-minute walk away.

Hutchinson would had to have been in a coma not to have learned of it immediately.

Gentlemen, you are all barking up the wrong tree.
Of course Hutchinson knew that Mary Kelly had been murdered, what no-one knew, except her killer was, when she was murdered.

Just dealing with the Saturday press alone we can learn what the public must have believed about when the murder took place.
- The Croydon Advertiser suggested "the body was not there at 9:00 am".
- The Daily News admits, "Strictly speaking.......nobody knows", yet they further report late morning sightings of Kelly alive at 8:00 am by Maurice Lewis, and again about 10:00 am in the Ringers, by an unknown woman. Plus, an interview with Mrs Maxwell who claimed to have met Kelly about 8:30 Friday morning.
- The Morning Advertiser even reported, "Kelly....it is believed was killed between 8:00 and 10:30 Friday morning."
- The Star repeat the Friday morning sightings of Kelly at 8:00 am and 10:00 am.
- The Times also repeat the same Friday morning sightings at 8:00 and 10:00 am.

So, the popular press, and as a result, the reading public, which may well include Hutchinson, were well aware of the prevailing belief that Mary Kelly had been seen alive as late as 10:00 am Friday morning.

Hutchinson met Kelly about 2:00 am, leaving Dorset street one hour later - 3:00 am.
What conceivable use was his statement to the police when Kelly had apparently been murdered as much as seven hours later?
It only stands to reason he would not feel compelled to go to the police.

However, although there was no resolution towards the time of death at the inquest, it would appear the Star reporter was present for Cox's testimony, and concluded she had seen the victim with her murderer.
The reporter then heard the beginning of Prater's testimony, but left the court and immediately went to press that afternoon/early evening with a paragraph entitled, The Murderer Described, which detailed Cox's testimony.
Did the Star early edition hit the streets before 6:00 pm?

Hutchinson knew that this conclusion was wrong, which may be the reason he decided to go to police and tell his story.

[Fisherman]

Yes, I think it more likely that the second woman referred to is MJK, as much as anything because it was, I believe, unusual for a woman not to be wearing a hat.

HOW unusual? In the poverty-stricken East End, just how much of a rule was it for women to wear a hat?
I´ve often wondered that. I accept that wearing a hat was more common than not doing so, but which ratios are we discussing here? Does anybody know?

[Fisherman]

Surely, if someone says he has a degree in psychology that answers the question - or are you saying that it is possible to acquire a degree in psychology without having an understanding of such terms?

What I am saying, Colin, is that Gareth very clearly endorsed the suggestion made by another poster that a person who has a great detail memory would consequentially also have a great sequence memory.
That flies in the face of the accepted science - psychology very much included - and indicates that Gareths position on the matter is one that opposes what we know about the two memory types.

If he had instead told the poster that a persons useful detail memory will in no way tell us anything at all about the same persons capacity when it comes to the sequential memory, I would have been a lot happier, and I suspect that so would Gareth´s former teachers on the subject.

If Gareth had not taken his peculiar stance, you and I would not be having this exchange. I would much prefer it that way - not because I do not like to exchange with you, but because I dislike it when posters do not make use of whatever education/s or degree/s they may have.

It´s like Bette Midler says: If you´ve got it - flaunt it!