Hutchinsons statement....

[Abby Normal]

I stand corrected. Thanks for that.

Like I said, however, it scarcely matters, given that Mrs Cox's testimony was hardly extraordinary even if it weren't corroborated... unlike some witnesses I might mention.

Right. Her story was not extraordinary. Just like all the other witnesses in the case except hutch.

I brought up cox corroboration in response to Joshua Rogan who said that in effect no one else heard anything cox did.


I've seen it mentioned on here so many times that cox story is not corroborated it drives me nuts. The same people who question cox are usually the ones that defend hutchs story.

Hutch truthful and cox telling lies!?! Lol.
Only on casebook.

[Wickerman]

He could easily have added the details himself, embellishing as he saw fit - going one better than some witnesses in places, perhaps to make his story more attractive. Whilst some reports speak of a well-dressed man, Hutch comes up with a really well-dressed man; some tell of Kelly being short of money, so Hutch has her directly ask him for a lend of some money; the papers speak of Kelly being drunk and sing-songy, so Hutch makes her "spreeish"; there are reports that the man with Kelly was seen a couple of days earlier carrying a mysterious bag, so Hutch comes up with a parcel with a strap; and so on.

Ah, so the actual details that are shared by both Sarah Lewis & George Hutchinson in their stories, are not found in the weekend press.
So, what happened, was it by some unexplained miracle that Hutch guessed those pertinent details, and got them all right?
Is that your argument?

Isn't it far simpler to admit he probably saw what Lewis saw - Occams razor again. The simplest solution is likely the true solution.

[Joshua Rogan]

Catherine pickett

Nice one Abby, I'd forgotten about her! Do you know by any chance if there's a press report of her story? Unless I've missed it, the only newspaper report is of her trying to birrow a shawl in the morning. The story of her and her husband hearing Kelly singing is cited in a book I haven't read.

[Wickerman]

Well put. The story is Hutchinson's but the form and structure are Badham's.

(Just as an aside, it is being seriously suggested, by some UK police forces, that witnesses will compile their own witness statements to save officer time. It makes me wonder why police officers are trained in statement-taking, when witnesses can do it themselves with no training at all!?)

How things change.
Presumably, the witness write their own statement in the interview room, or are they allowed to write it at home and bring it in?

Her Majesty's forces must be feeling the financial pinch.

[Joshua Rogan]

“The last thing he had heard of her was at one o’clock Friday morning, when she was singing in her room, and appeared to be very happy”. reporting John McCarthy, Illustrated Police News, 17 November 1888

Catherine Picket / Pickett is also said to have heard her (c. 12.30am), which together with Cox (c. 1.00am), may be the source of McCarthy's statement, if he is only and simply reporting the observations of others - the above report seems to suggest he heard her singing himself (?).

Thanks!
The IPN article does make it sound as if McCarthy heard the singing himself....but the interview with him comes from the CNA on the 10th and originally quotes him as saying "The last that was heard of her", not that he himself had heard her, so think he'd got it from Cox. Or possibly Pickett.

[Wickerman]

Lewis didn't talk to the press over the weekend but couldn't she have talked to someone else, who in turn told someone else, etc.? We know she had friends or maybe family in Miller's Court, and that people sometimes gathered around the scenes where the crimes had taken place out of curiosity. Couldn't the story have made its way to locals somehow?

Yes, there are any number of "could have's", the point I am making is this is all conjecture.
Theories come from the evidence, not, from conjecture.

Conjecture comes first, from that we obtain evidence, from the evidence you formulate a theory.
Here, the posters are offering conjecture, then jumping straight to the theory.
They are sidestepping the 'evidence' bit, that is what I am pointing out.

There is no evidence that the details offered by Hutchinson which are shared by Lewis, were the result of gossip on the streets.
We have plenty of examples in the press of what the locals were gossiping about, and none of it matches those pertinent points shared by Lewis & Hutchinson. Therefore, they are the only two people who knew the same details, suggesting they both saw the same event. That, is the simple conclusion to arrive at.
That is not to say another solution is not possible, but if we must consider another solution, where is the evidence?

[cnr]

Right. Her story was not extraordinary. Just like all the other witnesses in the case except hutch.

I brought up cox corroboration in response to Joshua Rogan who said that in effect no one else heard anything cox did.

I've seen it mentioned on here so many times that cox story is not corroborated it drives me nuts.

Hutch truthful and cox telling lies!?! Lol.
Only on casebook.

Well put Abby. You have latched onto the very dichotomy, that has prevailed since Hutchinson wandered onto the stage as a witness - Cox vs Hutchinson. As one salient report put it ever so beautifully by way of summing up it's most practical effect:

"Hutchinson's statement has been thought to throw discredit upon the evidence given at the inquest by the woman Cox, and it is now believed that the murder was the second man whom the victim took home upon the eve of her murder." Illustrated Police News, 24 November<1>

and

"Dew was still mindful 50 years after the events, recounting in his memoirs how Hutchinson’s belated evidence literally 'shook the police reconstruction of the crime' ".<2>

Also, let's not forget, all due credit to Cox as a witness: she correctly mentioned the weather conditions - cold and wet. Hutchinson describes just about everything else in his catalogue of minutae.


<1>, <2>, Jewbaiter Jack The Ripper New Evidence & Theory (Acorn Independent Press 2017), p.149, p.149

[Wickerman]

Hello Bridewell
There's a very specific report in the Star of 15th November:

"Another story now discredited is that of the man Hutchinson, who said that on Friday morning last he saw Kelly with a dark-complexioned, middle-aged, foreign-looking, bushy-eyebrowed gentleman, with the dark moustache turned up at the ends, who wore the soft felt hat, the long dark coat, trimmed with astrachan, the black necktie, with horseshoe pin, and the button boots, and displayed a massive gold watch-chain, with large seal and a red stone attached. As we have already said, the only piece of information of any value which has yet transpired is the description given by the widow Cox of a man - short, stout, with a blotchy face and a carroty moustache - who at midnight on Thursday went with the murdered woman into her room."

Yes Gareth, but since when was the Star considered a credible source?

Four days later, the Echo wrote that the police are still pursuing the Hutchinson suspect.

The police have not relaxed their endeavours to hunt down the murderer in the slightest degree; but so far they remain without any direct clue. Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson as to his having seen the latest victim with a gentlemanly man of dark complexion, with a dark moustache. Others are disposed to think that the shabby man with a blotchy face and a carrotty moustache described by the witness Mary Ann Cox, is more likely to be the murderer.
Echo, 19 Nov.

The police are divided between two prime suspects.
This cannot be the case if Hutchinson's story had been 'discredited' four days prior.

The Star gained a dubious reputation for inflammatory headlines, this is just another case of them stating something that was not true.

[Wickerman]

Interesting they should say that about Mrs Cox....is there any corroboration whatsoever for her sighting?

If you recall, Mrs Prater's story, that there was no singing or light coming from Kelly's room after 1:00 o'clock, contested Cox's story that Kelly was still in her room and singing.
Something is amiss, one of them is wrong.

Yet, we do not have anyone contesting Hutchinson's statement.

[Wickerman]

“The last thing he had heard of her was at one o’clock Friday morning, when she was singing in her room, and appeared to be very happy”. reporting John McCarthy, Illustrated Police News, 17 November 1888

Catherine Picket / Pickett is also said to have heard her (c. 12.30am), which together with Cox (c. 1.00am), may be the source of McCarthy's statement, if he is only and simply reporting the observations of others - the above report seems to suggest he heard her singing himself (?).

Correct, but who confirms Cox's story after 1:00 am? - no-one that I can see.
So, maybe Cox had the time wrong, or maybe there is another explanation.

[cnr]

Correct, but who confirms Cox's story after 1:00 am? - no-one that I can see.
So, maybe Cox had the time wrong, or maybe there is another explanation.

Kelly’s near neighbour from the first floor, Elizabeth Prater had arrived at the corner of Miller’s Court and Dorset Street at about one o’clock and waited there fruitlessly near McCarthy’s shop for her male companion. She eventually called it quits at about 1.30am.

She had stood there, at the archway of Miller’s Court, practically within view of Kelly’s front door, and saw nobody come past and heard nothing. In the time it took her to quickly fall asleep after retiring, Prater did not hear any noise to suggest Kelly went out again.

So apart from Hutchinson, there is nothing to suggest, Kelly went out again.

[Michael W Richards]

Ah, so the actual details that are shared by both Sarah Lewis & George Hutchinson in their stories, are not found in the weekend press.
So, what happened, was it by some unexplained miracle that Hutch guessed those pertinent details, and got them all right?
Is that your argument?

Isn't it far simpler to admit he probably saw what Lewis saw - Occams razor again. The simplest solution is likely the true solution.

Actual details shared? Lets get this right shall we...Sarahs story on Friday had elements that appeared in Georges statement late Monday night, 4 days later, and none of Georges fantastic details are shared with any other story.

In this investigation Occams Razor suggests when the singing stopped and the lights went out Mary, or Mary and Blotchy, did whatever they did then went to sleep. When you have an obviously intoxicated person enjoying some post booze company, the result is almost inevitably a fizzle out to sleep.

[Michael W Richards]

Correct, but who confirms Cox's story after 1:00 am? - no-one that I can see.
So, maybe Cox had the time wrong, or maybe there is another explanation.

Elizabeth Prater confirms what Mary Ann had stated...that the singing had ended and the room was dark shortly before 1:30.

[Michael W Richards]

Kelly’s near neighbour from the first floor, Elizabeth Prater had arrived at the corner of Miller’s Court and Dorset Street at about one o’clock and waited there fruitlessly near McCarthy’s shop for her male companion. She eventually called it quits at about 1.30am.

She had stood there, at the archway of Miller’s Court, practically within view of Kelly’s front door, and saw nobody come past and heard nothing. In the time it took her to quickly fall asleep after retiring, Prater did not hear any noise to suggest Kelly went out again.

So apart from Hutchinson, there is nothing to suggest, Kelly went out again.

Bingo.

[Wickerman]

Right, Prater waited at the end of the passage from about 1:00 until, I think 1:20, is mentioned somewhere, then went up to her room. There was no singing or light from room 13.
Cox says she came back home at about 1:00 am, Kelly was singing, warmed her hands for a minute, then went out again, Kelly was still singing (and presumably there would be a light in her room).
Why don't their stories match?

Also, Prater & Cox never say they saw each other in the passage.