Hutchinsons statement....

[andy1867]

Going back to Hutchinsons statement regarding the dress of the man he saw with Kelly...and he didn't give evidence until the 12th of November...
In the press reports...The New York Tribune on the 10th of November states
"It has been learned that a man, respectably dressed, accosted the victim and offered her money. "
Have I missed a statement by someone else?
All i can find is "Blotchy faces and shabbily dressed"....
It also states
"The murdered woman told a companion last evening that she was without money"
Its by no means beyond belief that I'm talkin' utter b...lx...but luckily that hardly mithers me

[DJA]

Hi,
According to Fiona Kendall Lane,[ McCarthy's great granddaughter] McCarthy knew who the killer most likely was, and why she was killed.
This infuriated many on Casebook, but what if it was true, it would imply that their was a motive against Kelly.?
Regards Richard.

Hmm,let see......

McCarthy broke open his own door for the police, when he knew he could simply reach in the window.
He and his son attended Abberline's retirement party.
His son got his start in entertainment via Marie Lloyd who frequented one of John Cooney's hotels at 17 Hanbury Street.
John Cooney owned 55 Flower and Dean where Eddowes lived,with Nichols next door.
A trainee nun reckoned "Mary Kelly" was the cause of it all.

There a whole lot of other coincidences.

You might be onto something there.

[David Orsam]

What I find interesting is that here a reporter actually drew a conclusion that you seem to think was pure invention.

Well it had to have been pure invention because Mrs McCarthy hadn't spoken to him so he could only guess as to why this was.

Yet several witnesses were equally reticent about telling the press anything over that weekend - there had to be a reason for this given the common tendency to "gossip".

But who are these witnesses? As far as I can see, they almost all spoke to the press, certainly those with anything of remote interest to say.

[Wickerman]

I disagree, Jon, inasmuch as Mr Astrakhan was sporting rather more than just a white collar and cuffs, wasn't he?

At night, a thick watch chain is just a thick watch chain. No-one can tell if it was gold or bronze, brass or even real or fake.
The fact a victim wears this suggests a degree of wealth above the local dosser, whether true or false. So, at night, he is a good prospect for a muggin in this part of town because of the visible watch chain.
Collars, cuffs, spats and a horseshoe tie-pin are immaterial.

Men were relieved of their watch because the chain was visible.

[Sam Flynn]

"Ostensibly"?
A reflection of the perpetual attempt to whitewash the distinct differences between the Friday morning accounts of these two women.

... a reflection of your perpetual attempt to play down the very real similarities between both their stories and their experiences that night.

[Sam Flynn]

Press reports of local muggings never try to blame the victim by describing his attire. A citizen has a perfect right to walk the streets at any hour, unfortunately the very presence of a stranger walking alone is inducement enough to draw the criminal out of the shadows. Whether he sports white collar & cuffs has nothing to do with it.

I disagree, Jon, inasmuch as Mr Astrakhan was sporting rather more than just a white collar and cuffs, wasn't he?

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
According to Fiona Kendall Lane,[ McCarthy's great granddaughter] McCarthy knew who the killer most likely was, and why she was killed.
This infuriated many on Casebook, but what if it was true, it would imply that their was a motive against Kelly.?
Regards Richard.

[Wickerman]

Well I very much doubt that Jon but, if he did, he was plainly using the word wrongly and, to the extent that he was suggesting there would be a sanction applied against McCarthy for speaking to the press, he would have been bluffing.

I'm not making an issue over who used it, or whether it was correct.
The press account concerning Mrs McCarthy stands by itself, interpret it as you wish.
What I find interesting is that here a reporter actually drew a conclusion that you seem to think was pure invention. Yet several witnesses were equally reticent about telling the press anything over that weekend - there had to be a reason for this given the common tendency to "gossip".

[Wickerman]

Well I said from the start that the police could, in theory, request witnesses not to speak to the press (your new formulation of "caution/request" merely amuses me) - and I was objecting to your claim that they could instruct them to do so - but that's plainly not what happened here, in November 1888, because of the number of witnesses that DID speak to the press.

There's nothing new presented here, "caution/request" is what we have been debating all along. And, contrary to your assertion, I cannot recall using the term "instruct" at any time in these exchanges.
What you seem to be avoiding is the "human" factor. Some people would sooner have their brief notoriety by talking about their experience than help the police by keeping quiet.

Where you have gone wrong is to think that the police would have said to selected witnesses "oh yes, feel free to speak to the press but please don't mention (a), (b) and (c")". Especially where one of those things not to mention is a cry of murder in circumstances where one of the witnesses (Mrs Kennedy) who, in your view, has also given a statement is free to blab whatever she wants to the press, including about the cry of murder.

In short, you have noted that Prater didn't, apparently, mention the cry of murder to the press and have drawn a false conclusion from that fact.

You are inventing your own argument here. I have never once suggested the police gave anyone permission to say "this", but not "that" (your a, b, c,).
A simple lesson in human nature will help you understand that a person makes that discrimination for themselves.

An officer may ask the witness to not speak about their overnight experiences, so someone like Prater adjusts by only talking about what she did Thursday evening.
Kennedy simply ignored any request altogether.
John McCarthy only spoke of the discovery of the body, his evidence is hardly likely to be considered 'confidential'.

[David Orsam]

Considering Mrs McCarthy worked in the shop, with it's entrance beside the passage, it might be justifiable for her to see all who come and go while the shop is open.
Why isn't that a "good reason"?

I'm not saying it's impossible that she could have seen anyone passing the court but that there is no good reason to think that she did, let alone the killer.

All we have is some form of speculation from a reporter who did not speak to her and who seems to have been drawing some kind of inference from the fact that she is not speaking to the press.

One reason for her not speaking to the press is that she had nothing to tell them.

[Wickerman]

I'm happy to rephrase: there is no good reason to believe she saw anyone passing out of the court, let alone the killer.

Considering Mrs McCarthy worked in the shop, with it's entrance beside the passage, it might be justifiable for her to see all who come and go while the shop is open.
Why isn't that a "good reason"?

[David Orsam]

As there is no written opinion from any of these medical men suggesting a later time of death around 3:00 am, then any one of us will need to invent a conversation regardless what time of death we as individuals support.
That being the case, what is your point in making that comment?

Because you stated as a fact earlier in this thread that the coroner "knew there wasn't anything of value to contest Dr. Bond".

I wanted to make clear that we have no idea that coroner ever spoke to Dr Bond or was aware what he said and that you should have said Dr Phillips.

Fine, let's assume that Phillips told the coroner the same as Bond about time of death "probably" being about 1 or 2 in the morning. But that means he couldn't have ruled out a time of death between 3 and 4 because it could only have been an approximate estimate.

Your flight of fantasy that the coroner decided to completely ignore everything that happened after 2am because he was certain, based on the medical evidence, that Kelly was dead by then is not just another fantasy of yours but a silly one.

[Wickerman]

Are we told whether Kolinsky or Henry were conspicuously attired, to the extent that they might have been said to be advertising their wealth?

Press reports of local muggings never try to blame the victim by describing his attire. A citizen has a perfect right to walk the streets at any hour, unfortunately the very presence of a stranger walking alone is inducement enough to draw the criminal out of the shadows. Whether he sports white collar & cuffs has nothing to do with it.
Watch stealing was among the most popular street crimes, it didn't matter what clothing the victim wore.

Muggin, burglary, theft, etc., committed in Dorset Street itself is rare, the majority of criminal activity in these backstreets is fighting. Locals do not victimize their own kind, a local person is safe to walk the streets at any hour day or night, regardless of his attire.
What is more common is that a number of criminals appearing in law courts involved in crimes committed in other parts of the city seem to give Dorset street as their home address.

[David Orsam]

There was no suggestion at the time that Kennedy & Lewis were the same.

Why do you keep saying that Jon? No-one said they were different people at the time did they? So how do you think this is a valid point?

When the Kennedy story was published it was prior the inquest so no-one knew about the existence of Sarah Lewis. So why should anyone have commented on the subject?

[Wickerman]

All you are doing is inventing a conversation between the Coroner and Bond about time of death whereas I can only see such a conversation having taken place (if there ever was such a conversation as opposed to it being included in the autopsy report) between Phillips and the Coroner, no doubt after Phillips and Bond had spoken.

As there is no written opinion from any of these medical men suggesting a later time of death around 3:00 am, then any one of us will need to invent a conversation regardless what time of death we as individuals support.
That being the case, what is your point in making that comment?