Hutchinsons statement....

[Wickerman]

Not at all.Any sudden departure could be reported,especially of someone who had been associated with Kelly.

Who is going to report him?
People came and went on a regular basis, that was normal.

[harry]

Jon.
An opinion is neither positive or negative.It doesn't prove Hutchinson's truthfulness,or untruthfulness.Nothing for me to come up with.The papers were not convinced,and no,they are not official,but you place reliance on them at times.

Who is going to report him?
Mary Cusins reported on Isaacs,according to you.Why wouldn't someone at the Victoria home report on Hutchinson? What would stop the police from checking for absconders there? It w as not normal times,goings would attract interest.

There are no statistics I know of that proves a murderer would preferable flee than stay put,even if facing suspicion,and a person could hang just as easily for one or several crimes.

[Wickerman]

Jon.
An opinion is neither positive or negative.It doesn't prove Hutchinson's truthfulness,or untruthfulness.Nothing for me to come up with.The papers were not convinced,and no,they are not official,but you place reliance on them at times.

"Opinion" is a sticky subject.
In a court of law, as you know, professional opinion is accepted and often required, but the opinion of the layperson is not.
Abberline was a professional, so his opinion stands heads & shoulders above that of anyone else who is not a professional.
Who, of those in a professional capacity, thought to criticize Hutchinson or dismiss his story?
No-one!

As for the papers, not all of them criticized Hutchinson.
The tabloid press look for controversy, creating volatile headlines sells newspapers. The Star needs to sell their paper it is the new kid on the block, so to speak, and had to make money fast.
The Echo was more balanced, at least they were aware of the two principal suspects in the case.
The Star tried to promote the idea that if the police are not 100% behind Hutchinson then it is because they doubt his story. This was an intentionally naive interpretation presented to sell their paper as opposed to any other.

Who is going to report him?
Mary Cusins reported on Isaacs,according to you.Why wouldn't someone at the Victoria home report on Hutchinson? What would stop the police from checking for absconders there? It w as not normal times,goings would attract interest.

First of all, Mary Cusins didn't go report Isaacs, it was the police who came to her door as part of their house-to-house investigation on the weekend after the murder. They canvased hundreds of houses & tenancies in and around Dorset St. Cusins, being the deputy of the lodging-house, was naturally asked about all her boarders. This was when she would have told them of a missing lodger.

Here is a piece concerning this house-to-house investigation.

During the whole of yesterday Sergeant Thicke, with other officers, was busily engaged in writing down the names, statements, and full particulars of persons staying at the various lodging-houses in Dorset-street. That this was no easy task will be imagined when it is known that in one house alone there are upwards of 260 persons, and that several houses accommodate over 200.
Times, 12 Nov.

At the Victoria Home, residents come and go all the time, the police are not conducting another house-to-house after the inquest. Your theory requires someone keeping tabs on anyone who knew Mary Kelly - who would do this, and for what reason?
There were thousands of tenants crammed into these streets, who is expected to keep an eye on them all, and who leaves, and when?
It's just not worthy for consideration.

If Hutchinson had any reason to believe Sarah Lewis could recognise him, then he can quite safely leave the district unnoticed.
Instead, he comes forward and creates a huge furor by claiming to see Mary Kelly just before her murder?
There is just no practical reason for him to do this if he is somehow involved. Only someone who is not involved has nothing to fear.

[Sam Flynn]

Only someone who is not involved has nothing to fear.

Indeed, Jon, and it's possible that he was uninvolved to the extent of not being there at all.

[Abby Normal]

"Opinion" is a sticky subject.
In a court of law, as you know, professional opinion is accepted and often required, but the opinion of the layperson is not.
Abberline was a professional, so his opinion stands heads & shoulders above that of anyone else who is not a professional.
Who, of those in a professional capacity, thought to criticize Hutchinson or dismiss his story?
No-one!

As for the papers, not all of them criticized Hutchinson.
The tabloid press look for controversy, creating volatile headlines sells newspapers. The Star needs to sell their paper it is the new kid on the block, so to speak, and had to make money fast.
The Echo was more balanced, at least they were aware of the two principal suspects in the case.
The Star tried to promote the idea that if the police are not 100% behind Hutchinson then it is because they doubt his story. This was an intentionally naive interpretation presented to sell their paper as opposed to any other.



First of all, Mary Cusins didn't go report Isaacs, it was the police who came to her door as part of their house-to-house investigation on the weekend after the murder. They canvased hundreds of houses & tenancies in and around Dorset St. Cusins, being the deputy of the lodging-house, was naturally asked about all her boarders. This was when she would have told them of a missing lodger.

Here is a piece concerning this house-to-house investigation.

During the whole of yesterday Sergeant Thicke, with other officers, was busily engaged in writing down the names, statements, and full particulars of persons staying at the various lodging-houses in Dorset-street. That this was no easy task will be imagined when it is known that in one house alone there are upwards of 260 persons, and that several houses accommodate over 200.
Times, 12 Nov.

At the Victoria Home, residents come and go all the time, the police are not conducting another house-to-house after the inquest. Your theory requires someone keeping tabs on anyone who knew Mary Kelly - who would do this, and for what reason?
There were thousands of tenants crammed into these streets, who is expected to keep an eye on them all, and who leaves, and when?
It's just not worthy for consideration.

If Hutchinson had any reason to believe Sarah Lewis could recognise him, then he can quite safely leave the district unnoticed.
Instead, he comes forward and creates a huge furor by claiming to see Mary Kelly just before her murder?
There is just no practical reason for him to do this if he is somehow involved. Only someone who is not involved has nothing to fear.

Hi wick generally I agree with your last paragraph. However, I've seen enough true crime stories, where I am amazed how many guilty people come forward when the police don't even have them on there radar. It happens, for whatever reason, but most of the time, when they think that they might already be on the police radar, so better to come forward as a witness, than to be found as a suspect.

Hutch was probably worried that Sarah Lewis might have at the worst know his name and the least recognize him.


Ok gonna switch things up on you. Since blotchy did not come forward, and was the last credible suspect seen entering her apartment with her, I would imagine you hold him high on the list, no?

[Wickerman]

Indeed, Jon, and it's possible that he was uninvolved to the extent of not being there at all.

Hi Gareth.
I'll grant you it's possible.

The caveat I have in taking this view is that I can't see how a person like Hutch could obtain the details of Sarah Lewis's story.

The room where the inquest was held was not much larger than the living room of a house. With few members of the public present, he would easily have been seen. Everyone in this small room is in full view of the police, and Abberline himself.
And, if outside, how would he know who she was, or what she said, or in fact what anyone said?

The whole scenario is counter intuitive. It strains credibility.
It has all the earmarks of a desperate, somewhat illogical, attempt to maintain this negative view of Hutchinson.

Hutch has to learn that Lewis also saw a couple enter the court in view of the lurker, and so far there is no viable way to explain how he could do this, or even why, considering the argument is supposed to be that he wasn't even there at all.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Gareth.
I'll grant you it's possible.

The caveat I have in taking this view is that I can't see how a person like Hutch could obtain the details of Sarah Lewis's story.

The room where the inquest was held was not much larger than the living room of a house. With few members of the public present, he would easily have been seen. Everyone in this small room is in full view of the police, and Abberline himself.
And, if outside, how would he know who she was, or what she said, or in fact what anyone said?

The whole scenario is counter intuitive. It strains credibility.
It has all the earmarks of a desperate, somewhat illogical, attempt to maintain this negative view of Hutchinson.

Hutch has to learn that Lewis also saw a couple enter the court in view of the lurker, and so far there is no viable way to explain how he could do this, or even why, considering the argument is supposed to be that he wasn't even there at all.

I don't see why you continue to dismiss the fact that the Lewis story was taken Friday afternoon, and Hutch doesn't come in until after 5pm on Monday. He didn't have to hear about it from the Inquest, it was surely the talk on the streets all weekend long. It strains credulity that he wouldn't have heard the stories, rather than the reverse. Ill bet Sarah and Caroline couldn't tell enough people that weekend about their brush with fame and the Ripper cases.

[Wickerman]

.


Ok gonna switch things up on you. Since blotchy did not come forward, and was the last credible suspect seen entering her apartment with her, I would imagine you hold him high on the list, no?

Hi Abby.

Well, I'll first explain the problem I have with Blotchy as a suspect.

He enters room 13 about 11:45 pm Thursday night, Kelly begins to sing.
She is still heard singing around 12:30. Then also around 1:00 according to Cox, but Prater says all was quiet around 1:20?, and there was no light coming from room 13.

So, if Kelly had stopped singing just after 1:00, then she was either dead, asleep, or out on the street.
By all accounts the fire in the grate was the principal means of light for the mutilations (the candle was not consumed), so as Prater said there was no light then that means Kelly was not dead, but either asleep or out.

If she was not dead, then was she asleep?
If she was asleep, then what crime has Blotchy committed?
If she was back out on the street, then Blotchy is off the hook.

Did Blotchy come back later?
I take that as an attempt to try incriminate Blotchy at any cost. The answer is of course 'yes, but there is nothing to indicate this'.

I like to theorize on what the evidence suggests, not what can be created to fit the theory.

So, with all things considered, I take Blotchy as a suspect a little unlikely. I think what we understand about the case tends to speak against it.

I understand that you prefer Blotchy as a suspect, but in doing so you reject Hutchinson's Astrachan, and I believe you also reject Mrs Kennedy's statement of seeing Kelly with the Britannia-man (ie; the Bethnal Green Botherer), at around 3:00 am.
It's easy to dismiss any witness that speaks against a preferred theory, what I don't understand is why.

We don't have to like a witness to believe what he/she says.

[Wickerman]

I don't see why you continue to dismiss the fact that the Lewis story was taken Friday afternoon, and Hutch doesn't come in until after 5pm on Monday. He didn't have to hear about it from the Inquest, it was surely the talk on the streets all weekend long. It strains credulity that he wouldn't have heard the stories, rather than the reverse. Ill bet Sarah and Caroline couldn't tell enough people that weekend about their brush with fame and the Ripper cases.

Michael.

The press where salivating at the mouth for any hint of gossip on what happened that Friday morning.
There's plenty to choose from, but not from Lewis.
Are you really suggesting the streets were alive with rumors of her story yet, not one newspaper chose to print it?

Sarah Lewis is not quoted as a source, and her story is not given at any time before the inquest on Monday - meaning, Lewis didn't talk to anyone.

[Sam Flynn]

The caveat I have in taking this view is that I can't see how a person like Hutch could obtain the details of Sarah Lewis's story.

I don't think he'd have needed to know the details of Lewis's story - or more specifically, that part of her story where she saw Mr Wideawake opposite Miller's Court, which was as yet unreported in the newspapers. The rest of her story, as "Mrs Kennedy", was widely published quite early on, of course. It was also widely reported that Mary Kelly had been seen with a respectably-dressed man, and that the two had gone together into Kelly's lodgings.

If Hutchinson wanted to claim that he'd followed them and watched them go into Kelly's room, his narrative would naturally place him in Dorset Street, at or opposite the entrance to Miller's Court, at the relevant time. In other words he'd have to have been there or thereabouts, even in fantasy; and, if so, he inadvertently "corroborated" Lewis's story, without ever having been there at all, and without necessarily having learned about that part of Lewis's testimony.

[Sam Flynn]

Sarah Lewis is not quoted as a source, and her story is not given at any time before the inquest on Monday - meaning, Lewis didn't talk to anyone.

I think she most certainly did, most notably in the form of "Mrs Kennedy", who was staying with her relatives in Miller's Court, opposite the deceased! Who else could that have been but Sarah Lewis?

Aside from "Mrs Kennedy", there were instances of what looks very much like versions of Lewis's account attributed to other sources as early as the 10th November, so her story was "out there" all right.

[Wickerman]

I think she most certainly did, most notably in the form of "Mrs Kennedy", who was staying with her relatives in Miller's Court, opposite the deceased! Who else could that have been but Sarah Lewis?

Aside from "Mrs Kennedy", there were instances of what looks very much like versions of Lewis's account attributed to other sources as early as the 10th November, so her story was "out there" all right.

Mrs Kennedy did not see a loiterer, and it is not likely she would given that she didn't leave the corner of Dorset St. until after 3:00 am, Hutchinson had gone by then.
Sarah Lewis's story takes place around 2:30 am, Kennedy's began at 3:00 am.

Sarah Lewis was by her own words visiting a friend in Millers Court, while Mrs Kennedy lived there.

Quote:
"On Thursday night Gallagher and his wife retired to rest at a fairly early hour. Their married daughter, a woman named Mrs. Kennedy, came home, however, at a late hour."

Gareth, Lewis and Kennedy are not the same woman.

[Sam Flynn]

Mrs Kennedy did not see a loiterer, and it is not likely she would given that she didn't leave the corner of Dorset St. until after 3:00 am, Hutchinson had gone by then.
Sarah Lewis's story takes place around 2:30 am, Kennedy's began at 3:00 am.

Sarah Lewis was by her own words visiting a friend in Millers Court, while Mrs Kennedy lived there.

Quote:
"On Thursday night Gallagher and his wife retired to rest at a fairly early hour. Their married daughter, a woman named Mrs. Kennedy, came home, however, at a late hour."

Gareth, Lewis and Kennedy are not the same woman.

Sorry, Jon, but the Kennedy story is clearly a garbled account of Lewis's story. It is hugely unlikely that two different women, who had seen essentially the same goings-on in the small hours, happened to be staying with relatives directly opposite Kelly's room in Miller's Court.

Regardless, whether we call it the "Kennedy story", the "Lewis story", or the "story of an acquaintance of the deceased", the story is basically the same, and furthermore it was reported widely in the press on the 10th November. It is safe to assume that the same story, in various distorted forms, would have been circulating by word of mouth also.

[Wickerman]

Sorry, Jon, but the Kennedy story is clearly a garbled account of Lewis's story. It is hugely unlikely that two different women, who had seen essentially the same goings-on in the small hours, happened to be staying with relatives directly opposite Kelly's room in Miller's Court.

How do you define "hugely"?, based on what?
It is an odd time for Lewis to leave her house at 2:00 ish in the morning to walk to Millers Court, but she may have left it that late knowing that her friend (Kennedy) was out until about that time in the morning.
Perhaps, that is when Kennedy finished work.
Lewis simply left it that late so she would arrive at her friends house when she got home from work - at least that is one possibility.

If Lewis had argued with her husband, and was upset, she might not want to go sit with her friends parents, she will wait until her friend gets home, then she can feel more comfortable. How unreasonable is that, and don't tell me it's unrealistic. Women prefer the company of their close friend when they are upset.

If we knew more about these women the answer will likely be a simple one.

Regardless, whether we call it the "Kennedy story", the "Lewis story", or the "story of an acquaintance of the deceased", the story is basically the same, and furthermore it was reported widely in the press on the 10th November. It is safe to assume that the same story, in various distorted forms, would have been circulating by word of mouth also.

Gareth, you are ignoring very pertinent details.

Sarah Lewis is not about to lie to the court, she did not tell them she lived in Millers Court, she lived in Great Pearl St., besides Lewis has been traced, her husband was not called Kennedy either.
The parents (the Gallaghers) of Mrs Kennedy explained that their daughter lived with them in Millers Court.

What makes you think that friends who clearly know each other (Lewis & Kennedy) couldn't hang around together on evenings?

It can't be more apparent that these two women were not the same.
The idea that they were the same was based on their Wednesday night escapades, and it was voiced years ago before we had sufficient press details about them both.
The situation has changed considerably.

[Joshua Rogan]

It can't be more apparent that these two women were not the same.
The idea that they were the same was based on their Wednesday night escapades, and it was voiced years ago before we had sufficient press details about them both.
The situation has changed considerably.

Didn't Mrs Kennedy say that she was with her sister on the Wednesday when they met the strange man?