Hutchinsons statement....

[Sam Flynn]

How do you define "hugely"?, based on what?

Common sense. It is beyond belief that two different women are going to see the sorts of things that Kennedy/Lewis saw in the small hours of the morning and then BOTH end up staying with relatives in a room in poky little Miller's Court, just opposite Mary Kelly.

Either Lewis was Kennedy, or Kennedy nicked Lewis's story, or Lewis nicked bits of Kennedy's story and wove it into her own. Whatever, it's self-evidently the same story in all its essential details, albeit distorted by the press and/or the jungle grapevine.

[Varqm]

Again.Where is it that "establishes" that Hutchinson "actually" went to Romford,that he "actually" was Mary Kelly's friend - a strong part of his testimony,which will validate part of his story,that gives his story some credibility,some truthfulness.
Otherwise, don't run away with the story that Hutchinson was there.
Something ,not blindly/naively believing in every person's word .Especially at a time when there was no law/punishment for being a false witness.

[Sam Flynn]

Again.Where is it that "establishes" that Hutchinson "actually" ... was Mary Kelly's friend

Indeed. Hutchinson's claim that he'd known Kelly for three years needs a fair bit of explanation, given that we know she was based elsewhere in the East End in 1885.

[Varqm]

Indeed. Hutchinson's claim that he'd known Kelly for three years needs a fair bit of explanation, given that we know she was based elsewhere in the East End in 1885.

Sarah Lewis's testimony on the other hand,that she was visiting Mrs. Keylers, can/could be verified due to the fact she was staying at Keyler's and was one of the residents told by the police not to leave Miller's court.She left late afternoon.
Hutchinson on the other hand followed Kelly - concern or whatever reason - because she was a friend.That they were friends cannot be established.

[Wickerman]

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

Indeed, Lewis said she was with her friend, while Kennedy said she was with her sister. Assuming the reporter didn't make the mistake.
This contradiction of detail helps neither argument.

[Wickerman]

Common sense. It is beyond belief that two different women are going to see the sorts of things that Kennedy/Lewis saw in the small hours of the morning and then BOTH end up staying with relatives in a room in poky little Miller's Court, just opposite Mary Kelly.

They didn't see the same things.
Lewis saw a man and a woman at the corner of Dorset St. at 2:30, then a loiterer in Dorset St. watching another couple pass up the court.
Kennedy saw a man with two women (the 2nd being Kelly) at the corner of Dorset St. 30 minutes later, at 3:00 am, but did not see anyone else, no loiterer or couple.

In fudging the details Gareth you are trying to make two different stories sound the same.
This is your doing though, it is not what we read in print.

You have already said that Lewis's story was in the public domain on the weekend under the name of Kennedy. Yet, the pertinent details of her seeing a loiterer, and the couple pass up the court - essential to a deceptive (in your view) Hutchinson, are not part of Kennedy's story.
So, as I said before, how could he know?

Attention to detail Gareth, please, you're better than this.

[Abby Normal]

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.

It was either blotchy or hutch. It's better than 50/50 that it was one or the other. IMHO. I'll take those odds every time.

[c.d.]

Hello Abby,

Do you believe that either Blotchy or Hutch was the Ripper or simply Mary's killer?

c.d.

[harry]

Jon,
Aberline's opinion is not supported by evidence,therefor is of little value.He was a witness to a conversation,to claims made by Hutchinson.Those claims,as far as anyone can tell,were not substanciated by a successful police investigation.
The person as described by Hutchinson was not found,Kelly cannot be placed on the street at the time stated by Hutchinson.a trip to Romford cannot be confirmed.
Even his claim of standing in Dorset Street,is disbelieved by some,and all you can say is,"well it was Aberlines opinion,and it must have been so".

I didn't say the information on Isaacs was the result of someone approaching the police.By the same token as his (Isaac)departure was reported,so could the departure of Hutchinson,had he departed the Victoria Home.By police enquiries.

In an earlier post on this thread you claimed you were motivated by evidence,something you claimed was lacking in other posters.Well where is the evidence,supporting your claim, that Mary Kelly made three separate trips from her room that night.

[c.d.]

Hello Harry,

Are you saying that we are to believe that Abberline, a veteran police officer who held the rank of Inspector, simply took the claims of a witness at face value without making any attempt to determine their validity? And that that approach was approved of by his superiors to whom he reported? And in this case it was a witness who claimed to know the deceased and by his admission was the last known person to see her alive.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

Do you believe that either Blotchy or Hutch was the Ripper or simply Mary's killer?

c.d.

I think they were both

[harry]

c.d.
In all the years I have been posting here,reading posts,reading books,I have never seen any evidence that Hutchinson's claims were followed up,that his trip to Romford was confirmed or disproved,that A man was found to be real,that Hutchinson w as a friend and gave money to Kelly,that Hutchinson walked the streets from abot 3 to 5 am after spending about 45 minutes near where she lived.
Was efforts made?I do not know. Was it essential that some effort be made to prove Hutchinson's claims?I think so.So two observations.Efforts were made and proved fruitless,or none or insufficient efforts were made.None of which favours Hutchinson told the truth.
Mostly what I get thrown back is,Aberline's opinion should not be questioned,he was too good an officer to be fooled.Foolish arguments.He was as prone as anyone to make mistakes.
I do not know,does anyone,what his superiors thought.Perhaps they too were fooled by Aberline's opinion.
Regards.

[Fisherman]

I think they were both

So Hutch/Blotch was the man turning the school house building in Bucks Row when Lechmere entered Bucks Row?
I see.
I thought that was Kosminski.
Or Levy.
Or Druitt.
Or Hyams.
Or Kelly.
Or Le Grand.
Or Lewis Carroll.
Or van Gogh.
Or Francis Thompson.
Or anybody else, regardless who, as long as it was not Lechmere who dun´it!

[Sam Flynn]

I do not know,does anyone,what his superiors thought.Perhaps they too were fooled by Aberline's opinion.
Regards.

Walter Dew doesn't seem to have believed in Hutchinson's suspect. As he puts it, politely, in his memoirs:

"...is it not probable that George Hutchison erred also? This, without reflecting in any way on either witness, is my considered view. I believe that the man of the billycock hat and beard was the last person to enter Marie Kelly's room that night and was her killer"

Walter Dew, I Caught Crippen

[Joshua Rogan]

Walter Dew doesn't seem to have believed in Hutchinson's suspect. As he puts it, politely, in his memoirs:

"...is it not probable that George Hutchison erred also? This, without reflecting in any way on either witness, is my considered view. I believe that the man of the billycock hat and beard was the last person to enter Marie Kelly's room that night and was her killer"

Walter Dew, I Caught Crippen

Sam, Dew doesn't doubt that Hutchinson saw what he said he saw, he suggests that Hutch (and Mrs Maxwell) told the truth but were mistaken about the day of the sighting. That's not at all the same as thinking the whole incident was made up.