Hutchinsons statement....

[Michael W Richards]

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.

Because he gave it in private instead of at the Inquest, and if true, it belonged with the other evidence presented. And yes, the report of the 15th said discredited, whether you agree with the source or not. Cherry picking to bolster support for your own theory isnt presenting evidence Jon.

And Yes, there was singing after 1, read the reports again if you need to.

[Wickerman]

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

Well actually, there is.
Apparently, the police found it necessary to return to Millers Court to interview more witnesses. Likely, due to the story they had received from Hutchinson.

The Press Association:
Although no evidence was produced at the inquest as to her having left her room after one o'clock, at which time she was heard singing, the police have obtained statements from several persons who reside in Millers Court, that she was out of her house and in Dorset street between two and three o'clock. It appears almost certain that her life was taken about the last named hour.
Sheffield Evening Telegraph, Dundee Courier, Nottingham Evening Post, Morning Advertiser, Irish Times, Nov 14th 1888.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

This is getting rather bizarre, are you really intent on ignoring statements or twisting their meaning to suit yourself?

Here is the skinny in case you missed it...Mary Ann came in just after 1 and heard singing, the light was on, Elizabeth headed up before 1:30, no light was on or singing was heard, Mary Ann returned shortly thereafter and the room she passed again was silent and dark. Surely to god that is clear.

You can reply if you want to Jon, but these arguments are weaker than American beer and hardly worth addressing. The only reason I have been is because I am angry discovering how deep your head is in the sand. Maybe write your own bizarre interpretations of perfect english in your own Ripper book someday, Im sure for the body count it will alone be worth the read.

[harry]

Just a couple of observations on what has been said.
Firstly,quite a few people alive today,I am one of them,remember what it was like to walk a district whose streets were lit by gas.
Second,it was possible for a witness to write their own statement in 1888,and there was a third alternative,to that and someone writing for them(usual),and that was ,a statement of interview.This was written by a law enforcement officer concerning his talk with a witness..This last ,I am sure, would have been used countless times in that period.Aberline himself submitted such,of his interview with Hutchinson,and I believe ,his(aberline)interview with Barnett.

[Wickerman]

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.

Sarah did not give her story on Friday, it was given in full, in public, on Monday afternoon.

[cnr]

Right, Prater waited at the end of the passage from about 1:00 until, I think 1:20, is mentioned somewhere

Yes, at the inquest she said both 1.20am and 1.30am - or so, both times were reported by way of capping off her vigil. In her police statement of the 9th, she says "about 1.30" and "From 1am to 1.30am no one passed up the court if they did I should have seen them".

So it's fair to say that from about 1am to about 1.30am Prater's eyewitness evidence precludes MJK having left her room. She also seems confident that she would have heard her go out, in that short time it took her to go to sleep afterwards, so this may extend the time-frame a little.

[Wickerman]

Here is the skinny in case you missed it...Mary Ann came in just after 1 and heard singing, the light was on, Elizabeth headed up before 1:30, no light was on or singing was heard, Mary Ann returned shortly thereafter and the room she passed again was silent and dark. Surely to god that is clear.

Well, here's the English version, you can throw away whatever it is you are reading.
Your cherry-picking caused you to miss the fact that the room was silent and dark AT 3:00, we are talking about 1:00-1:30.

I remained a quarter of an hour in my room. Then went out she was still singing. I returned about one o'clock. She was singing then. I warmed my hands and went out again, she was still singing. I came in again at 3 o'clock. The light was out and there was no noise.
Mary Ann Cox.

Perhaps you should pay more attention to reading, and less to arguing.

Between 1:00 and, a few minutes past 1:00, Kelly was still singing (Cox), yet Prater heard and saw nothing between 1:00 and 1:20/30.

[cnr]

Sarah did not give her story on Friday, it was given in full, in public, on Monday afternoon.

She did give a statement on the 9th to police:

Statement of Sarah Lewis No 34 Great Pearl Street Spitalfields, a laundress:-

Between 2 and 3 o’clock this morning I came to stop with the Keylers, at No 2 Miller’s Court as I had had a few words with my husband, when I came up the Court there was a man standing over against the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset Street (talking to a female - deleted) but I cannot describe him. Shortly before 4 o’clock I heard a scream like that of a young woman, and seemed to be not far away, she screamed out murder, I only heard it once. I did not look out at the window. I did not know the deceased.

Marginal note - I left the Keylers at 5.30pm.

Sarah Lewis further said that when in company with another female on Wednesday evening last at Bethnal Green, a suspicious man accosted her, he carried a black bag.

[Abby Normal]

Well, here's the English version, you can throw away whatever it is you are reading.
Your cherry-picking caused you to miss the fact that the room was silent and dark AT 3:00, we are talking about 1:00-1:30.

I remained a quarter of an hour in my room. Then went out she was still singing. I returned about one o'clock. She was singing then. I warmed my hands and went out again, she was still singing. I came in again at 3 o'clock. The light was out and there was no noise.
Mary Ann Cox.

Perhaps you should pay more attention to reading, and less to arguing.

Between 1:00 and, a few minutes past 1:00, Kelly was still singing (Cox), yet Prater heard and saw nothing between 1:00 and 1:20/30.

Because they both had atomic clocks with 10 mega rams of memory of course which they consulted before giving there statements.

Or maybe in 19th century white chapel timings tended to not be 100% accurate.


I would posit Mary stopped singing sometime approx 1:00 am and that cox and or prater where either being approximate with their times and or slightly off with there times.

Let's please stop with the usual hutch silliness wicker.

[richardnunweek]

Hi ,
Twice that night Mrs Cox, and Mrs Prater had conflicting sightings,
At 9.pm Prater claimed to have spoken to MJk, and was able to describe her clothing as Bonnet , and jacket.
Whereas Mrs Cox saw Kelly close on midnight in the passage, wearing different clothing.
Again we have Prater claiming no singing at 1.am , and Cox claiming the reverse.
We have Mrs Cox's niece many years later , claiming the man her aunt saw was a toff. a far cry from Mr Blotchy.
So who is the most accurate, Prater v Cox,
I plump for the former any day.
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

She did give a statement on the 9th to police:

Statement of Sarah Lewis No 34 Great Pearl Street Spitalfields, a laundress:-

Between 2 and 3 o’clock this morning I came to stop with the Keylers, at No 2 Miller’s Court as I had had a few words with my husband, when I came up the Court there was a man standing over against the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset Street

Is it likely that the police sat on this evidence that there was another witness/suspect (i.e. Wideawake Man) to the events in Miller's Court, or that they immediately started asking around as to who he might have been? I'll bet it's the latter, otherwise they'd have been somewhat remiss in their duties. If so, it could have been the police themselves who "leaked" this part of Lewis's story ahead of the inquest.

Not that I doubt that Lewis and/or the Keylers weren't capable of doing so - as already observed, there were other stories (e.g. "Kennedy") that contained echoes of Lewis's account, and they made it into the papers very early on.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

As I've said, Jon, the "Wearside Jack" tape and letters were discredited by some of those working on the Yorkshire Ripper case, but George Oldfield remained (erroneously) convinced by them.

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

We don't know that, besides, the Star is pretty clear-cut in stating that Hutchinson's story was discredited. Maybe that hadn't filtered through to the Echo's sources yet?

[Fisherman]

Is it likely that the police sat on this evidence that there was another witness/suspect (i.e. Wideawake Man) to the events in Miller's Court, or that they immediately started asking around as to who he might have been? I'll bet it's the latter, otherwise they'd have been somewhat remiss in their duties. If so, it could have been the police themselves who "leaked" this part of Lewis's story ahead of the inquest.

Not that I doubt that Lewis and/or the Keylers weren't capable of doing so - as already observed, there were other stories (e.g. "Kennedy") that contained echoes of Lewis's account, and they made it into the papers very early on.

If the police asked around about wideawake man, and if they were acutely aware of his presence, then why is it that Hutchinsons story was dismissed? Why did his testimony not cement that he was the loiterer from Lewis´ account?

Like you yourself have pointed out, the police took great care to lay down that it was the STORY that was not believed on the whole, and not the teller of it. And Dew wrote, fifty years on, that he would not reflect on Hutchinson, who he regarded as an honest man.

To me, that means that the only reason for the police to have dismissed the story would be if Hutchinson made an honest mistake.

We know that the story was said to suffer a large but not full dismissal, and we know that the search for Astrakhan man was not called off totally as a result of the diminished belief in the story. So the police had not written the story off as false, nor did they treat Hutchinson as a liar or attention seeker - he went down in Dews memoirs as a truthful man, on whom Dew would not reflect.

So what kind of reason can you identify for the very diminished belief in the story on the police´s behalf?

[Sam Flynn]

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.

How does that follow from what I posted, Jon? Those elements to which I referred were all featured in early press reports and, furthermore, versions of these stories were apparently circulating by word of mouth as well.

[Sam Flynn]

If the police asked around about wideawake man, and if they were acutely aware of his presence, then why is it that Hutchinsons story was dismissed? Why did his testimony not cement that he was the loiterer from Lewis´ account?

Perhaps they checked up on his story.

Like you yourself have pointed out, the police took great care to lay down that it was the STORY that was not believed on the whole, and not the teller of it.

Indeed so. And, if his story didn't check out, the story was indeed "discredited".... doesn't mean that he wasn't either, but the Star strictly refers to his story only.

And Dew wrote, fifty years on, that he would not reflect on Hutchinson, who he regarded as an honest man.

I wouldn't place too much weight on Dew's account, as there are distinct signs in his biography that that he was exaggerating his closeness to the case. For one thing, Dew claims to have been the first into 13 Miller's Court and to have slipped in the blood and guts, when we know the blood was largely confined to the bed and the guts to the mattress and bedside table; For another, Dew said that Bowyer was a bulging-eyed youth, when we know him to have been a middle-aged ex-soldier.

To me, that means that the only reason for the police to have dismissed the story would be if Hutchinson made an honest mistake.

Possibly, although it's hard to see how a simple mistake could have given rise to the elaborate narrative that Hutchinson came forward with.

So what kind of reason can you identify for the very diminished belief in the story on the police´s behalf?

They checked it out and found it to be wanting in some way? At least, as Jon has pointed out, and if the Echo is 100% correct, at least some of the police no longer favoured it within the week.