Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[DJA]

Harry,
Things really changed from 1970 to 1977.
Then got worse again.

[Sam Flynn]

how many other phrases and sentences,could have been shortened,but were not.Why just the one?

Not just one, but at least two: "Jewish appearance" and "Can be identified", and they both come at the very end of the document.

[Wickerman]

This is why I started the "If Mrs. Maxwell didn't see Mary Who Did She See" thread. Although it got a fair number of responses they didn't really respond to my original question which was how hard could it have been for the police to find the woman she believed to be Mary. They might have pursued this avenue of inquiry but we don't seem to have a record of it.

c.d.

The fact we lack any official report is not surprising given the vast majority of the official paperwork is missing.
Perhaps brief snippets like the one below are all we are going to see...

THE TIME OF THE MURDER

"Another important statement was made this morning to a representative of the Central News, by Mrs. Maxwell (or Mapwell) the wife of the deputy of a lodging house in Dorset street, situate just opposite the court in which the crime was committed. From the circumstantial character of Mrs. Maxwell's statement there is little doubt of its accuracy, and the police are now working on it in all directions. As Mrs. Maxwell saw the deceased woman at nine o'clock yesterday morning the crime must have been perpetrated in the broad light of day."
Evening News, 10 Nov. 1888.

Yet, it is from an official complaint by Warren to the Home Office, that we know the press learned the various directions the investigation was taking by following detectives and re-interviewing whom ever they spoke to.

[Wickerman]

Various statements are published as to the time when Kelly was last seen alive, yet none give an early morning time of death in the Pall Mall Gazette.

The Murder Committed After 9 A.M.

If the following statement can be confirmed, it has a very important bearing upon the question, who is the murderer? because it fixed approximately the time at which the murder was committed. But so many stories have been invented for the sake of gain by the people who live in the locality since these murders became the sensation in the newspaper that it is difficult to ascertain whether they are accurate or otherwise. However, here is the latest statement, and it is given on the authority of the Central News:-

Mrs Maxwell, the wife of the deputy of the lodging-house in Dorset-street,..etc...etc."

Stories like this were common in the weekend press, the public (incl. Hutchinson) could not fail to be influenced by what was read in most every London paper.

[Wickerman]

Another subtitle in the Pall Mall Gazette, 10 Nov.

YESTERDAY'S MURDER
COMMITTED IN BROAD DAYLIGHT
AN IMPORTANT STATEMENT

One of our reporters prosecuting enquiries on the scene of the murders to-day writes: - The details of the murder of Mary Jane Kelly are still enshrouded in mystery. There is no disposition on the part of the police officers at Commercial-street police-station to correct any of the conflicting statements which have been made by the newspapers, or to supply further particulars.....

In Broad Daylight....


This from the Morning Advertiser, 10 Nov.

"JANE KELLY, it is believed, was killed between eight and half-past ten o'clock yesterday morning. There is some conflict of testimony on this head, but it would appear that in this interval the woman was seen alive, and, according to one statement, Kelly must have been abroad in the streets in company with a man with whom she returned to her lodging only a few minutes before her mutilated body was found".

This widespread belief is something we tend to overlook when discussing the case. It certainly provides justification for the Coroner requiring Mrs Maxwell to appear before the inquest.

[Sam Flynn]

Even if Maxwell was right, who's to say that Mr Astrakhan wasn't back in No 13 enjoying his fourth post-coital cigar of the night, waiting to finish Kelly off when she returned? In that context, were there any firm reports of Kelly having been seen with any other man after Hutchinson left Miller's Court? If not, then - Maxwell or no Maxwell - Hutchinson claims to have seen her with the last known man in her company, and an odd-bod at that, so this was important in itself.

Regardless of what the papers (confusingly and unofficially) said, Hutchinson saw his pretty friend - sorry, acquaintance - in the company of a dodgy looking bloke, of stern countenance and carrying a suspicious-looking parcel to boot, in the early hours of the morning of her horrific murder. He is simply not going to say "ah, well, she must have died much later, so I won't bother telling the police" - in fact, he claims to have done the precise opposite.

[Sam Flynn]

Another subtitle in the Pall Mall Gazette, 10 Nov.

YESTERDAY'S MURDER
COMMITTED IN BROAD DAYLIGHT
AN IMPORTANT STATEMENT

One of our reporters prosecuting enquiries on the scene of the murders to-day writes: - The details of the murder of Mary Jane Kelly are still enshrouded in mystery. There is no disposition on the part of the police officers at Commercial-street police-station to correct any of the conflicting statements which have been made by the newspapers, or to supply further particulars.....

In Broad Daylight....


This from the Morning Advertiser, 10 Nov.

"JANE KELLY, it is believed, was killed between eight and half-past ten o'clock yesterday morning. There is some conflict of testimony on this head, but it would appear that in this interval the woman was seen alive, and, according to one statement, Kelly must have been abroad in the streets in company with a man with whom she returned to her lodging only a few minutes before her mutilated body was found".

This widespread belief is something we tend to overlook when discussing the case. It certainly provides justification for the Coroner requiring Mrs Maxwell to appear before the inquest.

What widespread belief? The very same articles admit to conflicting testimonies, for goodness' sake. Why didn't you highlight those bits in bold?

[Abby Normal]

Even if Maxwell was right, who's to say that Mr Astrakhan wasn't back in No 13 enjoying his fourth post-coital cigar of the night, waiting to finish Kelly off when she returned? In that context, were there any firm reports of Kelly having been seen with any other man after Hutchinson left Miller's Court? If not, then - Maxwell or no Maxwell - Hutchinson claims to have seen her with the last known man in her company, and an odd-bod at that, so this was important in itself.

Regardless of what the papers (confusingly and unofficially) said, Hutchinson saw his pretty friend - sorry, acquaintance - in the company of a dodgy looking bloke, of stern countenance and carrying a suspicious-looking parcel to boot, in the early hours of the morning of her horrific murder. He is simply not going to say "ah, well, she must have died much later, so I won't bother telling the police" - in fact, he claims to have done the precise opposite.

quite right sam
or if maxwell was right-maybe hutch came back again in the morning?

[Simon Wood]

You've got to hand it to Central News. They really had their finger on the pulse of the WM.

At 3.00 pm the body was still in Room 13, the doctors had yet to finish their preliminary examination, and it would be another 45 minutes before Anderson got into a hansom cab and returned to Scotland Yard.

But by this time news that this was another "Ripper" murder had travelled 400 miles to Scotland.

Aberdeen Evening Express, 9th November 1888—

“The Central News, telegraphing at three o’clock, [my emphasis] says: —

“Present indications go to show that the woman murdered in a lodging house, in a court leading from Dorset Street, Spitalfields, fell victim to the man who has already made himself a terror to the East End of London. On this occasion, however, the fiend has departed from his usual method, inasmuch as the crime was committed, not in the open streets, but in a room in a lodging house. This should afford a more definite clue in tracing the murderer than has been given in any of the previous cases.”

[rjpalmer]

Abby - The man with the peaked cap outside Mitre Square never existed. He is an obvious figment created from the 'sailor' theory that was being kicked around in the press at the time. The timing is such that Harris, Lawende, and Levy obviously murdered Eddowes and then made up this sailor chap to cover their tracks.

That's basically the Hutchinson theory, transposed onto the Eddowes murder. And one can play the game all day long.

The paradox of the Hutchinson theory is that if his statement is a plate of porkies, as many seem to believe, then there is no good reason to believe he was even in Dorset Street on the morning of the murder. Why believe the word of a man who, to you, is such an obvious liar?

Using your same arguments, I can claim Georgie never made it back from Romford until the following day, and is nothing more than a publicity hound who decided to become the star witness when he heard about an unidentified wall lounger.

Thus, the Hutchinson theory has been stuck on 1st base for twenty years, and there is no chance of it advancing to 2nd without being tossed out by the catcher.

[Abby Normal]

Abby - The man with the peaked cap outside Mitre Square never existed. He is an obvious figment created from the 'sailor' theory that was being kicked around in the press at the time. The timing is such that Harris, Lawende, and Levy obviously murdered Eddowes and then made up this sailor chap to cover their tracks.

That's basically the Hutchinson theory, transposed onto the Eddowes murder. And one can play the game all day long.

The paradox of the Hutchinson theory is that if his statement is a plate of porkies, as many seem to believe, then there is no good reason to believe he was even in Dorset Street on the morning of the murder. Why believe the word of a man who, to you, is such an obvious liar?

Using your same arguments, I can claim Georgie never made it back from Romford until the following day, and is nothing more than a publicity hound who decided to become the star witness when he heard about an unidentified wall lounger.

Thus, the Hutchinson theory has been stuck on 1st base for twenty years, and there is no chance of it advancing to 2nd without being tossed out by the catcher.

so-marshall, Schwartz, lawende and company, possibly the PC, and the anon Church street sighting as well as Abberline all are in conspiracy about peaked cap man. Okey dokey.

the only thing that didn't exist is Hutchs Aman-and that's all from his own making (up).

[Wickerman]

Jon,
Your wife must be a wonderful woman.I bet she can also remember the colour of the maids eyes in those hotels.What about yourself?

I wouldn't know Harry, I was never allowed near them...

Myself I spent about half an hour yesterday,talking to a new arrival in the retirement village in which I reside,and do you know I remember next to nothing as regards the clothes he was wearing,or what shoes he was wearing,
but one thing I do know,he,"can be identified".

Yes, I can sympathize. Yet, anyone who tries to argue that everyone is the same (eg, if I can't do it, no-one can), will be sorely disappointed.

I'm the one with the short-term memory, Ann is the one with long-term memory - so we look out for each other

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Many thanks for the Goad map information.

You're very Welcome!

Of course he had, but Hutchinson’s act of coming forward, preemptively and in the guise of a witness, significantly reduced the threat of Abberline exercising that right or ability, since he was unlikely in the extreme to consider the possibility of the actual killer seeking an audience with the police.

Abberline had a reputation for being 'street-smart', he had to have seen & heard all the con-tricks the East End could produce. Yet, you think he is not going to treat a witness who claimed to be with the victim in the overnight hours with some degree of caution?
I think Abberline's mention of "interrogation" demonstrates he had to put this witness through the ringer - just in case....
They did the same with Richardson in the Chapman case, Swanson put that in his notes. So, it is not reasonable to suggest Abberline could be duped in that way.

We discussed the late morning versus early morning times of death for Kelly on a previous mega-thread. I would refer you there.

I knew you couldn't be bothered
Would you believe that was like, four years ago? How time flies.
Yes, you produced six examples, and I produced eleven. Though now that has tripled, and is still growing.

I think it is an important issue because we typically believe today that the murder occurred overnight. Yet we have the advantage of knowing about later events like Hutchinson's story, and the fact Dr Bond estimated the ToD in the early morning.
The public know nothing of these facts on that first weekend. So their view, which includes the view of Hutchinson, was highly influenced by the weekend press.
And, the dominant belief in the weekend press was that this was a late Friday morning murder.

[Wickerman]

What widespread belief? The very same articles admit to conflicting testimonies, for goodness' sake. Why didn't you highlight those bits in bold?

"Conflicting statements" like the cry of murder at 1:45.....or 2:00.....or 2:30.....or 3:45..."
Reports of this very mobile 'cry of murder' are usually accompanied by the caveat that it was so normal no-one took any notice of it.

[Sam Flynn]

"Conflicting statements" like the cry of murder at 1:45.....or 2:00.....or 2:30.....or 3:45..."

Precisely those sorts of conflicting statements. It was by no means settled that Kelly died after 9AM, and - as I've said innumerable times - there is no way that Hutchinson would have decided not to come forward with his evidence, after having seen his pretty acquaintance in the company of a weird-looking man... etc etc etc. You know the rest.