Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[packers stem]

Hi Nick.
The sequence of events dictated by the story seem to suggest this. And, the fact Barnet showed up at Millers Court while the body was still inside the room would lend itself to that interpretation.

You had raised a point I don't think had been discussed before, that of "where" exactly did Barnet identify her body.
It is quite reasonable to assume it was at the mortuary, as we know this was the normal procedure.
However, given the sequence of events dictated by that report, and I can't think of any statement which contradicts it. I can concede that he likely identified her in the room. But you have to concede it was not through the broken window - deal?

Hi Jon
The only mention we have is the Star's 'peep through the window'

There is another well known detail which seems to contest the "through the broken window" argument, the door still being closed.
That argument would suggest Barnet arrived before they broke the door down.
Yet, we are told Barnet knew the door could be opened by reaching through the window. So, if Barnet had been there before the door was forced, it wouldn't have had to be forced, would it?

You're getting there
Barnett was certainly there before they broke down the door .
He heard of 'a' murder in Dorset street .
Do you think he tootled off to Dorset Street to find out what was going on ?
Not a chance .... he goes straight to the police station due to his obvious clairvoyance and is then promptly taken to Dorset Street where he was kept for 90mins? before being taken off for interview .
He was there the whole time waiting for the door to be broken down ....

So, both points considered, Barnet identifying her "through the broken window" is just plain wrong.

Farcical is my favourite word for it , but that's the way it seems to have happened

If it wasn't by her 'hair', and it can't have been by her 'ear' (them being cut off), then the identification was false, he can't identify her.

Bingo

Yet the clothes in the room must have been what she usually wore, and the physique must have been consistent with that of Kelly. There are other details which contribute to an identification, or contest it.

And, the police are not going to accept, "this was her room, so it must be her'. They already knew from several witnesses that other women slept in that room along with Kelly - they were not stupid.
And, we have no account of them locating this "Julia", who was mentioned both by M.Lewis & Barnet. So it wasn't like "only" Kelly couldn't be traced after the murder.

I wouldn't worry too much about what should have happened or the police would have done this or done that .... you have to step outside the box for this one

[Sam Flynn]

When asked why she had hesitated she answered that she had two small children "and didn't want no problems."

Also, her mother told her "Don't get involved. Let the police take care of it."

I wonder whether such constraints, or similar, could have applied to Hutchinson. He had, after all, apparently known the victim, unlike the witness in your example, RJ.

[Sam Flynn]

It is inconsistent and unconvincing, as are your attempts to sweep Liz Long and Joe Lawende under the rug. They both were well aware that a horrific murder occurred and that they were potential witnesses, and yet they both delayed before coming forward.

Neither of those knew the victim by name, and neither of them lived a short walk from the scene of the crime... the location of which Hutchinson also knew, because he was there on the evening of the murder. There are other significant dissimilarities that set Hutchinson apart from any of the other witnesses.

[rjpalmer]

Sam - Of course there are dissimilarities, but both Long and Lawende, and the woman in the NYC article that I linked, were well aware that a murder occurred and yet they hesitated before coming forward. The impulse "not to become involved" is a powerful one, and I imagine it is all the more powerful if one unwittingly found themselves loitering near the scene of a crime shortly before its occurrence. Hutchinson's delay certainly doesn't make him a model citizen, and perhaps he even deserves the lumps he is getting, but it also doesn't show that his behavior is a startling aberration from the norm.

On another matter, considering that Hutchinson states that he believed he saw his suspect again in Middlesex Street on the 11th, and didn't give his description to Badham until the 12th, how do we know that the details he recorded --eyelashes, etc.--were not largely based on the man he saw on the 11th in what may well have been broad daylight?

[Abby Normal]

Sam - Of course there are dissimilarities, but both Long and Lawende, and the woman in the NYC article that I linked, were well aware that a murder occurred and yet they hesitated before coming forward. The impulse "not to become involved" is a powerful one, and I imagine it is all the more powerful if one unwittingly found themselves loitering near the scene of a crime shortly before its occurrence. Hutchinson's delay certainly doesn't make him a model citizen, and perhaps he even deserves the lumps he is getting, but it also doesn't show that his behavior is a startling aberration from the norm.

On another matter, considering that Hutchinson states that he believed he saw his suspect again in Middlesex Street on the 11th, and didn't give his description to Badham until the 12th, how do we know that the details he recorded --eyelashes, etc.--were not largely based on the man he saw on the 11th in what may well have been broad daylight?

Hi RJ

Of course there are dissimilarities, but both Long and Lawende, and the woman in the NYC article that I linked, were well aware that a murder occurred and yet they hesitated before coming forward. The impulse "not to become involved" is a powerful one, and I imagine it is all the more powerful if one unwittingly found themselves loitering near the scene of a crime shortly before its occurrence. Hutchinson's delay certainly doesn't make him a model citizen, and perhaps he even deserves the lumps he is getting, but it also doesn't show that his behavior is a startling aberration from the norm.

yes I for one see your point-of course many people don't come forward because they don't want to get involved, are scared etc. Again though the difference between the hutch and your examples is that he knew her, knew where she lived. To me that's a big difference, but I see your point.

But to me a glaring anomalie in his behaviour re him being reluctant to come forward because he dosnt want to get involved, is that once he does come forward-boy does he want to get involved! His story dosnt sound like someone with any reluctance at all-can be Ided, thought I saw him again, told a cop about it etc. etc. And then further involves himself by talking to the press and going on a walkabout with the cops! Not really the behaviour of a reluctant witness is it?

In another matter, considering that Hutchinson states that he believed he saw his suspect again in Middlesex Street on the 11th, and didn't give his description to Badham until the 12th, how do we know that the details he recorded --eyelashes, etc.--were not largely based on the man he saw on the 11th in what may well have been broad daylight?

I have a problem with this "thought" I saw him. when im out and about and think I see someone I recognize- I try to see and find out for sure. Isnt that a natural human reaction? especially if he could be a suspect in an acuaintanences murder!! Wouldnt he want to follow him? call him out to the cops? at the very least make sure it was him!


and re remembering certain aspects for a description-the mans wearing the exact same outfit? and why remember details from someone your not even sure who it is.

[Sam Flynn]

On another matter, considering that Hutchinson states that he believed he saw his suspect again in Middlesex Street on the 11th... how do we know that the details he recorded --eyelashes, etc.--were not largely based on the man he saw on the 11th in what may well have been broad daylight?

Given that Hutch only believed he'd seen the suspect, RJ, it strikes me as being a somewhat fleeting encounter. I also doubt that Hutchinson stared him straight in the face, as he claims to have done on the night of the murder.

[Wickerman]

Sorry, Jon. I was stuck on the 10th for some reason.

That notwithstanding...

Originally Posted by Sam Flynn
Besides, it's not all about the press. As you I think pointed out, Hutchinson apparently dozed in his lodgings and didn't wake up until the late afternoon. When he did, the lodging house and all the streets around it would have been buzzing with news of the horrendous events in (very) nearby Miller's Court, without need of the press reports at all

It was still Friday though Gareth.
If he did gain entry at the Vic. when they opened in the morning (4:00-5:00am?), and slept for several hours, he is still among people who are reading Friday's afternoon papers.
I don't see why that last paragraph changes anything - it was still Friday.

[Wickerman]

You're getting there
Barnett was certainly there before they broke down the door .
He heard of 'a' murder in Dorset street .
Do you think he tootled off to Dorset Street to find out what was going on ?
Not a chance .... he goes straight to the police station due to his obvious clairvoyance and is then promptly taken to Dorset Street where he was kept for 90mins? before being taken off for interview .
He was there the whole time waiting for the door to be broken down ....

We are given no timeline associated with Barnet's arrival at Millers Court, or Commercial St. Stn.
Only that the police interrogated him for four hours.
From the discovery at 10:45 plus four hours = 2:45 pm.
If the sequence of events we discussed earlier is correct, Barnet arrived after the medical investigation had began, so after 2:00 sometime.

[Joshua Rogan]

We are given no timeline associated with Barnet's arrival at Millers Court, or Commercial St. Stn.
Only that the police interrogated him for four hours.
From the discovery at 10:45 plus four hours = 2:45 pm.
If the sequence of events we discussed earlier is correct, Barnet arrived after the medical investigation had began, so after 2:00 sometime.

Did Barnett go to the police station first? Not according to his Penny Illustrated Press interview;

PIP 17 Nov
Next day I heard there had been a murder in Miller's court, and on my way there I met my sister's brother in law, and he told me it was Marie. I went to the court, and there saw the police inspector, and told him who I was, and where I had been the previous night. They kept me about four hours, examined my clothes for bloodstains, and finally, finding the account of myself to be correct, let me go free.

[Sam Flynn]

I don't see why that last paragraph changes anything - it was still Friday.

I think that the fact that the streets would have been buzzing with news of the murder makes every difference, in that Hutchinson - or anyone else in the locale - wouldn't have had to wait for, or rely upon, the papers as a source of news.

[Wickerman]

Did Barnett go to the police station first? Not according to his Penny Illustrated Press interview;

PIP 17 Nov
Next day I heard there had been a murder in Miller's court, and on my way there I met my sister's brother in law, and he told me it was Marie. I went to the court, and there saw the police inspector, and told him who I was, and where I had been the previous night. They kept me about four hours, examined my clothes for bloodstains, and finally, finding the account of myself to be correct, let me go free.

That's my understanding.
He went to the court, but it was closed off to the public. He would introduce himself and be whisked away to the station to give an account of himself.

The Daily News reported events of the day and placed Barnet's arrival after the medical exam. & photographer was mentioned, but before 4:00 when the body was removed.
It says, "Barnet was sent for....".

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_news/18881110.html

Given that we are told he turned up of his own accord to begin with, then to be "sent for" suggests to me he was at some known location. This only fits if he was in police custody.
That's the way I read it.

The police sent to the station for him to come and identify the body, sometime between the exam being undertaken and the hour the body was removed.

[Wickerman]

I think that the fact that the streets would have been buzzing with news of the murder makes every difference, in that Hutchinson - or anyone else in the locale - wouldn't have had to wait for, or rely upon, the papers as a source of news.

But wouldn't they have only been talking about what was in the press?
Prater is on record as telling the press she heard nothing in the night.
The police though had asked the witnesses to say nothing.

So no rumors are said to be circulating about Kelly being seen after Thursday evening. No talk about cries of murder. In fact the press repeat that the police are letting no detail out.
The story of the boy living at rm 13, his mother lodging there with the deceased is the only gossip being reported beside the early morning sightings of Kelly.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

If you’re suggesting that the dormitories at the Victoria Home were accessible free of charge during the day, you’re most assuredly in error.

Ben, where does this "free of charge" come from?
I don't recall suggesting that.

They couldn’t have cleaned the rooms overnight with 400 lodgers sleeping in them!

The Act requires the common areas are to be cleaned, basically the kitchen/eating/lounging room.

Your newly decided-upon theory, however, demands that Hutchinson only felt motivated into action after conducting an extensive press trawl, collating and stockpiling all available sources a la Jon, then randomly picking which time of death he fancied going with. Innocent witnesses emphatically do not think like that, Jon,....

Agreed, but that was your theatrical endeavour. You set up a ludicrous scenario only to shoot it down.
Nice to see you are able to entertain yourself.

You even acknowledge now that there was “confusion” regarding the likely time of death, and that this “confusion” was reflected in the press.

I'm not sure you have been following the discussion.
The confusion is evident beginning in the Saturday press, until Monday morning.

[c.d.]

I have to say that I have never understood the obsession with Hutchinson. Let's say for the sake of argument that his behavior is extremely suspicious and that he is a proven liar. What can we conclude from this exactly? That he killed Mary? That he was most certainly the Ripper? That he fooled the police and that it never occurred to them that he could have been involved in Mary's death? That he was full of **** but completely innocent? Where are people going with this?

Attempts to discredit his story are fine but to what end is this supposed to lead us?

c.d.

[Wickerman]

But then, disappointingly, Jon revisits his erroneous theory that Hutchinson was heading for lodgings other than the Victoria Home on the morning of the 9th.

Phil does a far better job as announcer, he's even funny.
Don't quit your day job.

...The fact that the Victoria Home was given as Hutchinson’s residence informs us, beyond question, that it was his home at the time of the Kelly murder; otherwise a different or additional residence would have been listed. It’s that simple.

The address on the statement is his current address.

Some have gone so far as to assert - without a scrap of evidence - that Hutchinson’s press interview occurred at the Victoria Home.

This, from a poster who has made a career out of making assertions "without any evidence".
The evidence is in the language used. It's that simple.

Back on our planet, meanwhile, it is obvious that the press interview took place somewhere else, at a more sensible and less conspicuous location; the Princess Alice pub for instance, situated directly opposite the Victoria Home on Commercial Street, would have made an ideal venue.

What was that about assertions without any evidence?

What relevance has the closure of the home, incidentally, if he had no money to get in anyway? Why did he cite “home closure” and not his lack of funds as his reason for “walking about all night”?

Are you claiming honesty from your liar now?
Which is it, was he a liar, or was he honest?