Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[packers stem]

I presume you've all stopped to consider the red handkerchief at some point .... the colour of which couldn't possibly be seen from the corner of Commercial/Dorset Streets due to distance and lighting , the sighting attributed to Lawende (although it had already appeared in the press on Oct 2nd, well before Lawende gave evidence ) of a red neckerchief ..... despite there being no lamp near that end of Church Passage .... and as for a salt and pepper coloured jacket ? Well ,least said the better .
As we can very safely assume the 'red' could not be seen from Hutchinson's proclaimed vantage point then it was clearly made up ..... but why ?
Was the whole red neckerchief thing nonsense ?
I'm sure we're all aware that at that time the red neckerchief was associated with Annie Besant .
Who had massive involvement in the Bloody Sunday riots 12 months before , the match girls strike in July , Irish home rule and basically anything anti establishment .
Incidentally according to Donovan , Chapman had recently bought her neckerchief from another lodger .... wonder what colour it was

[Sam Flynn]

Gareth's point is the public would be gossiping about an early time of death on Friday, in part due to the rumored 'cry of murder'.

I said nothing about time of death, Jon. There would have been plenty of gossip giving details of an 'orrible murder in a room in Miller's Court that morning, regardless of time, quite possibly with the name "Mary Kelly" associated with it. As one who had allegedly spoken with Mary Kelly that morning, tailing her and a surly stranger back to her room, any such gossip would surely have been of great interest to George Hutchinson. He didn't need to wait for the papers, nor their confusing, unofficial and unconfirmed reports of time of death.

[Abby Normal]

Sam, we haven't the foggiest notion of the circumstances of this sighting. It was in Middlesex Street on a crowded market morning. People are milling around slowly in front of stalls. Many people are simply loitering. Most are stopping to look. If Hutchinson had seen the man who supposedly killed his alleged "friend," then it would have taken very little tenacity to edge closer to the man and study him.


The assumption is that this sighting was 'fleeting' and it is a further assumption that Hutchinson approaching a PC the same morning are unrelated. Why assume that? Is there something in the case evidence that shows that interpretation to be the correct one? Personally, I think they could be related. We don't have enough information to know.




Really? Where does he state this? Or is this merely what you've been assuming all these years?

And what do you mean the 'first time'?

Hutchinson gave his statement on the 12th--the day after he saw the man in Middlesex Street. So there is no 'first time' and 'second time.' Hutchinson's statement to the police came after both events.

And that being the case, dear boy, I hope you would appreciate what the concept of 'pollution' means.

As I say, if Hutch were the ideal witness he would be able to block the 11th out of his mind and state ONLY what he had witnessed on the morning of the 9th.

But we know from experience and scientific studies that that is not what happens in the real world. Between his encounter on the 9th and his coming forward on the 12th another significant encounter may have occurred and so we are left with the very real possibility that this second event may have significantly colored his witness statement, particularly if he was trying his hardest to give as much useful detail to the police as possible.

And it certainly looks like that was the case.

As for your claim that it is "well-known" fact that killers come forward as witnesses then you should have no difficulty in providing the statistics.


How often, exactly? 1% of known cases? 8%? 0.003%? Ben has been unable to provide these numbers, but I have every confidence that you will be able to do better. Thanks.

Hi RJ

Really? Where does he state this? Or is this merely what you've been assuming all these years?

And what do you mean the 'first time'?

Hutchinson gave his statement on the 12th--the day after he saw the man in Middlesex Street. So there is no 'first time' and 'second time.' Hutchinson's statement to the police came after both events.

And that being the case, dear boy, I hope you would appreciate what the concept of 'pollution' means.

I was referring to first and second sightings-sorry I thought it was obvious in the context.

, dear boy,

I am neither dear nor a boy. discuss. ; )

As I say, if Hutch were the ideal witness he would be able to block the 11th out of his mind and state ONLY what he had witnessed on the morning of the 9th.

But we know from experience and scientific studies that that is not what happens in the real world. Between his encounter on the 9th and his coming forward on the 12th another significant encounter may have occurred and so we are left with the very real possibility that this second event may have significantly colored his witness statement, particularly if he was trying his hardest to give as much useful detail to the police as possible.

And it certainly looks like that was the case.

RJ, YOU are the one who originally said that this second sighting may have enabled hutch in adding detail in his description of Aman. But your using words like Polluted and colored-those don't sound as clarifying or additive descriptions to me. Anyway as I said, and Daryl so succinctly showed-this second ambiguous sighting would seem to only confuse his reliability.

As for your claim that it is "well-known" fact that killers come forward as witnesses then you should have no difficulty in providing the statistics.


How often, exactly? 1% of known cases? 8%? 0.003%? Ben has been unable to provide these numbers, but I have every confidence that you will be able to do better. Thanks.

Nope! wrong again RJ-only anecdotal evidence.


RJ
to show im not just trying to be a total contrarian, I do like your idea that this second daylight sighting (if it happened) on the 9th(whether ambigous or not) may have led him to go to a cop. Id never thought of it before. being totally sincere.

[Abby Normal]

Once again, you are two steps behind.
Gareth's point is the public would be gossiping about an early time of death on Friday, in part due to the rumored 'cry of murder'.
On what evidence?

No suggestion of a cry of murder in the Friday evening press.

Im not two steps behind Wick-your putting words in Sams mouth about the crys of murder. nice try-but ive become accustomed to these sorts of tactics from you.

And sorry-I forgot you don't think its physically possible for word to get out by you know-people talking to each other.

Are written, published and read newspaper articles the only way info got disseminated in 19th century whitechapel?

[packers stem]

Correct, this is consistent with the previous report that said "Barnet was sent for.....".
He could only have been sent for if he was at a known location. So, that was not his lodgings. They only found out his address from him. Therefore it had to be the police station.
We know he arrived at Millers Court because Abberline took his statement.

Someone, presumably Abberline or Reid "sent for" Barnett, but at what time is the crucial question.
Him viewing her body through the window only indicates he was not allowed inside by the police.
It doesn't prove the door was still locked.

They weren't going to keep Barnett in the police station while Whitehall's finest and the landlord were pondering gaining entry without a key ..... clearly
You're assuming that an officer went to tell Abberline that Barnett had showed up and if so do you really believe he wouldn't have taken Barnett down with him knowing full well that Abberline would need to speak to him .
The 'barnett was sent for' is clearly a journalistic error

[Joshua Rogan]

I said nothing about time of death, Jon. There would have been plenty of gossip giving details of an 'orrible murder in a room in Miller's Court that morning, regardless of time, quite possibly with the name "Mary Kelly" associated with it. As one who had allegedly spoken with Mary Kelly that morning, tailing her and a surly stranger back to her room, any such gossip would surely have been of great interest to George Hutchinson. He didn't need to wait for the papers, nor their confusing, unofficial and unconfirmed reports of time of death.

Weren't all those who claimed to hear a cry of murder corralled in the court until allowed out by the police? And so not in a position to tell the press anything until it was too late to get it into print that day. Leaving the daylight sighting claims of Maxwell, Lewis, etc (who were free to talk to whomever they pleased) as (seemingly) the most reliable indicator for time of death.

[Wickerman]

..... On a more serious note, though, I’m sorry to hear I’ve been the cause of offence. I certainly didn’t intend any mockery or belittlement.

I'm less inclined to think you do it by accident. It comes across to me as attention grabbing, but as I said before, some of your posts become at least humorous, if not entirely serious.

Just to be clear on the money issue, are you saying that Hutchinson was lying about having no money to lend Kelly, and that he actually had sufficient funds to pay for his doss than night?

I don't see anything wrong with him denying her money. When you have no change to spare, it is much the same as having no money to give away.
Keeping the price of a bed aside is just the same as having no money to spare, in my book anyway.
Giving her 6d, even if it was the price of a bit of how's-yer-farther, isn't going to buy him the bed for the night. Then what happens in the morning when he needs a room elsewhere, and he's blown it for 30 minutes of 'fun'?

Why, then, did he “walk about all night”? Why didn’t he seek shelter at one of the many lodging houses that proliferated the district?

We know from the Lodging-House Act that registered L.H.'s had to close for cleaning overnight. Consistent with this are the words of Wilkinson (in the Eddowes case) whose lodging-house closed at 2:30 am.
If the unregistered houses were full, and the registered one's closed, what is he to do?
It's not like he "must" be lying, a rational reason does exist.

Overnight “cleaning” may well have occurred, but it would certainly not have impeded entry to the dormitories.

I'm not sure what you base that on.
Wilkinson's words were: "...The house is generally open until half-past two in the morning."
The context of that reply was concerning lodgers coming in after 2:00 am, presumably to those very same dormitories you mention.

If Hutchinson’s intended lodging house that night was anywhere other than the address listed on his statement, Abberline would certainly have ascertained its location and mentioned it in the report.

He may have given Abberline his current address, but that address was not on the initial statement, that's all I'm saying.
For obvious reason's they need his current address.

[Wickerman]

LOL! you do realize that people that argue from the opposite side may have different ideas?

What can be recognised as a sign of desperation is, when his accusers try to argue from both sides of the fence.
Also known as - changing horses in mid-stream.

[Wickerman]

I said nothing about time of death, Jon.

The time of a "cry of murder" has been the main thrust of your point from the start.

There would have been plenty of gossip giving details of an 'orrible murder in a room in Miller's Court that morning, regardless of time, quite possibly with the name "Mary Kelly" associated with it. As one who had allegedly spoken with Mary Kelly that morning, tailing her and a surly stranger back to her room, any such gossip would surely have been of great interest to George Hutchinson. He didn't need to wait for the papers, nor their confusing, unofficial and unconfirmed reports of time of death.

Of course, on Friday afternoon, the gossip of a murder, but the victim seen in the late morning.
How does that impact Hutchinson, on his early night escapade?

[Abby Normal]

What can be recognised as a sign of desperation is, when his accusers try to argue from both sides of the fence.
Also known as - changing horses in mid-stream.

good lord wickster!

You:

Can you guy's get your heads together to come up with something consistent?

Me:

LOL! you do realize that people that argue from the opposite side may have different ideas?

people who argue against you-as in plural-can have different ideas-as in plural- from each other.

Is it context your struggling with today wicker or just in your world view everyone who debates you on hutch is one single minded monster?

[Sam Flynn]

Weren't all those who claimed to hear a cry of murder corralled in the court until allowed out by the police?

I'm not sure, Joshua. Things weren't quite as "CSI" back in those days.

Besides, as I've suggested, it was enough that the streets would definitely have been buzzing with gossip about an 'orrible morning murder of a woman in her room at Miller's Court, quite possibly with the name Mary Kelly already connected to it. This alone should have been enough for Hutchinson, who'd left Kelly with a mysterious stranger in her room that morning, to come forward. No need for press reports of contradictory times of death, no need for the cries of "Murder!" to find their way into speech or print.

[Sam Flynn]

The time of a "cry of murder" has been the main thrust of your point from the start.

Only in the context of my refutation of your insistence that the papers had settled the matter in respect of a later TOD, which is by no means clear-cut when the selfsame papers also report the earlier cries of "Murder!". Besides, the "cry of murder" is by no means the main thrust of my argument, just one aspect. As per my post immediately before this one, the mere fact that a woman had been 'orribly murdered in Miller's Court that morning should have been enough for Hutchinson to come forward, given that he'd seen Mary Kelly and a mysterious stranger enter, but not leave, her room that same morning.

[Ben]

Hi RJ,

I’m afraid I don’t agree with your analysis in the slightest, and it appears I’m far from alone.

You don’t even address the vast elephant in the room: why didn’t Hutchinson relate this alleged “Sunday sighting” when he first spoke with police? You can immediately and permanently forget the idea that Abberline neglected to mention such a critical detail in his report. So why only divulge this detail to the press? Don’t you think it’s an interesting coincidence that Hutchinson was “discredited” shortly after his “fuller” account appeared in the newspapers? In fact, the timing almost suggests the police were suspicious that this “Sunday sighting”, which should have been mention during the initial interview, may not have happened.

But you chose not to address any of this, instead evoking a very strange scenario in which Hutchinson eyeballs the Astrakhan man for a prolonged period and at close quarters on Sunday (with the latter oddly allowing him to do), this time managing to clear up those niggling mysteries that had eluded him that Friday morning, such as the shape of his tie-pin, the material of his shirt collar, and the colour of his eyelashes.

You’re still missing the very important point; Astrakhan man would have stood out anywhere, like a sore glittery thumb, especially in that part of the east end at that moment in history. Are you seriously suggesting that Hutchinson observed the same man wearing the same clothes and same very distinctive accessories, but wasn’t sure it was the same man, only “fancying” that it might have been? That it might have been a different man wearing an Astrakhan coat, horseshoe tie pin, linen collar, light buttons over button boots etc?

If you’re now suggesting that the bulk of detail he recalled was based on the Sunday sighting, you’re going to need one heck of a good explanation for the total absence of any reference to this episode in both the police statement and the accompanying report. It is impossible - not just ridiculously implausible, but irrefutably impossible - to accept that Abberline would not have made reference in his report to a Sunday sighting had Hutchinson mentioned one.

Also, if the description was based chiefly on Sunday’s non-existent sighting and the police accepted as much (they definitely didn’t and wouldn’t have done, but let’s pretend), they had absolutely no business publishing a description that may not even have been of the correct suspect, but rather a gold chain wearing market-goer who might have looked a bit like the man Hutchinson observed on Friday morning.

No, unless the police were truly moronic and incompetent, we must accept that the description that appeared on Hutchinson’s statement originated, as far as the police were concerned, from Hutchinson’s initial alleged encounter with Astrakhan and Kelly, otherwise it had no relevance whatsoever and could have led the investigation very dangerously astray.

Troublingly, it apparently also “works for you” that Hutchinson spoke to a policeman on that same Sunday. What’s your explanation, then, for that policeman’s failure to take any action at all, even after an informant had just observed a potential ripper suspect?

Furthermore, it would have taken a prolonged stare-down of several minutes for Hutchinson to have noticed (let alone memorised) all that he alleged, and yet this other man was presumably the ripper. Would he have tolerated yet another brazen intrusion by the same intrusively nosy individual? Doesn’t “work for me” at all. Remember that it isn’t just the degree of memorisation that troubles many; it’s his alleged ability to even notice that which he supposedly memorised.

All the best,
Ben

[packers stem]

I'm not sure, Joshua. Things weren't quite as "CSI" back in those days.

Besides, as I've suggested, it was enough that the streets would definitely have been buzzing with gossip about an 'orrible morning murder of a woman in her room at Miller's Court, quite possibly with the name Mary Kelly already connected to it. This alone should have been enough for Hutchinson, who'd left Kelly with a mysterious stranger in her room that morning, to come forward. No need for press reports of contradictory times of death, no need for the cries of "Murder!" to find their way into speech or print.

I think it's the Kennedy statement Joshua may be thinking of Sam
She said nobody was allowed to leave the court until 5pm I think

[Wickerman]

....
You're assuming that an officer went to tell Abberline that Barnett had showed up and if so do you really believe he wouldn't have taken Barnett down with him knowing full well that Abberline would need to speak to him .
The 'barnett was sent for' is clearly a journalistic error

In the 19th century, the police communicated by 'runners', for want of a better word. Constables had to run between the crime scene and the station to carry messages back and forth.
Unless there was telegraph available, which perhaps not at Millers Court

No-one is going to second-guess the Scotland Yard inspector (Abberline).
Their job is to inform him that the victims partner has turned up at the station. Abberline will decide where he wants to interview him, in the court or at the station.
A simple response by Abberline like, "Great, fetch him 'ere", would suffice.
(Thats 'ere not hair)