Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Following on from my last post if anyone of these 53 witnesses only saw a brief glimpse of a man and a woman walking up Commercial st and not much of a description, so not called at the inquest. How do we know it was indeed Mary?

[Darryl Kenyon]

To be fair maybe Mary was seen in the company of a well-dressed man on, say a couple of occasions a day or two before she was murdered. Who could match an outline of Astrachan, which may have swayed Abberline into believing Hutch was telling the truth.

[Michael W Richards]

Jon,

I would liken George Hutchinson to Israel Schwartz in terms of their value in their respective cases. Each was touted in print much later on after the statements were given, I believe Israel was still being talked about as very viable in the Police Gazette weeks after the statement was given. Yet his story, in any format, is absent from a proceeding where its content would have been extremely germane to the question at hand. His statement preceded the Inquest.

The comments made by ground level policemen, bureaucrats and Senior Intelligence and Espionage staffers very rarely match in these cases, in fact we have just about every opinion on what was, and what did, happen that Fall. Is it that they did not share a common knowledge or position on the cases, or maybe that they gave comments that were really helpful to themselves?

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

I am going to add this.. And add a possible conclusion.

We are told that GH knew MJK. We are told this by GH himself. Right.

Now women, when drinking, talk... About men.
There were hundreds of reporters around Dorset Street trying to pick up on any crumbs they could find, even after the GH statement.
Not one woman stated anything about GH. NOT ONE. Kelly's friends would know of him, word of mouth. But nobody made any statement about GH in any way at any time. That tells me Kelly didn't mention him.. To anyone.

Conclusion...

What type of man does a woman never mention? What type of person likes to stay anonymous?

A grass doesn't tell anyone about a contact.
Ever. Irish. Informant... Not hard to believe is it.


Phil

[Abby Normal]

To be fair maybe Mary was seen in the company of a well-dressed man on, say a couple of occasions a day or two before she was murdered. Who could match an outline of Astrachan, which may have swayed Abberline into believing Hutch was telling the truth.

Hi darryl
I would suggest that What swayed Abberline into beleivimg hutch, at least initially, was that he had just come from the inquest where he heard sarah lewis describe waiting watching man, and then in he strolls to the police station.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi darryl
I would suggest that What swayed Abberline into beleivimg hutch, at least initially, was that he had just come from the inquest where he heard sarah lewis describe waiting watching man, and then in he strolls to the police station.

Its important to remember that Abberline was the top man around Whitechapel for some time before his promotion, and that he would have known dozens of contacts, snitches and street people that he encountered in his years investigating Fenian activity there. I would imagine if someone in the area had a reputation for wearing a coat trimmed with Astrakan, Abberline may well have got wind of him. I think Astrakan Man may be the key to Abberline's gullibility...assuming that he didn't misrepresent his own belief.

Perhaps, as has been suggested, he knew Mary Kelly from those years, and while performing his Fenian investigations.

These events took place when London had been one of the centers of pro Irish Self Rule rebellion and violent Terrorist Acts, carried on from the rebellion that was ongoing in Mexico and North America during their Civil War. Its not impossible that any street characters with Irish roots might have played some part, or that they would know others that were activists. I believe its possible Kate was killed in that kind of scenario.

[Robert St Devil]

Hi Robert.
You do make a good point about calling witnesses who actually spoke to Mary as opposed to those who just saw, or thought they saw Mary.

The proof, Jon, may be found in the Coroner's cautionary treatment of Mrs. Maxwell at the inquest. His warning to her suggests a reluctance on his part but, hey, she's claiming that she had this hangover dialogue with Mary Jane, so he may have permitted its' entry. If he's conducting an efficient inquest that prioritizes last known times of life and time of death over, say, solving the mystery, he may have worked under the premise that sightings are unreliable but conversations verify identity & a last known account of the victim being alive. I might argue that, had Mrs Maxwell not stuck to her claim that she and Mary spoke, she may have never appeared at the inquest, and been filed in a police report as merely a potential sighting.

[Aside: I'm aware that Lewis and Prater (who didnt claim any dialogue with Mary Jane) were called at the inquest, but I blv that had to do with "oh murder" more than anything else.]

[Abby Normal]

The proof, Jon, may be found in the Coroner's cautionary treatment of Mrs. Maxwell at the inquest. His warning to her suggests a reluctance on his part but, hey, she's claiming that she had this hangover dialogue with Mary Jane, so he may have permitted its' entry. If he's conducting an efficient inquest that prioritizes last known times of life and time of death over, say, solving the mystery, he may have worked under the premise that sightings are unreliable but conversations verify identity & a last known account of the victim being alive. I might argue that, had Mrs Maxwell not stuck to her claim that she and Mary spoke, she may have never appeared at the inquest, and been filed in a police report as merely a potential sighting.

[Aside: I'm aware that Lewis and Prater (who didnt claim any dialogue with Mary Jane) were called at the inquest, but I blv that had to do with "oh murder" more than anything else.]

good insight there Devil. agree.

[Robert St Devil]

I'm not following your meaning.
The "fuller description" means that Hutch provided a more detailed description of this man than the police had on file. Which could mean more facial detail, or the gaiters, watch chain, waist-coat, etc.
At least that is how I understood it.

I probably fumbled the interpretation on my first read-through. I hadn't considered the description was fuller than what they had on file, had originally read that it was fuller than any description provided that weekend.

[Varqm]

Why does it matter?
What does his walk from Romford have to do with seeing Kelly & her client?
Where does he say he was her friend?

Friend/acquaintance allegedly.It's talked like it's already true.

---

[Wickerman]

That to me suggests you think most of these witnesses saw Astrachan?
_Is that right or not?

Oh heavens no, only a few maybe. The missing 53 statements may include the "others" referred to at the end of the Police Notice.
That is all I was alluding to.

It strikes me as telling that the police would have already received statements describing this middle-aged Jew. Probably over those days between the murder and Hutchinson showing up.
The police did conduct a house-to-house investigation in Dorset street over that first weekend, it's a fair bet this is when they came across the "others" who provided a similar description to that given later by Hutchinson.

Because if it is how come none of these witnesses made a statement at the inquest before hutch came forward, the police wouldn't know they had a star witness waiting in the wings.

I realize you are judging the extent of the evidence by the number of witnesses called to appear. This I think is a mistake.
We know from what Macdonald said at the inquest that further sittings were expected. Phillips for one was expected to produce more medical evidence at a future adjournment.
Then Macdonald changed his mind by saying, "My own opinion is that it is very unnecessary for two courts to deal with these cases,..etc."
So how many other witnesses were slated to appear, but did not because of Macdonald?
We already have a press report that Mrs Kennedy was expected to speak before the coroner, that never happened either.

Therefore, we should not judge the extent of the evidence by the early termination of the inquest. There could have been much more evidence to hear.

[Wickerman]

Following on from my last post if anyone of these 53 witnesses only saw a brief glimpse of a man and a woman walking up Commercial st and not much of a description, so not called at the inquest. How do we know it was indeed Mary?

What do you mean "we"?
Surley it was the police who needed to be sure the female was Kelly, and that assurance would have been provided by the witness giving the statement.
That's how it usually works. Kelly was a known 'face' around Dorset street.
Few unfortunates looked like Mary Kelly, so we are led to believe. Her hair being one identifiable feature - not her ears

[Wickerman]

There were hundreds of reporters around Dorset Street trying to pick up on any crumbs they could find, even after the GH statement.
Not one woman stated anything about GH. NOT ONE. Kelly's friends would know of him, word of mouth. But nobody made any statement about GH in any way at any time. That tells me Kelly didn't mention him.. To anyone.

Hi Phil.

The police advised everyone they spoke to not to share what they knew about Kelly's movements.

"...the police gave peremptory instructions to everyone not to allude to the circumstances in the faintest way."

Don't you think that would do the trick?

We have an example of this in the press statement by Mrs Prater.

"Elizabeth Prater, the occupant of the first floor front room, was one of those who saw the body through the window. She affirms that she spoke to the deceased on Thursday. She knew that Kelly had been living with a man, and that they had quarrelled about ten days since. It was a common thing for the women living in these tenements to bring men home with them. They could do so as they pleased. She had heard nothing during the night, and was out betimes in the morning, and her attention was not attracted to any circumstances of an unusual character. Kelly was, she admitted, one of her own class, and she made no secret of her way of gaining a livelihood."
Daily Telegraph, 10 Nov.

Prater told the press she heard nothing during the night, no screams, no tiddles on the prowl, it seems she was following instructions.
Maybe they all did the same?

[Wickerman]

The proof, Jon, may be found in the Coroner's cautionary treatment of Mrs. Maxwell at the inquest. His warning to her suggests a reluctance on his part but, hey, she's claiming that she had this hangover dialogue with Mary Jane, so he may have permitted its' entry.

Hi Robert.

I think the press coverage on Friday evening justifies the coroner requiring Maxwell to appear at the inquest. The late morning sighting, therefore a late morning murder.
Traditionally, Maxwell's evidence has been treated in our day as an extreme example of false testimony. Not intentionally false, just mistaken identify.
Some have given it more credit than others.
Yet, when we read the press theories on Friday Maxwell's account is the most talked about theory on the lips of the locals.

The coroner did caution her yes, but how was her testimony different to the testimony of others?
Seeing Kelly alive at 12:30 and hearing her singing does not mean she couldn't have been in the street at 8:30 the next morning.
No-one witnessed the murder, so no other story contradicted that of Maxwell.

The words of the coroner are yet to be explained.

[Wickerman]

Put it this way, Jon, does a person require a scar or facial tattoo or nose ring in order for his face to be recognised on more than one occasion? Clearly not. Surely you’re able to get your head around the concept of “normal”-looking people being unique enough in their facial appearance (as everyone is) to distinguish them from other “normal”-looking people?

Lewis wasn't near enough to see his face.
Obviously, if she can't describe anything in detail it is because she can't see the detail.
Common sense?

I suggest you obtain yourself a copy of Stephen Senise’s book (the one you’ve been criticising without having read it),...

That doesn't make any sense either Ben. How can I criticise a book I have never read?
Has anyone ever directly quoted a passage from his book, have you?
I guess not, you never told me you were quoting from the book at any time. So, how can I criticise his book?

What sense in borrowing from recent suspect descriptions if they were all describing him?

But that is not your position, and we are talking about 'your' belief, like you talk about mine. You don't lump someone else's belief into it when you are talking about my theory (whatever that is).
Maybe this is another flaw in your theory?
The creation of Astrachan is a necessity only if Hutchinson was the killer?

Exchange the word “important” for “potentially advantageous” and you’ll have an answer that is perfectly consistent with the behaviour of known serial killers ......

Oh, you're not going down that path again are you?

Again, I’m not saying Hutchinson was a serial killer; I’m simply illustrating the folly of the argument that if he was the killer, he would have run away.

You can't have it both ways, either we are talking about a timewaster or a serial killer. Each theory requires different arguments.

He had to in order to hear them, yes, but by his own account he didn’t. He claimed to have stood at the corner of Commercial and Dorset Street while this alleged “exchange at the Miller’s Court entrance” took place - too far away to have heard any “exchange” let alone registered any handkerchief colour (or pattern!).

When you were a kid didn't you ever follow someone down the street, and when they turn the corner you run to that corner and peek around it watching them until they get far enough away that you can walk down the street behind them again?
I'm sure you must have at some point.

You agree Hutchinson had to be within earshot of them both to hear what he claimed, yet you don't apply common sense. The problem is not with Hutchinson, it's with you Ben.
You refuse to acknowledge he had to be close, but to maintain your criticism of him you argue that "if he did walk down Dorset street, he would have said so", or something like that.

Lets be fair Ben, if that 'mistake' (your view) by Hutchinson is the kind of mistake you would make (claiming you heard words when you too far away), then I could understand. But I'll bet you think you are too smart to make a stupid mistake like that in a statement to the police, or anyone else. I'll bet most people are.
So why isn't Hutchinson just as smart as most people?

This, to my way of thinking, is another example of a straw-man argument. You make an argument that is intentionally false, then shoot it down, and claim it proves you are right.
Yet, in the real world, no-one is going to be that stupid.

That’s a meaningless distinction. How long do you think it takes to get from the Britannia to the inside of room #2 Millers Court? Three minutes?

You're missing the point.
Lewis was there AT 2:30, she does not say what time she arrived.
She said " I was at her house at half past 2 on Friday morning.."
And, we know the Spitalfields clock strikes on the half-hour, so we know how she knew the time.
She does not give a time for passing the Britannia, she could have arrived at Millers Court at 2:10, 2:15, 2:20. We have no idea.

.......Arriving in the district after an implausibly long walk from a far-flung destination ......

All this tells me is, you probably do not do a whole lot of walking.
You have an unrealistic view of the times Ben.