Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Phil Carter]

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?

Hello Jon,

Hang on a bit dear friend...
We are talking about the lowest class of persons here.
I would doubt.. sincerely doubt, that many of these people could even read any newspaper statement, and am highly doubtful that many of them were actually law abiding citizens.. Especially low class women who picked up 3d and 6d from casual prostitution, drinking their earnings away. It would only take ONE reporter offering a couple of free drinks in a pub for tongues to loosen. And that's just the women. The men would easily be bribed for a shilling or two. These aren't hypotheses of great doubt Jon, it went on all the time. It was one of the reasons there were many, many informants in SB hands, not to mention those whose petty crimes were overlooked by the local coppers here and there. So no, lawfully abiding citizens? A fair percentage were not.

So, MJK would only keep her mouth shut about GH for a reason. Either that wasn't his name, or he didn't want his name getting out. That, to me, logically, smells of a grass keeping schtumm about an undercover contact.



Phil

[Abby Normal]

Looks like you against the world wick. Lol

You had the gall to lecture me and those who think hutch might have been less than truthful that we cant be right because we dont all agree on everything.

All this from someone whose suspect is a “well dressed man”. Well I guess its hard to argue against a phantom wick, yet easy for you to criticise those who at least name a suspect.

[Ben]

Hi RJ,

You’ll appreciate this: like the dastardly Maybrick I’ve literally taken lodgings in Middlesex Street for last night and tomorrow, and looking around me as I type, I’m struck that the closest thing to Astrakhan is me!

Where’s the evidence that I’m any more entrenched in my views than you are in yours? I’m willing to bet silly sums that you nailed your colours to the dubious mast of “Tumblestrakhan” before I had ever heard of George Hutchinson. As far as entrenchment goes, I’d say you’ve dug a good deal deeper than I have over the years.

Interesting strawman argument you’ve concocted concerning Astrakhan’s accessories, but in reality I’ve never once claimed that the items or clothing Hutchinson described did not exist or could not be obtained in London. I’m simply questioning the likelihood of anyone wearing them on the streets of Whitechapel in the small hours of the morning at the moment in history, given the climate, just as I question anyone’s ability to both notice and memorise a multitude of clothing and accessories within the space of a fleeting glance in poor lighting conditions.

Does the fact that pigs exist support the argument that they are capable of flying? No, just as the fact that “red stone seals” exist doesn’t bestow upon Hutchinson superhuman powers of observation and recollection. So I’m unclear as to what you think you’ve “divested” me of.

The fact that you’re anxious for a “well-to-do dandy” to have murdered several prostitutes in the east end in 1888 doesn’t make it any more likely that anyone so adorned would escape unaccosted in that environment. Sorry, but if the best you can do is claim that the existence of “red spinners” serves as proof for the existence of a discredited suspect description, it’s little wonder that my support for this discrediting has “served me well for the past ten years”.

What exactly was a lying Hutchinson supposed to do? Only invent clothes and accessories that don’t actually exist or couldn’t be obtained anywhere? Is that seriously what’s required to shake your unrelenting credulity at his account?

[Ben]

How “full of terror” did Hutchinson wish to portray Kelly at the sight of this ‘sinister’ Jew?

None at all, obviously, otherwise she wouldn’t have taken him back to her home and supplied Hutchinson with a reason for loitering outside it. I’m not sure what it is you’re not grasping about Hutchinson’s necessity to make the man’s appearance seem as out-of-place as possible if his intention was to explain away his loitering antics witnessed by Lewis. If that plan involved a) placing Kelly in her room with a man, b) legitimising his sustained and prolonged interest in the couple, and c) incriminating the Jewish community, I defy you to conjure up a more suitable vehicle for this purpose than Astrakhan man.

It’s always been one of the more entertainingly fallacious arguments for me: “If Hutchinson lied he would have told MY much better lie, therefore he didn’t lie at all!”. It’s similar to this one:

Further, Hutchinson doesn’t even insist the man is a Jew; he merely states “Jewish appearance,” which rather weakens the “racist” argument, don’t you think?

So if he didn’t lay it on thick with a trowel, it didn’t happen? How was Hutchinson to know (“insist”) that any man he saw was a Jew? Not even the bogus descriptions of “Leather Apron” were “insistent” upon the man’s Jewishness - it could only have been a personal impression, even if he was totally truthful.

I never claimed to know why Hutchinson went to Romford; I’m simply querying the circumstances of his alleged return during the small hours of a miserable, wet morning with the certainty of no accommodation at the other end. If he was a night shift worker and slept most of Thursday, what happened to working that night? Why the 14 mile jaunt just to do engage in a spot of casual voyeurism followed by yet more aimless “walking about”? That’s neither “work” nor anything resembling an effort to find any.

You say he “needed to get back to London” for some undisclosed early appointment, but why didn’t he try to get his head down as soon as possible upon arrival in Whitechapel in order to function for said appointment? Why the walking about, why the stalking, and why the loitering?

As I said, Stephen provides a compelling comparison between Astrakhan and “Leather Apron”. I would strongly suggest reading it before criticising.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Looks like you against the world wick. Lol

You had the gall to lecture me and those who think hutch might have been less than truthful that we cant be right because we dont all agree on everything.

All this from someone whose suspect is a “well dressed man”. Well I guess its hard to argue against a phantom wick, yet easy for you to criticise those who at least name a suspect.

I don't see the parallel, we are talking about witnesses here, not suspects.
Care to try another mode of attack, one more accurate?

[Wickerman]

..... It would only take ONE reporter offering a couple of free drinks in a pub for tongues to loosen. And that's just the women. The men would easily be bribed for a shilling or two.

Hi Phil.

GH did say he had known Kelly for three years, but three years previous Kelly was living in Breezers Hill. Living with a landlord (Maywood?) who kept stables at Romford.
Hutchinson said he was a Groom, horse trainers/owners typically employ a groom.
This was all in the past, no-one at Millers Court need ever have seen GH, or heard about him.
No-one in the press seems to have run off down to Breezers Hill to make enquiries about this George Hutchinson, which is a shame.
If they had, and found something fishy, wouldn't that have made a story worthy of publishing?

[Abby Normal]

I don't see the parallel, we are talking about witnesses here, not suspects.
Care to try another mode of attack, one more accurate?

Actually you are talking about both phantom witnesses and suspects.
And when i challenged you on who were the wtnesses who saw mary in between 2-3 am like you posted,all you did was come back with a totally unrelated question because you obviously could not respond with any coherent defense.

And re mode of attack- yours is to trawl through all the press reports hoping to find any kind of snippet to twist into your preconceived obsession of a well dress man suspect and a honest hutch.

Its painfully obvious.

[Wickerman]

The fact that you’re anxious for a “well-to-do dandy” to have murdered several prostitutes in the east end in 1888 doesn’t make it any more likely that anyone so adorned would escape unaccosted in that environment....

Hi Ben, I realize the above was for RJ, but for all this vigorous defense of your belief GH was only a timewaster, who do you think actually caused these crimes?
Just an unnamed local low-life nobody?

The common lodging-houses were the worst place for keeping secrets, surrounded by eyes and ears, all looking for the slightest reason to shop one of their own as JtR.
And many did, the police were dealing with a continuous barrage of false accusations due to the heightened state of awareness of the locals.
They all wanted this killer off the streets.

Then we have this respectably dressed "botherer" (Britannia-man), who did at least try to lure loose? women into dark alley's.
Who else in this drama, local low-life or not, was ever reported to have employed such obviously suspicious activity?

And you don't think he is a reasonable candidate, why, because of his attire?

Just humor me for a moment and explain why you don't accept such a character as a likely suspect?

[Sam Flynn]

but three years previous Kelly was living in Breezers Hill. Living with a landlord (Maywood?) who kept stables at Romford.

I hadn't heard of that, Jon. What's the source?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Ben, I realize the above was for RJ, but for all this vigorous defense of your belief GH was only a timewaster, who do you think actually caused these crimes?
Just an unnamed local low-life nobody?

The common lodging-houses were the worst place for keeping secrets, surrounded by eyes and ears, all looking for the slightest reason to shop one of their own as JtR.
And many did, the police were dealing with a continuous barrage of false accusations due to the heightened state of awareness of the locals.
They all wanted this killer off the streets.

Then we have this respectably dressed "botherer" (Britannia-man), who did at least try to lure loose? women into dark alley's.
Who else in this drama, local low-life or not, was ever reported to have employed such obviously suspicious activity?

And you don't think he is a reasonable candidate, why, because of his attire?

Just humor me for a moment and explain why you don't accept such a character as a likely suspect?

well according to your totally accurate and honest witness hutch-he himself rules out Britannia man, because according to hutch, mary was already in her home with Aman, when Sarah lewis-the one who had just seen brittania man and fled from him to Millers court arrives.


so hes out. but nice try. I hear Tumblety was quite the dresser-how about him?

[Wickerman]

I hadn't heard of that, Jon. What's the source?

Hi Gareth.

Neal Sheldon, his book, Mary Jane Kelly and the Victims of Jack the Ripper.

[Sam Flynn]

Neal Sheldon, his book, Mary Jane Kelly and the Victims of Jack the Ripper.

Thanks, Jon. No wonder I didn't know it, as I haven't got that book. Is it definitely known that Mary Kelly's landlady in Breezer's Hill was the one with the Romford horsey connection, or is that merely a suggestion?

[rjpalmer]

Personally, I think there is no way in hell that Frank Tumilty would have kissed Mary Kelly at the entry to Millers Court, as the man described by Hutchinson did. There was also a certain familiarity in their actions.

No, Ben assumes far too much; it's his Achilles heel, and that's why he seems to be eager to stay splashing around in the shallow end of the pool instead of making serious arguments.

Much like the assumption that the lighting was bad where Kelly and her client were standing, because the Hutchinson theory otherwise dies on the vine. Just assumptions and more assumptions.

Me? I try to operate on the principle that it is unwise to dismiss a witness merely because he or she is saying something inconvenient. I don't think knee-jerk dismissal is a particularly good attribute in a detective. Anyone can be called a liar. It's the easiest thing in the world.

Wickerman - Sorry to hear about your traumatic run-in on the highway. It does, however, bring back a memory.

Sometime ago, a drunk crossed the center line and slammed into my pickup. He blew out one of his tires but still managed to flee. My small pickup was a total loss. I have great respect for Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbelow, so I don't want to knock the coppers, but the first thing the policeman said to me on arrival was that it was 'almost the beginning of his weekend' so he had to hurry. There was no effort made to trace the hit-and-run driver, even though we had a partial 'specialty' plate, an excellent description, and the vehicle was badly hobbled. Long story short, when I got home and had access to another car, I took the law into my own hands. I traced the man in under 10 minutes. His truck was hidden in some trees at the third sidestreet I came to. I called the detective, but got an answering machine; he never got back to me. I finally went to the man's house, pounded on his door and demanded payment in full. He went to the bank and paid me. I should have turned him in for drunk driving, but the police obviously didn't take the matter seriously.

My point? Just because Hutchinson told a constable on Sunday what he had seen, there is no guarantee the man would have informed his superiors. Maybe he was a slacker. There are bad cops just like there are bad waitresses and bad barbers. Just another assumption on Ben's part. The way I look at it, it could be possible that Hutch took the law in his own hands and tried to trace the suspect himself. Maybe he felt he wouldn't be believed otherwise. He eventually told a constable,but when nothing still happened, he went to the nick and told Badham. I don't find his story even remotely incredible.

[Wickerman]

well according to your totally accurate and honest witness hutch-he himself rules out Britannia man, because according to hutch, mary was already in her home with Aman, when Sarah lewis-the one who had just seen brittania man and fled from him to Millers court arrives.

Hutch doesn't say anything to rule out the Britannia-man, where did you get that idea?
Does Cox's story also rule out the Britannia-man?

Both Cox & Hutch see Kelly with another man, but no-body saw either man leave Millers court. How does that rule out a third client?

I say "no-body", except the statement by Bowyer that he saw a man who fit the published description in the court around 3:00 am.
As Bowyer didn't see Kelly, then it could be assumed this man was leaving.
The only published description of the Kelly murder was Astrachan.

As Kennedy reportedly saw Kelly at "about 3:00 am", with the Britannia-man. What has Hutchinson's story to do with what Kennedy saw?

From all the available reports it seems Hutchinson, Astrachan & Kelly all departed Millers Court within minutes of each other, around 3:00 am.

Are you really following this?

[Wickerman]

Thanks, Jon. No wonder I didn't know it, as I haven't got that book. Is it definitely known that Mary Kelly's landlady in Breezer's Hill was the one with the Romford horsey connection, or is that merely a suggestion?

The book was only released in Kindle, and I lost my copy due to a virus. My backup copy is on my wife's Ipad, but that is not powering up, it needs to go in for repairs or something. It's an old model so I keep my fingers crossed it isn't beyond repair.
I have not been able to transfer a Kindle book back from an Ipad to a desktop computer.
I'm hoping my copy isn't lost forever - it's not available in kindle anymore, from what I understand.