Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[harry]

Jon,
Where do you get this,' Specific instructions 'from? .It is the judge,representing the court, who decides on what evidence is admitted,and how it is given by the witness.When a witness gives a narrative account, it is usually by request,not by instruction.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

It's precisely because the description she gave was 'non-descript' that he had nothing to worry about.

Repeating an annoying fallacy over and over again won’t make it come true. Nondescript people are capable of being recognised if seen a second time, regardless of how difficult to describe they might be.

What is "nonsense" is your repeated assertion that he was 120ft away when he saw & heard the exchange. He was standing across the street.

Utter bullocks.

Read the actual press account (y’know, the one you’ve been treating as gospel for years):

They walked across the road to Dorset street. I followed them across and stood at the corner of Dorset street. They stood at the corner of Miller's court for about three minutes. Kelly spoke to the man in a loud voice, saying, "I have lost my handkerchief”.

How much clearer could Hutchinson be? While the handkerchief conversation was taking place, he was standing at the corner of Dorset Street. You can either believe him or disbelieve him on this point, but what you absolutely don’t get to do is pretend he said something entirely different and then use your fiddled-with version as a basis for believing him.

You are changing horses in mid-stream.
As you don't argue that Hutch was the killer, only a timewaster, then your reply is evasive.

Where have I argued that Hutchinson was “only a timewaster”? I thought I was responding to one of those “If he was X he would not have done Y” arguments (my favourite amongst which being “If he was a liar, he would have lied better”).

I’ll try to be clearer: why didn’t he take advantage of previous witness descriptions if he was “only a timewaster” who wanted to implicate the Jews? Answer: because none of the previous witness descriptions described anyone Jewish. Only “leather apron” served his purpose in that regard, and there are strong indications that he did borrow from that description for use in his Astrakhan creation.

Why didn’t he take advantage of previous descriptions if he was the killer? See above response, plus the fact that the previous witness descriptions described him, not the sinister Jew he wanted to deflect suspicion towards.

What makes you think they didn't see him?

Hutchinson’s own account of his own movements for one thing. There is absolutely no way that Astrakhan, killer or not, entered a small room in a tiny court knowing that the man who had just “stooped down” to look him in the face had followed him back there and was now waiting outside. This was at the height of the “Autumn of Terror” in an area known to be one of the worst in London even without Jack’s funny little games. How was Astrakhan to know that the snooping, stooping man wasn’t assembling a mob while he obliviously removed his thick gold watch chain?

It makes no sense to invent a scenario that could not have happened

It’s called lying, Jon, and you’ll be shocked to hear it happens all the time. Criminals slip up on a daily basis by “inventing a scenario that could not have happened”.

Because 2:30 is the nearest time to her arrival, she doesn't have to say she was there at 3:00, 3:30, etc. if she was there at 2:30.

What’s wrong with giving the actual time of arrival, even if it was just as estimate? If she got home at 2.10 and heard the clock strike at 2.30, she was surely capable of determining roughly how long she had been indoors and informing police accordingly. It makes no sense whatsoever to mention 2.30 unless it was her estimated time of arrival home.

The point being, you are the one who thinks a 12 mile walk is extreme

If it is undertaken during a cold wet night, in the certain knowledge that your lodging house would be closed upon arrival in the small hours, then yes, I’d say that’s pretty extreme.

All the best,
Ben

[Herlock Sholmes]

You're probably right, Sam. I was just bored and wondering if there were any fans of old-school Genesis in tonight.

Prog rules in my world

The Battle Of Epping Forest.

[Busy Beaver]

I do not think that Hutch or Aman are the Ripper. I am on the same thinking that Hutch made the story of Aman up to sound like a good samaritan. A man who walked 14 miles from Romford is not going to stand around for too long in the cold dark streets of Whitechaple.

So what if Mary did not come out her home on after saying goodnight to Blotchy? Her clothes were neatly placed on a chair and her boots beside the chair in front of the fire. I doubt she would have gone out without any boots or shoes on. Would the Killer having seen the neatly placed clothes on the chair, take of Mary's boots and put them were the Police found them, in order to look like she did not go out? It would have been easy for her just to throw a coat or a shawl over herself if she was only wearing her night clothes/under garments, but as she only seemed to be wearing a chemise when she was found on her bed, I now doubt that she never did go out. So it may mean the Ripper could have been known to her and made his own way into the room, or she was not killed by the Ripper, or thirdly the Ripper was exceptionally bold and walked up the Court and Mary Jane invited him in. Who is to say Blotchy didn't walk into the Ripper and tell him that there's pretty good girl up that court? After all Blotchy had a few and was in good spirits so to speak.

[Ben]

I do recall you disagreeing with others who viewed G.H. as the killer, settling for a less controversial accusation that he was present, but made up most of his story.

I don’t recall that at all, Jon. I suspect you may be confusing me with someone else.

Yes, I agree that he was “present” at 2.30am outside the court where he was observed loitering by Sarah Lewis. I believe it because it’s the only aspect of his account that can be corroborated; it confirms his presence, but not his reason for being there. No, I do not believe he witnessed an encounter between Kelly and Astrakhan, outside the court or anywhere else. I believe he invented Astrakhan man, and that Kelly never ventured outdoors again after Cox observed her return home in an intoxicated state at around 11.45pm.

If there’s anything that “confuses” you about the above, let me know.

Lewis’s use of the world “gentleman” should not be taken literally. A policeman describing an incident to a court room might say something like, “I arrested as intoxicated-looking gentleman, who was found to be in possession of drugs”. It doesn’t make him aristocracy, it makes the expression one of formality. Lewis was only “suspicious” of the man because of what had been going on in this district for the last few months, not helped by the fact that the man was carrying a black bag (presumably containing money to pay for prostitution).

He only wanted one of them, that's all he needs.

But what was the other woman supposed to do? Wait at the entrance to the alley while her friend gets killed, promising not to alert the nearest policeman or (just a couple of able bodied men would have done) who would then have returned to investigate?

You want to talk about 'evidence' now?, this is after you assert your favourite source - the Echo, managed to obtain inside information from the police, without the slightest scrap of said evidence?

I’ve provided “said evidence” over and over again. We could revisit the entire topic again if you like, although you’ll probably have to make do with copy-and-pastes as I see no reason to write it all out again using different words - the first ones did the trick perfectly well.

“Discredited”, as I’ll never tire of repeating whenever and wherever necessary, is a synonym for the expressions used by the Echo in their reports, which were “very reduced importance” and “considerably discounted”.

A witness is expected to answer the questions put to them, and nothing more. A witness does not offer a running commentary on their last 24 hours leading up to the murder.

So the police and the corner were all wretchedly and unforgivably incompetent then for failing to ask the specific question that would have elicited the information from Bowyer that he had seen a man inside the court at 3.00am? Wow. Such information would have been absolutely crucial if true, and yet thanks to collective retardation on the part of the authorities being compounded by a cap-doffing “speak when spoken to” attitude from Bowyer himself, it never emerged either in his police statement or during the inquest.

That was until it occurred to some genius from a newspaper to blaze a daring new trail, to conquer virgin territory, and actually think to ask if Bowyer had seen any suspicious men on the night of the Kelly murder; whereupon Bowyer responded “Why yes! At 3.00am right inside court. Been dying to tell the police and the court about it, but no bugger ever asked me!”.

That’s how Jon thinks it all panned out.

I don't need to.
Abberline took his statement down in third-hand, so no direct quotes there either.

Alright then, provide a source for this 3.00am sighting that at least establishes Bowyer himself as the true originator, as opposed to a press interview with an undisclosed informant claiming to have some knowledge of Bowyer’s experiences. Oh, and provide an explanation - one that isn’t completely asinine this time - for the absence of this 3.00am sighting from both and inquest and the police statement.

Regards,
Ben

[Herlock Sholmes]

. They walked across the road to Dorset street. I followed them across and stood at the corner of Dorset street. They stood at the corner of Miller's court for about three minutes. Kelly spoke to the man in a loud voice, saying, "I have lost my handkerchief”.

I’ve never understood this. She was a prostitute, he was a client, they were heading for the warmth of Mary’s room. Why did they stand talking in the street for three minutes? It makes little sense to me.

[Abby Normal]

totally agree. at very least hutch was an attention seeking liar and made up the story of Aman, although I believe he was there waiting and watching for mary. Im about 50/50 on whether he even spoke with her though.

This is one of my doubts. The other victims were apparently chosen at random so why was Hutchinson the ripper so determined that it had to be Mary that night? Why was he willing to undergo the inconvenience of loitering around when he could easily have found another victim.

Im not suggesting certainties here but I just feel that, on balance, neither AM or Hutchinson were the ripper. I tend to think that Hutchinson wanted somewhere to stay for the night and he thought that Mary was an option. He gave up waiting and then felt guilty that he hadn’t done anything that might have helped his ‘friend’ so he made up the AM story to paint himself in a better light.[/QUOTE]

Agree hs. Check your pm

[Darryl Kenyon]

I’ve never understood this. She was a prostitute, he was a client, they were heading for the warmth of Mary’s room. Why did they stand talking in the street for three minutes? It makes little sense to me.

Especially if it was raining, as it was by 3 am [Mary Cox testimony]

[Herlock Sholmes]

Especially if it was raining, as it was by 3 am [Mary Cox testimony]

Good point Darryl

[Busy Beaver]

And they had already done the chit-chat on the corner of Thrawl Street. If Mary had little else on, what difference is a hanky going to make?

[Ben]

Hi Herlock,

I wouldn’t say that Hutchinson, if the ripper, was “obsessively determined that it had to be Mary Kelly”, but at the same time, I think the ease with which he could supposedly procure another victim is often exaggerated. Such was the heightened state of alert in the locality by early November that the ripper may have thought it unlikely that his continued run of astonishing good luck would hold, especially with the streets being littered more than ever with plain clothes police and vigilance committee types, and with his intended targets being more wary than ever.

If Kelly was the only woman he was aware of who lived alone, he might have considered the opportunity her situation presented to be too good to pass up on, without necessarily being obsessed with her on a personal level.

As for continuing with the murder after being seen, he had evidently done so with previous murders, and in far more incriminating circumstances that standing alone on a street. Lawende had seen him with the victim just minutes before the murder, whereas Schwartz ostensibly witnessed an attack itself taking place. I can only surmise that the killer was too intent on his grisly mission to abandon it altogether the moment a possible witness came within visual range.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Answer: because none of the previous witness descriptions described anyone Jewish.

I meant “because none of the previous witnesses described anyone Jewish”.

Sorry to waste a post pointing this out, but it looked so unbearably naff!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Hi Ben,

I wouldn’t say that Hutchinson, if the ripper, was “obsessively determined that it had to be Mary Kelly”, but at the same time, I think the ease with which he could supposedly procure another victim is often exaggerated. Such was the heightened state of alert in the locality by early November that the ripper may have thought it unlikely that his continued run of astonishing good luck would hold, especially with the streets being littered more than ever with plain clothes police and vigilance committee types, and with his intended targets being more wary than ever.

If Kelly was the only woman he was aware of who lived alone, he might have considered the opportunity her situation presented to be too good to pass up on, without necessarily being obsessed with her on a personal level.

Good point. We have to remember though that those women were still desperate for cash though, no matter how much of a higher state of alert they were on. They would still have taken a customer to a secluded spot if they thought that he seemed ‘ok.’ I still don’t think that he would have had any problem finding another victim if he was the ripper.

As for continuing with the murder after being seen, he had evidently done so with previous murders, and in far more incriminating circumstances that standing alone on a street. Lawende had seen him with the victim just minutes before the murder, whereas Schwartz ostensibly witnessed an attack itself taking place. I can only surmise that the killer was too intent on his grisly mission to abandon it altogether the moment a possible witness came within visual range.

Could the killer have been sure that he’d been seen near Mitre Square? At a distance, in the dark might he not have felt confident that he couldn’t have been identified? He would also have known that the three witnesses weren’t heading into Mitre Square. In Dorset Street Hutchinson was seen just a short distance across from the murder site.

As for Schwartz I’ve always been highly doubtful that the ripper would have openly fought in the street, with his intended victim, in front of at least one witness, right next to the spot where she was found? He could have easily called it off and gone on to find another victim (as he did anyway.) Of course there’s always the reasonable possibility that ES wasn’t killed by the ripper.

All the best,
Ben

If only we had a time machine.

[Joshua Rogan]

Especially if it was raining, as it was by 3 am [Mary Cox testimony]

The same time as George gave up his vigil - coincidence, or did they both go to find shelter when it came on to rain?

[Joshua Rogan]

Prog rules in my world

The Battle Of Epping Forest.

I'm glad to see someone was paying attention.