Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by RedBundy13 View Post
    I don't think he was wearing though the 2nd time, that is if I'm remembering it correctly? Didn't Kelly supposedly say something about forgetting her handkerchief and A-Man pulled a "red" one out of his pocket to give to her? IMO, theres only two explanations for him bringing that up. 1: Because that really was what he witnessed and he was just relaying what he saw. or 2: He needed something to give the detectives that could link Kellys murder with a previous one that was committed by The Ripper. ie: Red hanky which was seen being worn on the suspect who was witnessed talking to Eddowes down the Great Synagogue alley leading into Mitre Square just prior to her death.
    So basically what I'm saying that either Hutch was telling the truth and he gave by far the best, most detailed description of the Suspect yet to date or he was lying (or greatly exaggerating) about either the whole thing or just some parts of it. And if that is the case, and he was lying then that should be followed with "Why"? Which is where everything gets complicated because there are SO many reasons for him to lie or exaggerate what he did or did not see. Some of those are: Possibly getting money from the newspapers? Covering for himself by trying to throw the investigation off track by having the detectives look in totally the wrong direction? Or maybe covering for someone else? I'm sure we could come up with 20 more, at least.
    For me, I'm liking the reason that he was lying to cover for himself more and more everyday. Would I bet the farm on it? Nope, not yet at least
    Personally, I believe he came forward to explain away Sarah's Wideawake man and replace him with a trusted friend. Because Sarah actually saw someone involved with the killing , and those factions got Hutchinson to give his tale.
    Michael Richards

    Comment


    • When we look at Sarah Lewis testimony I think we should remember that all she saw was a man standing outside of a building across the road which was full of people seeking a bed for the night. Not someone in the act of committing murder, or even with a knife in his hands etc. There could very easily be a simple explanation for someone standing there. And don't forget it was someone she could barely describe. Would this really be enough for a killer, Hutchinson or whoever to come forward and all the dangers that entailed to give himself an alibi?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
        When we look at Sarah Lewis testimony I think we should remember that all she saw was a man standing outside of a building across the road which was full of people seeking a bed for the night. Not someone in the act of committing murder, or even with a knife in his hands etc. There could very easily be a simple explanation for someone standing there. And don't forget it was someone she could barely describe. Would this really be enough for a killer, Hutchinson or whoever to come forward and all the dangers that entailed to give himself an alibi?
        great question DK

        usually not. But this man was obviously hutch. both he and sarah describe his behaviour -as if waiting for someone to come out.


        Hutch may have wondered if she knew Mary or even himself. Hutch knew Mary and apparently alot of people in the area did also.


        hutch may have worried she knew him and or someone else may have seen him standing there, or go into the court near her door (his second press version) and felt it was better to come forward as a witness, rather than to be searched for as a suspect.
        "Is all that we see or seem
        but a dream within a dream?"

        -Edgar Allan Poe


        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

        -Frederick G. Abberline

        Comment


        • Hi Jon,

          I agree.

          But the man looked sufficiently like Cox's description of Mr. Blotchy for Mr. Galloway to report him to the police.

          The police stated that the man was "acting in concert" with the police.

          So, could Mr. Blotchy have been "acting in concert" with the police?

          How do you know that the press story which allegedly showed the Star to be wrong was not in itself wrong?

          On December 6th Abberline was allegedly overheard by an anonymous informant to say, "Keep this quiet—we have got the right man at last. This is a big thing."

          Leaving aside that this was merely hearsay, what leads you to believe that Abberline was talking about JtR?

          If he had been, he was seriously wrong—

          "It transpired during the hearing of this charge that it [the Kelly murder] was committed at the very time the prisoner was being watched as a person 'wanted'." Daily News, 8th December.

          So Isaacs wasn't the fictional Mr. Astrakhan.

          Regards,

          Simon

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
            this man was obviously hutch. both he and sarah describe his behaviour -as if waiting for someone to come out.
            If Hutch was - or wanted to convince the police he was - the man seen by Lewis, why did he not say that he saw her enter the court?

            Comment


            • Because 'Hutchinson' did not see Lewis enter the court. He wasn't there.

              At 3.00 am Bowyer was fetching water from the tap in Millers Court. He didn't see 'Hutchinson'. Nor did he see Sarah Lewis.

              It's all one great big tangle of lies.
              Last edited by Simon Wood; 07-04-2018, 09:25 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                At 3.00 am Bowyer was fetching water from the tap in Millers Court. He didn't see 'Hutchinson'. Nor did he see Sarah Lewis.
                Lewis would only have been in the Court fleetingly, before crashing out at the Keylers' place. And that was at 2:30, so if Bowyer was there at 3 it's no wonder he didn't see her.
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                Comment


                • Sarah Lewis's alter ego, Mrs Kennedy, arrived in Millers Court just after 3.00 am. She didn't see Bowyer, and he didn't see her.

                  It's like a Brian Rix farce.

                  Comment


                  • Hi Wickerman - Pardon my digression, but going back to the fish & chips...or the kippers and mash...

                    "In the abdominal cavity was some partially digested food of fish & potatoes & similar food was found in the remains of the stomach attached to the intestines."

                    It has always seemed to me that Kelly must have been murdered almost immediately after eating this meal. The fish was barely digested and still recognizable, even though fish digests rather quickly. Further, the food had spilled into the abdominal cavity during the appalling attack, perhaps suggesting that very little had made it's way into the small intestine. Indeed, according to Bond, what food WAS found in the entrails was still in the 'stomach proper' as opposed to the intestines. (side note: intense vomiting can empty the small intestine).

                    So the $34,000 question: when did she eat this meal?

                    No one seems to know, but I would hazard that it was no more than twenty minutes before she was killed.

                    Now, in the spirit of full disclosure, I'm one of those increasingly rare souls that don't think the Victorian police were stupid. The MEPO files on the Kelly case are nearly non-existent, but I think we can take it on faith that when Bond's report 'hit the fan,' Walter Dew and the lads would have knocked on the door of every pub and victualler in the East End until they found where Kelly bought her last meal. It would have been obvious and it would have been vital to trace that cod. And what conclusion did Dew draw? Namely, that Hutchinson was mistaken. Inexplicably, Dew lumps Hutchinson together with Mrs. Maxwell: they BOTH had the wrong night/morning. There's no other way of reading it. And to me, the only way this makes sense is if the police investigation proved that Kelly ate the fish & chips much earlier in the evening--say 11 p.m. or midnight. No other forensic detail had any bearing on the validity of Hutchinson's statement but this. So the conclusion Dew came to was that Kelly was already dead & murdered long before the events described by Hutchinson, which, of course, allegedly occurred between 2 and 3 a.m. Thus Dew's suspect was not the toff, but the Blotchy bloke with the ale, and Hutch, while honest, simply had it wrong. That, in a nutshell, is what Dew was remembering and reporting. I don't say that Dew must be accepted as the final word, but this was clearly his belief.

                    According to Dr. Klaper, in as little as 30 minutes the fish would have been unrecognizable:

                    http://www.cleanse-yourself-lose-wei...tion-time.html

                    That's all from here. Feel free to tear it apart, because, personally, I don't think Carrotty is our man. Cheers.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                      Because 'Hutchinson' did not see Lewis enter the court. He wasn't there.

                      At 3.00 am Bowyer was fetching water from the tap in Millers Court. He didn't see 'Hutchinson'. Nor did he see Sarah Lewis.

                      It's all one great big tangle of lies.
                      But even if Hutchinson was a complete police fiction, why would they have him say that he didn't see Lewis, when they had her statement that she did see someone in the very spot and at the very time that they were saying he was there?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                        Sarah Lewis's alter ego, Mrs Kennedy, arrived in Millers Court just after 3.00 am. She didn't see Bowyer, and he didn't see her.
                        Probably because "Kennedy" was not there, and might not even have existed. Even if she did, she - like Lewis - would only fleetingly have been in the Court, so if Bowyer was out by two or three minutes their paths would never have crossed anyway.

                        Hutchinson is more problematical, however, because he claims to have been there for the best part of an hour.
                        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                          Hi Wickerman - Pardon my digression, but going back to the fish & chips...or the kippers and mash...

                          "In the abdominal cavity was some partially digested food of fish & potatoes & similar food was found in the remains of the stomach attached to the intestines."

                          It has always seemed to me that Kelly must have been murdered almost immediately after eating this meal. The fish was barely digested and still recognizable, even though fish digests rather quickly.
                          Quite correct, RJ.
                          So the $34,000 question: when did she eat this meal?

                          No one seems to know, but I would hazard that it was no more than twenty minutes before she was killed.
                          I'd tack on a little more time for contingency, although I'd still suggest that we're talking about an hour at the most. As to when she ate her meal, we know from the Tabram case that there was a chandler's shop on Thrawl Street which was still selling fish and chips a little after 2AM. We don't know when it closed, unfortunately, but I doubt that it was open around the clock. Oddly enough, if Kelly bought her last meal just after 2 and consumed it within half an hour, it would tie in with a time of death of 3:30 or thereabouts, which would broadly align to Prater's and Lewis's estimates of when the cry of "Murder" went up.
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                          Comment


                          • Alcohol, especially before a meal, can delay digestion and the emptying of the stomach. Since Mary was likely drunk, the time of the fish and potatoes to go through the system was probably a tad longer.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
                              Alcohol, especially before a meal, can delay digestion and the emptying of the stomach. Since Mary was likely drunk, the time of the fish and potatoes to go through the system was probably a tad longer.
                              Indeed, which is partly why I suggested extending RJ's 20 minutes to an hour for contingency.
                              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                                If Hutch was - or wanted to convince the police he was - the man seen by Lewis, why did he not say that he saw her enter the court?
                                Hi JR
                                maybe he missed her, or didn't remember. Or he did and for whatever reason didn't want to mention her-perhaps if guilty he didn't want to play his hand that being seen by her was the reason he came forward.
                                "Is all that we see or seem
                                but a dream within a dream?"

                                -Edgar Allan Poe


                                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                                -Frederick G. Abberline

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X