Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson?

[Darryl Kenyon]

I feel there is a chance that Mary had left the items cooking before she went out. Large fire, Tin Bath used as Kettle of fish IE in water. Potatoes whole in the fire [like on bonfire night when I was a kid].

[Batman]

I've not known anyone to wrap their fish and chips in linseed-oil impregnated linen, secured with a strap.

Why must that be the material used in the small parcel and not say... paper?

[Sam Flynn]

Where was the empty can of beer at Kelly's place?

We're not talking about disposable cans of beer, more like a reusable vessel of one's own which could be taken to a pub or shop to be refilled. There was nothing odd in Blotchy taking it away with him after he and Kelly had emptied it... assuming it was empty, of course, and didn't contain a heart, say.

[Sam Flynn]

Out of both those packages which one is more likely to be fish and chips?

I go for the small parcel with the strap because it's hot.

I've not known anyone to wrap their fish and chips in linseed-oil impregnated linen, secured with a strap.

[Batman]

From memory Barnett was asked if he gave Kelly any money the last time he saw her and he said no. He went on to say that when he had been earning he had frequently brought home treats such as meat. If he had presented her with the wherewithal for a fish and chip supper, I think he would have mentioned it.

If she went to get a supper, then we should have some evidence of witnesses to this. We know investigators followed up on shop and pub visits.

So it appears someone brought her the food and within a few hours of eating it, she was being eviscerated.

Two people are seen carrying items to her room.

Blotchy with Cox claiming he had a can of beer and Hutchinson claiming his man had a small parcel in his left hand, with a kind of strap round it.

Where was the empty can of beer at Kelly's place? So Blotchy (who was never found it seems) took it away again.

Out of both those packages which one is more likely to be fish and chips?

I go for the small parcel with the strap because it's hot.

[Sam Flynn]

Obviously, there is no major obstacle for a fish porter to bring home potatoes with some fish.

She was seen entering her room with a blotchy-faced man who'd bought a quart pot of beer and brought it along. I wouldn't be surprised if Mr Blotchy, or some other customer, had bought her food as well as drink that night.

[MrBarnett]

Obviously, there is no major obstacle for a fish porter to bring home potatoes with some fish.

I doubt MJK kept her kippers and potatoes in the fridge.

She dinned just before she was murdered. A fact of the matter. She had eaten food that wasn't even fully digested by the time JtR was ripping into her.

From memory Barnett was asked if he gave Kelly any money the last time he saw her and he said no. He went on to say that when he had been earning he had frequently brought home treats such as meat. If he had presented her with the wherewithal for a fish and chip supper, I think he would have mentioned it.

[Batman]

An ex potato porter?

Obviously, there is no major obstacle for a fish porter to bring home potatoes with some fish.

I doubt MJK kept her kippers and potatoes in the fridge.

She dinned just before she was murdered. A fact of the matter. She had eaten food that wasn't even fully digested by the time JtR was ripping into her.

[Sam Flynn]

An ex potato porter?

Jack the Chipper

[Fisherman]

MrBarnett

Fish,

He says if Maxwell was wrong, then Hutch was probably wrong.

He writes "And if Mrs. Maxwell was mistaken, is it not probable that George Hutchison erred also?"

I think it is just a way of phrasing the idea that if one could be wrong, that opens up for the possibility that the other can too.

If he’s just making the point that anyone can make a mistake, then why not Cox? Why does he link Maxwell and Hutch?

Because they were of the same ilk, I´d say - witnesses that were strong and reliable and who would not be expected to get things wrong. Cox was somebody Dew seemingly was a lot less impressed with. And Cox was right on the day, as proven by how others heard Kelly sing too, just as Cox did. Plus she had the weather right.

He explains why he believes Maxwell got her days wrong - because her account is contradicted by the medical evidence - but he gives no explanation for why he doubts Hutch, other than for some reason linking his evidence to Maxwells.

True, he does not say why it was decided that Hutch had made an error - but he does lay down that he DID err in some manner. Reasonably, it´s all about Lewis´ testimony and a comparison made to that.

And having dismissed Hutch’s evidence The Man Who Caught Crippen fingers blotchy as the only remaining option.

Not really, no. He simply says that Blotchy was his favoured suspect and he adds that he thinks Kelly died at around the time when he was there. It is a time that dovetails with Bonds suggested TOD and so Dew may have thought Bond reliable in this aspect.
But just as you imply, it is abundantly clear that Dew did NOT allow for Astrakhan man being linked to the murder night.

[MrBarnett]

Her murderer possibly.

An ex potato porter?

[Batman]

Who supplied the potatoes?

Her murderer possibly.

[MrBarnett]

Maxwell's claim is falsified by stomach content analysis.

Partially digested fish and potatoes.

This suggests MJK did not bring up any of that.

So unless she had a fish and potato breakfast, we can dismiss she was losing her stomach content because of the horrors of the drink.

Now unless I am wrong, the fact she had fish points at her obtaining fish.

Which to me suggests that fish porter Mr. Joseph Barnett may have been the supplier.

Who supplied the potatoes?

[Sam Flynn]

Wouldn't you expect such a service to have been remembered by the shop keeper much like Packer and his grapes?

Yet no record of Mary purchasing fish and potatoes seems to be around.

Then they were bought for her, perhaps.

Whilst Barnett might once have been a fish porter, he wasn't a spud-frier.

[MrBarnett]

I don´t think that Dew implies that Maxwell´s mistake was what made Hutchinson err, Gary. He simply says that if one honest and benevolent witness an be wrong, then certainly two can be wrong too.

And I don´t think that his logic is that Kelly could or would not have been drunk two days in a row.

His logic is - if I am correct - that both witnesses were wrong, although such a thing should not be expected, statistically speaking.

In a way, we are dealing with the same kind of problem in the Chapman case, where not one or two but THREE witnesses will quite possibly have been wrong (or reporting unrelated events). We all know how this is something many people will not accept as a possibility, although it always must be, not least since we have a medico testifying against the idea that they were correct.

That is what I think Dew is saying: "Believe it or not, but it would seem BOTH of these sound and honest witnesses were actually wrong. How unlucky was that?"

Fish,

He says if Maxwell was wrong, then Hutch was probably wrong.

If he’s just making the point that anyone can make a mistake, then why not Cox? Why does he link Maxwell and Hutch?

He explains why he believes Maxwell got her days wrong - because her account is contradicted by the medical evidence - but he gives no explanation for why he doubts Hutch, other than for some reason linking his evidence to Maxwells.

And having dismissed Hutch’s evidence The Man Who Caught Crippen fingers blotchy as the only remaining option.



Gary.