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

[Sam Flynn]

There is no "surely" about it at all, I´m afraid.

OK - "definitely", then.

[Fisherman]

This is Dew giving us his suspect based on a misunderstanding of Kelly’s drinking habits. Mere lapses of memory pale into insignificance in comparison.

He is at great pains to impress upon his readers how close he was to Ripper case. He tells us us that even though he was a junior officer, his superiors held him in such high regard that he was privy to all the details of the case.

Oh, and just for good measure, he assures us, his memory is excellent.

But what if he knew Kelly well, and she had told him - and he had accepted - that she did not drink other than occasionally and far between? In that case, he may have had another impression of her, that would likely be wrong, but it would nevertheless mean that he gave an honest picture of what he had been told.
We really must not jump to conclusions before we have all cards on hand, and I feel we are at risk to do so.

What is it Dew says? That she was more or less unused to alcohol, or that she was not in the habit of drinking very often? If we look at Barnett´s testimony:

"When she was with me I found her of sober habits, but she has been drunk several times in my presence."

... where does that leave us? Could it be that he had seen her drunk on five occasions and that she was otherwise always sober? And could such a thing match what Dew says?

[Fisherman]

OK - "definitely", then.

Wrong again. That often happens when we allow a burning wish to be right turn into an established fact.

[Joshua Rogan]

Mrs Maxwell's police statement has Kelly admitting "I have the horrors of drink upon me, as I have been drinking for some days past".
So whether or not Hutchinson was mistaken about the day of his sighting, Kelly could still have been drinking, even if she was generally of sober habits.

[MrBarnett]

But I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken, not necessarily as to a person, but as to date and time. And I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were wrong.

Indeed, if the medical evidence is accepted, Mrs. Maxwell could not have been right. The doctors were unable, because of the terrible mutilations, to say with any certainty just when death took place, but they were very emphatic that the girl could not have been alive at eight o'clock that morning.

And if Mrs. Maxwell was mistaken, is it not probable that George Hutchison erred also? This, without reflecting in any way on either witness, is my considered view. I believe that the man of the billycock hat and beard was the last person to enter Marie Kelly's room that night and was her killer. Always assuming that Mrs. Cox ever had seen her with a man.

Why would Maxwell’s mistake make it ‘probable’ that Hutch was also wrong? What was the connection?

Hutch sees an intoxicated Mary and Maxwell sees a hung-over Mary. And since Mary rarely drank, those two sightings were probably on the same morning. Is that his logic?

If not, what else might it be?

[Batman]

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.

[Fisherman]

But I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken, not necessarily as to a person, but as to date and time. And I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were wrong.

Indeed, if the medical evidence is accepted, Mrs. Maxwell could not have been right. The doctors were unable, because of the terrible mutilations, to say with any certainty just when death took place, but they were very emphatic that the girl could not have been alive at eight o'clock that morning.

And if Mrs. Maxwell was mistaken, is it not probable that George Hutchison erred also? This, without reflecting in any way on either witness, is my considered view. I believe that the man of the billycock hat and beard was the last person to enter Marie Kelly's room that night and was her killer. Always assuming that Mrs. Cox ever had seen her with a man.

Why would Maxwell’s mistake make it ‘probable’ that Hutch was also wrong? What was the connection?

Hutch sees an intoxicated Mary and Maxwell sees a hung-over Mary. And since Mary rarely drank, those two sightings were probably on the same morning. Is that his logic?

If not, what else might it be?

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?"

[Sam Flynn]

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

Fried fish and potatoes was a cheap and popular meal for East End residents, and readily available from various outlets until the small hours of the morning. We know from the Tabram case that fish'n'chips could be bought from a chandlers' shop in Thrawl Street until well past 1AM, for example.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

Dew included - albeit honesty and benevolence might not apply when trying to make one's biography more interesting.

[Batman]

Fried fish and potatoes was a cheap and popular meal for East End residents, and readily available from chandlers' shops until the small hours of the morning.

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.

[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.

[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]

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?

[Batman]

Who supplied the potatoes?

Her murderer possibly.

[MrBarnett]

Her murderer possibly.

An ex potato porter?