The Red Handkerchief...

[Fisherman]

The train of thought of certain posters here in Casebook Land never ceases to amaze me. The ever dodgy Hutchinson becomes even dodgier. He failed to provide (it seems) a description of Kelly. Why should he have?

From the Daily News 14th November 1888

"I came down Whitechapel road into Commercial street. As I passed Thrawl street I passed a man standing at the corner of the street, and as I went towards Flower and Dean street I met the woman Kelly, whom I knew very well, having been in her company a number of times. She said, "Mr. Hutchinson, can you lend me sixpence?" I said, "I cannot, as I am spent out going down to Romford."

Abberline initially took Hutchinson at face value. Bearing in mind the fact that Hutchinson said he had known Kelly for some time, why would Abberline require a description of what she was wearing?

In order to establish that Hutchinson was not mistaking things in one way or another. It may sound superfluous, but it would have been standard procedure to check these matters, unless I am very much mistaken.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

How about the only corroboration between Cox and the Pickets was the fact that they both heard her singing. Her description of Kelly in the company of Blotchy was not corroborated.

"only corroboration"
that's good enough for me.
Besides uncorroborated witness statements are valid in their own right. add to that the "only corroboration" of other witnesses hearing singing, which is consistant with cox sworn testimony.
Add to that there is nothing, Nada, zilch, to suggest Cox was lying, so we would probably be correct to believe her.

and yet hutch is to be believed and witnesses like cox are now liars?
I think I shall shoot myself in the head now.

[Observer]

Hi Fish

It does sound superfluous. What would be the point? Kelly even addressed Hutch by his surname.

[Observer]

on the other hand, marys description seems to be of a lot of importance to the other witnesses, inquest etc. so why not from Hutch? especially with his apparent powers of observation you would have thought it would be a good point for abberline to question him on.

Again, what would be the point?

[Abby Normal]

Again, what would be the point?

to make sure he had the right Mary Kelly. to see if hutch was lying.

but as I said, IMHO I somewhat agree with you its minor, plus he ID her body so Im gonna bow out on this sub topic for now.

[Observer]

"only corroboration"
that's good enough for me.
Besides uncorroborated witness statements are valid in their own right. add to that the "only corroboration" of other witnesses hearing singing, which is consistant with cox sworn testimony.
Add to that there is nothing, Nada, zilch, to suggest Cox was lying, so we would probably be correct to believe her.

and yet hutch is to be believed and witnesses like cox are now liars?
I think I shall shoot myself in the head now.

Hutch is to be believed? Not I. Furthermore, I reiterate, there is no corroboration which proves the existence of Blotchy Man. Cox undoubtedly heard Kelly singing. That's where I stop when considering her evidence.

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

to make sure he had the right Mary Kelly. to see if hutch was lying.

but as I said, IMHO I somewhat agree with you its minor, plus he ID her body so Im gonna bow out on this sub topic for now.

As I said, the initial impression Hutchinson made upon Abberline was that he was telling the truth. There was no need to test if he was lying. I too will bow out.

[Sally]

I'm not sure if the absence of any detailed description of Kelly by Hutchinson makes him "more dodgy" or not. I'm not sure what to make of it - but I find it curious.

That's all.

[Observer]

I'm becoming cynical by the hour regarding witness statements in this case.

Take Lewis's Wideawake broad shouldered man. Not dissimilar, indeed identical to Packer's broad shouldered wideawake wearing man. Packer providing this description for Le Grande of course.

Considering the fairy tale presented by Lewis of the top hatted, black bag carrying villain who attempted to lure her, and her friend into a back lane, it's not a far stretch of the imagination to suspect she used Le Grande's wideawake broad shouldered suspect to invent the man she purported to have seen opposite Millers Court on the night of Mary Kelly's murder.

[Abby Normal]

Hutch is to be believed? Not I. Furthermore, I reiterate, there is no corroboration which proves the existence of Blotchy Man. Cox undoubtedly heard Kelly singing. That's where I stop when considering her evidence.

Regards

Observer

I see your point. it was singing only OK.

But why do you stop at the singing? why would she lie about Blotchy?

[Abby Normal]

I'm becoming cynical by the hour regarding witness statements in this case.

Take Lewis's Wideawake broad shouldered man. Not dissimilar, indeed identical to Packer's broad shouldered wideawake wearing man. Packer providing this description for Le Grande of course.

Considering the fairy tale presented by Lewis of the top hatted, black bag carrying villain who attempted to lure her, and her friend into a back lane, it's not a far stretch of the imagination to suspect she used Le Grande's wideawake broad shouldered suspect to invent the man she purported to have seen opposite Millers Court on the night of Mary Kelly's murder.

cmon Observer
Now you are onto lewis Lying?
I think you need to be a little more discerning, weigh all the circumstances-like why would they lie, did they go to the press, does it seem like they are trying to get a little fame and fortune, where they at the inquest, did the police seem to believe them, do further circumstances point to the truth , is any, all or part of their story corroborated etc etc.

in stead seems like you are the one now making up fairy tails to make other wise credible witnesess into liars.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish

It does sound superfluous. What would be the point? Kelly even addressed Hutch by his surname.

Says who?

The best,
Fisherman

[Observer]

I think you need to be a little more discerning, weigh all the circumstances-like why would they lie, did they go to the press, does it seem like they are trying to get a little fame and fortune

You said it. Yes notoriety, monetary gain.

[Observer]

Says who?

The best,
Fisherman

Says who? I don't get you.

Regards

Observer

[Sam Flynn]

Says who?

Hutchinson, that's who, Fish - in his police statement. "Hutchinson, will you lend me sixpence?"