Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Tecs]

Spot on, Tecs.

It just doesn't bear scrutiny that anyone would misremember the day of so notable a public holiday as the Lord Mayor's show

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

I've always thought that this was obvious too.

Regards,

Tecs

[Tecs]

Hello all! It would seem that a few comments are asked for at this stage.



Tecs:

”I've always found it annoying the way people today say things such as "Oh Maxwell must have confused the day" or "Hutchinson may have confused the dates" etc as if the Victorians were idiots!”

Then you should be relieved to hear that it has nothing to do with intelligence, Tecs!

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

I've only just realised that my above comments would naturally be seen as a criticism of you and your work, especially when appearing on a thread discussing your piece!

Just for the record, I wasn't actually referring to you or this particular article. I was talking about the people who do just sweepingly say that they must be wrong because they were stupid drunken idiots, or insinuations to that effect.

As far as I can see, your piece is a fair appraisal and an opinion which has been deduced from looking at evidence and then coming to a conclusion, even though others may, and do disagree.

Just to clear that up!

Regards,

[Tecs]

Was Astracan Kellys killer, was Hutchinson the last person to see Mjk Alive.?
Not unless Mrs Maxwell was a utterly confused woman.... note here the press opinion..'A level headed woman , of respectable character .
What do you all think?
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard.

For me, the clincher is that she stood in the most intimidating of situations (the coroners court) which at the time was a female free zone, apart from witnesses and was warned by the coroner about her evidence but still stood by her story.

How easy would it have been for her to acquiesce and just say, "oh alright I probably got the date wrong."?


Regards,

[Tecs]

The way I see it, there are a set of scales.

On one side there is the fact that Mary was supposedly seen by two sensible, decent witnesses who had nothing to gain by their story, so was therefore alive after the body in Miller's court was dead.

On the other side there is Joseph Barnett's identification of the body as Mary.

If we flip it around, then the debate is that either two independant witnesses were wrong, or a traumatised man wrongly identified a hacked up corpse.

We've all seen the photo of the Miller's court body. Would you like to glance at that for longer than you had to? In real life, in colour it would be much worse remember.

And we know that there were other women using the room.

Mary was seen supposedly with Barnett later that morning. We simply cannot rule out the possibility that she really did discover the corpse and use it as an opportunity to run away, after confiding in Barnett and a few friends maybe?

It really isn't as mad a theory as most people believe.

As I said above with regards to the scales, either Barnett made a perfectly understandable mistake, or two independant witnesses were both completely wrong.

Regards,

[Tecs]

Also, as well as Lewis and Maxwell, she was seen by the man who looked like a market porter (who was almost certainly Barnett) if Maxwell's testimony is correct. (This is probably confirmed by Lewis later on)

As this man didn't come forward like Lewis and Maxwell did, we have to wonder why?

Was it Barnett saying his goodbye's to Kelly as she pleaded with him to keep her secret?

Regards,

[richardnunweek]

Hi Tecs,
We must not stray to far off thread, however what a script for a horror movie, complete with a 'Hitchcock' ending.
As For Barnett being the market porter with Kelly. that seems most unlikely for two reasons,
He was in his lodgings apparently, then a pub, and there was informed of a murder in Millers court, and en-route was informed by a relation that it was Mary.
Also Maxwell knew of Joseph Barnett, and knew who he was.
I would suggest that if Maxwell is right , then this man[market porter]was kellys killer, suspect number one...
I agree Tecs about the inquest, she was forewarned, and still proceeded, she was absolutely certain thats for sure.
What Casebook has to do is contemplate what all of this means.
Kelly doing a runner,
Kelly killed around 9am.
That is my only solutions.
Regards Richard.

[lynn cates]

Maxwell

Hello Tecs. In post #139:

"Mary was seen supposedly with Barnett later that morning. We simply cannot rule out the possibility that she really did discover the corpse and use it as an opportunity to run away, after confiding in Barnett and a few friends maybe?"

Would her decision to flee come before or after her alleged discussion with Maxwell? Surely it would come after? It strikes me that it would be counter-productive to:

1. Have someone hacked to death in your house.

2. Discover her remains.

3. Decide to abscond and let the victim be taken for you.

4. Appear to an acquaintance AFTER the fact, thus letting it be known that you are alive and well, and hence spoil the plan.

Cheers.
LC

[Abby Normal]

In the recent Casebook Examiner #5, Ben Holme and Christer Holmgren (Fisherman) submitted excellent and provocative essays on George Hutchinson. It was a pleasure to see Ben get a chance to amalgamate his theory on Hutchinson's candidacy as a viable suspect and for Christer to offer a totally new thesis on Hutchinson as a witness.

Christer offers a scenerio which concludes with the idea that George Hutchinson may have gotten the dates wrong in regards to his stated encounter with Mary Kelly and 'Astrakan Man'.

After reading both essays, what are your views?

My view is that when I saw 2 articles on Hutch I subscribed to Casebook!


Thouroughly enjoyed both articles and while I agree much more with Ben (and have in the past) in regards to Hutch, I respect and liked reading what Fish put forth as a possible (but unlikely IMHO) answer to the puzzle.

Have not gotten to the other articles yet-but look forward to them also over the break.

[Tom_Wescott]

Fish or Foul?

But the point is that Fisherman put his article in the public domain, and so it is open to public scrutiny. Not only that he entered into discussion on this thread to support his theory and to answer and reply to views that both agreed or disagreed to what he was saying.

Absolutely.

He was been congratulated by another poster on the debate that his article fostered. That debate could never have happened or continued if there was not an alternative view. To say that view is negative because it disagrees with Fisherman’s theory is clearly dictatorial and unhelpful in this world of discussions.

Wow, I was being dictatorial by pointing out the FACT that you and the bird were offended by Fish's work? I think both of you made a lot of great points; what I was reacting to was the hateful nature in which they were shared - as though Fish was a leper for publishing his thoughts.

Is that some people cannot be challenged no matter what they say?

Whoa now. All work should be responsibly challenged. I even posted questions and doubts pleaded for responses not only from Fish, but from Garry and Ben. Ben didn't have much to say at that point, but I found Garry's responses to be very civil, well thought out, and extremely insightful and helpful. However, it appeared to me that you and Babybird were just being mean.

Don't get me wrong, I've slapped Fish around more than once over his handling of the Stride case. I just thought he did a pretty good job this time of making me think about something from a new perspective. That doesn't happen as much any more as it used to.

Surely, everyone has a democratic right to express their own view and their own counter arguments?

Undecided.

To say that an opposing view is negative is taking a stance. You cannot sit on the fence and make a comment like that. Because it betrays the stance.

First of all, keep telling me what I can't do. Second of all, do I know you by another name? It seems you just came out of nowhere. I've addressed the 'negative stance' issue above. My own posts on this thread have included my own doubts regarding Fish's theory. But consider that Fish's research led him to notice that a) Hutch was dismissed quickly as a viable witness for unknown reasons, and that b) A policeman of the time suggested as a possibility that Hutch had his days wrong. As Fish calls himself a writer/researcher, I would have considered it irresponsible had he not followed up these hints and shared with us his findings. But he researched it and produced a highly readable essay that most certainly deserves consideration and a good pounding with the facts to see if it stands up. Perhaps it DOESN'T stand up, but I'd certainly enjoy seeing more insightful and investigatory essays like this one in the mags I subscribe to.

If an opposing view is negative then what is a positive view? That one accepts the theory? Is that really what has been said?

If it's been said, it hasn't been said on this thread.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tecs]

Hello Tecs. In post #139:

"Mary was seen supposedly with Barnett later that morning. We simply cannot rule out the possibility that she really did discover the corpse and use it as an opportunity to run away, after confiding in Barnett and a few friends maybe?"

Would her decision to flee come before or after her alleged discussion with Maxwell? Surely it would come after? It strikes me that it would be counter-productive to:

1. Have someone hacked to death in your house.

2. Discover her remains.

3. Decide to abscond and let the victim be taken for you.

4. Appear to an acquaintance AFTER the fact, thus letting it be known that you are alive and well, and hence spoil the plan.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

If we suspend judgement for a moment and consider that the body wasn't Mary, then one possibility is that she was taken by surprise by Maxwell on the way out. She may have made every effort to avoid being seen but found herself face to face with Caroline as she walked into the court just as she (Mary) was on the way out. In that situation she would have no option but to have a chat with Caroline. She couldn't very well say "Oh balls, my cover is blown. Oh well, I'll have to dispose of the body and try again tomorrow."

One theory of course is that the vomit in the road was her reaction to finding the body earlier on. This could tie in with the cry of murder, heard in the middle of the night. If you think about it, a woman crying out "Murder!" is more likely to be from somebody discovering a body than somebody faced with a knife wielding killer. A woman coming face to face with Jack would surely either just scream or cry "Help!" although I do agree that who knows what you would say in that situation? Anything is possible, but that sounds promising to me. Stagger in, see a mutilated corpse on your bed, cry "Oh murder!" stagger outside, vomit, then calm down and think "Hmmmm....."

If you add in that Mary may then have taken a knife and been the one to totally destroy the face of the corpse in order to prevent a positive I.D, now Hitchcock would be interested!

The other option would be that she hadn't yet found the body and did so after speaking to Caroline, but this does seem unlikely.

Either way, the "problem" of Maxwell's testimony is the most fascinating what-if in the whole case.

As I've described in previous posts, she has no right to be dismissed out of hand and if her testimony is to be believed, then we have to consider these options seriously.

Regards,

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tecs. Are you a newbie? A common mistake of newbies is to assume that the rest of us haven't already considered such an idea from every angle and dismissed it (or not) based on the weight of the evidence. In the case of Kelly, the fact that two people who knew her well identified her, and the fact that she was laying on her own bed, pretty much require us to accept as fact that the woman slaughtered at 13 Millers Court was none other than Mary Kelly. The idea you're putting forth has been around for years and is a fringe favorite, but has no substance to it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

options

Hello Tecs.

"As I've described in previous posts, she has no right to be dismissed out of hand and if her testimony is to be believed, then we have to consider these options seriously."

Agreed.

1. I don't think any one's testimony should be dismissed out of hand, but only for the weightiest of reasons.

2. I have considered her testimony very seriously.

Now, when I consider a problem, I try to devise possible scenarios to see if some of them fit the problem. Now, if MJK were not killed that night but, say, someone else was, we need to determine:

1. Who was that other person?

2. Was MJK the target or was it a random killing?

Let's begin with #1. My ruminations allow 2 decent possibilities.

A. A friend of MJK.

B. Someone trying to take the place of MJK whilst she is taken to safety.

(Note that A aligns roughly with a random killing; B, with MJK as target.)

Let's dispose now with A. If her friend has been killed and she discovers it ("Oh, murder!"--say between 3 & 4 AM), would she not go to the police straight away? Why loiter for a few hours first? Surely that would seem suspicious later when the police finally were summoned?

Now, let's try B. Say that MJK is a mole and passing information to Irish Special Branch. Her cover is blown and ISB realises she is a target of the Fenians or clan-na-gael (recall that Barnett claimed that she was afraid of someone). Very well. Let's say that ISB sends an adept lady to pass as MJK so that she can catch the assassin in the act whilst Mary is spirited away to, say, Ireland. The adept lady is not adept enough and fails.

1. Why does MJK even come back to Miller's Court?

2. Given that she returns (around 4) and discovers the body, why wait about? Might not the assassin return and get it right this time? And this says nothing about possible recognition during the 4 or so odd hours between her discovery of the murder and her chatting up Mrs. Maxwell.

All this seems to militate against MJK being a target AND surviving.

So, perhaps it was a random killing? (Incidentally, this seems to be the consensus with Casebook posters.)

But again, why not go to the police?

Finally, what if it were random and MJK had something to hide, hence precluding her going to the police? Then why not flee shortly after the discovery of the body?

Of course, if there are other scenarios that I may have overlooked, I'd be delighted to hear them.

Cheers.
LC

[Vingle]

From an amateur perspective.

Two people who claim to have known Mary Kelly by sight say that they saw her after the proposed time of death, as well as Barnett who identifies the body as MJK. It is possible that both sets of witnesses were correct. Places time of death and escape of murderer in daylight. Seems daringly risky in the realms of 'I want to be caught' or 'I'm untouchable'.

From Casebook inquest transcription - Sarah Lewis says she saw a man who frightened her previously, whilst walking along Commercial Street at 2.30am on Friday* on the way to Millers Court. (*I've assumed she means 9th here as it follows a description of that date) She says he wore no overcoat - that might give a further indication to the weather at the time Hutchinson says he was hanging about, particularly as she says he had an overcoat when she saw him before. Maybe it wasn't raining at 2.30am.

[Vingle]

2. Was MJK the target or was it a random killing?

Fun time.

What if Mary Kelly was not a mole but a Fenian agent. What if Astracan man was real and was actually part of Special Branch. He tracks Kelly down and tortures her for info - goes too far - he covers it up by making it look like it is a ripper victim. Maybe he taunts her by having her sing Irish songs - she starts to realise the meaning of them and sings whilst she tries to think of a way out.
Maybe Hutchinson's story was not discounted but was actually confirmed later as being correct. He's paid off with a reward - he's happy - the story leaked to the press so Abberline finds him useless and doesn't have to use him again. Not a massive conspiracy but a carefully manufactured one by special branch, Warren knew though and he quit.

[Garza]

2. Was MJK the target or was it a random killing?

Fun time.

What if Mary Kelly was not a mole but a Fenian agent. What if Astracan man was real and was actually part of Special Branch. He tracks Kelly down and tortures her for info - goes too far - he covers it up by making it look like it is a ripper victim. Maybe he taunts her by having her sing Irish songs - she starts to realise the meaning of them and sings whilst she tries to think of a way out.
Maybe Hutchinson's story was not discounted but was actually confirmed later as being correct. He's paid off with a reward - he's happy - the story leaked to the press so Abberline finds him useless and doesn't have to use him again. Not a massive conspiracy but a carefully manufactured one by special branch, Warren knew though and he quit.

Oh good lord,