Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[Batman]

But that is another assumption.
Blotchy arrived about 11:45, if he was equally drunk he may have not been able to get his moneys worth out of Kelly because of the drink .
He could easily have left long before 1 o'clock, serviced or unserviced.

It is more likely there is no break in the continuity as you suggested. She is going to sing. She has someone with a lot of ale with her. At 1am Mary was still singing. He was likely still there then. I don't think she was crazy enough to sit there signing to herself drunk after a client left.

Right, so is she out again, or not?

Highly unlikely. She was drunk. Had more ale. Had something to eat and went to bed. Lights out by 1:30am.

No confirmation that Blotchy even existed.

There is more evidence for Blotchy here than your Isaac character. Cox lives there. She has a reason for being there. She is immediately local as a witness. Not one of those strange ones off the road like Hutchinson whose connection to Miller's Court is only his own word of mouth.

She needs to eat and drink tomorrow morning.
Prostitution is mostly a nighttime activity, if she doesn't earn enough tonight, she doesn't eat or drink until tomorrow night.
Can you go all day without eating?

You assumption for this is that Blotchy can't pay. That's all. Apparently Issac's can't either in your hypothesis because she goes out a third time.

She is having fish and potatoes. She has a client. No reason to assume she doesn't have her money, food or alcohol.

Cox was in and out several times that evening because she couldn't sleep. Her account is quite detailed.

[Wickerman]

I don't think she was crazy enough to sit there signing to herself drunk after a client left.

Why not, both McCarthy and Vanturney have said she used to sing to herself.
So why not now, especially when she is a little tipsy.

Highly unlikely. She was drunk. Had more ale. Had something to eat and went to bed. Lights out by 1:30am.

I understand you prefer to think that, but it is by no means certain. That she went out is equally possible.

There is more evidence for Blotchy here than your Isaac character. Cox lives there. She has a reason for being there. She is immediately local as a witness. Not one of those strange ones off the road like Hutchinson whose connection to Miller's Court is only his own word of mouth.

Cox claimed to have gone down the passage when Prater was there, but Prater never saw her.
I am not suggesting she was intentionally lying, though she may have confused the times she gave when she came and went.
And yes, Blotchy likely did exist, but I am pointing out to you that the accusations against Hutchinson for the existence of Astrachan can be equally applied to Cox for the existence of Blotchy.
Neither suspect were confirmed.

You assumption for this is that Blotchy can't pay. That's all. Apparently Issac's can't either in your hypothesis because she goes out a third time.

She could easily have had three clients that night, there was nothing to prevent her. She was not too drunk to walk down the passage, according to Cox, so she was not too drunk to go out again.
Rent, food, drink, all good reason's to go out again. Especially as tomorrow was the Lord Mayor's Show, she might want some spare change in her pocket for a good time.

[Batman]

She could easily have had three clients that night, there was nothing to prevent her. She was not too drunk to walk down the passage, according to Cox, so she was not too drunk to go out again.
Rent, food, drink, all good reason's to go out again. Especially as tomorrow was the Lord Mayor's Show, she might want some spare change in her pocket for a good time.

Why would drink be a reason to go out again when Blotchy brought a pale of ale with him. That's a sizable amount of beer for two people. Again, she is an alcoholic and unlikely to avoid drinking in her own home. Food, she has. Fish and potatoes.

Also Prater was standing at the entrance after Cox had returned and didn't see anyone leave for 30 minutes before going into McCarthy's.

Like I said before, there is no reason to believe in a break in continuity over Blotchy's arrival and the fact that no one saw him leave, despite their being activity.

[GUT]

Why would drink be a reason to go out again when Blotchy brought a pale of ale with him. That's a sizable amount of beer for two people. Again, she is an alcoholic and unlikely to avoid drinking in her own home. Food, she has. Fish and potatoes.

Also Prater was standing at the entrance after Cox had returned and didn't see anyone leave for 30 minutes before going into McCarthy's.

Like I said before, there is no reason to believe in a break in continuity over Blotchy's arrival and the fact that no one saw him leave, despite their being activity.

We know she had the fish and potato's in her room???

[Scott Nelson]

Blotchy likely did exist, but I am pointing out to you that the accusations against Hutchinson for the existence of Astrachan can be equally applied to Cox for the existence of Blotchy.

Interesting analogy. I wonder what Ben thinks.

[Wickerman]

Why would drink be a reason to go out again when Blotchy brought a pale of ale with him.

I already said, she still needs money for food & drink tomorrow, not tonight, tomorrow.

Where and when she obtained the fish and potatoes is not known.

Like I said before, there is no reason to believe in a break in continuity over Blotchy's arrival and the fact that no one saw him leave, despite their being activity.

What reason is there to believe he stayed after 1 o'clock, when all was quiet & dark?
What reason is there to believe anyone was in that room after 1 o'clock?

[harry]

It has been suggested that Aberline first viewed Hutchinson as a suspect.How can that be?
Hutchinson arrived at the police station and gave his statement,verbally I presume.It w as considered important to inform Aberline He decided to go himself to the police station and question Hutchinson.So,it is obvious that Aberline,before speaking to Hutchinson,w as aware that Hutchinson was claiming to be an eyewitness,and that there was another person,seen by Hutchinson,who was suspect,and it was this suspect who,on Hutchinson's testimony,w as the last person reportedly seen with Kelly before her being found dead.Why would Aberline remotely suspect Hutchinson knowing that astrakhan was the logical suspect.Obviously he did not,at that time,and the word interrogation has no meaning in that sense,nor does it convey any indication that there was additional important testimony to the statement of Hutchinson,other than that written by Badham.

[John G]

Hello John,

What evidence is there that Abberline was "obsessed" with Chapman? Even Abberline's statement that he believed Chapman to be the killer has a questionable source. And wasn't Abberline reported to have said something like "I can't help but feel that this is the man that we were looking for?" That would seem a far cry from stating I know beyond a doubt that this has to be the man.

Chapman was hanged in 1903 so he was never a contemporary suspect. Therefore there is no way that Abberline would have dismissed Hutchinson's statement simply because it did not match a description of Chapman.

c.d.

In 1903 Abberline clearly did reject Hutchinson's evidence, at least by implication, and probably because the age that he gave for his suspect, mid thirties, conflicted with Chapman's age at the time, 23: see my previous post 366. Either that or he was suffering from a serious case of selective amnesia!

As to whether he became obsessed with the idea that Chapman was the killer, maybe that's putting things a little strongly. However, I will refer to comments that he made in an interview with the Pall Mall Gazette, 24th March, 1903: "Since then the idea has taken full possession of me, and everything fits in and dovetails so well that I cannot help feeling that this is the man [Chapman} we struggled so hard to capture fifteen years ago." And: ""As I say," went on the criminal expert, "there are a score of things which make one believe that Chapman is the man; and you must understand that we have never believed all those stories about Jack the Ripper being dead, or that he was a lunatic, or anything of that kind.

[Sally]

Where and when she obtained the fish and potatoes is not known.

Fish 'n' Chip shop on Wentworth Street?

Or maybe it was Eels and Mash that night - so many questions that may never be resolved.

[Batman]

I already said, she still needs money for food & drink tomorrow, not tonight, tomorrow.

IF Blotchy didn't pay her.... IF. You need that.

Which means MJK wouldn't be a very experienced prostitute to have been conned so easily. You seem to be believing your own conjecture to allow for all the reasons for her to be about again. Yet simply, if he paid, then all those reasons go away.

She has drink there with her. Pale of Ale. Is MJK, an alcoholic, expected to sit there and not indulge? She is singing at well past midnight into the wee hours. She is not getting more sober to go out again. She ate the fish and potatoes recently unless you think she had the digestive system of a crocodile.

What reason is there to believe he stayed after 1 o'clock, when all was quiet & dark?
What reason is there to believe anyone was in that room after 1 o'clock?

She has no reason to go out if she has had food, got a client and who has brought more drink, especially if drunk.

Prater didn't see her leave. Cox didn't see her leave. Neither did they see Blotchy leave. Prater is there for 30 minutes. Cox in and out too. Neither see MJK going back out for that matter. You have her either sitting in the dark, not singing or she goes walkabout for 30min without anyone seeing her except Hutchinson and only Hutchinson at 2:00am. Why isn't she out and gone already at 1 if she has so big a need for money?

The only reason to believe she is out is Hutchinson. That's it. That's all.

Why Abberline he believe Hutchinson? It's all he had to go on post inquest. It's the only lead he had. Swanson was running house to house searches in a Jewish district looking for Bond's profile. Swanson isn't very bothered by Abberline's quest with Hutchinson it seems.

[Wickerman]

In 1903 Abberline clearly did reject Hutchinson's evidence, at least by implication, .....

Hi John.
The fact Abberline did not maintain Hutchinson's story can be viewed two different ways.
Rather than him rejecting it, I believe it indicates he accepted it, and the character described by Hutchinson was, in his opinion, Joseph Isaacs.

The press did describe Isaacs as "certainly" fitting the description, and Abberline was reported to be excited, retorting words to the effect that, "keep this quiet, this is something big".
The actual words used need not be accurate, whatever was said the atmosphere was one of elation as noted by the press.

Isaacs was investigated as to his movements that night, and cleared, whatever the details were are not known, but he was allowed to confess to a lesser crime and was sent to prison.
This cleared up Hutchinson's story for Abberline, he realized Hutchinson had not seen the killer after all.

Right or wrong, what I am pointing out is that Abberline's eventual departure from the Hutchinson suspect does not mean he did not believe him, another reason is available.

[c.d.]

It has been suggested that Aberline first viewed Hutchinson as a suspect.How can that be?
Hutchinson arrived at the police station and gave his statement,verbally I presume.It w as considered important to inform Aberline He decided to go himself to the police station and question Hutchinson.So,it is obvious that Aberline,before speaking to Hutchinson,w as aware that Hutchinson was claiming to be an eyewitness,and that there was another person,seen by Hutchinson,who was suspect,and it was this suspect who,on Hutchinson's testimony,w as the last person reportedly seen with Kelly before her being found dead.Why would Aberline remotely suspect Hutchinson knowing that astrakhan was the logical suspect.Obviously he did not,at that time,and the word interrogation has no meaning in that sense,nor does it convey any indication that there was additional important testimony to the statement of Hutchinson,other than that written by Badham.

Hello Harry,

Rather than get hung up on semantics as to whether Hutchinson was a suspect or merely a witness let's simply call him a person of interest. By his own admission, he knew Mary and was with her right before she died. That should have been enough to arouse Abberline's suspicions. He is there in the flesh talking to Abberline as opposed to the Astrakhan man who may or may not have existed. Abberline would have no way of knowing whether Hutchinson was telling the truth. Therefore, as a person of interest, Abberline would have wanted to question him whether you call that an interrogation or something else.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

IF Blotchy didn't pay her.... IF. You need that.

Not at all, the payment from one client is not sufficient for rent, and food & drink through the next day. She needs more than one transaction for that.
I am assuming Blotchy payed her, but she needs more than one 6d.

She has drink there with her. Pale of Ale. Is MJK, an alcoholic, expected to sit there and not indulge?

Why do you call it a pale?
It was described as a pot, a simple beer mug. A pale is something larger, a pot is smaller than a pale.
How full was this pot, half, or nearly empty?
How full do you want it to be to suit your theory?

She is singing at well past midnight into the wee hours. She is not getting more sober to go out again.

She doesn't need to be sober to go out again, she was quite capable of walking in to her room, so she is quite capable of walking out again.

She ate the fish and potatoes recently unless you think she had the digestive system of a crocodile.

The question is, "when" did she eat the meal.

Prater didn't see her leave. Cox didn't see her leave. Neither did they see Blotchy leave. Prater is there for 30 minutes. Cox in and out too. Neither see MJK going back out for that matter.

Cox is a little confused, first she claims to hear singing after 1 o'clock..
"I returned about one o'clock. She was singing then. I warmed my hands and went out again, she was still singing."

Then claims to hear nothing after 1 o'clock..
"I heard nothing whatever after one o'clock."

Which is it?

Prater returned "about 1 o'clock", and stood there for 20 minutes, no light, no sound, no singing - good enough.
This suggests to me she was either dead already, or had gone out before 1 o'clock.

Right.....As Kelly was heard to be singing at 12:30 by another tenant who lived in the Court, and by Cox just before 1:00, but all was quiet and dark from 1:00-1:20 (by Prater), then there is not sufficient time for the murder AND the mutilations to have taken place.
Therefore, Mary Kelly must have gone out again before 1 o'clock.

The only reason to believe she is out is Hutchinson. That's it. That's all.

No, it isn't.
"Mrs. Kennedy is confident that the man whom she noticed speaking to the woman Kelly at three o'clock on Friday morning is identical with the person who accosted her on the previous Wednesday."

Dismissing two unrelated witnesses (Hutchinson & Kennedy) is the only way you can defend your theory.

[Batman]

Which of those witnesses attended the inquest again?

[Wickerman]

An inquest is not a murder trial.