Vetting Hutchinson

[GUT]

Or Hutch could have been hoping for a freebie in Mary Kelly's nice warm bed after her client had gone, and was left disappointed.

G'day Rosella

That suggestion wouldn't surprise me at all. Or he was smply jealous over who was getting what he wanted.

[Rosella]

Or Hutch could have been hoping for a freebie in Mary Kelly's nice warm bed after her client had gone, and was left disappointed.

[Defective Detective]

My guess is one of the following (mutually contradictory) positions with respect to Hutch:

1) He was a police shill on the payroll and invented A-Man to justify his keep. This would explain why Abberline put any stock in his tale when the papers, usually far worse than the police, dismissed him as a witness - along with his story, which surely would have moved copy had they run with if.

2) A-Man was real, Hutchinson saw him - and had intended to rob the man. This would explain his loitering in the first.

He does not need to have been the Ripper to have been a mountebank.

[Wickerman]

I thought 'American cloth' was waxed oilcloth, very popular in Victorian times. Is it classed as imitation leather?

Yes Rosella it was, and it was fashionable to emboss the oil cloth with an imitation leather pattern so it looked like leather.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

She didn't say anything to anyone, not even the press. I believe she didn't see anyone standing around at 3.00.

Hi Natasha.
Apart from the fact that Kelly was heard by another witness to be singing after 12:30, for an unspecified period of time, nothing else about what Mary Cox claimed was corroborated by police, and the fact Mrs Prater did not see her pass up the passage after 1:00 a.m. also raises questions about the 'times' she gave.
I don't doubt her story was true, but I question the 'times' she gave in her testimony.

Incidentally, the Times, Morning Advertiser, Scotsman, Standard & Lloyds all reported that Cox returned at "3:10", not 3:00. Daily News says "about three", so we may be placing too much reliance on "3:00" being an accurate time, it may not have been exactly 3:00.

[Abby Normal]

Of course it isnīt clear that she saw somebody watching the courtyard! Who corroborates it, Michael? Nobody!

It is clear that she SAID that she saw somebody there, looking up the court. But she could have made it up, just like many of the women of the court made up stories about the "murder" cry.

Donīt get me wrong, I am not saying that she must have made it up. But neither must she have seen a man there.

The best,
Fisherman

hutch himself corroborates it fish. you know that.

[Fisherman]

To answer your question regarding Hutchinson being seen , its possible that Hutchinson relied on Sarah Lewis's sighting of Wideawake Hat man to validate his own statement. Or that she did see Hutchinson wearing that Hat.

Its clear she saw someone watching the courtyard, Hutchinson or not, that fellow is to my eye the most likely murderer, or almost certainly an accomplice.

Cheers

Of course it isnīt clear that she saw somebody watching the courtyard! Who corroborates it, Michael? Nobody!

It is clear that she SAID that she saw somebody there, looking up the court. But she could have made it up, just like many of the women of the court made up stories about the "murder" cry.

Donīt get me wrong, I am not saying that she must have made it up. But neither must she have seen a man there.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rosella]

I thought 'American cloth' was waxed oilcloth, very popular in Victorian times. Is it classed as imitation leather?

[Natasha]

Hi Natasha.
Generally, after a witness is sworn, they respond to specific questions. The witness is not in a position to provide a comprehensive story of who she saw, and where, and what she said to someone, or heard people talking about, or how many suspicious person's she saw.

Cox was asked some very pointed questions, and she gave answers to those questions. That is all she is there to do.

Hi Jon

She didn't say anything to anyone, not even the press. I believe she didn't see anyone standing around at 3.00.

[Wickerman]

Even if the question never arose, would it not be common sense to mention anyone seen standing around? After all a murder did happen. Would Cox not feel scared seeing as a murder had took place not too far from were she lived? Mentioning the man, if seen, would be an important piece of info.

Hi Natasha.
Generally, after a witness is sworn, they respond to specific questions. The witness is not in a position to provide a comprehensive story of who she saw, and where, and what she said to someone, or heard people talking about, or how many suspicious person's she saw.

Cox was asked some very pointed questions, and she gave answers to those questions. That is all she is there to do.

[Natasha]

Hi Jon

Hi Natasha.
If you follow the testimony of Mary Cox you will see she was never asked if there was anyone standing in Dorset St., that issue never arose.

Even if the question never arose, would it not be common sense to mention anyone seen standing around? After all a murder did happen. Would Cox not feel scared seeing as a murder had took place not too far from were she lived? Mentioning the man, if seen, would be an important piece of info.

Ok, then if I follow your line of reasoning you are saying Mary Kelly was murdered after Hutchinson left Dorset St., and this Astrachan was not her killer?
Incidentally, the parcel carried by Astrachan was imitation leather, not what you would expect fish and chips to be wrapped up in perhaps you are confusing that parcel with the one carried by PC Smith's suspect in Berner St.?

I'm half asleep and reciting from memory, not very well by the looks of it

[Wickerman]

Hutchinson claims he left at the strike of 3, then Cox comes along. How comes she doesn't see Hutchinson?

Hi Natasha.
If you follow the testimony of Mary Cox you will see she was never asked if there was anyone standing in Dorset St., that issue never arose.

The man Hutchinson claims to have seen with Kelly, with the small parcel, I think perhaps had a fish & chip supper in that parcel. That explains the contents of MJK's stomach.
If that's true, then I don't think the man Hutch' saw was the ripper. The ripper, I feel, is a blitz style attacker, I don't believe he would wait patiently while Kelly ate, and then kill her.

Ok, then if I follow your line of reasoning you are saying Mary Kelly was murdered after Hutchinson left Dorset St., and this Astrachan was not her killer?
Incidentally, the parcel carried by Astrachan was imitation leather, not what you would expect fish and chips to be wrapped up in perhaps you are confusing that parcel with the newspaper parcel carried by PC Smith's suspect in Berner St.?

[Natasha]

Hi Natasha,

To answer your question regarding Hutchinson being seen , its possible that Hutchinson relied on Sarah Lewis's sighting of Wideawake Hat man to validate his own statement. Or that she did see Hutchinson wearing that Hat.

Its clear she saw someone watching the courtyard, Hutchinson or not, that fellow is to my eye the most likely murderer, or almost certainly an accomplice.

Which is why its strange for Hutchinson to want to assume that mans role that night....even with his concern for Mary remarks. Maybe if he was really concerned he wouldn't have waited 4 full days to come forward, until after the Inquest prematurely ended...but we have his word on it, so I guess that means it must be true....

Cheers

Hi Michael

I guess that's another plausible idea. It would make sense that someone would wait outside as a look out, if they were an accomplice to murder.

Abberline annoys me, what was he hiding?

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Natasha,

To answer your question regarding Hutchinson being seen , its possible that Hutchinson relied on Sarah Lewis's sighting of Wideawake Hat man to validate his own statement. Or that she did see Hutchinson wearing that Hat.

Its clear she saw someone watching the courtyard, Hutchinson or not, that fellow is to my eye the most likely murderer, or almost certainly an accomplice.

Which is why its strange for Hutchinson to want to assume that mans role that night....even with his concern for Mary remarks. Maybe if he was really concerned he wouldn't have waited 4 full days to come forward, until after the Inquest prematurely ended...but we have his word on it, so I guess that means it must be true....

Cheers

[Natasha]

Hi Abby Normal,

Hi Natasha
Highly doubtful. Blotchy was seen going in with Mary around 11ish. Hutch's vigil was from approx. 2:15 to 3:00. The descriptions don't match-blotchy was very distinctive looking and I am sure abberline or someone would have noted the similarity if they were the same. Also, if hutch was Blotchy why would he stand around outside for almost an hour after already being inside with Mary.

Remember this was his story, if he was the ripper, he may have made up some story. As for Sarah Lewis well I don't think she is reliable as she embellished her story to the press. Perhaps she was somehow involved if not paid.

Hutchinson claims he left at the strike of 3, then Cox comes along. How comes she doesn't see Hutchinson?

IMHO I think Blotchy is the most viable candidate for the ripper with hutch being a close second.

The man Hutchinson claims to have seen with Kelly, with the small parcel, I think perhaps had a fish & chip supper in that parcel. That explains the contents of MJK's stomach.
If that's true, then I don't think the man Hutch' saw was the ripper. The ripper, I feel, is a blitz style attacker, I don't believe he would wait patiently while Kelly ate, and then kill her.

Not enough is known about Hutchinson, and that strikes me as strange. Abberline, is also a mystery IMO.