If Mary Kelly really WAS a prostitute....

[Wickerman]

Thought there were 5 houses on one side of the street with Kelly and Carthy/McCarthy residing in number 1.
Sounds interesting.
Thanks again

Seems to be a number of Stephen Maywoods from Romford.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=24207&page=35

Shelden writes:
- From 1881 to 1891 Breezers Hill had only four houses.....
- The houses were on the eastern side with number 4 nearest to St. George Street and number 1 being adjacent to 79 Pennington Street. On the western side of the street were warehouses.
- From 1883 to 1887 a couple called Stephen and Sarah Maywood lived at 1 Breezers Hill.

- "Stephen Maywood, a dealer, of Breezers Hill, St. George's, London, was summoned for working a horse in an unfit state at Romford on the 8th Sept."
Chelmsford Chronicle, 8th Oct. 1886.

- Stephen Maywood, Horse Dealer.
Lower Chapman Street School Register - 1888 (for his two sons, Stephen & Henry)

- Seemingly, following the Maywood's into 1 Breezers Hill was a couple called McCarthy. John and his wife Mary were summoned to court in May 1890 for selling liquor without a license, the article also mentions the use of prostitutes to draw in customers. The 1891 census listed "unfortunates" as residents of 1 Breezers Hill.

-A family of Morgenstern's lived at 31 (or 43) Victoria Rd. Fulham in 1881, Adrianus and his wife moved to the East End sometime after. The wife of Adrianus died about 1884 and Adrianus took up with a woman by the name of Elizabeth Felix.

- A brother of Adrianus, Johannes had already taken up residence in the East End in 1874. Two birth certificates for his children gave their home address in Oct. 1885 as 79 Pennington St.
- The maiden name of Johannes's wife was Boeku, Elizabeth Boeku was likely the elusive Mrs Buki.
- - - - - -

So it appears the Maywoods lived next door to the Morgenstern/Boeku family during the time that Mary Kelly is reputed to have lived in Breezers Hill.
The question therefore arises, did Hutchinson have some 'professional' connection to the Maywoods via the horse trade, and if so is this where he first met Mary Kelly.

[Ben]

We have no cause to assume Hutchinson knew the name of the pub he stood outside that night, in fact in his press account he only identifies it as "the public house".

He must have done, or else "the public house" would have appeared in the police statement too. I'm not making any inferences about Hutchinson's honesty on this particular point. I'm simply stating the obvious, which is that the words "Ten Bells" would not have been committed to paper unless Hutchinson had uttered them himself.

Badham was responsible for recording what Hutchinson actually said, not for manipulating eyewitness evidence and taking presumptuous liberties with regard to what the witnesses in question "must have" meant.

[Wickerman]

He must have done, or else "the public house" would have appeared in the police statement too. I'm not making any inferences about Hutchinson's honesty on this particular point. I'm simply stating the obvious, which is that the words "Ten Bells" would not have been committed to paper unless Hutchinson had uttered them himself.

A press statement is not expected to be as accurate as a police statement. Assuming Hutchinson was not aware of the name of the pub on that corner it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Badham shouted out to another officer if he knew the name of the pub on that corner.
The interviewing officer is trying to make the statement as accurate as possible. Badham writes the name in, only to be corrected minutes later, or possibly Abberline corrected it when he ran through the statement with Hutchinson in the interrogation.
This is making a mountain out of a molehill, the error has no bearing on the validity of Hutchinson's statement.

Badham was responsible for recording what Hutchinson actually said, not for manipulating eyewitness evidence and taking presumptuous liberties with regard to what the witnesses in question "must have" meant.

Success at last, thankyou for that long-awaited concession - yes, Badham writes down Hutchinson's statement "in his own words".

However, it is also a requirement that Badham questions Hutchinson on specific points for clarification, and, if Hutchinson explains exactly where he was but doesn't know the name of the street, pub, business, or church, so long as Badham is certain of his location the officer is allowed to fill in the missing name. The intent being, to make the statement clear for legal purposes. This is not manipulating the witness, in this you are confused.

If Abberline corrected the error, by rights he should have initialed the change. However, if the change was made prior to Hutchinson signing the statement then no initial is necessary - Hutchinson is agreeing, by his signature, that this correction is what he meant.

[Ben]

Assuming Hutchinson was not aware of the name of the pub on that corner it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Badham shouted out to another officer if he knew the name of the pub on that corner.

I'm afraid this is yet another example of your crusade to ensure that everyone else must have been mistaken or incompetent for Hutchinson to be revived as star witness, and as with all previous examples, it isn't working. If Hutchinson didn't mention a pub, it was not the responsibility of Badham to "shout out to another officer" to discover its identity. That is the look-out of the investigating officer. If Hutchinson had simply mentioned a "public house", that phrase would have appeared in the statement.

The interviewing officer is trying to make the statement as accurate as possible.

No.

The interviewing officer simply extracts the information and records it. It was Abberline's job to assess its "accuracy". It would have been the absolute height of negligent bumbling incompetence for Badham to have "helped" Hutchinson by supplying him with information on the assumption that he "must have" meant a certain location. If Hutchinson did not provide a pub name, that in itself was important information to provide Abberline with; why, for instance, was he familiar with all the street names (and Kelly, for three years), but not the pubs? If the investigating officer had already tainted the information by helpfully filling in the blanks, Abberline's impression is skewed.

The error was most assuredly Hutchinson's - innocent or otherwise is your choice, but the idea that Badham was responsible for it bears no scrutiny at all.

Now, I'm not interested in hearing from you any further on the subject, Jon. If you think I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill, I suggest you stop piling on the soil. It was all discussed yonks ago here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=296728&highlight=Bells#post296728

[Wickerman]

Ten Bell actually.

The correction was not in Badham or Hutchinson's handwriting and a different pen was used.

Agreed, the writing was not Badham's, but we only have Hutchinson's signature to use and a signature does not substitute for a sample of handwriting. However, Hutchinson would not be permitted to make changes himself.

I have some examples of Abberline's handwriting and I do not see a sufficient difference to rule him out as the one who made the correction.

[Fisherman]

About the pub name and the street names - what point is actually being made? Can anybody help out? If Hutchinson was uncertain about the name of the pub where he stood, what does that supposedly imply?

[Wickerman]

You'd have to step back to page 8 Christer, to see where the "pub name" issue was raised, the point in raising this is not made too clear.

[Fisherman]

You'd have to step back to page 8 Christer, to see where the "pub name" issue was raised, the point in raising this is not made too clear.

I´ll say! Which is why I was wondering about it.

[David Orsam]

Ever hear of The Cleveland Street Scandal!

Same officials minus Warren who resigned in 1888.

If it is being suggested here that Scotland Yard under Monro as Commissioner was involved in some form of illegal conspiracy in respect of the Cleveland Street Scandal, this is quite wrong.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hutchinson's view was considerably more than a passing glance, the encounter appears to have lasted approx. 15 minutes, and please share with us the source which indicates what Hutchinson's "life work" was. The ability to pay attention to detail is a perfectly normal human trait not exclusive to any profession or the result of specific training.

I would absolutely agree with you, Wickerman, in the sense that it is not implausible that someone could remember such details.

All it takes is for the reader to reflect on the way they are and what they remember.

It depends upon the people involved.

Sometimes I couldn't tell you what someone was wearing an hour after talking with them; other times I could tell you what someone was wearing two weeks ago and describe it accurately. Because something about that person, but not the other person, caused me to take notice of him/her.

My personal opinion is that Hutchinson was in it for the money, and wasn't there at all; but I certainly wouldn't rule out that he could have seen that person and remembered such detail.

Some people have an eye for detail and others don't. And, if you have an eye for detail and someone catches your attention you can remember a lot.

[DJA]

If it is being suggested here that Scotland Yard under Monro as Commissioner was involved in some form of illegal conspiracy in respect of the Cleveland Street Scandal, this is quite wrong.

Monro was in favor of prosecuting Somerset.

[DJA]

You'd have to step back to page 8 Christer, to see where the "pub name" issue was raised, the point in raising this is not made too clear.

Because I had already raised the issue previously,as mentioned on page 8.

Hutchinson can notice all those details,yet not know the name of the pub near his lodgings.

Have a good look at the statement.

Hutchinson had to stop and look back from whence he came to see Kelly and A man meet.

I have never seen a legitimate Police statement altered without the alteration being signed. Never!

[Wickerman]

Because I had already raised the issue previously,as mentioned on page 8.

Hutchinson can notice all those details,yet not know the name of the pub near his lodgings.

I don't see the parallel, the name of the pub above his head and behind him is not his concern when glaring into the face of the intruder who just snatched this woman out of his arms, so to speak.

I have never seen a legitimate Police statement altered without the alteration being signed. Never!

Then you have not studied the witness statements from the Kelly Inquest. Some strike-outs are signed while others are not.
Relatively speaking this was the early days of police work we shouldn't expect those officers to have known what it has taken generations of policemen today to learn.

[Wickerman]

Police statements taken by Abberline which contain unsigned strike-outs are given by: Barnett, McCarthy, Maxwell, S. Lewis, and Vanturney.

It really is not unusual and Abberline's writing is not too dissimilar to that correction made in Hutchinson's statement.

[harry]

Hutchinson attended the police station with an already prepared statement,that appears obvious.A statement that he had much time to consider.That he should fail to identify the public house correctly,a significant detail,seems a bit remiss.He resided a short distance away,but it is the only occasion he has to make a close inspection of the man's facial features.Now if the lamp had not been lit that morning,would anyone at the station be aware of that fact. A small lie inserted among several others.
I would expect Badham to have given Hutchinson a chance to read the statement before signing,and if Hutchinson found the wrong name,then Hutchinson had an opportunity to correct it.