Help On Some Details

[Bridewell]

Hi SD

Thanks. I'm glad you found the research interesting. Still working on tracing Mrs Paumier's Kennedy half-siblings. I was interested to see that Mrs Paumier's son used her maiden name as his surname occasionally, as well as his own surname of Paumier. I wonder if Mrs Paumier ever borrowed her mother's previous surname?

Just as both Albert Cadosch's sons adopted their mother's maiden name (French) after he did a runner.

[Curious Cat]

Hi Curious Cat,

from time to time I pass by these boards to see whether the ripper has finally been caught. You didn't receive an answer to your above question yet right?
Maybe there is no further information. And we could speculate that it was a misreporting. As was pointed out in this thread, other newspapers ran the quote from Abberline differently.

Thank you also for bringing some straightforward fresh & analytical thinking to this mystery. I am one of the ones who still shares your initial doubts about the door and the lock. My 2 cents is still: the murderer did lock the door from outside, he took the key away with him, and that is the reason the police had to force the door instead of just reaching through the window. But i am not able to proof.

Because in my world, a spring lock locks when you pull a door shut. In addition, you can prevent opening from inside by locking from outside, which will lock the bolt.

All the best
IchabodCrane

Thank you.

Yes, the lock has - if you pardon the pun - been a bit of a sticking point in my mind. It seems there was a particular way to open and close the door which the killer apparently has enough knowledge of to both enter and/or leave the room that way. Given the opportunistic nature of the previous killings it appears to me that there's a level of planning involved with Mary Kelly, so the function of the lock and whether the killer took it into account is a point of interest.

[Sam Flynn]

But to me Wick it does seem strange that in her inquest testimony she say's there was no one in the court.

...or in the passage leading to it, which is the only way I can square her having said "further on" in conjunction with the sighting of Wideawake Man, viz:

"When I entered Miller's Court I saw a man with a wideawake. Further on [in the passage] I saw a man and woman".

But she didn't say that. The man and woman were clearly beyond the entrance to Miller's Court, because Lewis was at the entrance to the court when she saw Wideawake Man and the couple "further on", i.e. "further on" in Dorset Street.

Those newspaper reports that Wick cited earlier clearly got their wires crossed.

[Curious Cat]

Given the confliction, I'll slightly adjust what I posted before about Hutchinson's shadowing of Sarah Lewis's account...


There are 4 men - or 5 if you count the one in the couple Sarah Lewis saw. After the inquest only one - Hutchinson - brings himself foward and puts himself in the location around the same time Sarah Lewis was there. The other men remain unaccounted for.

Hutchinson tops and tails Sarah Lewis' account. She saw a non-hatted woman talking to the man she'd previous seen in Bethnal Green by a pub in Commercial Street...Hutchinson watches Mary Kelly talking to Astrachan man by a pub in Commercial Street. Sarah Lewis sees a coulple in Dorset Street as she approaches Miller's Court...Hutchinson watches/follows an unhatted Mary Kelly and Astrachan man as they go along Dorset and then go into Miller's Court. Sarah Lewis sees a man hanging around opposite the entrance to Miller's Court...Hutchinson says he waited for some 45 minutes opposite the entrance to Miller's Court.


There's no problem with the police taking and believing an account that comes to them a few days later, the problem lies with what stopped Hutchinson himself going to the police earlier.

Is Hutchinson corobarating Sarah Lewis's account or is he attaching himself to it? The only person he spoke to that night and who could corobarate his account is dead.

[Sunny Delight]

thanks SD
I don't buy it. not really.

although its possible I just find hutch as the totally honest witness hard to swallow.

As you say-his behaviour that night was creepy-stalking behaviour I would call it. I can understand being reluctant, but his subsequent actions dont really back that up do they? He so sure he can ID the man again, said he thought he saw him again. Does the walk about with police, blabs to the press.




not really the behaviour of a reluctant witness is it?

Not sure how being able to ID the man again makes Hutch seem like he is not a reluctant witness? He saw the man and described him in detail- he was then going to say to the Police he wouldn't know him again? Not very likely is it? He does a walk around with the Police to help. Nothing wrong with that. After being cleared by Abberline Hutchinson is happy to talk to the press. When I say he was a reluctant witness I refer to that weekend and the time period before being cleared by Abberline.

[Abby Normal]

I think that if you find Hutchinsons behaviour suspicious and I find it creepy then surely Hutchinson himself could have felt that way. He wants to come forward but is thinking- I am going to put myself at the centre of the crime and maybe the Police will think it was me. I will just say nothing. Forget about it. But the guilt racks him- on Monday after some casual work he speaks to a friend at the doss house, his friend says you have to take this to the Police. You have to tell them. And so on Monday at 6pm he takes the plunge heads to the Police station and gives his story. The lead detective interrogates him and finds his story to be truthful in his opinion. Just a scenario I have thought about.....

thanks SD
I don't buy it. not really.

although its possible I just find hutch as the totally honest witness hard to swallow.

As you say-his behaviour that night was creepy-stalking behaviour I would call it. I can understand being reluctant, but his subsequent actions dont really back that up do they? He so sure he can ID the man again, said he thought he saw him again. Does the walk about with police, blabs to the press.




not really the behaviour of a reluctant witness is it?

[Darryl Kenyon]

But why change the evidence to suit a theory, it makes perfect sense as it stands.
It just reflects a picture not popular among a number of theorists.

But to me Wick it does seem strange that in her inquest testimony she say's there was no one in the court.
Surely if a couple were going in or out of the court they would have been in the court? And even if for arguments sake the couple was say in the passageway coming out of the court when Sarah saw them, why not mention this?
Sorry for asking this without going through all the reports but am i right in thinking it was just the Daily News who reported Sarah's evidence this way?
Regards Darryl

[Abby Normal]

That's it Abby, just what we discussed before.

cool. thanks wick.

and the thing is even if you dont believe hutchs aman story(and as you know I lean toward not) then mary could still have met up with the BGB after blotchy.

[Wickerman]

Since Sarah Lewis says in her inquest testimony - The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink. There was nobody in the court.
Could the Daily News, when they reported - "I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court." Be a mishearing or a mistype of - "I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink up passed the court." And that's what Sarah said/meant. just a thought.

But why change the evidence to suit a theory, it makes perfect sense as it stands.
It just reflects a picture not popular among a number of theorists.

[Wickerman]

hi wick
and hutch leaves his vigil around 3. then aman leaves marys place. then Mary goes back out and runs into the BGB, is seen by kennedy, and takes the BGB back to her place who kills her and is the ripper?


I believe this is the scenario we discussed before correct?

That's it Abby, just what we discussed before.

[Wickerman]

actually in his press statement hutch now claims to have gone and stood by her door. indicating he knows exactly where she lives. a rather important point to leave out for the police.


to me this change indicates that he may have been worried someone saw him close to her place and changes his story to account for it. classic guilty behavior. or at least untruthful behavior.

I'm more inclined to think that Abberline managed to extract more precise details from Hutchinson in the interrogation, which is why Hutch then provides more detail in his press interview.
In his initial statement he said he went to the court, which is vague, so in his later press statement he elaborates on exactly what he meant.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I'll give you three guesses.

Regards,

Simon

Hey Simon, I'm sure you don't pay for your web server by the word.
C'mon, lets have a full sentence or better still a complete paragraph explaining what you think.

You can do it....

[Sunny Delight]

perhaps. but why would he wait so long? I cant come up with a good innocent or truthful reason. surely he heard about the murder. surely his info would be important.
sounds to me he didn't want to go to the inquest and or needed time to see what others said and to work on his unbelievably detailed story.

I think that if you find Hutchinsons behaviour suspicious and I find it creepy then surely Hutchinson himself could have felt that way. He wants to come forward but is thinking- I am going to put myself at the centre of the crime and maybe the Police will think it was me. I will just say nothing. Forget about it. But the guilt racks him- on Monday after some casual work he speaks to a friend at the doss house, his friend says you have to take this to the Police. You have to tell them. And so on Monday at 6pm he takes the plunge heads to the Police station and gives his story. The lead detective interrogates him and finds his story to be truthful in his opinion. Just a scenario I have thought about.....

[Darryl Kenyon]

Back to the lock and key. I was reading what Daniel Farson reported regarding Mary Cox's niece, from Casebook - Author Daniel Farson was able to interview Mary Ann Cox's niece about that evening, however, her claims appear somewhat 'embroidered':

"The night of the murder of Mary Kelly my aunt was very young, just married with one child. She was standing at her door and waiting for her husband who was a bit of a boozer. She saw Mary coming through the iron gate with this gentleman, a real toff. Mary was always bringing home men, mostly seamen from a pub called the Frying Pan, singing and holding their arms with a bottle of gin under her arm. This night as they got under the lamp in the court they stopped. Mary's words were "all right love don't pull me along". My aunt said they were only a few yards away from her, at the door she said she saw him as plain as looking at her hand. He was a fine looking man, wore an overcoat with a cape, high hat, not a silk one, and a Gladstone bag. As they went into the house, Mary called out "goodnight" to my aunt."

She also added that her aunt heard 'terrible screams from Mary, but no one took any notice because it happened often'. Finally, she is quoted as saying this about the discovery of Kelly's body:

"Now next morning a Mrs Storey who was always in and out of Mary's room to have a pinch of snuff and a chat, was the first person to find the terrible body. Mary had a string on the door so anybody visiting had no need to knock. She dashed next door to my aunt and they both went in. My aunt never forgot the sight she saw."
Now i know this sounds a load of old hokum but look at - Mary had a string on the door so anybody visiting had no need to knock.
Could this be the answer? Barnett reached through the window and opened the door through a string or even a wire hook like a coat hanger tied onto the lock? No need to reach right in risking cutting yourself, and if the key was found no more need for the string or wire so it may have been very difficult to open the door from the window, thus the need to jam open the door with a pick axe.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Since Sarah Lewis says in her inquest testimony - The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink. There was nobody in the court.
Could the Daily News, when they reported - "I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court." Be a mishearing or a mistype of - "I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink up passed the court." And that's what Sarah said/meant. just a thought.