Help On Some Details

[Wickerman]

Yes Wick, but if Hutch is telling the truth she knew him by name. I don't think a prostitute [unless she was high class, certainly not a Victorian one who was living a day to day existence ], would remember occasional punters names, unless of course she knew them.
Regards Darryl

Agreed, but knowing someone does not make them a friend.

Are we trying to water down what a friend actually is?
Remember, this expression (friend) is being used today to force a closer relationship between Hutch & Kelly, so more suspicion can be cast on Hutchinson for not going to police straight away.
False claims, false arguments, this is typical of those who choose to doubt Hutchinson.

How many people do you know by name - first or last, as opposed to how many of them are actual friends?

There's a perfectly valid reason why he didn't go. It was widely believed over that first weekend that Kelly had been murdered after 9:00 am Friday morning.
Him meeting her at 2:00 am has no bearing on that.

[rjpalmer]

"Posts & a lamp at the end of this passage in Duke St."

So we have an 'unfortunate' standing underneath a street lamp on a Saturday night/Sunday morning in East London.

Not, I would think, a particularly unique event.

Yet this is the foundation stone of many a theory.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Regarding the lamp, CSI Whitechapel as a good photo, P149 showing Church Passage from Mitre Square. It is taken in the sixties but you can clearly see a lamp Mitre Square end of the passage.
Regards Darryl

[Darryl Kenyon]

She was a prostitute, which would be regarded as more than a passing acquaintance if he had used her services.

It still doesn't make them friends, and certainly not to the extent of an, "Oh my god I have to run to police....."

Yes Wick, but if Hutch is telling the truth she knew him by name. I don't think a prostitute [unless she was high class, certainly not a Victorian one who was living a day to day existence ], would remember occasional punters names, unless of course she knew them.
Regards Darryl

[Wickerman]

Oh, so its Facts from the Echo and just Balderdash from the Star? Both being press agencies? Choosing one press account over another is one thing Jon.

I'm point out that both are the same level of credibility. If you religiously believe the Star, why not the Echo?
Yet, we have corroboration for the Echo account, but none for the Star.
But you choose the Star - why?

Its a fact that George was reported to be discredited, whether you believe that or the Echo story is up to you. Belief, not fact.

You believe all press reports as 'factual'?

[Wickerman]

Not quite all. He also said that he'd been in her company and had given her a few shillings on occasion. Doesn't make them friends, necessarily, but it appears to have been more than a passing acquaintance.

She was a prostitute, which would be regarded as more than a passing acquaintance if he had used her services.

It still doesn't make them friends, and certainly not to the extent of an, "Oh my god I have to run to police....."

[packers stem]

Hi Packers,

The notation reads, "Posts & a lamp at the end of this passage in Duke St."

[ATTACH]19005[/ATTACH]

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon

So it does
I stand corrected

Kind regards
Nick

[Joshua Rogan]

According to the Morning Advertiser account of Levy's evidence, which seems to be the most detailed, it is the lamp at the club which had been improved since the murder;

"The spot is better lighted now than it was prior to the morning of the murder. There is a better light at the club now than there used to be, and with the aid of the lamp a few yards off I could distinguish almost anybody. On the night in question, however, there was not sufficient light to enable me to distinguish the colour of the dress which the woman was wearing."

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello P.S.,

I have no position on the matter one way or another. Merely playing devil's advocate as it were. But if the marginalia is a forgery why would a forger add initials if they are as you say a massive red flag? There is simply no need for them.

c.d.

To make it seem more authentic to those who might later read it !

And after all, if it was made up then the person who made it up was very good, because what was written could not be disproved, and still cant to this very day.

If the forger had been aware of what Anderson wrote in his book about an ID parade, the story could have been built around that. Clearly the forger would have to have had some knowledge of the Ripper investigations. But if forged then the forger did slip up several times in my opinion

The Marginalia it would seen was first made public in 1981, but by that time both the Macnaghten memorandum and the Aberconway Version were also in the public domain, the former names Kosminski, the latter eliminates him.

If you would like to know more there is a full report on my investigation into the marginalia found in my book along with my findings.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1728912997?pf_rd_p=71cb17e9-f468-4d3f-94d5-a0de44c50a7e&pf_rd_r=MCW5R617CDV75FZQX7QM

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Simon Wood]

Hi Packers,

The notation reads, "Posts & a lamp at the end of this passage in Duke St."



Regards,

Simon

[c.d.]

Agreed Trevor

People do occasionally scribble in books they possess ,that's true .It's rare but happens .
But the fact that he initialled the scribbles that were for his eyes only should be a massive red flag to everyone .
Nobody does that .
Unfortunately , many wish to believe it so they will ignore

Hello P.S.,

I have no position on the matter one way or another. Merely playing devil's advocate as it were. But if the marginalia is a forgery why would a forger add initials if they are as you say a massive red flag? There is simply no need for them.

I am reminded of obvious scams that say "this is not a scam."

c.d.

[packers stem]

Hi Packers,

[ATTACH]19004[/ATTACH]

Regards,

Simon

Thanks Simon
That may have been an 'after the horse has bolted' lamp though ?
If you look at the mitre square plan drawn up for langham and zoom right to the top of church passage it's got written in pencil (presumably)
" posts no lamp at the end of this passage in Duke Street"

May explain Levy at the inquest stating that it was better lit now than it was then .

Kind regards

Nick

[Simon Wood]

Hi Packers,



Regards,

Simon

[packers stem]

Do you really believe what Swanson purportedly wrote in the marginalia?

Surely if any such ID parade was going to take place you would have expected the police from both forces to work together and to use all the witnesses from both murders.

There is no corroboration from The City that they carried out any surveillance as described by Swanson.

In practical terms if this seaside ID ever did take place as described, would the police knowing they had a killer identified, simply have dropped him off leaving him to his own devices, I dont think so.

On the question of Lawende, he had stated he would not be able to recognize the man seen with who it is believed was Eddowes, so why ask him to take part in an identification parade, any identification made after he had made his original statement would be worthless.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Agreed Trevor

People do occasionally scribble in books they possess ,that's true .It's rare but happens .
But the fact that he initialled the scribbles that were for his eyes only should be a massive red flag to everyone .
Nobody does that .
Unfortunately , many wish to believe it so they will ignore

[packers stem]

Hi Simon. But are you not quoting it out of context? Let’s read it again, adding the preceding line…

“A gentleman, who on the night of the Mitre-Square murder, noticed in Duke-Street, Aldgate, a couple standing under the lamp at the corner of the passage leading to Mitre-Square. The woman was identified as one victim...”

Hold the phone. Really? Is that strictly true?

While there is no doubt that the woman in Mitre-square was indeed Kate Eddowes, the above statement implies that the woman standing under the lamp was also identified as the victim, Kate Eddowes. That’s two different claims.

In truth, Lawende admitted to only seeing the woman’s back, and, taken to the morgue, only stated that Eddowes clothing appeared to be the same as the woman he had seen under the lamp. I'm not sure that qualifies as "the woman was identified" and, whatever he may or may not have scribbled in a margin years later, the contemporary Swanson appears to have been unimpressed.

Thus, I suggest that, if not an outright porkie, it is at least an exaggeration of what had actually occurred.

And so to bed.

There was no lamp at the Duke Street end of Church passage