Help On Some Details

[Abby Normal]

Two problems with this:

1) It was not up to Abberline who appeared at the inquest. The reasons for Schwartz not appearing are not known. However interestingly didn't Anderson make reference to Schwartz appearance at the Inquest. Where the Police trying to keep his testimony under wraps due to its importance and its reference to Lipski? We will never know.

2) Hutchinson never stated he and Kelly were 'friends'. He just said he knew her. As for waiting 4 days to come forward- show me one Police force in the world who will dismiss someones evidence because they didn't come forward for four days. That would be a pretty pathetic police force. My God even nowadays people come forward years after the event never mind 4 days and are believed. If waiting 4 days is being used as some sort of stick to beat Hutchinson with then it's a very weak one.

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.

[Abby Normal]

Excuse me Gareth, but when her words are right there in black and white. How can you possibly say "she didn't say that"?

"I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."
Daily News, 13 Nov.

It's not like what she said is taken in isolation, it perfectly agrees with what Hutchinson said the night before (12th). They saw the same couple.
Once you have two independent sources who agree, they confirm each other, then that is the anchor to proceed to interpret further claims.

I have never tried to convince you that Lewis didn't say "further on", of course she must have, or at least implied the same. Therefore, her "further on" must be interpreted in conjunction with the fact she watched them pass up the court.

And, in my view, the best interpretation for her use of "further on" is to understand she meant "further on ahead of me was a couple......", not "further on past the loiterer" because that would conflict with the already established anchor between the two witnesses (Hutchinson & Lewis).

This is how a sequence of events is established, find something common between two sources and proceed from there.

Lewis is not providing a chronological story, she is responding to specific questions, as all witnesses do.
The first point noted in her police statement is her noticing that loiterer, and the first question she is asked at the inquest concerns this same loiterer.
Lewis makes no mention of another couple in her police statement, so the fact she does at the inquest can only be due to the coroner asking, "did you see anyone else in the street?" - to which she, in my view, obviously replied, "yes, further on ahead there was a couple......I saw them pass up the court", or words to that effect.
One reporter wrote "further on there was a couple", a different reporter wrote, "I saw a couple pass up the court".

Each reporter adds a small piece to the overall picture and we must collate all the press sources, along with the original court record, to gain a better understanding of what Lewis saw that morning.

When Lewis did reach the court, and walked up the passage, she noticed the couple she saw previously were not in the court, it was empty. Therefore, this couple must have gone indoors. Exactly like Hutchinson said - Astrachan & Kelly went into room 13.

To me it's as clear as day that Hutchinson & Lewis corroborate each other.

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?

[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.

[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.

[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.....

[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....

[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 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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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?

[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.

[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.

[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.