Did Mary know her attacker?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Dear God, how I manage to wind you up.
But then again, you make it so easy for me.

Never a dull moment, eh?

All the best

[Sam Flynn]

If Mary Cox had brought a client home, it would have obviously been germane to the inquiry because that client would have assumed the status of a potential witness. It wouldn't have been mere elaboration, but a relevent detail to include. The fact that she didn't mention bringing home a client ought to be a reasonable indicator that there wasn't one.

Quite probably true, but that doesn't mean that she, or her ilk, never did so - if that was the implication. That said, the fact remains that Cox needn't have felt obliged to volunteer any information about her own business to the inquest, unless specifically asked to do so.

[Ben]

Quite probably true, but that doesn't mean that she, or her ilk, never did so - if that was the implication.

Rest assured it wasn't, Gareth.

I just feel that the presence of a client would have been information worth volunteering even without external prompting.

Best wishes,
Ben

[Observer]

Hi Colin

You are absolutely right, even in the light of overwhelming evidence the majority of posters here in this Forum are somewhat reluctant to alter their opinion. Opinions run deep you see, especially opinions that have a certain maturity about them. Don't get me wrong though I'm no different from the rest. Regarding your beliefs, some I agreed with some I didn't, only one merits being included in this thread, so I'll only quote this one

Hi Michael,

I do not believe a word of George Hutchinson's statement – meaning of course, that I do not believe he was anywhere near Miller's Court, during the morning in question.

[ATTACH]1304[/ATTACH]

The posters who are familiar with your beliefs will know why you do not believe the above but I do not, and I dare say there are others who are likewise in the dark. So let me ask you this.

If Hutchinson was nowhere near Dorset street that November morning then who did Lewis see?

Are you putting down to coincidence the fact that a man was sighted in Dorset Street at precisely the same time as Hutchinson purported to be there?

Observer

[Chava]

re you putting down to coincidence the fact that a man was sighted in Dorset Street at precisely the same time as Hutchinson purported to be there?

Observer, if I may jump in here, I don't believe George Hutchinson either, and one of the reasons for that is that he came forward after the inquest in which Sarah Lewis said she saw a man standing in or near the opening of the passageway into Millers Court. So George Hutchinson corroborates Sarah Lewis, in that he says 'I was there at the right time' but Sarah Lewis does not corroborate George Hutchinson in that we have no reason to believe she said 'that was the man I saw'. There's no paperwork or newspaper report to support that. Hutchinson may or may not have been where he says he was, but his evidence is suspect to me for many reasons, not the least of which is that he doesn't come forward until after the inquest testimony of Lewis.

And as I said above, in a statement notable for its detail, Hutchinson does not mention seeing Sarah Lewis enter the court. And Lewis's description of a shortish stocky man does not seem to jibe with Hutchinson's statement that he 'stooped down' to look at Mr Astrakhan in the face. Mr A might well have been extremely short, but if he was, that was the one and only detail Hutchinson left out!

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Ben,

I just feel that the presence of a client would have been information worth volunteering even without external prompting.

...I'm sure her landlord would have appreciated her candour if she had so volunteered

[Ben]

Hi Chava and Observer,

If Hutchinson fabricated the Astrakhan encounter, then the issue of one man's height in relation to the other is rendered moot. Even if they were approximately the same height, it would still have been necessary for one of them to "stoop" if the other was ostensibly at pains to conceal his face with a felt hat over his eyes, and even if Hutchinson was an inch or two taller than the 5"6' attributed to Astrakhan, that wouldn't preclude the former from being "not tall".

His failure to mention Lewis is anyone's guess. If he came forward as a result of her evidence, it wouldn't have been especially prudent to advertize the fact and make it obvious that it was Lewis that prompted him to come forward. Had he done so, he'd run the risk of being exposed rather too readily as someone who came forward because he "had" to, not because he wanted to.

[paul emmett]

His failure to mention Lewis is anyone's guess. If he came forward as a result of her evidence, it wouldn't have been especially prudent to advertize the fact and make it obvious that it was Lewis that prompted him to come forward.

Hi, Ben.

But IF he came forward as a result of Lewis's evidence, it would have been prudent to say he saw her, since he knew she ahd been there, and saying he saw her would add credibility to his story. If he knew Lewis's statement, he would likely know Cox's too, so again it would be prudent for him to say he left the Court BEFORE 3:00, since that would explain why Cox hadn't seen him when she came home at 3:00.

Since he said neither, I'm inclined to think that he didn't come forward as a result of Lewis's evidence. OR he isn't very prudent.

[Sam Flynn]

...is that a shoot of kudzu I see poking up through the soil?

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
"If Mary Cox had brought a client home, it would have obviously been germane to the inquiry because that client would have assumed the status of a potential witness"

...and that is EXACTLY what I have been trying to say all the time. It is also why I suggest that Cox may have felt inclined, on behalf of that potential witness/those potential witnesses, to keep silent about it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Chava]

...is that a shoot of kudzu I see poking up through the soil?

Oh hell yes. And my fault as well! He does seem to outcrop, don't he

[Ben]

Hi Paul,

so again it would be prudent for him to say he left the Court BEFORE 3:00, since that would explain why Cox hadn't seen him when she came home at 3:00.

Indeed he did. Cox returned home about 3.00am, and then whaddya know? As soon as the clock chimes 3.00am, all of a sudden that's when Hutchinson left the scene. He didn't need to mention Lewis; that connection was for the police to establish. Hutchinson claimed to have stood waiting for someone to come out at 2:30 opposite the Court. "Hey, that's where Hutchinson claimed to have done precisely that at precisely that time" - or so it would have occured to police. No need for Hutchinson to over-egg the pudding by mentioning Lewis specifically thereby inviting immediate suspicion that it was Lewis' evidence that spurred him into action.

Either way, the congruity between his evidence and Lewis', and the fact that he came forward as soon as Lewis' evidence became public knowledge is more than enough of an indication that she provided the "catalyst" for his approaching police.

But yes - kudzu alert!

Hi Fisherman,

It is also why I suggest that Cox may have felt inclined, on behalf of that potential witness/those potential witnesses, to keep silent about it.

That's no reason to keep silent about anything, Fish. That's an incentive to alert police that there was another potential witness on the scene that night.

Best regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

I particularly liked the rationale in your first paragraph Ben.

I wonder about this though.....perhaps even more down the road that you've suggested regarding Mr H and his potential relevance as a suspect rather than a witness...does Hutchinson even have to have been Wideawake man at all.

Does he maybe use the guise of Wideawake to have excuse to be in that neighborhood at that time, in case someone else could come forward and recognize him later? Because perhaps he actually was in that neighborhood that night at some point, but not as a friend of Mary Janes.

Maybe Sarah never saw "Hutchinson", but "Hutchinson" wanted to cover that base in case she isnt the only one that saw someone like Wideawake hanging about Dorset.

Best regards Ben.

[Ben]

Good thinking, Mike, and quite possible!

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Bern writes:

"That's no reason to keep silent about anything, Fish. That's an incentive to alert police that there was another potential witness on the scene that night."

And a customer lost. At the very least. May well involve numerous other risks too, which I think you may admit, Ben.
I see your reasoning, it is one that is useful for society, but then again, not everybody is as eager as you are to optimize such qualities. You´d be amazed by the number of egos out there, Ben...!

The best,
Fisherman