Did Mary know her attacker?

[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.

[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

[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!

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[Dan Norder]

As for comparisons with other serial killers, I withold that I find it to be a questionable and maybe even dangerous approach,

Yeah, that's a common statement among people who would prefer to just make nonsense up off the top of their heads and expect it to be treated more seriously than what the people who actually know what they're talking about have to say.

especially when people repeatedly refer to Ted Bundy, since the Ripper wasn't very much like Bundy in the first place.

And you know that, how exactly? Because you say so?

Bundy is certainly not the most common killer named in reference to Jack, especially with so many better comparisons out there, but Bundy is not necessarily a bad comparison either. Bundy did take body parts from some of his victims, for example.

I suppose if this were a website devoted to some unknown species of bird that we only know about through a couple of rumored sightings and some traces left behind we'd have the same bunch of dodos trying to say that the last thing we ought to do is base our conclusions about what it might have been like on other known birds. They'd say, "Oh, well, Mystery Bird was spotted flying, I'm going to ignore how other birds fly and assume that this bird had an anti-gravity organ in its thorax. People spotted what looks like bird droppings at some of the scenes, but instead of going with that because other birds leave droppings let's just assume that it was really gunpowder because... well, because I just made that up off the top of my head and it's just as valid as anyone else's comments becuase they don't know. Screw the experts, Mystery Bird probably wasn't even hatched from an egg."

Sometimes I really honestly and truly wonder how some people survive in the world with such a fundamental lack of sense. You'd think they'd just run in front of cars and get splattered all the time because they can't seem to put together the knowledge of the damage that other cars have done when people walked in front of them with the potential effects of this unknown car driving toward them.

[Ben]

Hi all,

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.

Regards,
Ben

[Chava]

As per the inquest transcript, no one asked Cox if she was accompanied when she came home. Given the level of euphemism you see there--'unfortunate', 'make my living on the streets' etc I'm not surprised. After all, the coroner and jury may not have thought Cox's clients were relevant to Kelly's killing.

Small point though, and not relevant to this thread, that I thought of when I was checking out Cox's testimony. When Cox gets back to her room, there's no one standing in the court. Hutchinson says he stood there 3/4 of an hour after Kelly went into her room with Mr A. So it sounds like the only person who went into the court during that time was Sarah Lewis. Prater was too early, Cox was too late. Lewis says she saw someone stand opposite the doss-house apparently looking into the court. Hutchinson would therefore have seen Lewis. But he doesn't mention her. I'm a bit surprised at this. True, the cops may not have asked him if he saw anyone else. But given the almost forensic level of description he gives of Mr A, I'm surprised he's completely forgotten all about Mrs L!

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Ben,

It would incredibly strange, though, for Mrs. Cox to admit to being an unfortunate, recount her actions and movements during the night in question, but completely fail to mention that she brought clients home.

I see absolutely no reason to believe that she (or any other witness in any other case) should have felt obliged to elaborate any further than necessary.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

She admitted that she was an unfortunate, but that does not go to prove that she would venture any further information on the subject if not especially asked to do so.

It would incredibly strange, though, for Mrs. Cox to admit to being an unfortunate, recount her actions and movements during the night in question, but completely fail to mention that she brought clients home. There wouldn't be any logic or reason for her to have kept quiet about that detail. She wasn't specifically asked about a number of things, but she introduced them anyway. It's a distinct possibility that she suppressed such a detail, but very unlikely in my view.

It wouldn't have been more economical to turn tricks in Miller's Court. Quite the reverese. If the prostitutes solicited clients where they encountered them, they could get through them at a faster rate, rather than having to keep trekking back and forth back home only for some shabby client to sully the sheets. Mary Cox appears to have recognised this.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Cox had no qualms about admitting she was a prostitute. If she brought clients home, it naturally follows that she'd have no qualms about admitting that either, but since no clients are mentioned, it seems reasonable to infer that she didn't bring any home."

Good, sound reasoning, Ben! But one of the small things that belong to the discussion is that she was probably/maybe never asked IF she brought customers home. She admitted that she was an unfortunate, but that does not go to prove that she would venture any further information on the subject if not especially asked to do so.
As I have said before, I have no problems accepting if she came clear one hundred percent about the whole thing. I am just pointing to the fact that there is room enough to allow for a suspiscion that maybe she didnīt. Plus Praters "young man" seems to reinforce the possibility that this could be the case.

And Glenn, I agree that one should not drag things into a discussion that further complicate an already complicated matter - unless they may actually belong to the matter and may shed new light on it. If Cox and Prater actually did turn tricks in the court - and it would have been both safer (well, perhaps not in Kellys case...), warmer, more comfortable and probably economically advantageous - then it opens up for a different view on how credible it would be that Kelly serviced clients in HER room.

The best, Ben, Glenn!
Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Sam,

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

That post was even shorter than the ones delivered occasionally by Jenni Pegg, which is quite an achievement in itself.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Fisherman,

I understand the observation but regrettably cannot agree with it.

Cox had no qualms about admitting she was a prostitute. If she brought clients home, it naturally follows that she'd have no qualms about admitting that either, but since no clients are mentioned, it seems reasonable to infer that she didn't bring any home.

I agree with that, Ben. It's rather plain and simle - no need to make things more unnecessary complicated than they already are.

As for comparisons with other serial killers, I withold that I find it to be a questionable and maybe even dangerous approach, especially when people repeatedly refer to Ted Bundy, since the Ripper wasn't very much like Bundy in the first place.

All the best