Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Did Mary know her attacker?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Observer
    replied
    PS

    If Chelsea win the premiership I might just get an answer

    Observer

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Hi Chava

    Originally posted by Chava View Post
    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!
    That's fair enough Chava, but I'm still in the dark regarding Colin's belief that the man seen with Lewis was not Hutchinson. I'll reiterate by saying is he
    putting down to coincidence the fact that a man (other than Hutchinson) was sighted in Dorset Street at precisely the same time as Hutchinson purported to be there? Seems a huge coincidence if he is.

    The other alternative is Hutchinson came forward, (even though he wasn't the man in question) upon hearing Lewis's inquest testimony. I can't for the life of me think why anyone would want to do this, i.e. purport to be a witness in a murder inquiry, when in actual fact you were nowhere near the crime scene on the night in question. Hutchinson had enough on his plate trying to convince the police he saw Kelly with the well dressed stranger, but purporting to be someone else, I can't see it.

    Observer

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Returning to the victim, and the court resident we know did have company of some kind that night.....what does anyone think of Galloways sighting on I believe the 14th. Did he see Mary Ann Cox's Blotchy Man, who evaded him....who an officer declined to follow due to Astrakan Man's description, telling Galloway "we are looking for someone much different" meaning, not a poor Blotchy Faced guy with a shabby coat.

    Yet they did issue Blotchy Man as the suspect last seen with Mary by the 16th....

    So...my question is, if Galloway did see Blotchy Man, and as the last man seen in Mary Jane's company, going into her room with her, ...and therefore the most suspect in her death until proven otherwise......did believing Hutchinson's suspect description for 3 days cost them nabbing Blotchy for questioning?

    Best regards all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Ben writes:

    "Don't get me wrong, I can see your reasoning too, but on the balence of probabilities, it seems doubtful that Cox took home clients that night and kept quiet about it."

    That´s as fair a bid as anyone could ask for. Agreed, Ben!

    The best!
    Fisherman

    Leave a comment:


  • jason_c
    replied
    Kitty Ronan brought clients back to Millers Court. If Kitty brought hers home I believe theres a very good chance prostitutes 20 years earlier did the same.

    http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...2993#post12993

    Leave a comment:


  • Chava
    replied
    She may have done both! The first time she came home--when she saw Kelly with Blotchy Face--she stayed in for at least a quarter of an hour. The second time, she says she just 'warmed her hands' and left quickly. So it's possible that she had someone with her the first time but not the second.

    I agree that these women didn't sound as if they took clients home. But I think it's possible they may have occasionally if the client was a regular. I'm assuming at least some degree of self-preservation on the part of the hookers. It doesn't make good sense to take someone you've only just picked up back to the place where you live. I am under the impression that hookers nowadays who work the street but take their tricks to rooms, rent those rooms from various landlords who work in this particular trade. I imagine the same thing went on back then. In fact Mayhew documents this practice pretty thoroughly. However, that having been said, if you have a 'regular' client that you know and trust, I would see no reason not to take him back home if renting a room for the purpose cost too much money.

    (And, yes, that's another reason why I think Kelly knew her attacker...)

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben
    replied
    And a customer lost. At the very least
    I'd say that was probably a risk worth taking, Fish, especially if it could contribute to the invesigation into a series of butal murdes in which the Mary Anne Coxes of this world were the victims. Don't get me wrong, I can see your reasoning too, but on the balence of probabilities, it seems doubtful that Cox took home clients that night and kept quiet about it.

    All the best,
    Ben

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben
    replied
    Good thinking, Mike, and quite possible!

    All the best,
    Ben

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Chava
    replied
    ...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

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    ...is that a shoot of kudzu I see poking up through the soil?

    Leave a comment:


  • paul emmett
    replied
    Originally posted by Ben View Post
    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.
    Last edited by paul emmett; 04-17-2008, 09:53 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X