The burnt clothing

[Garry Wroe]

Well, didn't Cox say Kelly was singing from 12:00 till 01:00 am, or thereabouts.

She did, Jon.

Blotchy arrived at 11:45, so may well have left long before 01:00, or even just after.

Perhaps, Jon. But Kelly was certainly singing until one o’clock, and if Blotchy was there as a client he would have expected a little more for his money than a midnight lullaby. My guess, therefore, is that the alcohol ran out at one o’clock, whereupon Mary Jane stopped singing and got into bed with Blotchy.

So long as Prater could have seen light & heard noise, movement, or voices through the partition, it seems to me that Kelly & Blotchy must have left.

Or were tucked up in bed together.

Tentatively then, while Prater was in McCarthy's, between 01:20-01:30, Kelly & Blotchy might have left Miller's Court.

They may have done, Jon. But it was a cold and windy night. Showery too. A cloudburst at one o’clock certainly sent Mrs Cox scurrying for cover, and there occurred another much heavier period of rainfall at three o’clock. As such, the streets were largely deserted at one o’clock. Is it likely, then, that an experienced prostitute such as Kelly would have exposed herself unnecessarily to these conditions in a search of nonexistent customers – particularly since she was ‘very much intoxicated’ shortly before midnight and almost certainly continued drinking for an hour thereafter?

I consider it extremely unlikely.

Kelly was younger and significantly more attractive than the other victims. Women such as Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were not, as has often been stated, the Ripper’s ‘type’ of victim. They were merely representative of the kind of middle-aged women who experienced difficulty in earning sufficient money for food and lodgings during normal pub opening hours. As a consequence they were compelled to trudge the streets in search of clientele during the small hours while their younger, more alluring compeers were tucked up in bed. But there is no evidence that Kelly ever faced such a predicament. None whatsoever. It is simply assumed that a drunken Kelly would have abandoned sleep as well as the warmth of her bed in pursuit of one final customer for the night.

And this, of course, was the same Kelly who was absolutely petrified by the Whitechapel Murderer.

Hence …

To my way of thinking the evidence points squarely towards Mary Jane retiring to bed at one o'clock. Thus her killer was either Blotchy or someone who arrived after Blotchy's departure.

[Wickerman]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Perhaps, Jon. But Kelly was certainly singing until one o’clock, and if Blotchy was there as a client he would have expected a little more for his money than a midnight lullaby.....

Fare enough Garry.
But a whole hour is a tad long to keep singing. We have no knowledge of what happened inbetween 12:00, when Cox left the court and 01:00, when Cox returned. Surely Kelly wasn't only singing, for a whole hour?

An hour is long enough for her to engage her client with some la la's and a bit of hanky panky followed by an encore before they left, shortly after 01:00am?

Apparently, John McCarthy also heard singing from Kelly at 01:00 am (IPN Nov. 17th).

It seems to me Cox's evidence of all being quiet when she returned at 03:00am is inconsistent with other considerations. Astrakhan had already entered Miller's Court by 02:30, and 'Widewake' (Hutch) was seen opposite the passage standing watch.
There must have been some activity after 02:30 for at least an hour, even if he was a legitimate customer.

Cox initially stated she saw Blotchy & Kelly at 11:45, then Cox left the Court about 12:00, returning at 01:00. So Cox was gone an hour.

She then states that she got herself a quick warm and returned to the streets to return at 03:00, all was quiet.
I suspect she meant 02:00, as she was gone an hour the first time, she may have also gone out for another hour the second time, not 2 hrs. Returning at 02:00, and all was quiet, not 03:00 as her statement indicates.

Going out for one hour at a time, on a cold and rainy night would then make her returning at about 02:00am, when all was quiet because Kelly was also out raising cash.
This would make Cox's story more consistent, at least not contentious with other evidence.
So then Kelly returns with Astrakhan about 02:30am and the subsequent evidence flows better.

I'm not favouring Astrakhan as her killer, just trying to make the sequence of evidence flow better, but if that is the end result then, so be it.

Unless of course, Hutch waited for Astrakhan to leave, and then made his entry unknown to everybody else.
Hutch said he had been in Kelly's company before, maybe he knew how to open her door, and she had retired for the night, and he was no stranger....

I don't know, and have no preference either way.

Regards, Jon S.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
This thread is drifting away from its theme, however unless Hutchinson is a absolute prankster. two questions have to to be raised.
Did Astracan kill kelly, was he Jack?
Was she killed by another?.
If Astracan existed, and was dressed in the way Hutch described, I would say absolutely 'no killer'.
So that leaves us with ''Another''
If Astracan went into kellys room , and was not her killer, he would not have expected Mary to chuck him out after business, so I would suggest that he left at daybreak.
That being the case, it would be extremely unlikely that some vagrant would have entered her room by mistake, complete with a sharp bladed knife.
So that leaves us with kelly being spotted whilst on Dorset street during early morning, which rather fits in with Maxwells sighting, not to mention the other two Maurice Lewis,[and a unknown woman].
Mrs Maxwells statement mentioned a middle aged market porter speaking to kelly around 845,therefore making him the last male seen speaking to the victim.
Its because of this, I have always maintained that unless he could be eliminated from the inquiry, he must be the number one suspect for being JTR.
We should not forget that initially in the kelly investigation the police believed
that the murder occured in daylight, and locally it was believed to have been the result of jealously.
whats more I am not convinced that the police accepted the doctors opinions on T.O.D,.
Regards Richard.

[YankeeSergeant]

burning

I thought the most prevalent theory relating to the burnt clothing was that the killer needed more light to work in the dark.
I'm not convinced by this age-old hypothesis, besides, how much light would a bonnet give off when other clothes were laid (folded?) on a chair?

There does seem to be something to look into here..

Cloth tends to smoke alot when burned. I doubt there would be much light given off. As a boy, I lived in rural places where there was no garbage pick up (Dustmen for my British friends). Anything that could be burned was and food stuffs were composted. Cloth smokes heavily. The only difference between natural and sythetic fibers is the color of the smoke.

[Wickerman]

Cloth tends to smoke alot when burned....

Yes, a small point which tends to get overlooked. Nevertheless, clothes were burned, the question is "why?".

Abberline is said to have taken an inventory of the contents of the room, unfortunately, such has not survived.

Contrary to the expressed opinion, I have to wonder why a bonnet would be burned, how much light could anyone expect a bonnet to give off?
It's not like a bonnet is going to burn for several minutes, just one quick flare-up and its gone.

However, according to the Star, Kelly's clothes were layed beside the bed. Layed, rather than thrown or discarded, might suggest her clothes were almost neatly placed beside the bed.

So what was burned?, only some items of clothing left by Maria Harvey?

Regards, Jon S.

[Garry Wroe]

Originally Posted by Garry Wroe
Perhaps, Jon. But Kelly was certainly singing until one o’clock, and if Blotchy was there as a client he would have expected a little more for his money than a midnight lullaby.....

Fare enough Garry.
But a whole hour is a tad long to keep singing. We have no knowledge of what happened inbetween 12:00, when Cox left the court and 01:00, when Cox returned. Surely Kelly wasn't only singing, for a whole hour?

Apparently she was, Jon. She certainly disturbed friend and near-neighbour Catherine Picket, who intended to complain to Kelly about the noise until dissuaded by her husband at about 12:30am.

An hour is long enough for her to engage her client with some la la's and a bit of hanky panky followed by an encore before they left, shortly after 01:00am?

Again, though, Jon, the singing appears to have been more or less incessant.

It seems to me Cox's evidence of all being quiet when she returned at 03:00am is inconsistent with other considerations. Astrakhan had already entered Miller's Court by 02:30, and 'Widewake' (Hutch) was seen opposite the passage standing watch.

Without going into too much detail, Jon, I’d bet my life that the Astrakhan story was nothing more than a fabrication on Hutchinson’s part.

Cox initially stated she saw Blotchy & Kelly at 11:45, then Cox left the Court about 12:00, returning at 01:00. So Cox was gone an hour … She then states that she got herself a quick warm and returned to the streets to return at 03:00, all was quiet … I suspect she meant 02:00, as she was gone an hour the first time, she may have also gone out for another hour the second time, not 2 hrs. Returning at 02:00, and all was quiet, not 03:00 as her statement indicates.

And this is the problem, Jon. In order to maintain the unsupported notion that Kelly returned to the streets after Blotchy’s departure, it becomes necessary to disregard or reconstruct what is almost certainly viable testimony. Personally, I’m inclined to believe that it was the weather rather than time constraints that governed Mary Ann Cox’s movements on the night under scrutiny. It seems more logical to me that she returned home at one o’clock in order to avoid a heavy shower, then finally gave up on any hope of attracting clientele on account of the heavy downpour that occurred at three o’clock. This contention is accorded some weight by her admission that she had earned insufficient money to be able to pay her rent. Indeed, she was so concerned over her predicament that she proved unable to sleep and spent the remainder of the night pacing her room. Thus it seems to be a fairly safe bet that Cox would have continued hawking her body had the possibility presented itself, but the weather conditions contrived against her. Assuming this to have been the case, the timings outlined in her official testimony were almost certainly accurate (give or take a few minutes) and should be used as a baseline to test other accounts.

I'm not favouring Astrakhan as her killer, just trying to make the sequence of evidence flow better, but if that is the end result then, so be it.

Therein lies the problem, Jon. The entire concatenation surrounding Kelly’s death has been contaminated by the demonstrably false claims of George Hutchinson. Once the Astrakhan story is recognized as fiction, there is not an atom of evidence to support the notion that Mary Jane ventured outdoors after entering her room shortly before midnight. And if she didn’t return to the streets, she was either killed by Blotchy or someone who entered the room subsequent to Blotchy’s departure. If the latter, the evidence points overwhelmingly to a pre-existing relationship between Kelly and Jack the Ripper.

[Wickerman]

....And this is the problem, Jon. In order to maintain the unsupported notion that Kelly returned to the streets after Blotchy’s departure, it becomes necessary to disregard or reconstruct what is almost certainly viable testimony....

....Therein lies the problem, Jon. The entire concatenation surrounding Kelly’s death has been contaminated by the demonstrably false claims of George Hutchinson....

So this is where the line is drawn in the sand.
Your case not only rests on dismissing Hutchinson, but also dismissing Abberlines opinion after the interrogation. An interrogation we know covered more details than were put in writing in his statement, in order to substantiate Hutchinson's claim.

I can easily accept embellishment on any witnesses part in the details of the description given, but dismissing it altogether needs arguments to the contrary. Especially when a man was seen in the correct location, at the correct time, in Dorset St, where Hutchinson claims to have been standing.
.
.
The fact that Kelly was not accustomed to living alone, she only broke up with Barnett a week last Tuesday (Oct. 30th). We know Maria Harvey had moved in temporarily, but that she last stayed with Kelly on Mon & Tues. evenings, apparently not Wednesday.
On Thursday, while Barnett was present Harvey said she wouldn't be seeing Kelly tonight, so how opportune that someone should enter that particular night, unless 'that someone' knew Kelly was to be alone for a change..... there are certain aspects to these crimes that can be put down to jealousy and familiarity.

Regards, Jon S

[Garry Wroe]

Your case not only rests on dismissing Hutchinson, but also dismissing Abberlines opinion after the interrogation. An interrogation we know covered more details than were put in writing in his statement, in order to substantiate Hutchinson's claim.

True enough, Jon, Abberline certainly submitted a report in which he stated his belief in the veracity of Hutchinson’s statement, but this was undermined the very next day when The Echo revealed that investigators had come to attach diminished importance to Hutchinson’s revelations. Two days later The Star stated that Hutchinson’s story had been entirely discredited. Although there exists no official confirmation of such, the inferential evidence leaves no room for doubting that the authorities came to the conclusion that Hutchinson was either an attention-seeker or time-waster and discreetly dropped him as a consequence.

I can easily accept embellishment on any witnesses part in the details of the description given, but dismissing it altogether needs arguments to the contrary. Especially when a man was seen in the correct location, at the correct time, in Dorset St, where Hutchinson claims to have been standing.

I’m in no doubt, Jon, that Hutchinson was the man seen by Sarah Lewis on Dorset Street. It’s the meeting with Kelly and her subsequent dalliance with Astrakhan that I cannot accept. Given Hutchinson’s investigative fall from grace, moreover, this is an objection that was clearly shared by Abberline and his colleagues.

This is a crucially important point if we are to make sense of the events surrounding the Kelly murder. Once Hutchinson’s claims are placed in their proper context, we have no Mary Kelly parading about Commercial Street at two o’clock and no meeting with Astrakhan. This leaves Kelly either alone in her room or in the company of Blotchy. But there is not a shred of evidence that she ventured outdoors after entering her room shortly before midnight.

[Wickerman]

Thankyou Garry, now I understand the point of your argument.
Last point first...

...Once Hutchinson’s claims are placed in their proper context, we have no Mary Kelly parading about Commercial Street at two o’clock and no meeting with Astrakhan. This leaves Kelly either alone in her room or in the company of Blotchy....

This I struggle with, yes the authorities withdrew from Hutchinsons story, but his story had nothing for the police if the description was invalid.
The furor created by Hutch' was over the content of the description, not seeing Kelly, not his admitting of being in Dorset St. watching over Millers Court.

I would suggest to you that those press releases you referred to only concerned the police acceptance of the detailed description. Unfortunately, like much in this frustrating case, we lack specifics of what, in this instance, the police discarded as untrustworthy.

So, when you write..

I’m in no doubt, Jon, that Hutchinson was the man seen by Sarah Lewis on Dorset Street. It’s the meeting with Kelly and her subsequent dalliance with Astrakhan that I cannot accept...

You are accepting Hutch' placing himself opposite Millers Court at about 2:15 till 03:00am, or for 45 mins, without accepting why he was there.
If Kelly had not just entered the Court with a stranger, then why would Hutch' be where he was at the time he said?

No-one had identified Hutch in Dorset St., no reason for him to step forward to make account of himself.
As Sarah Lewis noticed a man 'watching' Millers Court at about 2:30, and Hutch' has admitted 'watching' over the Court at about 2:30, he is placing himself at the scene with no justification, unless, he did actually see Kelly with someone.

That sound like a strange action to take if the witness is entirely lying.
The police were only interested in the description, without releasing a reason, the police, we are told, lost interest in Hutch's story. Not the "seeing Kelly" bit, not "standing watch" bit, just the detailed description.

So Garry, what you have is Blotchy entering Millers Court with Kelly at about 11:45 pm, .....then Sarah Lewis seeing Hutch' standing watch over the Court (by his own admittance), at 2:30 am - with nothing inbetween!

Your theory requires us to ask, "Why is Hutch standing in Dorset St. on a cold night watching down the court for 45 mins?"

I can dismiss the detailed description quite readily, as I think the police might have done. This though, has no bearing on whether Hutch' actually saw Kelly with someone who caused Hutchinson to follow her and stand watch, which apparently he did.

Regards, Jon S.

P.S.
Some years ago I attempted to locate any copies of Richard Mansfield in his portrayal of "Jekyll and Hyde" at the Lyceum Theatre. I considered that Hutch' just might have over embellished the detail in his description. Perhaps influenced by some contemporary bill posters he might have seen concerning this production at the Lyceum.

[Hatchett]

Hi All,

Of course it could be that the Police did not discount Hutchinson's story at all. We only have the press reports for that, and as we know there was a frustration with the Press because the Police were not forthcoming with information.

It is also possible that the Police were playing down the story because they either feared for Hutchinson's safety, or wanted in some way to protect an indentification clue that he had given.

Without a reliable police report we are left with conjecture, and plausibilities, any of which could be true.

Best wishes.

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"the inferential evidence leaves no room for doubting that the authorities came to the conclusion that Hutchinson was either an attention-seeker or time-waster and discreetly dropped him as a consequence."

Oh yes, it does, Garry. It leaves room aplenty for suggesting that the authorities had arrived at the conclusion that Hutchinson HAD GOTTEN THE DAY WRONG, as witnessed about by Walter Dew, and as reinforced by a number of details, not least the fact that he for some reason never saw Sarah Lewis, according to his own press interviews.
The police could have had a number of reasons to discard Hutchinson. So let´s not speak of "no room" when it is very clearly there!
Timewasters and attention-seekers are not looked upon with enthusiasm by the police. And yet we KNOW that Walter Dew respected Hutchinson and regarded him as belonging to a category of witnesses with "the best of intentions". And that points exactly 180 degrees away from any timewasting or attentionseeking!

The best,
Fisherman

[Hatchett]

Hi Fisherman,

I think you will find that Dew did not "evidence" that Hutchinson had got the day wrong. He merely speculated that he may have done.

Best wishes.

[Fisherman]

What I find, Hatchett, is a policeman deeply involved in the case and with lots of knowledge about it, that asserts us that he can see no other explanation to Hutchinsons story than a mistaken day.
Now, if you wish to call that speculation, fine! But you may have to admit that those who call it a deduction based on having worked the case may have found a just as useful linguistic path to walk.
What I do NOT find, to further elaborate, is any OTHER policeman involved in the case who gainsays Dew´s bid. I find not a iota about timewasting and just as little about attention-seeking. The only thing that is there is a remaining impression that Hutchinson was regarded as an honest man from the outset and fifty years later.

If you find anything to shake that picture - other than "mere speculation" that Hutchinson was a killer and a liar who came to be discarded as a timewaster/attention-seeker - be sure to let me know!

The best,
Fisherman

[GregBaron]

Poor Fuel Source...

Seems this thread has morphed into a Hutchinson debate....

Back to the clothing, as someone mentioned, bonnets and such
are not great fuel....they smolder and put out smoke...
made me wonder if the so called burning was more of an inadvertent
dropping or throwing of clothing that got near the kettle and burnt
a bit or smoldered a bit....or perhaps it was used to stifle the fire and
eliminate any light from emanating....the burning of clothing
to keep a fire going seems like a bad idea.....if smoke was pouring from
the windows of Mary's dwelling it seems this would attract some attention
...even in the middle of the night....what do you all think?


Greg

[Garry Wroe]

I would suggest to you that those press releases you referred to only concerned the police acceptance of the detailed description. Unfortunately, like much in this frustrating case, we lack specifics of what, in this instance, the police discarded as untrustworthy.

I would certainly agree that we lack the specifics as to why Hutchinson became persona non grata, Jon, but the inescapable fact is that he was discredited by those leading the hunt for the Whitechapel Murderer.

In Hutchinson’s defence, Walter Dew later depicted him as honest but mistaken – though it must be borne in mind that Dew was a lowly detective constable at the time of the murders and therefore not privy to information available only to those leading the manhunt. Even so, Dew believed that Kelly was killed by Blotchy at about one o’clock and was thus of the opinion that Mary Jane did not return to the streets after entering her room with Blotchy shortly before midnight.

There are, of course, many possible reasons why Hutchinson came to be mistrusted. Apart from the sheer depth of detail contained within his description of Astrakhan, there were glaring inconsistencies between the accounts he gave to the press and police. On top of this, he stated that Kelly was ‘not drunk’ at the time of their alleged encounter on Commercial Street, a claim that was so utterly at odds with the evidence provided by other witnesses that it must have raised doubts regarding his credibility. Then there was the assertion that he spoke to a policeman on the Sunday morning of the events involving Kelly and Astrakhan. According to Hutchinson, neither he nor the officer in question pursued the matter, so Hutchinson went on his way content in the knowledge that he’d fulfilled his civic duty.

Naturally, had such an incident occurred, it would have represented a gross dereliction of duty on the part of the officer concerned and must surely have been investigated. If it was and inquiries disproved Hutchinson’s claim, it is easy to see how his Kelly-related testimony might have come under serious scrutiny.

In context of your original point, therefore, Jon, I consider it overwhelmingly likely that, once the flaws in Hutchinson’s story were recognized, his testimony was rejected in its entirety. And with Hutchinson’s claims discredited, we have no evidence that Mary Jane went outdoors after being sighted by Mary Ann Cox.

None whatsoever.