The burnt clothing

[Carol]

Hi everyone,

I've got a question that one of you probably can answer.

Why wasn't there anyone sleeping on Mary Kelly's floor on the night of the murder as the weather was so bad?

You see, I'm wondering if Mary Kelly had 'an appointment' with her killer and, therefore, would not have wanted anyone else there.

Thanks.

Love
Carol

[Carol]

Hi Everyone,
I've just realised I'm asking a question that probably everybody else knows the answer to. Please bear with me! I know very little about practically everything to do with Jack the Ripper, although I know a lot about the Maybrick case.
Love
Carol

[Garry Wroe]

In your post to Jon, you describe Dew as a lowly detective constable at the time of the killings. That may have something going for it, but why would we look away from the fact that Dew became the perhaps most celebrated detective of his time after it, catching Crippen and all. He would have been in the know about lots and lots criminal matters as he wrote his book, and he would reasonably have enjoyed discussions and conversations with very many of the people who had been involved in all levels of the Ripper hunt. So when he said that Hutchinson was an honest man, it is something we need to listen VERY carefully to!

I would suggest, Fish, that you take some time to familiarize yourself with the hierarchical structure of the policing model that was certainly current at the time of the Ripper murders. Since it operated on a ‘need to know’ basis, officers at the bottom of the command chain were seldom privy to key information. Such was the position of Walter Dew in 1888. As for my own feelings with regard to Dew, these were summarized very succinctly in a post previously submitted by Ben:-

The problem with Dew is that his book is “riddled with mistakes” and he “got a number of things terribly wrong”. “Walter’s book came out when he was 75 years old. In it, he turns Thomas Bowyer into a young fellow, he has Diemschitz entering the club crying: "The Ripper! The Ripper!" etcetera.” “Moreover, back in 1888, Dew was still a bit of a freshman. He was 25 years old, and not in a commanding position. Therefore, we cannot conclude to which extent he knew about the discussions carried on at a higher level.” “I think you will agree with me that if we are to sharpen the picture of what happened back in 1888, Walter Dew is not necessarily the best tool for going about it”.

Although Ben has neglected to source his quotations, the writing style is vaguely familiar.

[Garry Wroe]

Maria Harvey had been sleeping in Kelly's room, Carol, but had secured accommodation of her own in New Court several days before the murder.

[Garry Wroe]

because the embellished description portion of Hutchinson's statement has been rejected there is no reason, nor justification, to reject the rest of his statement.

Had Hutchinson met Kelly in the manner described in his press and police statements, Jon, he would have been in no doubt that she was near-incoherently drunk at the time. Instead, he described her as ‘not drunk’, merely ‘a little spreeish’. You, of course, are free to draw your own conclusions, but the evidence to my mind is weighted heavily in favour of the Commercial Street encounter being a fabrication on Hutchinson’s part.

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"I would suggest, Fish, that you take some time to familiarize yourself with the hierarchical structure of the policing model that was certainly current at the time of the Ripper murders. Since it operated on a ‘need to know’ basis, officers at the bottom of the command chain were seldom privy to key information. Such was the position of Walter Dew in 1888."

Thanks for all the advice, Garry! Itīs just that it does not come into play here; If Hutchinson was plainly an attention-seeker or a timewaster, it would not in any respect amount to "key information". This is perfectly clear from the fact that no such information was held back in Violenias and Packerīs case.
If Hutchinson HAD been a timewaster or an attention-seeker, then, by comparison, we would have known. It would have been in the press reports. But it was not. Deductions?

"Although Ben has neglected to source his quotations, the writing style is vaguely familiar."

Mmm - it was me, Garry. Iīm sure you can remember that? And - believe it or not - I still say there are mistakes in the book. But that does not mean that it is ALL mistakes.
I can of course go on explaining this for years on end, but I will settle for the one time, since I know you to be a very perceptive and discerning man.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

With respect, I rather wish you wouldn’t dredge up the whole Dew issue again. There are pages and pages devoted to your hypothesis on the “Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?” thread. It was refreshing to see Dew’s theory discussed in depth for the first time, and I enjoyed your article, but let’s not regurgitate the various pros and cons all over again. I hardly think you can blame Garry for the diversion either. He didn’t say anything about Dew or your article. He simply observed that the evidence strongly suggests that Hutchinson’s account was discredited because they came to the conclusion that he was a time waster and/or publicity/money-seeker, and I agree with this observation entirely.

Back to the topic of the thread after this, methinks. It would be very annoying to have to copy and paste or reproduce old argument with near exactitude.

Hi all,

I also very much maintain that the Star’s lumping together of Packer and Hutchinson in the same “worthless stories” article is strongly indicative that the two witnesses were considered to have been “worthless” for precisely the same reason, and that reason was most assuredly not “honest confusion” or else we could reasonably expect that article to read instead “Decent witnesses get hopelessly befuddled”. If Hutchinson had merely confused the date, the account would not have been “worthless” as there would still have been a putative 8th November visitor in that scenario.

The fact that the Star’s “discredited” announcement appeared to soon after the press release of his statement to “a reporter” would suggest that the contents of the latter injured his credibility very significantly. As Garry has pointed out, his story involving the Sunday policeman rendered him very vulnerable to being caught out.

The trouble with the Daily News report is that it is clearly offering press opinion only, whereas at least the Echo were passing on the sentiments of the “authorities”, and similarly, the Star could not have “discredited” Hutchinson of their own accord. The latter two are therefore to be treated as more likely to be accurate. The Daily News even made the rather silly “guesstimate” that not much importance would be attached to Lewis’ evidence, despite the fact that her very presence there tells us immediately that the police had already attached “importance” to her account when they took her statement.

Dew was clearly offering his own personal guess. If there was anything of a more substantial nature to support his Hutchinson-related views (such as discussions with other policeman involved in the ripper case or additional evidence), he would certainly have mentioned it rather than appealing to his readership to endorse his speculations.

It is clear that Hutchinson came to be dismissed as a time-waster, and not as a hapless date-confuser with the best of intentions, but as I’ve said, there are other threads in the Hutchinson forum where both issues - Dew’s speculations and the details of Hutchinson’s discrediting - were thrashed out in considerable detail. I’d be both fascinated and horrified if anyone decides to argue the toss with me over these issues here, because if they do, I’ll just respond again, and then Richard’s interesting thread will become a complete Hutchfest. So let’s nip it in the bud before I get that crazy look in my eye again, please.

All the best,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi ,
Yes lets all get back to ''Richards intresting thread'', what about that Times report and its many implications, that has nothing to do with George Hutchinson has it??
Regards Richard.

[celee]

Hi,

Ben good to know you are still around.

The thing that is interesting to me is the Kennedy woman who claims to have seen a woman talking to two men at halve past three and hearing a cry of murder, the same cry that Pratter and Lewis heard, in my opinion. If the man that Hutchinson ''saw" with Kelly was in fact the Ripper and the cry of ''murder" came from Kelly, then he would have had to wait an hour and a halve before killing her. I feel if the cry of murder came from Kelly then she picked up the Ripper about 3:30 in the morning.

Kennedy's account could point to two men. A killer an a look out? Could this account explain the pardon offered? It would be easy to dismiss Hutchinson story or at the very least dismiss the man that Hutchinson claimed to see with Kelly as the killer if they had an account such as Kennedy's and the cry of murder heard by three different women around 4. I know if I was a Detective working the case. I would put the time of the murder at 4 and I would tend to be more interested in the later sighting.

I feel she was killed around 4 in the morning but Richard always gives me a lot to think about.

Your friend,
Brad

[richardnunweek]

Hi Brad,
I am glad that I am able to give you ' a lot to think about', that is my sole aim on Casebook to fuel discussions, to introduce alternative views.
But Hutchinson has nothing to do with the burnt clothes, at least not yet, however yours truely may come up with a scenerio that may include him...
watch this space.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"With respect, I rather wish you wouldn’t dredge up the whole Dew issue again."

With respect, I would once more point out that I do not "dredge" things up - I BRING them up ...

Not this time, though - the reason I mentioned it, was because Garry Wroe felt it was a good idea to state that the evidence involved could not possibly answer to any other explanation of Hutchinsons testimony than a verdict on behalf of the police that he was either a timewaster or an attention-seeker.

If this had been avoided, I would not have felt quite as compelled to step into the discussion. As such, Garrys statement did not specifically belong to the topic of the thread from the outset, so apart from being wrong, it was also derailing the thread.

So much for my "dredging up" things.

The rest of your post:

"I also very much maintain that the Star’s lumping together of Packer and Hutchinson in the same “worthless stories” article is strongly indicative that the two witnesses were considered to have been “worthless” for precisely the same reason"

But it is not for a second stated that the witnesses are "worthless" - their STORIES is what is spoken of, nothing else.

"that reason was most assuredly not “honest confusion” or else we could reasonably expect that article to read instead “Decent witnesses get hopelessly befuddled”

Eh - no. Your insights into press headlines leaves a lot to ask for, Iīm afraid. And donīt assure things that cannot be assured. It makes for bad research.

"The Daily News even made the rather silly “guesstimate” that not much importance would be attached to Lewis’ evidence, despite the fact that her very presence there tells us immediately that the police had already attached “importance” to her account when they took her statement."

The journalists on the Daily News were not stupid, Ben. They were quit aware that Lewis had been awarded interest enough to come into play at the inquest. They also knew from experience, however, that different witnesses with different backgrounds offering different stories were treated with different interest and regarded as differently reliable. This is the lesson taught by what is written.

"Dew was clearly offering his own personal guess."

Or, put in other words, he was offering his WIEW, based on his experience and contacts.

"It is clear that Hutchinson came to be dismissed as a time-waster"

Now, THAT is how a "personal guess" looks like!

"I’d be both fascinated and horrified if anyone decides to argue the toss with me over these issues here, because if they do, I’ll just respond again, and then Richard’s interesting thread will become a complete Hutchfest."

Threatening ā la Ben again, I see! Donīt worry - now that I explained where you are wrong, you can respond (you wouldnīt want to loose the last word, would you?), and you will find that Iīm quit happy to have had my say. But I would be very happy if you can manage to refrain from these kind of threats fortwith just the same!

The best,
Fisherman

[fodsaks]

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..

I totally agree.
Surely Mary Kelly's flat would have had a common or garden lamp in it?

Otherwise, would she have been reduced to burning her posessions in the fireplace every evening???

[Garry Wroe]

Aside from the fire, fodsaks, the only artificial light source in the room was a candle.

Personally, I think that the prevailing weather conditions may have induced the killer to burn the various items of clothing. Since it was cold, gusty and showery on the night in question, the killer's clothing may have become damp or even wet as he wandered the immediate locality. If so, he may have stoked up the fire and placed at least some of his apparel by the hearth to dry out.

[curious4]

Curious4:

"People do strange and illogical things when in shock and suddenly seeing Jack hanging over you with his shiny sharp knife was about the biggest shock anyone could have got!"

Perhaps so. But holding a sheet firmly in place over your face as your killer cut into it dozens of times would not be illogical - it would be superhuman.

"Donīt agree that he wanted to hide the face - otherwise Kate Eddowes` face would have been covered with some of her apron."

Think about it this way: If the killer knew Kelly well, but not Eddowes, what discrepancies would seem logical...?

The best,
Fisherman

Hello Fisherman,

Muscle spasms? (lol) still donīt agree with you!

This just crossed my mind - regarding Hutchinson. It was said that many of the eastenders had an idea of who JTR was. What if Hutch tried to provide the police with the description of the person they (the eastenders) suspected?

It could have been the only way to get their suspicions across to the police and also explain the detailed description and the hint about seeing him at the market.

Best wishes,
C4

[Ben]

Hi Brad,

Yep, still doing the rounds! Good to see you here too.

The problem with Kennedy is that she was excluded from the inquest despite it being apparent that she was interviewed by the police beforehand. Popular perception has it that Kennedy was an alias of Sarah Lewis, but I consider it more likely that she was a separate entity who had heard Lewis’ evidence and attempted to pass it off as her own experience. A reporter observed that several women were parroting Lewis’ account, and it seems that “Mrs. Kennedy” was one of them. This also suggests that Lewis’ evidence was very much accessible to ordinary members of the public well in advance of the inquest.

Hi Fisherman,

I intended no “threat” whatsoever in my previous post, as should have been clear from my tongue-in-cheek phraseology (see last sentence). It was simply a reminder of what usually happens when you introduce done-to-death off-topic arguments relating to Hutchinson, such as Walter Dew and the date confusion. Hutchinson figured perfectly legitimately in the exchange between Garry and Jon, since the topic of contention at that time was whether Kelly went to sleep around 1.00am or ventured out afterwards, and this, in turn, has a direct bearing on the fire issue – when it was lit, by whom etc. The removal of Hutchinson’s discredited evidence and the resulting absence of Astrakhan man at 2:30am would also impact directly on this question.

But Dew’s theory on Hutchinson’s integrity have nothing to do with it, and has been debated extensively elsewhere.

Regards,
Ben