Could MJK have survived Miller's Court

[Sally]

Exactly Sally, exploring all possibilities is to be expected and supported, but to explore a range of possibilities means to keep an open mind. It does not mean we should chose one negative option and promote Hutchinson as a criminal.

Well, some do, some don't. I don't see it as a 'negative' option, necessarily. Just one option. I don't tend to point the finger at anybody, personally, since I think we lack enough evidence to be sufficiently certain - but I think it is fair in the circumstances. In the case of Hutchinson, we know nothing about his motives - so realistically, they could amount to anything at all.

Speculation is not invalid, it is a necessary component of research. To speculate is to pose a question, and we should wait for that question to be answered by research. Sadly, in most cases no solution is available. I think this is why some prefer to impose their own interpretation of what happened, but some over active imaginations then try to push this interpretation as 'fact'. That's really what I'm getting at with the Hutchinson aspect.

I agree with you Jon, in most cases there is no solution. But, as I said, speculation may just lead us there. And if we accept one line of speculation, we must accept them all

I think some people have a lot of fun with suspect theory - its a puzzle as much as anything; and it's human nature to try to solve puzzles. It may not be for me, but then I'm one of those boring, 'must see the evidence' people.

As for Mary, I don't think those who argue for MJK surviving Millers Court have yet seen the value in the 'Brymbo' Mary story. Therein lies fodder for a real drama in the making.

I don't know whether she survived or not - again, I have no horse in that race. It'd be wonderful to know who she was; although I accept that perhaps we never will.

[Wickerman]

Well, I agree with you there, Jon - but that doesn't mean that we should automatically discount all speculation as invalid. There are mysterys with Hutchinson, as there are with many aspects of the case. If we simply said that none of those mysterys were worth pursuing because we can no longer fill in the evidential gaps with documentary evidence; then we'd have nothing to talk about, would we?

I think that its interesting - and useful - to explore all possibilities; which we can do in the absence of hard evidence - because who knows? One of those lines of exploration just might lead somewhere one day.

Exactly Sally, exploring all possibilities is to be expected and supported, but to explore a range of possibilities means to keep an open mind. It does not mean we should chose one negative option and promote Hutchinson as a criminal.
Speculation is not invalid, it is a necessary component of research. To speculate is to pose a question, and we should wait for that question to be answered by research. Sadly, in most cases no solution is available. I think this is why some prefer to impose their own interpretation of what happened, but some over active imaginations then try to push this interpretation as 'fact'. That's really what I'm getting at with the Hutchinson aspect.

As for Mary, I don't think those who argue for MJK surviving Millers Court have yet seen the value in the 'Brymbo' Mary story. Therein lies fodder for a real drama in the making.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Hutchinson gave a reason why he took up his vigil, anyone seeing him will not think he is "creepy", the streets are full of "watchers" both day and night.

Nope.

Sorry, Jon.

I'm afraid I've called your bluff on this one before, and I do so again now...

Where is the evidence that the streets were "full" of people doing what Hutchinson was allegedly doing in the small hours of a miserable November night - i.e. fixating on the entrance to a court dwelling, watching and waiting for someone? I'm not sure how the man-with-bluetooth analogy is relevent. Surely you're not suggesting that bluetooth use is the modern day equivalent of loitering outside someone's house at night? The latter occurs today too, and in murder cases that involve a victim being killed by a stranger indoors (i.e. the victim of serial crime) you will often find that the perpetrator spent some time beforehand monitoring the scene from a discreet vantage point. We have it on the "authority" of Hutchinson himself that he was loitering outside Miller's Court for a different reason to the criminal one I've just outlined, but he could be lying. It's as simple as that, and the fact that he came forward three days after the murder, and apparently only after Lewis let it be known that she saw a man loitering near the crime scene shortly before the murder, only lends weight to that possibility.

[DVV]

Two hours past midnight, on a cold November night.
A woman that has a roof over her head is asking a penniless friend compelled to spend the night roaming the streets to lend her 6 pence.

[Sally]

Certainly we can entertain any number of "what if" scenario's, but you do not draw conclusions based on a "what if".

Well, I agree with you there, Jon - but that doesn't mean that we should automatically discount all speculation as invalid. There are mysterys with Hutchinson, as there are with many aspects of the case. If we simply said that none of those mysterys were worth pursuing because we can no longer fill in the evidential gaps with documentary evidence; then we'd have nothing to talk about, would we?

I think that its interesting - and useful - to explore all possibilities; which we can do in the absence of hard evidence - because who knows? One of those lines of exploration just might lead somewhere one day.

[Paddy Goose]

What about Mr. McCarthy. Didn't he identify the body also. Her landlord. Along with Barnett, who knew her intimately. The idea that the body found in the bed was anyone except the woman who roomed there is preposterous.

Paddy

[Sherlock Holmes]

The body found in 13 Miller's Court had been cut up in a way to completely obliterate the identity of the woman who lay there. Why this great leap of mutilation severity? It has been postulated that it was because JtR was indoors and had more time. This could be true. But what if someone wanted to make it seem Mary Kelly was dead so that she could completely vanish to God-knows-where?

10:30am, Thomas Bowyer discovers a dead woman, or what was left of one, at 13 Miller's Court.

Consider: ID of the corpse was made because she was in Mary Kelly's bed at 13 Miller's court. Clothes belonging to MJK were folded neatly on a chair. Joseph Barnett claim to recognize her hair and eyes. A blow-up of the crime scene photo shows the eyes look hardly human, lost in a sea of ruined flesh. The hair appears to be blood stained. I don't believe I could have made identity out of those factors.

Joseph Barnett also said MJK was in the habit of allowing other prostitutes share her room and bed, which is why he moved out. Did Mary have other clothes? She was always described as dressing "shabbily genteel", a shade finer than other prostitutes.

Finally we have this

Caroline Maxwell says she saw MJK at 8:30 am, several hours after the time of death set by Dr. Philips. She gave accurate descriptions but said she didn't know MJK well. Then Maurice Philips saw her drinking in the Horn of Plenty at 10:00am. As this didn't fit time of death, (set at around 4:00 am) he was not even called as a witness at the inquest, and totally ignored by police.

Question: What if Maxwell and Philips were spot on in their identification of Mary Kelly at 8:30am and 10:00 am? By the time Maxwell saw MJK, the body in Miller's Court was 4 1/2 hours dead; by Philips sighting 6 hours dead. Barring sighting of a ghost or double, MJK was not the dead woman in the room. As I said, if these witness statements are true.

Of course, if we do as the police did and ignore this evidence because it doesn't match stated time of death, then MJK was dead at 4:00am. That means both Maxwell and Philips were at best mistaken and at worse lying.

I don't believe the dead woman to have been MJK largely due to the reasons you have listed. Any woman's identity is confused when that level of mutilation is used but of course that would mean that the dead woman (whomever it was) was moved

Regards
Mr Holmes

[Wickerman]

I wouldn't say much ado about 0;

When suspicion is raised about why Hutchinson did not come forward immediately, invariably it is another attempt to cast aspersions at his character.
All the arguments levelled at Hutchinson are based on what we do not know. Hence, they are based on nothing.

Certainly we can entertain any number of "what if" scenario's, but you do not draw conclusions based on a "what if".

And last, for whatever reason, watching outside the home of a known prostitute while she's inside with a man is creepy, whatever the reason, and he may not have wanted to admit doing it.

We live in different times Rivkah, its what people did before tv's, radio, and phones. They sat on their doorstep or stood on street corners and watched the world go by.
Hutchinson gave a reason why he took up his vigil, anyone seeing him will not think he is "creepy", the streets are full of "watchers" both day and night.

20 years ago it would be "creepy" to watch someone walk down the street talking and shouting to himself. Anybody would think he's "crazy". Today the man is just wearing a bluetooth (phone), perfectly natural - but still can look "creepy".
Its all a matter of context.

Regards, Jon S.

[Cogidubnus]

I'd have thought the name gave it away...otherwise the profile would've...typical woman though...too bloody idle to look it up...

See how easy it is to slip into stereotypes Rivkah?

All the best

Dave

[RivkahChaya]

Funny how we see things isn't it?

I don't know that our views are entirely incompatible. You must be a man, though, aren't you? Any time I see a TV or movie couple, where one of them wakes up in the morning, and spends time watching the other sleep, I think it's creepy, and so do most women I know. (So does my husband, FWIW.) Those scenes are inevitably written by men, who think they somehow appeal to women. NO. WE DON'T WANT TO BE STALKED. STOP IT. NOW.

[Cogidubnus]

Funny how we see things isn't it?

Personally I see Hutch as a somewhat gauche and immature 22/23 year old who has a crush on a particular "whore with a heart of gold"...and idealises her...and who over-dramatises her actions, and who, perhaps creepily in hindsight, hangs around for hours, either hoping to catch a glimpse of her or to satisfy himself her client isn't staying overnight*...

A sort of sluggard in love with an ideal rather than reality...hence the over-dramatisation, hence the exaggeration...I do wonder whether Abberline saw beyond the juvenilia and got actually to some firm evidence beneath this?

All the best

Dave

* without being autobiographical I know of more than one lad who did something similar!

[RivkahChaya]

And to expand on Sally's reply, Hutchinson apparently told the press:
"...I met the woman Kelly, whom I knew very well, having been in her company a number of times."

Certainly implies as a customer/client. This "friend"(ly) exchange seems to have gone off on a tangent.
The original point I think was to question why Hutchinson resisted coming forward, which is another "much-ado-about-nuthin" type argument.

I wouldn't say much ado about 0; could be he was a client with a bit of a possessive nature, who spent 45 minutes fretting over the fact that someone else bought MJK for the evening, because he couldn't afford to. Back to the waitress example, I know people who get grumpy if they get to a restaurant, and the waitress they like doesn't have a table open in her section, so they have to sit somewhere else, or wait. Heck, I remember before 3-in-1s, when you'd go to Kinko's (a chain of photocopy places), and there'd be someone nursing a grudge because another person was already using the machine they liked.

Hutchinson may not have come forward right away, from embarrassment over a combination of things: first, no matter how he circumlocuted, if he was a client, he was probably sure people would figure it out. Second, he may have been embarrassed to admit that he didn't have 6d that evening. Third, it's possible that if he really were a regular, he thought MJK ought to give him one on credit, and she wouldn't, which might be why he watched outside for so long. And last, for whatever reason, watching outside the home of a known prostitute while she's inside with a man is creepy, whatever the reason, and he may not have wanted to admit doing it.

[DanaeChantel]

Thank you. most sensible post in this whole thread.

Thank you, MUCH, MUCH agreed.

[Cogidubnus]

She did buy a 1/2 p candle from McCarthy on the Wednesday

Hi Jon

Since we're such sticklers for accuracy here, no she didn't...she bought a half "d" candle from McCarthy...the "d" (from denarius) was only replaced by "p" on 15th February 1971...the "p" is actually 2.4 x the value of a "d", so it's a fair old difference!

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Where does the word "friend" originate? Is it something he calls himself? or does it appear in the papers, or police notes?

And to expand on Sally's reply, Hutchinson apparently told the press:
"...I met the woman Kelly, whom I knew very well, having been in her company a number of times."

Certainly implies as a customer/client. This "friend"(ly) exchange seems to have gone off on a tangent.
The original point I think was to question why Hutchinson resisted coming forward, which is another "much-ado-about-nuthin" type argument.

There's enough coincidental evidence between Sarah Lewis and Geo. Hutchinson to reasonably accept he might have been there at the appointed time. If so, then he did not make the whole story up, but it is also reasonable to ask, why was he there, and why for so long?

Is he telling the absolute truth?

Regards, Jon S.