Mary Jane was murdered between 09.00 and 10.30 am

[c.d.]

What's the one thing, the ONLY thing that connects ALL of the victims; aside from prostitution?

LODGING HOUSES

Well I would add that they were all women. They all were poor. They all apparently had a fondness for alcohol.

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hutchinson is an interesting character because it seems that from his actions at he time, his statement didn't have the impact he thought it would.
He waited days before going the police and then gave an incredibly detailed description of the man he said he saw talking with the victim who he claims to have been on friendly terms with.

So we need to ask questions relating to each of the alleged witnesses motivations for coming forward to talk to the police.
I find that elements of the truth lay in the finer details and so picking out those nuggets of truth can be important for creating a more accurate picture of what transpired at the time.

So, back to George.

Do we believe he was actually there at the time?

If he wasn't there, then the entire events we are told occurred in his story never actually happened... BUT...certain elements of his story must hold some truth.

Would he come forward if he wasn't there?

That's quite a risk, unless you're someone like Albert Bachert who craved being the centre of attention.

I see similarities between Hutchinson and Bachert and at one point I even wondered if Hutchinson was actually Bachert because Hutchinson by all intents and purposes was a ghost and no one knows anything about him indicating the name George Hutchinson was not his real name.

The one thing that 'Hutchinson' also mentions which I believe holds a nugget of truth is his reference to Romford.

But why mention Romford when his story about witnessing seeing MJK with her likely killer is almost certainly fabricated.

The interesting thing about Romford is that it was where Crossingham lived and owned property.

As we know Crossingham and McCarthy were effectively the 2 overlords of Dorset Street and they controlled multiple lodging houses in the area.

Could Hutchinson have worked for Crossingham?

He was after all claiming to be standing outside one of his lodging houses across the road from Miller's Court.

MJK was murdered in one of McCarthy owned rooms and so could there be more to this in terms of things being covered up?

Maxwell's husband Henry ran a lodging house and it seems to me that Maxwell may have had ulterior motives.

And don't forget....

What's the one thing, the ONLY thing that connects ALL of the victims; aside from prostitution?

LODGING HOUSES

Thoughts?


RD

[Fleetwood Mac]

If there was no issuance of a Pardon for Accomplices on Saturday, I might agree with you in principle. However that issuance is Im sure based entirely on the fact that Sarah saw someone loitering there. They had refused to use this ploy before this murder. If thats correct, then what I suggest is likely as well. Hutch changed the assumed nature of that person with his claims.

Again, it is fanciful to suggest that a pardon was issued due to WM standing around. There were various people standing around at the murder scenes, and so there was nothing special in WM. In fact, Dr Phillips didn't support that TOD and upon consulting the medical advice, they would have reinstated the 'nothing special' sentiment.

My hunch is that there was no particular reason to suggest there were two people involved. I reckon they were desperate. They'd tried a lot of things and they were no closer to finding the culprit. In the event it wasn't already out of hand, then it certainly was when they saw what he had done to Mary. They may well have looked into the future and envisaged a situation where Jack could bide his time, turn up and rip women apart and there wasn't a great deal they could do to stop it, outside of catching him red handed. There's a decent chance they simply chanced their arm. 'Seems a decent enough, and obvious, ploy when you don't know which way to turn.

Also, in the event George Hutchinson wanted to place himself in there as WM, then he didn't do a very good job when you consider he reckoned he saw all sorts of people but Sarah Lewis wasn't one of them. Imagine that, the woman who is staring at as you stand opposite the court, whom you could not have missed had you been there, given that she walked up the court as you were looking into it; goes unmentioned.

I reckon Georgie boy was a short of a few bob and desperate times call for desperate measures.

Having said all of that, I think it's a decent bet that there was more than one person involved because the whole thing is strange beyond belief. There's nothing of any substance to believe that person was WM, however.

[Wickerman]

If you are suggesting that if the man was a lookout then it was a bad plan he and the murderer came up with, I can see your argument. What you seem to ignore is that the authorities suspecting this man might be an accomplice is a proven idea with that Pardon offer. There is no other alleged Ripper crime where we see this dynamic, which is why that offer wasnt made before this crime. They specifically avoided doing this before, but they were faced with the possibility that the offer might make Wideawake or anyone else potentially involved come forward. Money hadnt done it, perhaps the removal of a risk of spending the rest of your life in jail might.

No, the 'Pardon' was offered because the police believed the killer received help from someone.

Do you have anything in writing from 1888, where this loiterer is thought by police to have been an accomplice?

[Wickerman]

On the issue of the photo, the real point I was making is that we do not have an external photo of that room during the time police occupied that yard, so technically, we have to take the assumption that it was the room "Mary" was found in and its her on the bed. Im considering what Simon has indicated about Mary Kelly and looking again what reassurances we have it was her in the room off the courtyard.

Yes, but on what grounds are we to question whether this room was the one, as opposed to somewhere else?
This isn't an assumption, by the way, other residents of the court have confirmed this is where the body was found.

I have always wondered whether the severe nature of her injuries, in particular her facial injuries, had a purpose other than it appealed to her killer to do that. It did make such a mess of her that the man who had been living with her only could recognize her by her hair and eyes, eyes which are not visible in any of the photos due to the hanging flap of skin covering them.

Others have too, lacerating her features can be a way of impeding recognition, certainly.

On Mrs Cox, you missed the impetus of why I would trust her and not Hutchinson. We KNOW that she knew the woman identified as Mary Kelly. We KNOW that she had to pass by Marys door that night and every time she went out or came in, in fact she did so several times that night.

Cox's actual words are said to be: "I have known the deceased for 8 or 9 months as the occupant of room 13". Cox never says she KNEW Mary, only knew OF her as the resident of No.13.
Barely neighbors, certainly no claims of friendship, so quite likely competitors for what meager clientele is available in the late night hours. Having to pass the room every time she enters or leaves the court offers some justification for being near the scene of the crime. Nothing above suggests Cox can be trusted any more than a complete stranger.

We do NOT know whether Hutchinson knew Mary at all and we do NOT know that he was even there that night. We do know that as of his statement that Monday night he is generally presumed to be the man Sarah Lewis referred to as the man in the Wideawake Hat,...even though we do NOT know know whether he even owned such a hat or was actually there. We do know that Sarahs statement was made on Friday...and he came in Monday night. So, he could have easily used the details in her story to insert himself into the picture.

I've never claimed Hutchinson is a better witness, I'm saying Cox is no better than Hutchinson, because you seem to think she is.

On the whole I am comfortable giving Mary Ann the benefit of trust because of those established parameters.

Seeing as you now know nothing is established between Cox & Kelly, maybe you need to reconsider giving Cox any benefit of trust?

Your suggestion of her inventing Blotchy is creative, but unwarranted based on what we have to work with. We dont know her mindset, we just know what she said. And we have no evidence that she would falsify something as relevant as this is.

You want 'evidence' to falsify Cox's testimony?, where's the 'evidence' that Hutchinson falsified his statement?
Cox inventing Blotchy as a cover for herself, or someone she knows, is of course just creative. Though it should demonstrate to you how easy it is to place trust in someone who actually could be involved.

I believe that based on the fact that George waited 4 full days to come forward, and that he avoided the Inquest by doing so...thereby eliminating a possibility that other witnesses there might challenge his knowledge of Mary, is suspicious. If he really wanted to help the investigation he would surely know that a 4 day delay virtually nullifies any value his suspect description might have offered.

Here though, you are intentionally avoiding the fact, and this IS a fact, that for most of the weekend the press were writing about Kelly being murdered after 9:00 am Friday morning. There was no 'police theory' towards a later time of death until the Sunday evening press. This is what the public believed, so naturally this is what Hutchinson believed.

He saw Mary about 2-2:30 and she had been killed some 7 hours later, so obviously he isn't going to waste police time reporting what he saw with so many hours between him seeing her, and her murder.
It was only on Sunday that we read an official conclusion that the murder was nearer to 3:00 am, that he approached a policeman, then after talking with other residents, he went to police.
It is very likely, in my view, he saw early Monday afternoon newspapers, like the Star, where it was reported "Cox saw the murderer", which Hutchinson would know to be untrue - so off he goes to the police.

In fact because of him someone who thought they saw the Blotchy Faced man on a streetcar a few days later was advised by a PC that he told "they were looking for a different sort" of man. We also know that Hutchisons account is discredited soon after he gave it, by that Wednesday the press reported it as such.

But that is also false, and you know it.
The 'discredited' story came out on the 15th, yet we 'know' the police were still searching for both Blotchy & Astrachan on the 19th, as reported in the Echo, so we have actual printed evidence that your claim is false, but you continue to cling to false ideas.

You are promoting false claims to push your own agenda, that is deliberately falsifying evidence. When police are investigating a story four days after a newspaper claimed it was 'discredited', shows it is clearly wrong.
What is more, the Star have a well known reputation for inventing stories that are only intended to sell papers - and you got suckered in.

So for me, the story he gave was for a different reason than helping find someone, it was to downplay the thought that Wideawake may have been a lookout for the killer. Spurring the only Pardon offer for information provided by an accomplice. When Georges story is accepted and initially believed, Wideawakes potential threatening presence is altered to appear as if a friend was making sure a friend, Mary, was ok. Suddenly there is no more potential "accomplice" evidence.

Well, this 'lookout' theory was a nonstarter from the beginning, only desperate theorists try to get some mileage out of it.
It's preposterous saying someone out in Dorset street, and across the road, could help warn an accomplice inside room 13, in any way, without raising the attention of the whole neighborhood first.
The accomplice will be trapped.

[etenguy]

If there was no issuance of a Pardon for Accomplices on Saturday, I might agree with you in principle. However that issuance is Im sure based entirely on the fact that Sarah saw someone loitering there. They had refused to use this ploy before this murder. If thats correct, then what I suggest is likely as well. Hutch changed the assumed nature of that person with his claims.

Hi Michael

Are you suggesting that the murderer put Hutchinson up to making his statement to distract the police from thinking JtR had an accomplice/lookout aiding him?

[Michael W Richards]

But isn't the intent of a lookout to warm the partner before the intruder arrives?
He did neither, and with only one way in or out, there is no escape, so the lookout idea is pointless.
A whistle would only bring the police, they would think a fellow officer needed help - the partner is not going to appreciate that.

If you are suggesting that if the man was a lookout then it was a bad plan he and the murderer came up with, I can see your argument. What you seem to ignore is that the authorities suspecting this man might be an accomplice is a proven idea with that Pardon offer. There is no other alleged Ripper crime where we see this dynamic, which is why that offer wasnt made before this crime. They specifically avoided doing this before, but they were faced with the possibility that the offer might make Wideawake or anyone else potentially involved come forward. Money hadnt done it, perhaps the removal of a risk of spending the rest of your life in jail might.

[Wickerman]

Also, we don't know that WM was actually waiting or looking for someone. Sarah Lewis implied that. Maybe he was just staring into space as his mind wandered onto something trivial. I'm guessing Sarah Lewis wasn't staring at WM all the way up the street, maybe she had a glimpse of him and in that glimpse he was staring into space towards the court, but the rest of the time she was walking up the street WM was looking in other directions. I suppose we're in the hands of Sarah Lewis's powers of deduction in terms what WM was actually doing.

Lewis herself makes no mention of a man standing opposite while she walks towards Millers Court. Only when she reached the court does she say "I then noticed a man standing opposite", so he could have just arrived moments before she did.

[Wickerman]

All a lookout need do is lookout and have some way of warning the other man of anyone coming into that courtyard who might happen to look into that window from the nook or alcove where the pump was. A whistle would do.

But isn't the intent of a lookout to warm the partner before the intruder arrives?
He did neither, and with only one way in or out, there is no escape, so the lookout idea is pointless.
A whistle would only bring the police, they would think a fellow officer needed help - the partner is not going to appreciate that.

[Michael W Richards]

'Sounds fanciful.

Had Sarah Lewis decided to look through Mary's window as she walked up the court, then she's pretty much upon it by the time WM can blow his whistle. It wouldn't have prevented Sarah Lewis from seeing Jack or Mary's body. And then of course, WM's whistling potentially attracts people passing by and they are curious as to what is going on and decide to come closer to WM, and as a result they see Jack fleeing down the court and into the street.

Also, we don't know that WM was actually waiting or looking for someone. Sarah Lewis implied that. Maybe he was just staring into space as his mind wandered onto something trivial. I'm guessing Sarah Lewis wasn't staring at WM all the way up the street, maybe she had a glimpse of him and in that glimpse he was staring into space towards the court, but the rest of the time she was walking up the street WM was looking in other directions. I suppose we're in the hands of Sarah Lewis's powers of deduction in terms what WM was actually doing.

If there was no issuance of a Pardon for Accomplices on Saturday, I might agree with you in principle. However that issuance is Im sure based entirely on the fact that Sarah saw someone loitering there. They had refused to use this ploy before this murder. If thats correct, then what I suggest is likely as well. Hutch changed the assumed nature of that person with his claims.

[Fleetwood Mac]

All a lookout need do is lookout and have some way of warning the other man of anyone coming into that courtyard who might happen to look into that window from the nook or alcove where the pump was. A whistle would do.

'Sounds fanciful.

Had Sarah Lewis decided to look through Mary's window as she walked up the court, then she's pretty much upon it by the time WM can blow his whistle. It wouldn't have prevented Sarah Lewis from seeing Jack or Mary's body. And then of course, WM's whistling potentially attracts people passing by and they are curious as to what is going on and decide to come closer to WM, and as a result they see Jack fleeing down the court and into the street.

Also, we don't know that WM was actually waiting or looking for someone. Sarah Lewis implied that. Maybe he was just staring into space as his mind wandered onto something trivial. I'm guessing Sarah Lewis wasn't staring at WM all the way up the street, maybe she had a glimpse of him and in that glimpse he was staring into space towards the court, but the rest of the time she was walking up the street WM was looking in other directions. I suppose we're in the hands of Sarah Lewis's powers of deduction in terms what WM was actually doing.

[Michael W Richards]

Assuming 'Wideawake Man' was an accomplice, then he wasn't a very good one.

This supposed accomplice simply stood there and watched Sarah Lewis waltz up the court. It seems his accomplice services amounted to standing around and not doing very much.

All a lookout need do is lookout and have some way of warning the other man of anyone coming into that courtyard who might happen to look into that window from the nook or alcove where the pump was. A whistle would do.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Assuming 'Wideawake Man' was an accomplice, then he wasn't a very good one.

This supposed accomplice simply stood there and watched Sarah Lewis waltz up the court. It seems his accomplice services amounted to standing around and not doing very much.

[Michael W Richards]

The reason Michael, is because camera's could not do that in 1888. The scene to be photographed had to be lit by a flash immediately in front of the glass plate. If the camera was set up in the yard, an open door would come out just the same as the windows do in the one court photograph we have - black holes, or for a doorway, one big black hole.


I don't think Bill Sykes had his own room, Fagin did.


The type of evidence that you reach for gives away your agenda.

Like your trustworthy Mrs Cox, how do you know she didn't invent Blotchy because she was jealous of Kelly getting any man, and she comes home empty handed.
No-one else saw this Blotchy character, we only have her word, yet she is your star witness.
How did the Star reporter describer Cox? - "a miserable specimen of East End womanhood".
Mrs Cox is your Hutchinson.

On the issue of the photo, the real point I was making is that we do not have an external photo of that room during the time police occupied that yard, so technically, we have to take the assumption that it was the room "Mary" was found in and its her on the bed. Im considering what Simon has indicated about Mary Kelly and looking again what reassurances we have it was her in the room off the courtyard. I have always wondered whether the severe nature of her injuries, in particular her facial injuries, had a purpose other than it appealed to her killer to do that. It did make such a mess of her that the man who had been living with her only could recognize her by her hair and eyes, eyes which are not visible in any of the photos due to the hanging flap of skin covering them.

On Mrs Cox, you missed the impetus of why I would trust her and not Hutchinson. We KNOW that she knew the woman identified as Mary Kelly. We KNOW that she had to pass by Marys door that night and every time she went out or came in, in fact she did so several times that night. We do NOT know whether Hutchinson knew Mary at all and we do NOT know that he was even there that night. We do know that as of his statement that Monday night he is generally presumed to be the man Sarah Lewis referred to as the man in the Wideawake Hat,...even though we do NOT know know whether he even owned such a hat or was actually there. We do know that Sarahs statement was made on Friday...and he came in Monday night. So, he could have easily used the details in her story to insert himself into the picture.

On the whole I am comfortable giving Mary Ann the benefit of trust because of those established parameters. Your suggestion of her inventing Blotchy is creative, but unwarranted based on what we have to work with. We dont know her mindset, we just know what she said. And we have no evidence that she would falsify something as relevant as this is.

I believe that based on the fact that George waited 4 full days to come forward, and that he avoided the Inquest by doing so...thereby eliminating a possibility that other witnesses there might challenge his knowledge of Mary, is suspicious. If he really wanted to help the investigation he would surely know that a 4 day delay virtually nullifies any value his suspect description might have offered. In fact because of him someone who thought they saw the Blotchy Faced man on a streetcar a few days later was advised by a PC that he told "they were looking for a different sort" of man. We also know that Hutchisons account is discredited soon after he gave it, by that Wednesday the press reported it as such. So for me, the story he gave was for a different reason than helping find someone, it was to downplay the thought that Wideawake may have been a lookout for the killer. Spurring the only Pardon offer for information provided by an accomplice. When Georges story is accepted and initially believed, Wideawakes potential threatening presence is altered to appear as if a friend was making sure a friend, Mary, was ok. Suddenly there is no more potential "accomplice" evidence.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Immediately following the murder, in the Sat. morning press we have confused stories about the victim.
One witness even said the victim lived upstairs, and had a child. So, we can see some witnesses were confused as to who had been murdered. Maxwell, must have had her own opinion on who the victim was.

I already mentioned that Maxwell admitted to having not seen Kelly for 3 weeks, and in her police statement she said she had known deceased woman during the past 4 months, at the inquest this changed to 'known her for 4 months', thats not quite the same thing.
Again, to police she said she was on speaking terms with her, but at court she admitted to having never spoken to her, except twice.

Another odd comment at court from Maxwell was, "I took a deal of notice of deceased this evening seeing her standing at the corner of the court on Friday from 8 to half past".
What did she mean by "this evening"?
Maxwell also admitted in court that when she saw the victim with a man at the end of the street, she says, "I saw them in the distance, I am certain it was deceased", they were too far away for her to give a description of them.

Too many inconsistencies, it leaves me wondering if she is trying to salvage her mistake in whom she thought the victim was.

Newspaper articles have form for being unreliable, and that includes today. They'll run with a theme, often second hand accounts, often implied and often repetition. I personally do not place too much store in them, the best we have is the inquest testimony as reported by say The Daily Telegraph. 'Not infallible because again, it's a second hand account, but I'd say it's the most reliable of what we have at our disposal.

I don't think the distance thing is an issue. At the inquest this was reported as approx. 20 meters. That's not a problem when you know someone, particularly someone you'd been speaking with half an hour earlier. Maxwell did give a description of what Mary was wearing, but she didn't see much of the man which is fair enough given that Maxwell had no reason to take notice of him and that alone points to Maxwell not being there out of 'embellishing a story' interests.

At the inquest, as reported by The Daily Telegraph, Maxwell tells us that she had known Mary for four months and had spoken to her twice. There is nothing inherently suspect in that, in terms of Maxwell's ability to know that she was speaking with Mary Kelly that morning.

What is most interesting to me is that Maxwell states (at the inquest, reported by The Daily Telegraph), she knew Mary from being about in the lodging house and Mary didn't associate with anyone. Then what was Mary doing in the lodging house? 'Just having a look round at the furniture for ideas? (from Maxwell's statement, it seems likely that the lodging house Maxwell was talking about was the one her husband worked at). Then again, I suppose there could be other unknown reasons for 'a young woman who didn't associate with anyone', to be at her husband's lodging house.

I don't believe Mary was murdered that late in the morning, and I don't think the doctors believed that either, but when you look at Maxwell's inquest testimony as reported by The Daily Telegraph; there is nothing inherently suspect about it, except perhaps her claim that Mary didn't associate with anyone but Maxwell knew her from being in her husband's lodging house.