It wasnt Kelly theory

[GBinOz]

Hi George.
The account from Lewis never seems to change. The one statement published in the Friday press, that he was in the court about 8:00 and saw Kelly leave, then return with milk, is never expanded upon, yet it is repeated over the weekend. Some accounts give the time as 9:00, but otherwise, nothing changed. Maxwell didn't see Kelly in the court, nor saw her carrying a milk jug at any time.
So, the confirmation, if that is what it is, is minimal at best.
It's my view that this account is an error by the reporter. If Lewis saw anyone he must have seen Maxwell leaving and returning with milk, the reporter has just confused the story somehow.

Hi Jon,

I appreciate that Maxwell returning with milk could have led to an error by the reporter, but does Maxwell buying milk preclude the possibility that Kelly might have done the same thing?

Can you share with us your views of the fire?

Best regards, George

[Wickerman]

Something that might be discussed is the fire, which was so intense that it melted the spout from the kettle. How could a fire of that intensity not have thrown enough light to be noticed by anyone in the court?

Cheers, George

Hi George.
I think the simplest solution is the fire was roaring over night when no-one was around.

We don't have any witnesses who claim to have passed her room after the cry of 'murder', all the activity was prior to that. So as far as we know no-one was in a position to see a large fire coming from her room, but also the windows were covered, at least by the heavy woolen Sailor's coat.

I've looked at late Victorian standard kettles, many of them had a spout that was soldered on, so perhaps Abberline picked up the spout when he sifted the ashes?, leading him to assume it melted off in the last fire.
Just one example...

https://www.etsy.com/ca/listing/701025250/vintage-english-victorian-style-kettle?click_key=1127e8a08068beb6912781882c143ff3ebc5125e%3A701025250&click_sum=6c0fac1e&ref=pla_similar_listing_bot-1

[Abby Normal]

imho there was a hot roaring fire that was started when mary got home with blotchy to enjoy some singing, more beer and maybe some fish and chips. certainly hot enough to burn clothes and melt the spout off a kettle. who would throw clothes in the fire and not care if the spout melted off? right. the killer. also to light the room and see the body to do the extensive mutilations.

this could not be done in the 45 minutes or so for a mid morning murder. no way.

but perfectly in line with a murder that coincides with the screams heard from her room around 4 am. this aint rocket science.

i think the most likely scenario is thay blotchy waited for things to settle down before he killed her, or he was just a punter/ old friend, who left around threeish and hutch or the bethnal green botherer moved in after.

what say you?

[Aethelwulf]

imho there was a hot roaring fire that was started when mary got home with blotchy to enjoy some singing, more beer and maybe some fish and chips. certainly hot enough to burn clothes and melt the spout off a kettle. who would throw clothes in the fire and not care if the spout melted off? right. the killer. also to light the room and see the body to do the extensive mutilations.

this could not be done in the 45 minutes or so for a mid morning murder. no way.

but perfectly in line with a murder that coincides with the screams heard from her room around 4 am. this aint rocket science.

i think the most likely scenario is thay blotchy waited for things to settle down before he killed her, or he was just a punter/ old friend, who left around threeish and hutch or the bethnal green botherer moved in after.

what say you?

out of interest what is your reason for dismissing hutch's Aman? I've often thought if you look past the clothes, hutch's description is very similar to other witnesses in terms of age, height, hair colour, complexion, Jewish look etc. Aman going in there at three perhaps ties in better with the cry of murder about 4. I know most people don't rate it, but Farmer's account was that her attacker let her get into bed and he stayed up, sometime later when she was half asleep she felt a knife across her throat. Perhaps this is what was done with kelly - she got into bed, he stayed up, maybe stoked the fire a bit in readiness, and then....

[GBinOz]

i think the most likely scenario is thay blotchy waited for things to settle down before he killed her, or he was just a punter/ old friend, who left around threeish and hutch or the bethnal green botherer moved in after.

what say you?

Hi Abby,

The Bethnal Green Botherer with the "strange eyes" would be my choice.

Cheers, George

[Abby Normal]

out of interest what is your reason for dismissing hutch's Aman? I've often thought if you look past the clothes, hutch's description is very similar to other witnesses in terms of age, height, hair colour, complexion, Jewish look etc. Aman going in there at three perhaps ties in better with the cry of murder about 4. I know most people don't rate it, but Farmer's account was that her attacker let her get into bed and he stayed up, sometime later when she was half asleep she felt a knife across her throat. Perhaps this is what was done with kelly - she got into bed, he stayed up, maybe stoked the fire a bit in readiness, and then....

hi wulf
i just think its more likely than not that hutch made up aman.

[Mark J D]

... i just think its more likely than not that hutch made up aman...

How much of his story from that night is bunkum, though? I mean, are we to think that he really was asked by Kelly if he could lend her sixpence, and really did hang about over the road from Miller's Court? Is his testimony *basically correct* apart from a ludicrously over-detailed description that looks like he's describing someone he knows from elsewhere and is trying to drop them in it?

M.

[barnflatwyngarde]

out of interest what is your reason for dismissing hutch's Aman? I've often thought if you look past the clothes, hutch's description is very similar to other witnesses in terms of age, height, hair colour, complexion, Jewish look etc. Aman going in there at three perhaps ties in better with the cry of murder about 4. I know most people don't rate it, but Farmer's account was that her attacker let her get into bed and he stayed up, sometime later when she was half asleep she felt a knife across her throat. Perhaps this is what was done with kelly - she got into bed, he stayed up, maybe stoked the fire a bit in readiness, and then....

Hi Aethelwulf,
Apologies for barging in your discussion with Abby.

In regard to your question as to why anyone would dismiss Hutchinson's story about Astrakhan Man, Christer Holmgren wrote an excellent article on this topic for Casebook Examiner issue 5.

All copies are available on the Casebook website, Howewver I attach the link to issue 5 here.

http://www.rippercast.com/mp3/EXAMINER%20Issue%205.pdf

[Wickerman]

imho there was a hot roaring fire that was started when mary got home with blotchy to enjoy some singing, more beer and maybe some fish and chips. certainly hot enough to burn clothes and melt the spout off a kettle. who would throw clothes in the fire and not care if the spout melted off? right. the killer......

Just a sort of rhetorical question comes to mind, if your intent is to build up the fire by piling clothes & anything that will burn on the fire, then where do you place this kettle?
In fact, why is it even there?

I guess we are now debating this among a generation of young adults who have no clue what building up a fire entails, never mind how to do it.
I'm basically saying, if you are piling up clothes on a fire then there is no place to put a kettle, it would be in the way. If it wasn't in the way, then why was it there?, was it to boil water?, for what reason?, did he wash himself afterwards?, but where is the wash bowl?

It just seems like we acknowledge the presence of the kettle, but no-one asks "why?" - why was it there on the fire instead of beside the fire where it wouldn't be in the way.
Unless, it was on the fire for a reason, placed there by the killer?
So, rather than building up the fire for the light, was it really to boil some water quickly?

Clothing doesn't give off much light, it will smolder rather than burn bright for any length of time.

[Abby Normal]

How much of his story from that night is bunkum, though? I mean, are we to think that he really was asked by Kelly if he could lend her sixpence, and really did hang about over the road from Miller's Court? Is his testimony *basically correct* apart from a ludicrously over-detailed description that looks like he's describing someone he knows from elsewhere and is trying to drop them in it?

M.

hi mark
i think he saw mary and spoke with her and lingered about as corroberated by lewis. however i think the aman part is probably made up. and i think he may have used a rich jewish horse owner he knew as the model.

[GBinOz]

Just a sort of rhetorical question comes to mind, if your intent is to build up the fire by piling clothes & anything that will burn on the fire, then where do you place this kettle?
In fact, why is it even there?

I guess we are now debating this among a generation of young adults who have no clue what building up a fire entails, never mind how to do it.
I'm basically saying, if you are piling up clothes on a fire then there is no place to put a kettle, it would be in the way. If it wasn't in the way, then why was it there?, was it to boil water?, for what reason?, did he wash himself afterwards?, but where is the wash bowl?

It just seems like we acknowledge the presence of the kettle, but no-one asks "why?" - why was it there on the fire instead of beside the fire where it wouldn't be in the way.
Unless, it was on the fire for a reason, placed there by the killer?
So, rather than building up the fire for the light, was it really to boil some water quickly?

Clothing doesn't give off much light, it will smolder rather than burn bright for any length of time.

Hi Jon,

Abberline at the inquest: There were traces of a large fire having been kept up in the grate, so much so that it had melted the spout of a kettle off. We have since gone through the ashes in the fireplace; there were remnants of clothing, a portion of a brim of a hat, and a skirt, and it appeared as if a large quantity of women's clothing had been burnt.

My impression from his testimony is that the fire was built up and the clothing put on over time. Otherwise the clothing would smother the fire. The kettle was probably hanging on a fireplace hanger or a pot crane over the fire.

Best regards, George

[jerryd]

Sorry to bring this up again, but IF true, it raises an eyebrow.

London St James Gazette An Evening Review And Record Of News
November 12, 1888



Also the following clip regarding George Hutchinson. Again, IF true, interesting he didn't see any light in the room when he peeked in the court. That would also mean no fire raging at that time I would think. The last line is also interesting "Another witness at the inquest gave an almost identical description of the man, although Hutchinson and he had no communication with each other." Who was this other witness?

Evening Star (Washington, D.C.)
Wednesday, 14 November 1888

SAW THE WHITECHAPEL FIEND.

Important Testimony of a Groom at the Inquest in London Yesterday.

The London police are jubilant in the belief that at last they have obtained important clews to the identity of the Whitechapel fiend. At the inquest on the last victim of the murderer yesterday George Hutchinson, a groom, who had known the victim for some years and saw her with a male companion shortly before 2 o'clock on the morning of the murder, testified that he saw a well-dressed man, with a Semitic cast of countenance, accost the woman on the street at the house mentioned on Friday morning, and the circumstance of his acquaintance with her induced him to follow the pair as they walked together. He looked straight into the man's face as he turned to accompany the woman and followed them to Miller Court out of mere curiosity.
Hutchinson had not thought of the previous murders and certainly no suspicion that the man contemplated violence, since his conspicuous manifestations of affection for his companion as they walked along formed a large part of the incentive to keep them in sight. After the couple entered the house Hutchinson heard sounds of merriment in the girl's room and remained at the entrance to the court for fully three-quarters of an hour. About 3 o'clock the sounds ceased and he walked into the court, but finding that the light in the room had been extinguished he went home. During the hour occupied in standing at the entrance to or promenading the court he did not see a policeman.
There is every reason to believe Hutchinson's statement, and the police place great reliance upon his description of the man, believing that it will enable them to run him down. The witness who testified yesterday to having seen the woman enter the house with a man with a blotched face was evidently mistaken as to the night, as his description of her companion is totally unlike that of Hutchinson's in every particular. The bulk of the evidence taken fixes the time of the murder at between 3.30 and 4 o'clock. Another witness at the inquest gave an almost identical description of the man, although Hutchinson and he had no communication with each other.

[Wickerman]

Bowyer was the only other witness (at the inquest) who claimed to see someone in the yard around 3:00am., the article given in the Echo Nov.14, stated he described this man to Abberline. Though this detail does not seem to have been given at the inquest, just given by a witness who attended the inquest.