Mary Jane and Blotchy

[Michael W Richards]

Because something may be logical does not mean it is correct.
I think your first problem is explaining why it is logical, given that much of your last two replies to me consisted mostly of errors and assumptions.

One point in your rebuttal previous to the post addressed above is that you claimed Hutchinson isnt contradicted by anyone. How would you know that? He never gave the statement publicly. His story is "discredited" though, according to an article a few days later.

[c.d.]

"Belief" can run a gamut. Anywhere from I think his statement is more likely to be true than not to I will bet the souls of my children that his story is true. We don't know where Abberline fell on that scale. We also don't know if he changed his mind at some future point as more information became available to him.

So in this instance I think we have to take his "belief" with a grain of salt.

c.d.

[Bridewell]

I think the reason he came in after 4 days had passed and after the Inquest had closed is to avoid the very issue I made bold and highlighted in your post above Bridewell. Abberline, by the by, also said he backed Schwartz, who coincidentally suffers from the same lack of any corroboration that George does. Neither of these witnesses were examined under oath at the respective Inquests. And Schwartz could easily have been summoned if they wanted his statement on the Inquest record.

I have for years battled with folks here on the validity of many statements made by alleged witnesses, in part, because of the position like you stated above. Abberlines so called support does nothing to validate either claim, and I suspect he only made those statements because he felt enormous pressure to solve these cases in the district where he first established his credibility. I think he felt responsible to those people more than any other investigator, and was willing to buy into anything that might solve the cases.

The real facts in the Mary Kelly investigation are actually established by very few people. Mary Ann Cox, Elizabeth Prater, Thomas Bowyer and Dr Bond. All others are standalone accounts without secondary sources. You could say that Georges statement makes him the likely Wideawake man in Sarahs story, but neither of them actually "corroborate" the other. We KNOW Mary Ann walked by Marys room multiple times that night, we know that when Elizabeth went inside that the wall on the left of the stairs going up was actually Marys partition wall, we know that Bowyer went to that room that morning and we know Bond examined her remains.

I take your point but why does any witness "suffer" from lack of corroboration? If only one person sees or hears an event their evidence is uncorroborated. That doesn't mean that the incident described didn't take place. Corroboration is always helpful but it isn't the be all and end all. A corroborated account is stronger but that's not the same as an uncorroborated one being invalidated. Hutchinson may have been lying (or mistaken as to the day) but Abberline was an experienced DI. They get lied to every day and Abberline uses the word "interrogated" to describe his interview of Hutchinson, ergo he didn't just take his account at face value. If Hutchinson lied (and I concede that he may have done) then he fooled a man used to being lied to. Abberline was no mug.

[Wickerman]

Wickerman, you stating that something completely logical is wrong just because you think otherwise isnt rebuttal, its denial.

Because something may be logical does not mean it is correct.
I think your first problem is explaining why it is logical, given that much of your last two replies to me consisted mostly of errors and assumptions.

[Michael W Richards]

We don't know at all. There is no way we can, but Hutchinson says he knew her and he isn't contradicted by anyone else on that point. He was interviewed by a Ds (Badham if memory serves) and, on 12th November, interrogated (his word) by Abberline who says he is "of opinion his statement is true". It is of course possible that Hutchinson was lying, but Abberline thought not, so, on the balance of probabilities, his statement is true IMHO.

I think the reason he came in after 4 days had passed and after the Inquest had closed is to avoid the very issue I made bold and highlighted in your post above Bridewell. Abberline, by the by, also said he backed Schwartz, who coincidentally suffers from the same lack of any corroboration that George does. Neither of these witnesses were examined under oath at the respective Inquests. And Schwartz could easily have been summoned if they wanted his statement on the Inquest record.

I have for years battled with folks here on the validity of many statements made by alleged witnesses, in part, because of the position like you stated above. Abberlines so called support does nothing to validate either claim, and I suspect he only made those statements because he felt enormous pressure to solve these cases in the district where he first established his credibility. I think he felt responsible to those people more than any other investigator, and was willing to buy into anything that might solve the cases.

The real facts in the Mary Kelly investigation are actually established by very few people. Mary Ann Cox, Elizabeth Prater, Thomas Bowyer and Dr Bond. All others are standalone accounts without secondary sources. You could say that Georges statement makes him the likely Wideawake man in Sarahs story, but neither of them actually "corroborate" the other. We KNOW Mary Ann walked by Marys room multiple times that night, we know that when Elizabeth went inside that the wall on the left of the stairs going up was actually Marys partition wall, we know that Bowyer went to that room that morning and we know Bond examined her remains.

[Bridewell]

And we know he knew Mary Kelly at all, or had some kind of friendship with her....how?

We don't know at all. There is no way we can, but Hutchinson says he knew her and he isn't contradicted by anyone else on that point. He was interviewed by a Ds (Badham if memory serves) and, on 12th November, interrogated (his word) by Abberline who says he is "of opinion his statement is true". It is of course possible that Hutchinson was lying, but Abberline thought not, so, on the balance of probabilities, his statement is true IMHO.

[Michael W Richards]

Wickerman, you stating that something completely logical is wrong just because you think otherwise isnt rebuttal, its denial.

[Wickerman]

I agree with the part in bold Bridewell, but we are talking about comparatives. If I have one witness whose statement is a standalone account vs another which has secondary verification...if those accounts clash in timing or actions witnessed, Im taking the one with secondary verification.

That is not true.
Nothing said by Cox or Prater contests Hutchinsons' story.

In the case of Mary Ann Cox and Elizabeth Prater, I have every confidence they knew Mary and they were near her room that night. The stairs Prater had to take went up on the other side of Marys partition wall, and Mary Ann passed Marys room multiple times that night. For me, they are Credible Witnesses. And neither heard or saw Mary Kelly leave after she had arrived home just before midnight.

Which does not mean she did not leave.
For goodness sakes Michael, Cox was out on the streets from just after 1:00 till 3:00, how could she possibly know if Kelly left her room?
Cox didn't even hear the scream, so she is not a reliable witness. Plus, she lived at the far end of the court.
Cox was the furthest witness from the action. You really know how to pick a poor witness.

The same with Prater, she went directly to bed and slept from 1:30 till 3:30 am, so she would not hear her leave either.
One was asleep and the other was out - this is the best you can do for witnesses?

As for George, my belief is that he came forward with his story because it negated the "accomplice" theory.

You 'believe'?, but you don't know why.....?

After waiting 4 full days it would be hard to suggest that he gave his story on Monday night to help police find her killer. Because he was her "friend".

He didn't claim coming forward "because she was a friend".
A fellow lodger advised him to go to police.
Try stick to the published story Michael.

[Wickerman]

Her arterial spray hit the wall, which means she was facing it...not lying on her back, and its plain to everyone,...

No Michael, it doesn't, and it isn't.

........ that she was rolled onto her back when the mutilations took place. She is in the middle of the bed when found, not on her right side or on the right side of the bed, as she is when cut. All perfectly compatible with her sleeping on her right side facing the wall.

These poor Eastenders slept with their clothes on Michael.
The fact she was in her nightdress tells you she was entertaining, she wasn't asleep.
Your completely out of touch with the people of the time.

Now Wick, explain how he used his right hand to make a right to left cut, which is indicated by Bonds analysis "The bed clothing at the right corner was saturated with blood, & on the floor beneath was a pool of blood covering about 2 feet square. The wall by the right side of the bed & in a line with the neck was marked by blood which had struck it in a number of separate splashes"..when she had her head laying facing the wall?

I already quoted Bond reporting that it was impossible to say if the cuts were L-R or R-L, you can't expect to learn anything Michael if you don't read the replies.

[Michael W Richards]

Hutchinson says he saw, recognised and exchanged words with her. He doesn't allude to her, directly or by inference, as being drunk so it seems reasonable to infer that she wasn't obviously intoxicated to any significant degree. Corroboration is always helpful but I don't subscribe to the view that a witness whose account isn't corroborated must always be seen as unreliable.

I agree with the part in bold Bridewell, but we are talking about comparatives. If I have one witness whose statement is a standalone account vs another which has secondary verification...if those accounts clash in timing or actions witnessed, Im taking the one with secondary verification. In the case of Mary Ann Cox and Elizabeth Prater, I have every confidence they knew Mary and they were near her room that night. The stairs Prater had to take went up on the other side of Marys partition wall, and Mary Ann passed Marys room multiple times that night. For me, they are Credible Witnesses. And neither heard or saw Mary Kelly leave after she had arrived home just before midnight. As for George, my belief is that he came forward with his story because it negated the "accomplice" theory. Why? I dont know yet, but I have some ideas. Some include his mate at the Victorian Working Mens Home..one Daniel Barnett, Joes brother and seen with Mary earlier that week. I think he just used Sarahs sighting details to assume the Wideawake Man role without obstacles.

After waiting 4 full days it would be hard to suggest that he gave his story on Monday night to help police find her killer. Because he was her "friend".

[Michael W Richards]

I did read your previous post where you decided she was on her right side facing the wall, whereas no medical opinion offered that position. She was found face-up on her back, and positioned roughly central on the bed. Neither Phillips nor Bond concluded she was on her right side, so lets be fair from the start. Your conclusion as to how you think she was murdered depends on her being in the position you placed her in.
It is not a 'reality' for those who read the evidence carefully, but it may be your 'reality'.

She was cut about the throat while positioned against the partition wall, whether on her back, right-side, or face down was unknown to the authorities. All they could deduce is, she had been moved after her throat was cut.



Agreed, and his conclusion about "the right carotid artery" was purely based on her being found on her back.
Phillips knew the body had been moved, but he assumed she was on her back all the time and merely pulled away from the partition, not rolled over.
Phillips concluded her right-side must have been against the partition, as she was on her back, ergo her throat was cut on the right-side..



Actually, it is not.
In his final report to Anderson, Dr. Bond wrote:
"....in the first four the throats appear to have been cut from left to right. In the last case owing to the extensive mutilation it is impossible to say in what direction the fatal cut was made....."



Unfortunately, as we can see, your logical deduction is based on incorrect assumptions.

Her arterial spray hit the wall, which means she was facing it...not lying on her back, and its plain to everyone, excluding you perhaps, that she was rolled onto her back when the mutilations took place. She is in the middle of the bed when found, not on her right side or on the right side of the bed, as she is when cut. All perfectly compatible with her sleeping on her right side facing the wall.

Now Wick, explain how he used his right hand to make a right to left cut, which is indicated by Bonds analysis "The bed clothing at the right corner was saturated with blood, & on the floor beneath was a pool of blood covering about 2 feet square. The wall by the right side of the bed & in a line with the neck was marked by blood which had struck it in a number of separate splashes"..when she had her head laying facing the wall?

Hard to believe how illogical people can be. Logic. Reason.Informed opinion...you should try them out bud.

[Michael W Richards]

Hutchinson says he saw, recognised and exchanged words with her. He doesn't allude to her, directly or by inference, as being drunk so it seems reasonable to infer that she wasn't obviously intoxicated to any significant degree. Corroboration is always helpful but I don't subscribe to the view that a witness whose account isn't corroborated must always be seen as unreliable.

And we know he knew Mary Kelly at all, or had some kind of friendship with her....how?

[Wickerman]

Hutchinson says he saw, recognised and exchanged words with her. He doesn't allude to her, directly or by inference, as being drunk so it seems reasonable to infer that she wasn't obviously intoxicated to any significant degree. Corroboration is always helpful but I don't subscribe to the view that a witness whose account isn't corroborated must always be seen as unreliable.

The unsubstantiated argument is nothing more than a means to try justify an argument. Michael see's it as a weak link so he plays on it over and over again.
The fact is, as you point out, an unsubstantiated statement is no less true than a substantiated one. Each statement should be judged on it's own merits regardless whether any other witnesses came forward or not.
Sorry, of course you know better than anyone....

[Bridewell]

I agree with very little of the above....yes, if she arrived home very drunk at 11:45 Thursday night, she wasnt sober at 2am. Maybe thats why all noise had ceased and the room was dark before 1:30am, she likely went to bed with Blotchy or passed out.

There is no witness who said they saw Mary out after that time that has any secondary verification.

Hutchinson says he saw, recognised and exchanged words with her. He doesn't allude to her, directly or by inference, as being drunk so it seems reasonable to infer that she wasn't obviously intoxicated to any significant degree. Corroboration is always helpful but I don't subscribe to the view that a witness whose account isn't corroborated must always be seen as unreliable.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff.
Some years ago, I think it was Debs who spotted a detail, or at least was the one who raised it that I recall.
In the 'body-on-the-bed photo we can see a horizontal line extending from what appears to be a sealed up door panel, towards the right side across the top of the headboard. From this horizontal line we can see what looks like 3 panels, possibly wainscotting?
If we're correct, the headboard was some distance (2 ft?) from the corner of the room.
However, there is a sketch in the press that shows a washbasin in that location, behind the headboard.
Not to suggest any of those press sketches can be relied on, but this one is consistent with the photograph, that the bed is some distance away from the wall behind the headboard.

Ah, I was completely unaware of that and always understood the bed to be up against the wall. Obviously, if it's not, and there was 2 feet between the head and the wall, then that negates my objection. I stand, or sit, corrected.

What you offer above would also be consistent with her being face down, the killer up on her back behind her, which is how I think the attack began.
He pulls her head up off the pillow by the hair,, then slices her throat from L-R, he is right-handed, as was the case with the previous victims.
Following this attack he rolls her over onto her back, she is now central on the bed. He begins his mutilations. This is the position in which she was found.

Agreed.

Yes, face down works of course. The main point, on which we agree, is that there is nothing to prevent thinking of an attack with JtR on top and in front of her.

- Jeff