Mary Jane and Blotchy

[Michael W Richards]

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

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

Does any witnesses "suffer" from a lack or corroboration, I assume you mean loses credibility? When multiple witness accounts agree and all disagree with that singular account, then I suppose it does, and should, "suffer". As for Abberline, he is recorded as saying he believed Schwartz, who wasnt a participant in Stride Inquest, he supported Hutchinsons story, even though days later it is printed that his story had been discredited, he is on record as saying no-one had any idea of who the Ripper was and that Chapman was the Ripper. Dont put too much faith in human beings, they will ultimately disappoint you.

[Michael W Richards]

"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.

?.... a statement that suggests caution when blindly accepting something? Nice cd. Now go back and apply that same logic to his statement about Schwartz.

[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.

Perhaps not, but Id rather employ logic, reason, knowledge and common sense when assessing something, rather than just offhandedly dismissing or accepting anything. The odds of finding Truth are much better that way.

[Wickerman]

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.

Well that is easy Michael.
No-one claimed to have been with Mary at some other location between 2:00-2:30.
No-one claimed they saw Hutchinson playing cards in some lodging house at the time he says he was in Dorset St.
That is the kind of evidence we need to call Hutchinson a liar - some details which contradict his story.
There isn't any.

If the Star newspaper were so intent on showing why Hutchinson was discredited, why do you think they didn't provide anything?
They didn't have anything, thats why. They were trying to be controversial to sell papers. Like they were when they accused Pizer of being Leather Apron, and were sued for it.

[Michael W Richards]

No-one claimed to have been with Mary at some other location between 2:00-2:30.

Actually no-one but Hutchinson claimed to see specifically Mary Kelly out after 11:45pm Thursday night. Some claimed to see her the next morning, but we dont know if they really knew Mary either.

No-one claimed they saw Hutchinson playing cards in some lodging house at the time he says he was in Dorset St.
That is the kind of evidence we need to call Hutchinson a liar - some details which contradict his story.
There isn't any.

The fact that only he claimed Mary Kelly specifically was out and about at the times stated should be an indicator for you. We know someone that DID know Mary Kelly was out on the street until 3am and she didnt see Mary.

If the Star newspaper were so intent on showing why Hutchinson was discredited, why do you think they didn't provide anything?
They didn't have anything, thats why. They were trying to be controversial to sell papers. Like they were when they accused Pizer of being Leather Apron, and were sued for it.

Do you know where the source was for that article? Me neither. Does that invalidate it? No. Using only your own faculties you must understand that the alleged Hutchinson sighting and the descriptions therein have always been suspect. As is he. He hasnt even been identified historically.

Its circular arguments and frankly really tedious now. If you dont accept something lets just leave it at that ok? You can lead a horse to water...

[Wickerman]

...
Actually no-one but Hutchinson claimed to see specifically Mary Kelly out after 11:45pm Thursday night....

See, that's not true either, and you know it.
Mrs Kennedy saw Kelly outside the Britannia about 3:00 am, oh but of course you dismiss her too.
Then we have a report from the Morning Advertiser, 14 Nov... "that the police have obtained statements from several persons who reside in Millers Court, that she was out of her house and in Dorset street between two and three o'clock", but again your typical response is to dismiss anything that contests your argument.
You choose your own evidence Michael, as you have with the Stride case.

Do you know where the source was for that article? Me neither. Does that invalidate it? No.

When the press criticize some current story they give their reasons why, so how come the Star never gave their reason?
Surely they knew the importance of denying the validity of a story by the police number 1 witness, so they have every justification to explain their position - but they didn't.

As you are quite willing to accept an unsubstantiated story from a newspaper, why do you not apply that same reasoning to Hutchinson's unsubstantiated story?
We all know why don't we Michael?

Using only your own faculties you must understand that the alleged Hutchinson sighting and the descriptions therein have always been suspect.

By who?
Modern theorists, with their own theories to promote?

The only opinion that matters concerning Hutchinson's story is that of the police. And it is obvious how it pains you so incredibly that the police trusted Hutchinson, all through November into at least Dec. 6th when Abberline mistakenly believed Joseph Isaacs was the mysterious Astrachan.
A circumstance that demonstrates Hutchinson's story was foremost in Abberline's mind for close to a month following his interview with him. Not, as the Star erroneously published, that his story was discredited.

All this has been pointed out to you more than once, yet you choose to ignore the facts above and blindly regurgitate the same ill-informed, baseless arguments.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I think Blotchy is a red herring.

When you have a person seen going into a victim's room late at night, and the victim is found dead the next morning, that renders the person very much a person of interest; in every possible police investigation in the world.

Add in that we know Mary Cox did actually know Mary, they lived in the same court, and you have a witness who we can reasonably hedge our bets on.

In addition, Blotchy was carrying booze, so whatever the arrangement it certainly wasn't your average 5 minutes on the street.

And then, the medical evidence suggests that Mary was murdered lying at the side of the bed, which in turn suggests somebody was lying on the other side, i.e. somebody who had an arrangement with Mary that was more than your average 5 minutes on the street.

If that is not good reason to make Blotchy a reasonable suspect then I don't know what is.

Countering this, we have press reports suggesting that Mary was out again after say 1.30am. How much store do you place in these? I'm sceptical.

And of course we have George, with his unlikely stake-out for no particular reason. George suggests that his only reason for his vigil, was to watch A-man walk past him again. It's one of the most ridiculous concoctions in the entire investigation.

On balance, I'd say he is the most reasonable suspect.

[Wickerman]

When you have a person seen going into a victim's room late at night, and the victim is found dead the next morning, that renders the person very much a person of interest; in every possible police investigation in the world.

Right, no question, but you omit the context, and context matters because there was 11 hours between what Cox saw and what Bowyer found. From 11:45 pm to 10:45 am, so much can happen in one hour in the East End, let alone eleven hours.
So, on what grounds do we connect two events that are 11 hours apart?
Was anybody standing watch over Millers Court for all eleven hours?, of course not.
Could anyone else have come and gone at any point in those eleven hours? Yes, of course.
Could Mary have left & returned in those eleven hours?, Yes, certainly.
You disagree with any of that?

Add in that we know Mary Cox did actually know Mary, they lived in the same court, and you have a witness who we can reasonably hedge our bets on.

I'd be careful in how we use 'know', Cox did live at the far end of the court, what some 50? feet away.
There's something like 12 feet between my house and my neighbours, I've spoken to them once in passing, I know nothing about them least of all their names. Cox did at least know the victim by the name she used, and apparently Cox knew she lived in room 13, but what else did Cox know about Mary?
Cox tells us nothing about Mary, her partner or friends, or whether they often drank together.
So, we are justified in asking just how well did she know Mary?
We tend to use 'know' when me mean 'assume', we all do it. In this example we do not 'know' how well Cox knew Mary Kelly.

In addition, Blotchy was carrying booze, so whatever the arrangement it certainly wasn't your average 5 minutes on the street.

According to Cox, and no-one else.

And then, the medical evidence suggests that Mary was murdered lying at the side of the bed, which in turn suggests somebody was lying on the other side, i.e. somebody who had an arrangement with Mary that was more than your average 5 minutes on the street.

If that is not good reason to make Blotchy a reasonable suspect then I don't know what is.

That circumstance applies to any client who may have come and gone through those eleven hours that we spoke of at the beginning.
All we can reasonably deduce from the above is she was likely murdered by a client, someone who shared her bed that night.

Countering this, we have press reports suggesting that Mary was out again after say 1.30am. How much store do you place in these? I'm sceptical.

Nothing wrong with being skeptical, the question then becomes what is the cause of the skepticism, conflicting evidence? - there isn't any, or the reluctance to believe an alternate scenario?

And of course we have George, with his unlikely stake-out for no particular reason. George suggests that his only reason for his vigil, was to watch A-man walk past him again. It's one of the most ridiculous concoctions in the entire investigation.

On balance, I'd say he is the most reasonable suspect.

That concluding sentence answers the previous question.

What is missing in this story is what Hutchinson told Abberline in the subsequent interview. Hutchinson is mostly judged on the answers he gave Sgt. Badham when he initially gave his statement to police, but Badham's focus was suspect based. He didn't take down a lot of background information.
A more complete story will have been taken by Abberline when they met later Monday night.
So we are judging Hutchinson on only part of what he told police.