Why Wasn't Hutchinson used to try to ID Kosminski?

[Fisherman]

You're comparing a police statement (pre-inquest), with court testimony?

I donīt know. Am I? The point I am trying to get across is that I do not believe that either Hutchinson or Badham would omit to mention Lewis on account of her sex. I donīt see how that has anything to do with me comparing a police statement with court testimony...? Are you saying that Hutch and Badham could have skipped her over since they were not at a court stage? Surely not?

[Michael W Richards]

When are some of you going to realize that your own lack of belief in a statement isnt grounds for questioning it. Unless of course you possess additional information that is not widely available. Or known of. There is a news report that says Hutchinson was discredited, Hutchinson has no visible relevance after this murder even though they suspected later murders were done by the same killer, he waited almost 4 full days before coming forward, and his story contains elements that are clearly embellishments.

There is absolutely no reason on paper for using this man as a witness after Mary Kellys murder. Like Schwartz for the Stride murder, another guy Abberline states his belief in. Seems to me that Abberline was desperate to believe anything. For a time anyway. Do we hear Abberline in later remembrances mention either one of these men whose stories he apparently believed?

When did gullibility become the norm for this study? When did people start creating, fabricating, imagining facts that are not supported in any evidence that exists? When did people start stating witnesses were wrong with what they claimed to see, or at what time they saw it? EVIDENCE!!!!!

If you have EVIDENCE a witness lied, then lets see it. If you have EVIDENCE that times given were incorrect, then lets have it. If you want to play guesswork, imaginative re-invention of facts, or just state people were wrong because you think that they were....then surely there is a kiddie site for Jack the Ripper students you would be more comfortable in.

As for this murder, a witness living in the courtyard saw Mary arrive home at 11:45 with company. During the night another witness sees a couple around, and later in that same night, the first court witness hears a call out....same with the second witness. NO-ONE believable sees Mary alive after 11:45 Thursday night.

So instead of farting around second guessing whats on paper without any contrary evidence to offer, why not focus on the real issues with this murder. Why didnt anyone credible see Blotchy leave? Maybe because his are the footsteps heard by Cox around 5-6am? Who called out at near 4am, and where were they.

Hutchinson obviously had no interest in helping the police find Marys real killer... very clearly, demonstrated convincingly by the length of time he waits to come up with his story. So why does he come forward with the story at all? Not one person validates his claim he knew Mary Kelly at all. Not one person has a supporting story to his Astrakan man one. Not one person in that courtyard saw Mary leave the room.

Stick with the truth maybe, its more likely to present some answers.

It appears by all the evidence that Hutchinsons story was intended to make Wideawake a friend to Mary, instead of the possible accomplice the Police used as fodder for an Amnesty offer.

[c.d.]

I see no reason to disparage Abberline (or any other detective investigating this case) for not having psychic abilities. If Hutchinson initially appeared credible and there was no evidence available at the time to discredit him it would seem reasonable to accept his story. And that acceptance needn't have been anything beyond his story seems more likely than not to be true. I don't think desperation on Abberline's part had to be a factor in reaching that conclusion. It would be much more damning to Abberline's reputation if evidence came to light later on indicating Hutchinson had lied and Abberline continued to adhere to his belief in Hutchinson's veracity.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

I see no reason to disparage Abberline (or any other detective investigating this case) for not having psychic abilities. If Hutchinson initially appeared credible and there was no evidence available at the time to discredit him it would seem reasonable to accept his story. And that acceptance needn't have been anything beyond his story seems more likely than not to be true. I don't think desperation on Abberline's part had to be a factor in reaching that conclusion. It would be much more damning to Abberline's reputation if evidence came to light later on indicating Hutchinson had lied and Abberline continued to adhere to his belief in Hutchinson's veracity.

c.d.

Quite so, C. D. For some reason, though, when people need a streeeeeeeeetch, they sometimes go for it regardless if is a totally unlikely one. And when taken up on it, there is always the good old ripperological backdoor: "You canīt prove me wrong "...

[Scott Nelson]

What's any of this have to do with Kosminski?

[Wickerman]

When are some of you going to realize that your own lack of belief in a statement isnt grounds for questioning it.

Are you sure about this Michael?

Then, you make two comments:

There is absolutely no reason on paper for using this man as a witness after Mary Kellys murder......

......NO-ONE believable sees Mary alive after 11:45 Thursday night.....

I'm shocked, it looks like you do not believe Hutchinson's statement, so you are really questioning it?
What was that first line again Michael?

......he waited almost 4 full days before coming forward, and his story contains elements that are clearly embellishments.

Have you forgotten?, I myself showed you that on the Friday no-one knew the time Kelly was murdered. The theory on dominant Saturday was that she died after 9:00am on Friday morning.
It was only on Sunday when it was confirmed she was murdered about 3:00 am.
Hutchinson came in Monday, that's not too bad.

If you have EVIDENCE a witness lied, then lets see it.

How many times have you asserted to me that Hutchinson lied, without the slightest trace of evidence.

Not one person in that courtyard saw Mary leave the room.

Mrs. Kennedy is confident that the man whom she noticed speaking to the woman Kelly at three o'clock on Friday morning is identical with the person who accosted her on the previous Wednesday.

Careful Michael, I shouldn't need to remind you of that fateful first line again.

Stick with the truth maybe, its more likely to present some answers.

Ahh, the truth.....who's truth?....

[harry]

Michael,
Isn't grounds of disbelief,a good reason to question something?At least one person was so good with his lies,he evaded being recognised as the Ripper.

[Wickerman]

What's any of this have to do with Kosminski?

It has about as much to do with Kozminski, as Kosminski had to do with the murders.

Howzat!

[Michael W Richards]

My post has a lot to do with an aversion to fence sitting. There is plenty of fence sitting in all of these cases, when rational, logical and reasonable interpretations can be made from whats on paper. The reconstruction of events is what we need if anyone is ever going to find the answers....if thats still on the table.

Like a newspaper article stating that Hutchinson was discredited, one paper...like the one quoted about Issacs..and the fact he disappears from the investigations. Like Schwartz does. Abberline stated belief in both stories, so what does that make him aside from gullible? I for one give him more credit than that, I think he really desperately wanted to come through for the locals and as a result took everything personally. Maybe they were both convincing, but it also appears neither had any real bearing on the crimes investigations themselves.

At some point I would like to have a baseline that says Polly was still barely alive when found, Annie wasnt in the yard when Richardson cleaned his boot, Liz was in the passageway and attacked from someone on the grounds, Kate may have been blackmailing someone, and the person known as Mary Kelly likely wasnt named that at all. Some extrapolations which can be vetted. If someone wants to assume something here all they have to do is type it. And the questionable viability of something like a Canonical Group gets some support,...suddenly its a fact.

[Curious Cat]

Really?, then it is strange that you seem to think she passed the church clock at 2:30, but also heard the 2:30 chime from within Millers court. That might take some explaining.

Sarah Lewis said she saw the couple outside The Britannia at about 2:30am. To see the couple at that location at that time she must've passed the clock on or about 2:30am as she says she's knows the time by that clock.

You will have to direct me to where she says she heard the Christ Church chimes at 2:30am from within Miller's Court as I can only seem to find the reports where she notes doing so at 3:30am.

That's what "I think" means, you missed that bit?

My point is that you are dismissing other possibilities through your own speculation rather than considering the evidence available.

The evidence available is that Hutchinson would have been able to hear the Christ Church chimes from his position in Dorset Street. He would also have been able to see Christ Church clock before and after being in Dorset Street. You are dismissing it as a possibility because it doesn't fit your own speculation that he was guessing the time.

On grounds of what it is known about both the St Mary's clock and the Christ Church clock and Hutchinson's location between the hour of 2am and 3am, my conclusion would be that from 2:15am onwards Hutchinson was able to know the time by the Christ Church clock in the same way Sarah Lewis was going by the time by the same clock.

If you've ever been interviewed by police, you will see what I mean. They are very focused on getting times out of a witness.

I have no doubt the police will have asked Hutchinson for the times he was in and around Dorset Street that night. The argument here is about how he knew which time to give. You speculate that he was pressed to give a time and merely guessed by a clock he had passed in the previous hour. I conclude that he knew what time to give because he had a time piece to go by during that particular hour.

That's where our different thoughts on the matter lie.

That's not quite correct. He only admitted to staying there on the Tuesday, and we know he told police he was staying there on the Monday. Thats all we can say for sure.

If Hutchinson had been living somewhere other than the Victoria Men's House before that Monday then the police would have checked the previous residence as he claimed to have been out on Sunday morning looking for the man he saw. Indeed, they would've checked his usual sleeping place was shut as he claimed that was the reason he was walking about the area in the hours the murder took place. If his usual place was shut that night why would he change residence when it's open again the next day? He makes no mention of staying anywhere else. The use of the word "usual" also suggests a regular base.

The Central News journalist who interviewed him on the Tuesday asked him how he knew the time.
He made no mention of hearing or seeing the Spitalfields clock, not at 2:00, not at 2:15, not at 2:30, not at 2:45. The only times he was able to use for reference are given right here by the man himself - in black and white!

"I am able to fix the time, as it was between ten and five minutes to two o'clock as I came by Whitechapel Church. When I left the corner of Miller's-court the clock struck three o'clock".

Are you getting it now?

He never said he heard, or noticed any chimes. He made it quite clear in good English.
Which means, ALL the times that some of us may choose to insert between those times, are pure guesswork.

BIB - Which clock do you believe he's referring to here in quite clear good English?

ALL the times?

ALL of them?

You forgot to admit her first words in bold were.... "I was AT the Keyler's AT 2:30"

And I have told you, Sarah Lewis would've been quite capable of reaching Miller's Court from a spot passing the Christ Church clock within 2 minutes. Being exactly 2:30am isn't the point, but having her mistake the time by a full 15 minutes when the chimes distinctively indicate each quarter hour is just trying to bend the time to suit your needs.

Sarah Lewis gives 2:30am as the time. That is it. I am simply going by the evidence given. That is the evidence she gave. Another time is not offered.

The four matching circumstances that indicate Lewis say the same woman as Hutchinson, regardless what the time was.

That's assumption. Assuming things isn't a good way to investigate things. Take the case of Christopher Jeffries as an example.

The only eye witnesses we have for that hour are Sarah Lewis and Hutchinson. Sarah Lewis' evidence doesn't contradict Hutchinson's position in terms of his timings, placement and what he says about Mary Kelly and the man he saw her with. Hutchinson's evidence stumbles all over Sarah Lewis's position in terms of her arrival in Dorset Street - he doesn't mention seeing her - he's apparently oblivious to the rowing couple outside the The Britannia despite standing close by to them at one point and according to what he says Mary Kelly is in her room by the time Sarah Lewis enters Milller's Court so the woman she sees can't be her. Sarah Lewis may have seen Mary Kelly that night, but Hutchinson's evidence blocks that as a possibility.

I'm satisfied he was there that night but I'm not satisfied he was there in the capacity he claims.

Very easy, as I've mentioned numerous times (now who's not paying attention). The couple had gone indoors, because the couple was Kelly and her client.

That would mean she absolutely saw Mary Kelly enter her room with the man. She makes no statement of that at all.

I never suggested any such thing!
The couple was further on ahead of Lewis, as Lewis was walking towards Millers Court.

So you agree she didn't see the couple enter the court? She only saw them in Dorset Street?

Not paying attention again!

I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court.
Daily News.
I'm having a difficult enough time making you understand, I refuse to help you read!!

As you know full well I'm questioning the way The Daily News in particular is reporting the inquest evidence. Not the evidence as a whole or in general.
In what way does, "...a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink," work grammatically? It doesn't. However, it does work grammatically if you read it properly. It says, "I also saw a man and woman who had no hat and were the worse for drink...". "Were" is plural, meaning both the man and woman were drunk. If it was just the woman the word would be "was", the singular. Hutchinson makes no mention of the man he saw being drunk but this particular report in The Daily News suggests he was drunk along with the woman Sarah Lewis saw.

This is precisely he problem with The Daily News's reporting. It's embellishing or misquoting on the other reports. To take its use of the term, 'Pass up the court' coming from Sarah Lewis when this phrase appears nowhere else is why I don't take it on face value.

[Bridewell]

It is peculiar. My only theory would be that the ID wasn't entirely on the level. Things are sometimes compartmentalized in the police, the left hand doesn't always know what the right hand's up to. After all, why whisk the witness and suspect to a seaside home of all places to begin with?

I don't know about it being not entirely "on the level" but it's not a good ID evidentially - it's not an ID Parade but what's known in police parlance as a confrontation ID. It's useless in the event of a positive ID because the witness is shown only the suspect. Any decent defence barrister would rip it to pieces. A confrontation would serve only to eliminate or to get a confirmation ID when it was clear that there would never be any prosecution of the suspect concerned. That could apply to Kosminski if it was clear he would never be fit to stand trial. The Seaside Home ID makes sense (to me) only if one of the parties was there already. Why else would you carry out the procedure at a location so far away? The suspect was supposedly sent there "with difficulty" by the police. On that basis I would have to conclude that the witness was already there and therefore either a local resident or a police officer convalescing at the home. The obvious candidate would be McNaghten's "City PC" but that wouldn't fit with the Seaside Home being a Met Police facility. Did Long find the apron piece after seeing somebody throw it? I don't claim that it is so, only that it would be a possible explanation.

[Trevor Marriott]

Did Long find the apron piece after seeing somebody throw it? I don't claim that it is so, only that it would be a possible explanation.

Long didnt even see Halse who it seems was in the same street at roughly the same time, so he would have had no chance of seeing someone throw the apron piece, and besides even if he had have done would you have not thought he would have challenged that person as to what he had seen him throw?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Scott Nelson]

If the Identification was conducted by City Police and botched with witness (insane suspect pulled out of asylum and therefore couldn't hang) then Henry Smith wouldn't have been too open about it. Sagar may have provided a bit more information to the MET, but only verbally.

[Harry D]

I don't know about it being not entirely "on the level" but it's not a good ID evidentially - it's not an ID Parade but what's known in police parlance as a confrontation ID. It's useless in the event of a positive ID because the witness is shown only the suspect. Any decent defence barrister would rip it to pieces. A confrontation would serve only to eliminate or to get a confirmation ID when it was clear that there would never be any prosecution of the suspect concerned. That could apply to Kosminski if it was clear he would never be fit to stand trial. The Seaside Home ID makes sense (to me) only if one of the parties was there already. Why else would you carry out the procedure at a location so far away? The suspect was supposedly sent there "with difficulty" by the police. On that basis I would have to conclude that the witness was already there and therefore either a local resident or a police officer convalescing at the home. The obvious candidate would be McNaghten's "City PC" but that wouldn't fit with the Seaside Home being a Met Police facility. Did Long find the apron piece after seeing somebody throw it? I don't claim that it is so, only that it would be a possible explanation.

Hello, Bridewell. I've speculated before that "City PC" is one way to reconcile the ID at a police convalescence home in Brighton, but like you said, there's holes in this theory too.

[Michael W Richards]

Long didnt even see Halse who it seems was in the same street at roughly the same time, so he would have had no chance of seeing someone throw the apron piece, and besides even if he had have done would you have not thought he would have challenged that person as to what he had seen him throw?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I dont think that the evidence suggests it was thrown Trevor, according to Long it doesnt arrive there until 60-70 minutes after the murder. And the position of writing just above it cannot be accidental, a result of a toss. Ok, it could be statistically, but I dont see presuming a long shot as a pragmatic approach. I think the apron section is left below the writing intentionally, or the same guy did both when he placed the apron. If we knew that the killer originally went West out of Mitre Square right after the murder, or North, then came back to the East End with the apron section, what might we make of both the location of the apron and message? I believe that Blame and Jews are the reason for it.