A stout JtR?

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Batman,

If we assume for the sake of argument that all parties told the truth, Sarah Lewis arrived after Kelly and Astrakhan had entered Miller's Court; after Hutchinson had taken up his position in Dorset Street. Kelly and Astrakhan obviously can't have been in Miller's Court and outside the Britannia pub simultaneously, so the couple at the latter location must have been persons other than Kelly and Astrakhan. Had there been any suggestion that the female half of that couple was Kelly, there would have been some attempt to establish an identification, even if it amounted to broad similarities only. But there wasn't the remotest suggestion that this woman was Kelly, which, given the furore generated by the murder, is pretty hard to accept, unless the police were confident that it wasn't her. Similarly, comparatively little attention was made to the pale-faced man, perhaps because it was considered unlikely that a serial killer who had proven himself so adept at evading capture should attempt to inveigle two women into an alleyway; one a victim, the other a witness! I think he was more imprudent than dodgy.

We only have Hutchinson's word that he waited at that location for the specified amount of time, and only his explanation - probably spurred on by a recognition that Lewis had clocked him - for why he was there. It has been suggested that he found Blotchy in bed with Kelly, and was waiting for him to leave.
All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben...and Happy New Year my friend. I think this year marks a decade since I first stepped into a conversation here, I remember fondly the discussions with you and Sam and Glenn, and Natalie, and AP, and others. Anyway, I digress....

I believe that whomever Wideawake was he was indeed waiting for the Blotchy Faced man to depart...which I suspect he does sometime before about 3:45am when the same call from the courtyard is heard by the 2 closest witnesses to the source. That I am convinced was Mary answering a rap on the window or a tap on the door...it even woke Diddles. Which explains how Mrs Prater could hear the voice just coming out of a sleep..that few second delay while Mary gets herself out of bed and answers the door. I believe unhappy with the result, but somehow obligated to allow him entry, she pads back to bed, gets on the right side of the bed...facing the wall, and tries to fall back asleep while her guest settles in.

The nagging issue about Hutch is why would he knowingly and willingly accept the position of a very suspicious character in this game? Granted, he does so after the Inquest is over...but the investigation jumped at his evidence proving that they eagerly followed every carrot that was dangled...just like they investigated the thousands of letters purporting to be from Jacky boy.

Some topics off thread, sorry about that.

All the best Ben.

[Wickerman]

...

She continues "- another young man with a woman passed along - the man standing in the street was looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out"

Now that is odd. Did Hutchenson describe these two? Sarah Lewis didn't say she saw them go into the court. Why is she saying Hutchinson is standing like waiting for someone to come out?

When you compare the press accounts with the court record, we find more detail in the press accounts. This is also demonstrably true with the Eddowes inquest. In order to gain a more complete picture it is necessary to collate the press reports with the court record.

The Daily News reporter provided a more complete version:
" I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."

Which is clear confirmation of Hutchinson's story.

It is also corroborated in part by The Morning Post:
"She also saw another man and woman coming along, the latter having her hat off, and being the worse for drink."

And by the Daily Telegraph:
"Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink."

Although Hutchinson made no mention of a hat (why would he if she wore none), Mary Cox did state that Kelly wore no hat that night.

At the inquest no-one knew how important this extra couple was to be, and Lewis did not know Mary Kelly by sight. So this couple that walked passed her and up the court were just extras to events that night. No-one had a clue that these were the central characters to what was to unfold.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

Great to hear from you, and happy new year.

I think I've been here about a decade too, and I gather that makes us comparative newbies alongside some truly seasoned Casebookers who have been posting since last century!

Your suggested scenario in which Kelly encounters her killer is perfectly plausible; I marginally prefer one in which the killer enters without Kelly's knowledge.

I suspect Hutchinson came forward out of concern that if he said nothing, Sarah Lewis's evidence would ultimately lead police to him anyway.

I'll be visiting your wonderful city this year!

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

As we've discussed a great many times, the Daily News were in error in reporting that Sarah Lewis's couple entered the court. She never saw that happen, and that is a fact that everyone familiar with the Kelly case understands. No other newspaper made this error, and the police report makes it very clear that the couple in question simply passed along Dorset Street. Lewis also makes clear that there was "nobody in the court".

So this couple that walked passed her and up the court were just extras to events that night. No-one had a clue that these were the central characters to what was to unfold.

No.

Everyone at the time had a very good "clue" that the couple in question were irrelevant to the events of Miller's Court, given that they simply passed along Dorset Street, neatly accounting for the appropriate lack of interest paid to them by anyone in 1888.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hello Ben.
Hope you had a merry xmas, and a happy new year to you & yours.
It's been pretty quiet for the last couple of months

Hi Jon,

As we've discussed a great many times, the Daily News were in error in reporting that Sarah Lewis's couple entered the court. She never saw that happen, and that is a fact that everyone familiar with the Kelly case understands.

Alas, it is only your good self who claims they were in error, why you make this claim is quite obvious to anyone who knows your theory.
Like I've explained, it is necessary to collate all the inquest coverage, not cherry pick what you want to believe.

No other newspaper made this error,...

Tell me Ben, which other newspaper decided to refer to Mrs Kennedy's story as:
"A NEIGHBOR'S DOUBTFUL STORY."
Only the Star, right Ben, so can we expect you to apply the same logic, that the Star obviously made an error, as no other paper made that comment?

.....and the police report makes it very clear that the couple in question simply passed along Dorset Street.

No police report exists on this.

Lewis also makes clear that there was "nobody in the court".

And she is correct, Kelly & Astrachan went inside No. 13, they did not stay in the court to conduct their business - so of course there was no-one in the court.
That only serves to confirm the sequence of events.

Yes, and the fact that the "interested media" comprised just a handful of papers doesn't speak very highly for its overall reception. Even the newspapers that did run her story, such as the Star, referred to it as "a neighbour's doubtful story" and "a story of little value".

I think you argue yourself into a corner with this Ben.

Tell me, isn't it true that you choose not to believe that Abberline cleared Hutchinson because we have nothing by way of evidence of his investigation of Hutchinson?

Ok then, please explain why you do choose to believe a Star reporter who writes, "a neighbour's doubtful story" and "a story of little value"., when you likewise have no evidence of any investigation by this reporter?

Sadly for you Ben, no other newspaper, not even the reporter who interviewed her, called Mrs Kennedy's statement into question, and it was in press long before the Star picked it up and choose to distort it.

[Batman]

So here is the question. Is there a conspiracy? Or are witnesses simply recounting what they thought they saw allowing for error.

If Hutchinson is not making up the story, then he has given us the most detailed description of JtR to date. If Hutchinson is making up the story, we know that he was there, so why make up the story? To deflect attention away from himself (yet it was he who drew attention to himself by going to the police)?

As has been said before wouldn't Hutchinson be better off not reporting himself? Especially given he was someone hard to find.

If Hutchinson was covering for someone else, then his description was prepared in advance of going to the police. Now wouldn't you come up with something quite the opposite of what JtR looked like?

Hutchinson described the man as about, 5ft 6" in height and 34 or 35 years of age,

The man Cox saw was described as about 36 years old, 5ft 5ins tall.

Not a very good deflection there.

Hutchinson - A dark complexion and dark moustache turned up at the ends.

Cox - A fresh complexion and blotches on his face. small side-whiskers, a thick carroty moustache.

Now does carroty here mean red in colour or just its shape? Anyway it seems like an opposite. Carroty down, dark turned up.It's different but why Hutchinson didn't loose the moustache, I don't know.

Hutchinson - Wearing a long Astrakhan coat, a white collar with black necktie, in which was affixed a horseshoe pin. He wore a pair of dark spats with light buttons over button boots and displayed from his waistcoat a massive gold chain. His watch chain had a big seal with a red stone hanging from it.

Cox - very shabby dark clothes.

So yeah that's the opposite.

Hutchenson - he had no side whiskers and his chin was clean shaven.

Cox - side whiskers...

Another opposite.

Hutchinson - He looked like a foreigner.

Cox - Nothing foreign about what she saw.

Hutchinson - Small parcel in his hand.

Cox - carried a pot of ale in his hand


Now if Hutchinson did cover for Blotchy face, then this is best bet of finding out who JtR is because there is an accomplice and an explanation for how JtR avoids detection. However why would Hutchinson do such a thing and is there any precident for it?

[DVV]

Sadly for you Ben, no other newspaper, not even the reporter who interviewed her, called Mrs Kennedy's statement into question, and it was in press long before the Star picked it up and choose to distort it.

And that, Jon, would prove her a reliable witness ?

[Wickerman]

And that, Jon, would prove her a reliable witness ?

Hi Dave.
The question is, does an isolated Star reporter's comment make her unreliable?

[Ben]

Hope you had a merry xmas, and a happy new year to you & yours.

Thanks for the kind wishes, Jon, and I extend the same! It's good to be back, if only for a short while.

Alas, it is only your good self who claims they were in error, why you make this claim is quite obvious to anyone who knows your theory.

Anyone who has researched the case in any depth knows for a fact that the claim made in the Daily News with regard to the movements of Lewis's couple is false. It is still only you who seeks to revive it as accurate.

Only the Star, right Ben, so can we expect you to apply the same logic, that the Star obviously made an error, as no other paper made that comment?

Apples to oranges, I'm afraid, Jon. The Star were expressing their own opinions on the Kennedy story (opinions which turned out to be well-founded), whereas the Daily News misreported what a witness said.

And she is correct, Kelly & Astrachan went inside No. 13, they did not stay in the court to conduct their business - so of course there was no-one in the court.
That only serves to confirm the sequence of events.

It doesn't confirm any such thing.

If Lewis saw a couple enter the court, that couple were in the court at a time relevant to her sighting, which would therefore make a nonsense of her claim that there was "nobody in the court". That phrase and "a couple who just went into the court" are mutually exclusive, obviously so. It's quite simple - does the police report or any other press source apart from the Daily News say anything about Lewis watching a couple pass up the court? Answer: no, because it definitely, factually never happened. It was a simply case of misreporting; with the court being confused with Dorset Street itself.

Ok then, please explain why you do choose to believe a Star reporter who writes, "a neighbour's doubtful story" and "a story of little value"., when you likewise have no evidence of any investigation by this reporter?

Again, the Star reporter simply expressed his personal judgment on the story. It doesn't influence my "belief" one way or the other. Quite irrespective of the Star's opinions, it became clear that Kennedy was one of the "half dozen" woman referred to who attempted to pass Lewis's account off as their own. Ironically, there was nothing inherently wrong with the story itself, because we know it originated from a genuine source (Lewis), albeit one that the press did not have access to.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

If Hutchinson is making up the story, we know that he was there, so why make up the story? To deflect attention away from himself (yet it was he who drew attention to himself by going to the police)?

It drew attention to him as a cooperative, voluntary witness as opposed to a suspect, which is how he'd have been treated if recognised as Sarah Lewis' man and hauled in for questioning, which, given the close proximity between Miller's Court and his own residence, was far from unlikely. A bogus account is far more likely to be invested with credence if is offered voluntarily. It depends what his primary motivation was. If he was the killer, for instance, then we have plenty of examples of serial offenders making themselves known to the police and pretending to be witnesses.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Now if Hutchinson did cover for Blotchy face, then this is best bet of finding out who JtR is because there is an accomplice and an explanation for how JtR avoids detection. However why would Hutchinson do such a thing and is there any precident for it?

But surely, why would Hutchinson then give a different time of arrival for Blotchy, over two hours later than Cox's story?

The conspiracy that you propose would require Hutchinson to only give a departure time for Astrachan, which incidentally he does not give.

[DVV]

Hi Dave.
The question is, does an isolated Star reporter's comment make her unreliable?

No, Jon.
But it helps.

[Wickerman]

Ah, I'm sorry to hear this will be a brief stay.

Anyone who has researched the case in any depth knows for a fact that the claim made in the Daily News with regard to the movements of Lewis's couple is false. It is still only you who seeks to revive it as accurate.

By all means Ben, show me, in fact show everyone this fact.
I'm sure it would put the matter to rest.
Just between you & me though, I know this is only your preferred opinion.

Lets see, you condemn The Daily News for offering a detail that questions your theory, and you have condemned The Morning Advertiser for the same reason.

Yet, you also try to promote an isolated unfounded comment by the Star, and yet another by Lloyds Weekly, on a different subject.
There is a huge inconsistency in your arguments Ben, as I know has been pointed out to you many times before.

The Star were expressing their own opinions on the Kennedy story....

It is their opinions that got them into so much legal trouble isn't it, that much you know.
If they just stuck to reporting the facts, and leave their ill concieved opinions out of it.... mind you, we all know why they took this approach, to earn ratings (ie; to sell copy), to be intentionally controversial, to appeal to the under informed masses.
Apparently, it is still working.

If Lewis saw a couple enter the court, that couple were in the court at a time relevant to her sighting, which would therefore make a nonsense of her claim that there was "nobody in the court".

No, because Sarah Lewis does not say, as Cox does, that she followed the couple down the passage.
In fact, we cannot determine from Lewis how many minutes passed before she entered the passage after the "couple".
So, when she eventually did go to No. 2 Millers Court, the court was empty.
The "couple" had gone indoors, which is precisely what Kelly & Astrachan did.

Quite irrespective of the Star's opinions, it became clear that Kennedy was one of the "half dozen" woman referred to who attempted to pass Lewis's account off as their own.

Ah, the "parroting" argument again, no, it has been demonstrated irrefutably that any "parroting" was confined to the claim of hearing the cry of "murder", that these various unnamed women could not get the time right.

Nothing whatsoever to do with the statement by Mrs Kennedy, and you already know the article presents Kennedy as the reporters original source.

[Wickerman]

No, Jon.
But it helps.

Helps with what?
For the comment to be helpful, some suspicions must already exist.

There were no suspicions in existence at the time, none by the police, none by the press, none by the reporter who interviewed her, and none by the public - no-one gave a story that contested that given by Mrs Kennedy.

So, what was being helped?

[DVV]

Right you are, Jon.
She was so hot a potato for the coroner that they took her to the Seaside Home, hands tied in the back.