A stout JtR?

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael.
I don't see any question of Kennedy's truthfulness, the subject was never raised. Her story was not contradicted by anyone else, and no-one cast doubt on her.

The main difference between the stories given by Lewis & Kennedy, from a Coroner's perspective, is that Lewis saw a loiterer near the crime scene, Kennedy did not.
Otherwise their stories are the same, there is no need to call two people to an inquest who have the same stories to tell, that is simply a waste of taxpayers money.

Now we come to the all important Star critique.
In reading through the various columns we have to appreciate the sequence of articles.

It seems to have gone unnoticed, but under the sub-heading Last Seen Alive, the Star are giving more credit to three witness statements which indicate Kelly was still alive late on Friday morning.

In contrast to this, the Star then offer what is in their view "a doubtful story", that suggests Kelly was killed about 3:30-3:45.
It is doubtful in their view because the Star have given credit to the later sightings of Kelly still being alive in the morning.
We should not forget, on Saturday when Kennedy's story was published the morning papers the press knew nothing about Sarah Lewis.

Then, we are given the Wednesday evening encounter as detailed by Mrs Kennedy, but the Star place this under the sub-heading, A Story of Little Value.
It is, in their view, of little value because 'we' are not interested what happened on Wednesday night, when we are investigating a murder that occurred on Friday morning.
It is of little value (in the eyes of the Star).

When we place the comments of the Star in context it can be seen that this is no reflection on Mrs Kennedy, but speaks more to the incompetence of Star journalists.
Jumping to conclusions before the whole story is out.

If the Star had investigated Mrs Kennedy's story, they would not have wasted precious space printing it out in detail, which they proceeded to do.
They are not going to print something they have found to be false.
Instead, we would have a by-line, something in the order of:

"Embarrassingly, for our morning contemporaries, we have investigated the claims by Mrs Kennedy, and found her story to be totally devoid of truth".

Or words to that effect.
Anything more than that is a waste of space for a newspaper.

So no, the Star did not investigate the story by Mrs Kennedy. What they did is compare her story to those statements about Kelly being alive in the street on Friday morning.
In consequence of several 'morning' witnesses, the Star did not believe that Kelly died about 3:30-3:45 in the morning.

I see your argument Jon...the reason I emboldened a section was because I was considering your words when assessing any case that might be made for Schwartz. It distracted me,.. but I do see how you are making the distinction.

Cheers

[Batman]

The room was too small for the mass of public, they were outside on the street.
Very few members of the public were allowed inside, most of the spots were taken by journalists.
Everyone will be in view of the detectives in the room.

It's like I said. If you propose something like this, i.e - Hutchinson could not have heard about Lewis story of a man by Miller's Court, then you have to explain why he is turning himself in at all later, after the inquest, if he wasn't aware of any witness testimony. Either he is a responding to a witness report or not. If so, how did he get it.

[Wickerman]

My proposition is that he attended the inquest and decided to become the character of the unknown witness for his 10 minutes of fame and was never there.

The room was too small for the mass of public, they were outside on the street.
Very few members of the public were allowed inside, most of the spots were taken by journalists.
Everyone will be in view of the detectives in the room.

[Wickerman]

This is crazy-talk, Jon.

It is nonsense to assert that if two witnesses tell near identical accounts, the coroner will only call one and give two fingers to the other.

It's common sense Ben, pure and simple.
I can demonstrate my assertion with Morris Lewis (who was not called) and Mrs Maxwell (who was).

Now you show me a case where two witnesses tell the same story at an inquest.

Let me remind you what Macdonald said in his closing remarks at the inquest:
"... and go through the same evidence time after time, which only causes expense and trouble.".
In this context he was talking about an adjournment being an unnecessary expense, he was watching the coffers.

And....Kennedy was not discredited by anyone.

If Kennedy was a genuine witness, rather than someone who was proven to have thieved Lewis's story, hers would have been the last documented sighting of the victim, and yet you claim that the coroner withheld an account of such importance because to include it would be a "waste of tax-payers money".

No, that was Maxwell.

And no, Kennedy's discrediting by the Star had nothing to do with disputes over time of death. It had to do with the following quote, published in the same edition of the Star (10th November):

"A Star reporter who inquired into the matter extracted from one of the women the confession that the story was, as far as she was concerned, a fabrication; and he came to the conclusion that it was to be disregarded."

Naughty, naughty...here is the complete paragraph. not one edited by you to suit your argument.
That is misrepresentation on your part Mr Holme.

"One woman (as reported below) who lives in the court stated that at about two o'clock she heard a cry of "Murder." This story soon became popular, until at last half a dozen women were retailing it as their own personal experience. Each story contradicted the others with respect to the time at which the cry was heard. A Star reporter who inquired into the matter extracted from one of the women the confession that the story was, as far as she was concerned, a fabrication; and he came to the conclusion that it was to be disregarded."
http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881110.html

Nothing whatsoever to do with Mrs Kennedy, this paragraph is entirely concerned with the cry of "murder", nothing else.
The one woman who lives in the court was Prater, her address was 20 Millers court. Kennedy was only a visitor.

[Batman]

Whereas the Kennedy story was reported prior to Hutchinson coming forward, the Lewis narrative received no public airing until Sarah gave evidence at the Kelly inquest hearing on Monday, 12 November.

This would also require that Lewis stayed gagged on the matter until appearing. The Star doubted Kennendy's story from the start. All you have to ask yourself is "did Lewis keep her mouth closed?"

Here are some facts.
The timing of Lewis and Kennedy differ.
Their details differ.
Lewis attended the Inquest. Kennedy was ommitted.

The only rational reason was because Lewis's story was already orally circulating to those who where at Miller's Court. That's it. Kennedy picked up on it. If Lewis picked up on Kennedy then she is adding factors that are since shown to be correct. So let's stay logical. People tried to get their 10 minutes of fame. Kennedy likely tried that using Lewis's story. I don't buy the double hypothesis because post-inquest, papers described them as different people. Kennedy wasn't at the inquest.

If you're now saying that Hutchinson based his Astrakhan story on the Kennedy claims (rather than those of Lewis, which was your original contention), I'm sorry but I fail to see any parallel between the two accounts.

I didn't say that. I don't think that either. I think he invented a Pantomime Jew because that's the suspect the people wanted.

I think it overwhelmingly likely that a detective of Abberline's repute would have recognized a witness who had sat merely feet away from him several hours earlier.

How do you get there with that one? Hutchinson wasn't at the inquest. He only appeared to tell his story that evening, when the inquest was held that morning.

Now here is something else....

If Lewis kept her mouth shut and the inquest findings where not well known or published then what prompted Hutchinson to go to the police if there is no media describing someone like him standing at the court?

Most people here claimed he went to the police to get himself off the hook because he had been seen. Yet how could he know this?

My proposition is that he attended the inquest and decided to become the character of the unknown witness for his 10 minutes of fame and was never there.

Oh and the money... can't forget the paper payments.

[Garry Wroe]

Lewis story was already orally known in the area because part of it was repeated by The Star on the 10th. Hutchinson lived in the area.

Whereas the Kennedy story was reported prior to Hutchinson coming forward, the Lewis narrative received no public airing until Sarah gave evidence at the Kelly inquest hearing on Monday, 12 November. If you're now saying that Hutchinson based his Astrakhan story on the Kennedy claims (rather than those of Lewis, which was your original contention), I'm sorry but I fail to see any parallel between the two accounts.

Do you think Abberline could remember everyone at the inquest?

I think it overwhelmingly likely that a detective of Abberline's repute would have recognized a witness who had sat merely feet away from him several hours earlier.

[Damaso Marte]

Huh, I had no idea that Taylor described Fiddymont man as having a red mustache and sandy hair. It's not on the Casebook.org summary of Fiddymont's sighting...I had to look into the press clippings to confirm it.

This is a pretty big gun to have in the anti-Lynn Cates arsenal.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,



I agree, there is no doubt that "Blotchy" warrants attention as a person of interest. Mary Cox's description is reminiscent of Ada Wilson's attacker, who was described as being 5'6", about 30 years old, with a sunburnt face and a fair moustache; whereas the suspect from Mrs. Fiddymont's pub was described as being shabbily-dressed with a ginger-coloured moustache.

Hi Batman,



I was specifically interested in examples of men who have come forward pretending to be witnesses, not murderers. I can't think of any example - from this or any other murder case - of an "attention-seeker" reading about an unidentified man observed at a crime scene and saying, in essence, "yes, that was me, but I was only a witness".

I will try to find the sketch of Hutchinson I mentioned, but no, it was unlikely to have been a mere artist's impression. We know for a fact that press sketches of other witnesses at least attempted a likeness, and it's doubtful that Hutchinson was any different. It is also very unlikely that the physical similarity between the sketch of Hutchinson and Lewis's "wideawake" description was mere "coincidence".

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben
Thanks. And let's not forget Lawendes suspect-described as fair haired.

[Ben]

The main difference between the stories given by Lewis & Kennedy, from a Coroner's perspective, is that Lewis saw a loiterer near the crime scene, Kennedy did not.
Otherwise their stories are the same, there is no need to call two people to an inquest who have the same stories to tell, that is simply a waste of taxpayers money.

This is crazy-talk, Jon.

It is nonsense to assert that if two witnesses tell near identical accounts, the coroner will only call one and give two fingers to the other. On the contrary, if Kennedy wasn't a discredited plagiarist, her evidence would offer some much needed corroboration for Lewis' claims and would have been a crucial inquest inclusion for that reason. Indeed, if anything, Kennedy would have been the better choice given that she claimed to have seen Kelly (which Lewis never alleged) and at a later time in the morning.

If Kennedy was a genuine witness, rather than someone who was proven to have thieved Lewis's story, hers would have been the last documented sighting of the victim, and yet you claim that the coroner withheld an account of such importance because to include it would be a "waste of tax-payers money".

But that's impossible.

You are arguing impossible things again. Not unlikely or merely far-fetched things - impossible things. Why?

And no, Kennedy's discrediting by the Star had nothing to do with disputes over time of death. It had to do with the following quote, published in the same edition of the Star (10th November):

"A Star reporter who inquired into the matter extracted from one of the women the confession that the story was, as far as she was concerned, a fabrication; and he came to the conclusion that it was to be disregarded."

Obviously, we known that the original story - the one provided by Lewis, who avoided the press - was anything but a "fabrication", but unfortunately, her plagiarisers did some damage to the story's credibility before the original had a chance to be aired in public.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Jon.....based on your support of Mrs Kennedy as a reliable and trustworthy witness, you must then see Sarah Lewis as the opposite...since their stories coincide with respect to time and a loitering fellow.

Hi Michael.
I don't see any question of Kennedy's truthfulness, the subject was never raised. Her story was not contradicted by anyone else, and no-one cast doubt on her.

The main difference between the stories given by Lewis & Kennedy, from a Coroner's perspective, is that Lewis saw a loiterer near the crime scene, Kennedy did not.
Otherwise their stories are the same, there is no need to call two people to an inquest who have the same stories to tell, that is simply a waste of taxpayers money.

Now we come to the all important Star critique.
In reading through the various columns we have to appreciate the sequence of articles.

It seems to have gone unnoticed, but under the sub-heading Last Seen Alive, the Star are giving more credit to three witness statements which indicate Kelly was still alive late on Friday morning.

In contrast to this, the Star then offer what is in their view "a doubtful story", that suggests Kelly was killed about 3:30-3:45.
It is doubtful in their view because the Star have given credit to the later sightings of Kelly still being alive in the morning.
We should not forget, on Saturday when Kennedy's story was published the morning papers the press knew nothing about Sarah Lewis.

Then, we are given the Wednesday evening encounter as detailed by Mrs Kennedy, but the Star place this under the sub-heading, A Story of Little Value.
It is, in their view, of little value because 'we' are not interested what happened on Wednesday night, when we are investigating a murder that occurred on Friday morning.
It is of little value (in the eyes of the Star).

When we place the comments of the Star in context it can be seen that this is no reflection on Mrs Kennedy, but speaks more to the incompetence of Star journalists.
Jumping to conclusions before the whole story is out.

If the Star had investigated Mrs Kennedy's story, they would not have wasted precious space printing it out in detail, which they proceeded to do.
They are not going to print something they have found to be false.
Instead, we would have a by-line, something in the order of:

"Embarrassingly, for our morning contemporaries, we have investigated the claims by Mrs Kennedy, and found her story to be totally devoid of truth".

Or words to that effect.
Anything more than that is a waste of space for a newspaper.

So no, the Star did not investigate the story by Mrs Kennedy. What they did is compare her story to those statements about Kelly being alive in the street on Friday morning.
In consequence of several 'morning' witnesses, the Star did not believe that Kelly died about 3:30-3:45 in the morning.

[Batman]

I'd look forward to the contemporary sketches of Hutchinson. He wasn't at the inquest and I think all those cartoon ones with the Ripper aren't based on actual images of the people involved. Also Barnett has been mistaken for Hutchinson a few times in people trying to find contemporary images of him.

The press have interviewed murderers before their arrest. Sometimes these individuals were not suspected by the press at the time but later on where arrested, tried and convicted of the murders, sometimes double homicides and some murderers even go on these vigils and out with search parties looking for the victim etc.

There are instances of police confronting serial killers or serial killers needing to go to the police to get themselves out of trouble. For example, Dahmer convinced police that the drugged up naked kid they found wandering the street was his boyfriend when it was one of his escaped victims. He did that to get himself off the hook and it worked.

There are instances of murderers who worked in pairs and one tries to get himself off the hook by implicating the other and absolving himself of any part in the murders.

So I sort of see someone interjecting themselves into an investigation as a witness to be a sort of lesser version of the above. I think the general idea is that many of the killers want to be actively involved in the investigation if they could be. The wierdos too.

Hang on, don't you think that when investigators put a notice that they are looking for a possible witness who was wearing x, y and z to come forward, that they get all sorts of wierdos showing up claiming to be that person?

[Ben]

Hi Abby,

Im curious. as you know I view Blotchy and Hutch as 1 and 1a most viable suspects.
What about you? if Hutch was not her killer (who I know you favor) do you see Blotchy as the next viable candidate for her killer/and JtR?

I agree, there is no doubt that "Blotchy" warrants attention as a person of interest. Mary Cox's description is reminiscent of Ada Wilson's attacker, who was described as being 5'6", about 30 years old, with a sunburnt face and a fair moustache; whereas the suspect from Mrs. Fiddymont's pub was described as being shabbily-dressed with a ginger-coloured moustache.

Hi Batman,

Lewis describes a man who is more than a witness. He would have been a major suspect also.

So has anyone ever come forward to claim to be a person like that, but was just an attention seeker.

I was specifically interested in examples of men who have come forward pretending to be witnesses, not murderers. I can't think of any example - from this or any other murder case - of an "attention-seeker" reading about an unidentified man observed at a crime scene and saying, in essence, "yes, that was me, but I was only a witness".

I will try to find the sketch of Hutchinson I mentioned, but no, it was unlikely to have been a mere artist's impression. We know for a fact that press sketches of other witnesses at least attempted a likeness, and it's doubtful that Hutchinson was any different. It is also very unlikely that the physical similarity between the sketch of Hutchinson and Lewis's "wideawake" description was mere "coincidence".

All the best,
Ben

[Batman]

Lewis story was already orally known in the area because part of it was repeated by The Star on the 10th. Hutchinson lived in the area.

Do you think Abberline could remember everyone at the inquest?

[Garry Wroe]

Could Hutchinson have read the report about Lewis seeing someone and then interjected himself into the investigation as that man?

As far as can be ascertained not a single newspaper had detailed Sarah Lewis's story at the time that Hutchinson came forward as an eyewitness.

Conclusion: Hutchinson on hearing the story at the inquest put himself into the narrative that evening by visiting the police.

Given that Abberline attended the Kelly inquest hearing only hours before interviewing Hutchinson, common sense dictates that Abberline would have recognized Hutchinson at Commercial Street Police Station, become suspicious, and would never have accepted the veracity of the Astrakhan story without a good deal of further investigation. The fact, therefore, that he did initially accept Hutchinson's version of events effectively quashes any notion that Hutchinson attended the inquest hearing.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Batman,

Wearside Jack made a false murder confession, in common with many other weirdos and publicity-seekers that derail or inconvenience serial murder inquires. There is precedent for such behaviour, whereas there is no precedent at all for individuals making false confessions to being witnesses, to the extent that they appropriate the identity of a real person seen at the murder scene.

I totally agree that Hutchinson was motivated into coming forward by Sarah Lewis's sighting of a wideawake man stationed opposite the court, but only because he recognised himself, not because he wanted to claim the identity of that man. The latter is needlessly self-incriminating, in my view.

The wideawake man was described as "not tall, but stout" which is perfectly compatible with a "military appearance", while tall and gangly is definitely not, contrary to comedic stereotype! In fact, one of the two surviving press sketches of Hutchinson depicts him as shortish, stoutish, and wearing a wideawake hat, exactly as Lewis described.

All the best,
Ben

again, agree. Hutch (wideawake man) description also fits the other witness descriptions of a not tall and rather stout suspect.

But then again, so does blotchy.

Ben
Im curious. as you know I view Blotchy and Hutch as 1 and 1a most viable suspects.
What about you? if Hutch was not her killer (who I know you favor) do you see Blotchy as the next viable candidate for her killer/and JtR?