A stout JtR?

[Wickerman]

No, Mrs Kennedy was not discredited. Her statement to the press was never contested by anyone.

Kennedy was not called to the inquest, at least not in the first sitting. The fact the inquest closed suddenly leaves us wondering how many witnesses were slated to appear in a second sitting which never transpired.

The only witnesses that we know were discredited are Violenia, connected with the Chapman case, and Packer, in the Stride case.
Violenia, who falsely accused Pizer failed his interrogation, and Packer had changed his story to police, so neither witness were of any use to police.

[Ben]

Yes, Mrs. Kennedy was very much discredited.

Her statement to the press was contested by the journalists who conducted the interview, ultimately recognising her to be the plagiariser that she was in time for the inquest. The true author of the account, Sarah Lewis, observed the police's request not to discuss her experiences with the press, but unfortunately, she seems to have discussed it with other gossipy women from the nearby lodging houses who then parrotted her account off to the press. This is why "Mrs. Kennedy's" account is so strikingly and suspiciously similar to that of Sarah Lewis.

Violenia and Packer fared no differently to Kennedy or Hutchinson in terms of how their accounts were ultimately treated by the police. It's just that the latter two described more glamorous suspects - giving those who seek a glamorous ripper an incentive to revive them as genuine.

Best regards,
Ben

[RockySullivan]

No, Mrs Kennedy was not discredited. Her statement to the press was never contested by anyone.

Kennedy was not called to the inquest, at least not in the first sitting. The fact the inquest closed suddenly leaves us wondering how many witnesses were slated to appear in a second sitting which never transpired.

The only witnesses that we know were discredited are Violenia, connected with the Chapman case, and Packer, in the Stride case.
Violenia, who falsely accused Pizer failed his interrogation, and Packer had changed his story to police, so neither witness were of any use to police.

Richardson also changed his story multiple times

[GUT]

Richardson also changed his story multiple times

But isn't recorded as having been discredited.

[RockySullivan]

But isn't recorded as having been discredited.

...but is recorded as being viewed with suspicion by the coroner and his contradictory statements were recorded at the inquest.

[GUT]

...but is recorded as being viewed with suspicion by the coroner and his contradictory statements were recorded at the inquest.

And it was also recorded that "No suspicion could attach to him" but I think that is all off thread.

[Wickerman]

Yes, Mrs. Kennedy was very much discredited.

Her statement to the press was contested by the journalists who conducted the interview,....

Still up to your old tricks are we Ben?

To set the record straight, it was a Press Association reporter who interviewed Mrs Kennedy on Friday. Her story was released via telegraph across all interested media in time to appear at the earliest on Saturday morning.
Contrary to your claim, the Press Assoc. reporter used the typical 'canned' phrase, ".....makes a statement which, if trustworthy, which there seems little reason to doubt, fixes conclusively the time of the murder..", thereby indicating he had no reason to doubt her story.

And that is not my opinion, it is in writing for all to see.

[RockySullivan]

And it was also recorded that "No suspicion could attach to him" but I think that is all off thread.

Perhaps but I'm not sure how a witness can remain trustworthy when he doesn't stick to the same story.

[Wickerman]

Perhaps but I'm not sure how a witness can remain trustworthy when he doesn't stick to the same story.

Likely because under questioning the discrepancy was explained.
We must not forget, the police always know more than we do.
Their conclusions are based on what they knew, not what we know.

[RockySullivan]

Likely because under questioning the discrepancy was explained.
We must not forget, the police always know more than we do.
Their conclusions are based on what they knew, not what we know.

How can a completely opposite, contradictory statement be explained away?

[Ben]

Her story was released via telegraph across all interested media in time to appear at the earliest on Saturday morning

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".

Since Lewis had steered clear of the press in accordance with the police's request, which meant the journalists who had noted the phenomenon of women parrotting other accounts would not have known that the original source was genuine.

[Batman]

Between 2.00 and 3.00am Sarah Lewis entered the court, she saw a man standing on the opposite side of Dorset Street. So this is likely Hutchinson. So we know he was there, keeping watch, by his own admission. I must admit, keeping 'watch', like a second man, certainly has explanatory power in how JtR magically avoided detection in environments where the chances of being caught are overwhelmingly in favour of just that.

She further stated that when in the company of another woman in Bethnal Green Road the previous wednesday (7th November), a suspicious man with a black bag accosted her. As far as I know this road is north of Bucks Row which puts it on the east side of Whitechapel rather than the west side where Dorset Street is. So its a good distance away. Never-the-less...

"About wednesday night at 8 o'clock I was going along Bethnal Green Road with another female and a Gentleman passed us he turned back & spoke to us, he asked us to follow him, and asked one of us he did not mind which we refused, he went away and came back & said if we would follow him he would treat us - he asked us to go down a passage - he had a bag and put it down saying what are you frightened of - he then undid his coat and felt for something and we ran away - he was short, pale faced, with a black moustache, about 40 years of age - the bag he had was about a foot or nine inches long - he had on a round high hat - a high one for a round one - he had a brownish long overcoat and a short black coat underneath and pepper & salt ["and" - deleted] trousers."

Its interesting that if this is JtR he is taking prostitutes to his places and not theirs, which seem out of tune with Chapman and Kelly.

She says he was short, pale faced, with a black moustache, about 40 years of age, had on a round high hat, brownish long overcoat. This is not a Jewish description like Hutchenson gave.

"On our running away we did not look after the man - On the friday morning about half past two when I was coming to Miller's Court I met the same man with a female - in Commercial Street near Mr Ringer's Public House - near the market - he had then no overcoat on - but he had the bag and the same hat trousers & undercoat.

So we know this 'morning' is the basically the wee hours in which MJK was killed. 2:30 am.

Doesn't this agree with Hutchinson who claimed MJK went looking for a client about this time?

Yes it does. He claims to have met her at 2am before she went out looking for a client. He even describes her going in the general direction that Lewis claims to have seen JtR.

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?

I woke up about half-past three - I sat awake until nearly five - a little before four I heard a female voice shout loudly one Murder!

1hr and 30 minutes later she hears murder.

Now where does 'Blotchy face' play in all of this?

Mary Ann Cox. 11:45 pm. The man she saw was described as about 36 years old, 5ft 5ins tall with a fresh complexion and blotches on his face. He had small side-whiskers, a thick, carroty moustache and dressed in shabby dark clothes, dark overcoat and a black felt hat. He was holding a quart can of beer.

This is a long time before 2:30. 2 hours and 45 minutes. So was this man with Kelly from 11:45 pm until 4am? Doubtful I think. Cox is seeing somone earlier. Sarah Lewis seems to be describing MJK at a much more reasonable time when JtR would have picked her up.

Yet the funny thing is didn't Hutchenson describe this person coming back with Kelly. He does resemble the Lewis description in some ways, but is Jewish.

So is Hutchinson really lying?

[Ben]

Hi Batman,

Doesn't this agree with Hutchinson who claimed MJK went looking for a client about this time?

Unfortunately not. If we accept Hutchinson as the likely identity of the wideawake-wearing man, he was already stationed opposite the court by the time Sarah Lewis turned the corner from Commercial Street onto Dorset Street, which meant that if all parties were telling the truth, Kelly and Astrakhan were already inside room #13 when Lewis arrived on the scene, with Hutchinson already several minutes into his curious vigil outside.

If there was any suggestion that the woman near the Britannia was Kelly, every effort would have been made to cement the identification, with Lewis almost certainly being called to the mortuary. The fact that this never happened makes it very unlikely, in my opinion, that Lewis saw Kelly that night. As you note, Lewis saw another young couple who "passed along", but there is no evidence that they had anything to do with the court; more likely they were destined for one of the unisex lodging houses that littered that street.

It was even noted by the press that prior to Hutchinson's statement, there has been no indication that Kelly had ventured out again after she was seen with Blotchy. It might be for another thread, but I doubt very much that Kelly did emerge after that sighting.

All the best,
Ben

[Batman]

Hi Batman,
Hutchinson already several minutes into his curious vigil outside.

That's 2hrs and 45min of Blotchy man inside. Did anyone see Hutchinson stand outside for that long? He only seems to appear on the scene at 2am, which is nearly 3hrs after Blotchy is seen going in by Cox.

Then we have Lewis stating that a very dodgy character who accousted her is lurking around nearby at 2am picking up women, one of whom seems to fit MJK and Hutchinson's testimony of seeing her leave. That's no small thing.

I suppose a big question is "was Hutchinson waiting for MJK to come back or someone to come out?"

Lewis says, coming out.

If this is the case, then Hutchinson has been waiting around for nearly 3 hours.

If going in, then he is waiting for MJK to come back.

Also we have Mary Ann Cox testimony of singing from MJKs room until 1:15am.

If Blotchy left at 1am, then that means he spent 1hr and 30minutes there.

If Blotchy and Hutchinson are someone related in all of this, then Blotchy is inside until at least after Lewis arrives at the court.

It would mean the cry of murder at 4am is unrelated.

Yet did the coroner really suggest the time of death was midnight to 1am? Or nearer 4am.

If there was any suggestion that the woman near the Britannia was Kelly, every effort would have been made to cement the identification, with Lewis almost certainly being called to the mortuary. The fact that this never happened makes it very unlikely, in my opinion, that Lewis saw Kelly that night.

First of all, you can't identify a corpse without a face. Second of all, reconstructing that face and asking for identification would be difficult without someone who knew her well. Just look at Eddowes before and after. Barnett could though from other facts about MJK. Yet Lewis still appears at the inquest.

The question is, would it have been unusual for MJK to go out at this time and meet a punter... especially given that JtR hits in the early hours of the morning, like 1:30am onwards (stride is 1am).

[Ben]

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