Tweet
Garry, I recall you mentioning this previously, I thought it a rather odd observation. Generally women drink less than men, again generally women get drunk quicker than men. These are just general observations … This being the case, for Cox to suggest Kelly was 'much intoxicated', yet Hutchinson see's her only as 'tipsy' is I think quite in keeping with what we might expect. One man's "tipsy" is one woman's "blotto".
It’s an entirely relevant observation, Jon, when one is attempting to piece together the final hours of Mary Kelly. According to Mary Cox, Kelly was drunk to the point of near-incoherence a little before midnight and was barely able to utter a simple ‘goodnight’. Kelly then entered her room with Blotchy and yet more alcohol. The chances of her not partaking in Blotchy’s beer are in my view less than zero. And yet, a little over two hours later, Kelly was purportedly out on the streets where she met and spoke to George Hutchinson. As if this wasn’t unlikely enough given the hour and the prevailing weather conditions, she had now magically sobered up to the extent that Hutchinson believed that she ‘was not drunk’.
Of course, Jon, you are free to contemplate the finer points of human perception to your heart’s content. As for myself, I view this as one of those instances where the sensible approach is simply to apply good old-fashioned common sense. In so doing, it becomes immediately apparent that the observations of Cox and Hutchinson are mutually exclusive. Since Kelly couldn’t have been near-incoherently drunk and merely a little tipsy, one has to exercise a value judgement in order to determine which of the Cox and Hutchinson versions is the most likely to have been true. Thus, all things considered, I’m inclined to trust Mrs Cox. And emphatically so.
I most certainly could not take such a triffle comment as a good indication of Hutchinson lying. If thats the case, the 'great British understatement' makes every Brit a liar every day.
The evidence that Hutchinson related a spurious version of events is overwhelming, Jon, and is certainly not contingent on a single remark. In Hutchinson’s police statement, for example, Astrakhan appeared out of nowhere. When speaking to the press, however, Hutchinson described how he had walked along Commercial Street and saw Astrakhan lurking on the corner of Thrawl Street. Nor did he make any mention in his police statement of having spoken to a policeman on the Sunday morning, yet there it is in his press rendition. When speaking to Abberline, he denied having entertained any suspicions regarding Astrakhan, but then went on to discuss his suspicions with reporters. And it goes on, and on, and on …
Over the years I have discussed Hutchinson with many people. Whereas some are willing and able to adopt an objective perspective, others resort to a default mindset which entails accepting or excusing even the most transparently untrue elements of Hutchinson’s narrative. But if any real headway is to be made in the study of this case, the myth of Astrakhan must first be dispelled. Only then can we begin to piece together Kelly’s final hours and thus better understand how she came to die. For some, however, this appears to be a step too far, and they cling to the kind of old and outmoded beliefs that render real progress impossible.
For some, so it would seem, real progress is no progress.
Comment