A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[curious]

Hello Nighthawks. Welcome to the boards.

Is the suggestion that Blotchy was an undercover cop and hence had no uniform when he walked her home?

Do you think "MJK" was suspicious of a police officer drinking whilst on duty?

Cheers.
LC

Good Morning, Lynn,
Why do you think MJK would know he was a police officer? Unless he was actually a friend and she thought he was off duty. However, if he was undercover, isn't it more likely that MJK had no idea of his line of work?
curious

[lynn cates]

duty

Hello Nighthawks. Welcome to the boards.

Is the suggestion that Blotchy was an undercover cop and hence had no uniform when he walked her home?

Do you think "MJK" was suspicious of a police officer drinking whilst on duty?

Cheers.
LC

[Garry Wroe]

Significantly suspicious, or extremely coincidental that this 'supposed' undercover agent (and not a cop but a private citizen?) looked exactly like one of the two murderer's they were looking for.

As I've already said, Jon, it was stated by at least one newspaper that the Blotchy lookalike was an undercover policeman. For its part the Evening News declared that 'The police state that the man who aroused the suspicion of Mr. Galloway by frequently crossing and recrossing the road, is a respectable citizen, and that he was, as a matter of fact, acting in concert with them in his "mysterious movements."'

Draw your own conclusions.

[Wickerman]

Not much, Jon. Indeed, I've argued as much on other threads, usually with those who claim that Abberline's early approval of Hutchinson's account somehow means that the latter had been investigated and exonerated as a suspect within a miniscule time-frame, which is nonsense.

They didn't have time to investigate him before Abberline wrote his report. Abberline only said "I believe him" (paraphrase), which is something we have to trust. We all know how different it is to sit in front of someone as Abberline did with Hutchinson, rather than just read a statement, as we do.

That is not to say they did not investigate him over the next 24 hrs or so. Given the implication of his statement, being the last person to see Kelly alive (presumably), they were dealing with a potential suspect.

Nevertheless, this other man, the "Accoster" was not in police custody by 9:30 am on the 10th (according to St. James Gazette - and at half past nine this morning the police had no one in custody.).
As he was arrested about 8:30 the previous night he was not detained for much more than 12 hrs, and most of that was nighttime.
That's not a lot of time to investigate a suspect, but then, some of Sutcliffe's interviews were lacking, pretty much amounted to just asking him questions.

There's nothing to suggest this "Accoster" had to be innocent just because the answers he gave satisfied the authorities. They still had nothing to hold him on in connection with the murder in Dorset St.

It's not that relative. I'm 6'5" but I'm hardly about to describe a man of 6'2" of being "short".

If you were 5' 2'' you might describe him as tall if he were 5' 6-7'', "Tall" is still a relative term.
Tall, is like dark, or large, or old, or cool - we always ask, compared to what?

All the best, Jon S.

[curious]

What would rule out Blotchy from being JTR and an undercover cop? I'm new here so I don't if the possibility that JTR was a cop has been discussed at length. If the police suspected one of their own then that could explain the hurried inquest, sweeping under the rug etc. I'd have to think about this some more, but let's say Blotchy sees MJK in a tavern, identifies himself to her as a cop and offers to walk her home for safety's sake. She invites him in because she believes she's safe with him (and he has beer...his "in" to the apartment). He bides his time while she sings and waits for her to pass out or exits and returns later.

Hi, Nighthawks,

Welcome to Casebook. Hope you enjoy your time here!

Actually, the thought of a policeman perhaps being JTR has been discussed. I personally don't recall much of the discussion, but you can poke around on the site and find others who have also considered that angle.

curious

[Nighthawks]

It might explain why it was swept under the rug by the police with a single day Inquest. Surely this murder raised as many or more serious questions than the previous ones had.

Just supposin ya know.

Cheers Curious

What would rule out Blotchy from being JTR and an undercover cop? I'm new here so I don't if the possibility that JTR was a cop has been discussed at length. If the police suspected one of their own then that could explain the hurried inquest, sweeping under the rug etc. I'd have to think about this some more, but let's say Blotchy sees MJK in a tavern, identifies himself to her as a cop and offers to walk her home for safety's sake. She invites him in because she believes she's safe with him (and he has beer...his "in" to the apartment). He bides his time while she sings and waits for her to pass out or exits and returns later.

[Ben]

They didn't hold on to them long enough or that, if you notice in many cases by the very next morning whomever had been picked up the previous night was set free. How much background research could they do overnight in less than 12 hours?

Not much, Jon. Indeed, I've argued as much on other threads, usually with those who claim that Abberline's early approval of Hutchinson's account somehow means that the latter had been investigated and exonerated as a suspect within a miniscule time-frame, which is nonsense. Your chap, however, appears to have been arrested during the day, leaving potentially plenty of time to check alibis etc. And let's face it, if this "flushed and defiant" man was innocent and able to account for his whereabouts that night, checking his "credentials" would not have taken very long at all. Equally, the man in question could have been out of the East End at the time, and the woman who fingered him exposed as a liar. What I'm getting at is that if a report states that a suspect was set at liberty after his "statements were verified", it is safe to conclude that the individual in question was ruled out, for whatever reason, as being the murderer.

"Tall" is relative Ben, as tall as what, the reporter, or as tall as the police who wrestled him, or taller than the women who fingered him?

It's not that relative. I'm 6'5" but I'm hardly about to describe a man of 6'2" of being "short".

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Let's say for a moment this undercover cop was the Blotchy seen with Kelly.

Then, is it not possible that Kelly being seen in the company of an undercover policeman might be the explanation for her death a few hours later and that whatever ongoing police operation he was involved in somehow involved MJK?

And his being an undercover policeman would account for us thinking that the police never learned the identity of MJK's visitor that night . . .

very interesting.

curious

Or turn it around.

You may recall those who suggest Hutchinson was the killer propose his appearance at Commercial St. was to inject himself into the case.

So maybe this character who volunteered(?) to help the police was thee Blotchy they were all looking for, he was merely injecting himself into the case.
You know....as they do...


Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

When faced with the possibility, however remote, of having the actual killer interrogated as a suspect (and thus potentially signalling the end of the largest manhunt in London's history), I think we can expect a little more thoroughness than "What's your name and where do you come from?", which would tell them literally nothing about the likelihood of the suspect being the killer.


A sort of: Thanks for the info, sir. If you do turn out to be Jack the Ripper we'll be in touch!

I think a more reasonable assumption is that the movements of these "suspects" were verified.

They didn't hold on to them long enough or that, if you notice in many cases by the very next morning whomever had been picked up the previous night was set free. How much background research could they do overnight in less than 12 hours?
Which implies not a great deal of verification was possible.

We shouldn't laugh, with the Yorkshire Ripper investigation under Oldfield, any suspect brought in who did not have a Geordie accent, and who's handwriting didn't match the letters they received, was set free.

Could Abberline & Co. have been any different?

This man was "tall" anyway, so he could not realistically have been your Astrakhan-Britannia-Bethnal Botherer conglomeration.

"Tall" is relative Ben, as tall as what, the reporter, or as tall as the police who wrestled him, or taller than the women who fingered him?

Update: ....Astrakhan & Britannia-man were different men. Astrakhan is innocent in my opinion.

Best Wishes, Jon S.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Michael

Like you, I find the idea that Blotchy was meant to be a protector very interesting...and of course that would at least give some credence to the "Fenian witness protection" theory...which is not without it's merits.

Let me say at the outset it's not something I readily accept, but nor though can I easily reject it...these things niggle away in the background and I just try to keep an open mind...

The range of visitors to Millers Court is very interesting indeed...I find the Post Office official particularly interesting...could he be identifying an otherwise anonymous "bullseye" or "killer" franking on a cover or entire?

Whatever mate, it's quite clear that both you and I have been well and truly groomed by the evil one, so let's go celebrate Burns Night!

All the best

Dave

[Michael W Richards]

Perhaps it was swept under the rug that a witness expecting to be protected by the authorities was instead murdered in the goriest possible way.

However, the single-day inquest could have been held because of the nature of the case the undercover cop was working . . . . wouldn't you like to know that?

Just supposin too, ya know.

I would very much like to know why a member of Parliament, a Senior Post office official and members of the Royal Irish Constabulary visit the murder site at the height of the crowds at the beginning of the week....and I think its likely to be because something of a semi-official nature drew their attention.

Needless to say, none of those three groups of people would have an obvious official reason for visiting.

Cheers curious

[curious]

It might explain why it was swept under the rug by the police with a single day Inquest. Surely this murder raised as many or more serious questions than the previous ones had.

Just supposin ya know.

Cheers Curious

Perhaps it was swept under the rug that a witness expecting to be protected by the authorities was instead murdered in the goriest possible way.

However, the single-day inquest could have been held because of the nature of the case the undercover cop was working . . . . wouldn't you like to know that?

Just supposin too, ya know.

[Michael W Richards]

I just started another thread on a person of Interest in this case, Joseph Issacs. Anyone interested in exploring that angle a bit is welcome to jump in there as well.

He's actually an interesting fellow...and it might play into how someone got as close as Marys own room... while she was undressed.

Cheers

[DRoy]

Who is Insp. "Harris" in the article and is he reputable?
It must be Insp. Edmund Read and yes he reputable. Remembering that the article was written in Dec 1889, I'm sure his memory and knowledge of the crimes were as good as ever.

So if we can accept Insp. Harris' comments in the article then "Kate" was living with MJK.

So could "Kate" have been the one who Barnett called "a woman of bad character" that MJK allowed to move in which led to him moving out? Just because Maria Harvey had stayed with MJK a couple of random nights doesn't mean it was her that Barnett was talking about. Besides, why couldn't (and why wouldn't) MJK charge "Kate" for rent in order to catch up the rent she owed to McCarthy especially since Barnett wasn't working?

I think Praline is also on to something suggesting that Caroline Maxwell may have confused "Kate" and MJK. Caroline Maxwell says this to the Coroner about knowing Mary and Mary knowing her over the previous four months: "Oh, yes; by being about in the lodging house." Why would Mary be in a lodging house when she has her own place? However, we don't know where "Kate" was staying prior to living with MJK so perhaps she is who Caroline recognized in the lodging house.

I don't think the key is important as Abberline seemed content to accept Barnett's explanation that the key had been missing for some time. However, what should be considered is how many people knew how to unlock the door? Not the police, not Bowyer or McCarthy. MJK and Barnett for sure but what about "Kate"? As a roommate I would think so. Without a key, how did they lock the door? I think we have to assume the same way they unlocked it. The same three people would know how to lock it again. Since the door was locked after MJK being killed...

Is it possible that MJK was killed by her roomate? MJK would be comfortable with "Kate" her roommate which could explain some of the questions about how MJK was killed without making noise. In the alternative, if "Kate" didn't do it but was living with MJK then where was she the night of the murder? Perhaps she returned home to find MJK murdered and hence the cry of "Oh murder!" came from her.

I saw how receptive everyone was with the Lechmere/Cross threads due to so much supposition being tossed around. It is not my intent to create a new suspect; instead I am asking for assistance in either proving or disproving some of this thread's supposition.

Cheers,
DRoy

[DRoy]

Here is a possible scenario I posted in a different thread. It's based on the following article from New York's The Sun December 8, 1889...