A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[Wickerman]

Blotchy enters the room fully intending to kill Mary Kelly, but as you imply has second thoughts based on the fact that Cox has sighted him. He stays a while and Mary sings as they drink the beer they have brought into the room. He then leaves and tries to find his luck somewhere else. After looking about for a while, he draws a blank, the cold night and the fact that a lunatic is abroad does not help his situation. With the blood lust rising in him Kelly now seems like a good idea. He knows she is alone, she told him as much. He knows that the door to her room is open, he left it so. And that woman, she didn't get a really good look at him anyhow. He returns.

Hi Observer.

Ok, thanks for that. Do you see a problem there?

Blotchy is in the same predicament because Mrs Cox has not seen him leave.

In order to clear himself he has to know the witness, Cox, see's him leave, only then can he return presumably unseen by anyone, and kill Mary.

Now if he went to Cox's door and knocked, "hey, I'm leaving now you nosey cow", then he creates an alibi of sorts, but as it is he could slip in and out half a dozen times and it wouldn't make a difference. Cox saw him arrive with Kelly, and did not see him leave while she was still alive.

I don't think he's any better off for returning later.
but still, if he's drunk I guess he's not thinking clearly anyway...

Regards, Jon S.

[Observer]

There is a slight discrepency regarding the vessel Blotchy carried as he entered Kelly's room.

From the inquest

Cox stated, when asked about the man she saw with Kelly.

"A short, stout man, shabbily dressed. He had on a longish coat, very shabby, and carried a pot of ale in his hand."

The coroner questioned her further asking

" Had he anything in his hands but the can ? "

It's possible that the coroner pressed Cox for a more detailed description of the vessel,(not reported in the newspapers) arriving at his description a "can". I would tend to agree with this description, and I would guess that the vessel had a handle.

Above, in Greg's post is a barman, standing at a bar with pails on the bar. It's apparent they were filled with beer to be taken away to be drank at home. Think of a paint can though, it's a similar shaped vessel, but is refered to as a can. I think Blotchy carried a similar vessel to the one pictured above.

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

Hi Jon

I was thinking more along the lines of Blotchy intending to abort his idea of killing Mary Kelly full stop. That is, when he left the room he did not intend to come back, but intended to find another victim. He knew he had been seen entering Kelly's room, but decided to take the risk that Cox would not be able to identify him again. And as time wore on he decided that Kelly was too good a target to leave, thus he returned and killed her.

Total speculation of course, as you say, we'll never know the answer.

By the way, I also think JTR was drinking in different bars on his murdering meanders. As you know when under the influence, dutch courage takes over, and risk taking comes to the fore.

Regards

Observer

[lynn cates]

I'll take a pail of pale.

Hello Jon.

"If so, you must agree the police were 'not' looking for a pail, they already had one."

But could they not have easily checked that pail? Surely it would retain a characteristic odour? And there are pails and pails. If I recall properly, there was a typical lid for the beer carrying kind.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

sans description

Hello (again) Jon. Thanks.

I see what you mean, but without description, how does A-man get to be A-man?

Cheers.
LC

[GregBaron]

A pale ale pales in comparison...

Greg.
This is all well and good but consider this.

You do agree the police inquired for those pot-boys to see what happened to this container - yes?

You also agree a pail was found in the room which the police used to carry away the organs - yes?

If so, you must agree the police were 'not' looking for a pail, they already had one.
They were looking for a beer container that was not found in the room, so they were not looking for a pail, which was found in the room.

All these tenants likely had a pail to carry water from the pump in the yard.

Regards, Jon S.

Yes Wickerman, I agree with all this. I'm not suggesting that a water bucket was mistaken for a beer pot/pail/can/bucket/growler.

The discussion began because Bridewell suggested Blotchy may have hid his knife in his beer container. While I think this a stretch, the question remains. The size of his pot would determine the length of knife he would be able to hide.

For myself, I can't see spoiling good brew with a dirty metallic instrument...

But could they not have easily checked that pail? Surely it would retain a characteristic odour? And there are pails and pails. If I recall properly, there was a typical lid for the beer carrying kind.

How pale is the ale in your pail Lynn? It seems Blotchy took the pot with him. This suggest to me he didn't do the murder since I imagine he would have slurped all the beer down after the thirst he had worked up.




Greg

[Wickerman]

Hello (again) Jon. Thanks.

I see what you mean, but without description, how does A-man get to be A-man?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.

Where I am coming from is this, Kelly had a client at that hour, no matter what his physical appearance was like.
Did Hutchinson elaborate his looks? - possibly. But that does not remove him from the scene.
Hutchinson claimed to watch a couple (Kelly & A-man) walk up the passage, Lewis saw a man watching a couple pass up the passage - the incident is confirmed.

Do we really care what Kelly's client looked like? Apparently only those who choose to lambaste our Mr Hutchinson.

"A-man" had left the scene because Kelly was on the tiles again. The next man she came in contact with was that Britannia man (Bethnal Green man), him with the peculiar eyes who accosts prostitutes.....
Quite possibly the last face she saw.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

The discussion began because Bridewell suggested Blotchy may have hid his knife in his beer container. While I think this a stretch, the question remains. The size of his pot would determine the length of knife he would be able to hide.

For myself, I can't see spoiling good brew with a dirty metallic instrument...

Agreed, no-one is going to put a dirty knife in his beer, if he had one it was in his coat pocket.

Regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

I don't back that notion. I simply accept it as a possibility.

Why should we expect another sound? Nothing at all was heard from Nichols by Mrs Green & Mrs Purkis who lived nearby. Cadosch heard nothing after the woman's voice saying 'No' and he was both wide awake and separated from the scene only by a wooden fence. Nothing was heard from Stride after she called out to Israel Schwartz and nothing was heard from Eddowes by City P.c. Richard Pearce who lived at 3, Mitre Square. No further noise from Kelly is unremarkable surely in the circumstances?

Hi Bridewell,

Heres what I think about the above points.....it seems to be supportable within the medical testimony that both Polly and Annie were choked or strangled before a cut was made,... what Im suggesting is that Mary was cut, not strangled, (there is no evidence that suggests she was), and she would have struggled with her assailant while she could..hence, defensive wounds on her hands and arms and bed and floorboard squeaks at the very least. Mrs P, listening for further noises within the same house, hears none.

Israel Schwartz's statement to the police includes an exclamation from Liz Stride while being assaulted, unfortunately, no-one else hears or sees anything of the sort...including seeing or hearing Israel there.
He is a completely unsubstantiated witness, therefore, to be taken with great caution. Particularly since his statement virtually exonerates the club he likely is a member of and it places the murderer off premises. And a probable anti-Semite.

PC Pearce may or may not have heard something and he may or may not have had his wife and child with him at that point in time, all we know is that he said he didnt. Like PC Harvey said he went down Church Passage that night and looked into the square....coincidentally, at about the same time the murder was finishing,..and he saw nothing.

We know 2 witnesses from disparate locations in or adjacent to the court heard the same cry out at approximately the same time, there is corroboration. We also know that neither heard any further noises. Again, since there is no need to assume the women discussed this matter beforehand and since we have no need to disparage their character or good intentions, we have corroboration.

Its not about what a witness says, its about the implications of the statement, how much sense it makes and how likely it is that they are telling their story authentically. Witnesses statements from George Hutchinson and Israel Schwartz cannot have any meaningful impact on the respective investigations, it can only shed suspicion on the witnesses themselves about their motivations since coming forward with such dramatic tales.

Cheers BW

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

To Lynn,

You know that I agree with you on the descriptions of both Blotchy and Astrakan Man, and I know you've mentioned Simon has somehow verified that Astrakan could not have been Millen because he wasnt in London at the time, but I dont believe Blotchy is a work of fiction at all.

A Mr Galloway stated to the police and press that on the Wednesday of that week he saw a man that matched the Cox description, and that the man acted aggressive towards a woman and also acted evasively.

The Star, Nov 16th;

" Mr. Galloway, a clerk employed in the City, and living at Stepney, has made the following statement :- "As I was going down the Whitechapel-road in the early hours of Wednesday morning, on my way home, I saw a man coming in the opposite direction, about fifty yards away. We both crossed the road simultaneously, and came face to face. The man had a very frightened appearance, and glared at me as he passed. I was very much struck with his appearance, especially as he corresponded, in almost every particular, with the man described by Mary Ann Cox. He was short, stout, about 35 to 40 years of age. His moustache, not a particularly heavy one, was of A CARROTY COLOR, AND HIS FACE BLOTCHY through drink and dissipation. He wore a long, dirty brown overcoat, and altogether presented a most villainous appearance. I stood still and watched him. He darted back almost immediately to the other side of the road, and then, apparently to avoid a group of women a little further on, crossed the road again. I determined to follow him, and just before reaching the coffee-stall past the church he again crossed the road. On nearing George-yard he crossed over and entered a small court. He reappeared in a couple of minutes, crossed Whitechapel-road for the sixth time, and proceeded up Commercial-street. Up to this time he had walked along briskly, but directly he got into Commercial-street, he slackened speed and ACCOSTED THE FIRST WOMAN whom he met alone, but was repulsed.

On approaching Thrawl-street a policeman on point duty suddenly appeared. The man was evidently startled, and for a moment it looked as though he would turn back or cross the road. He recovered himself, however, and went on. I then informed the constable of what I had seen, and pointed out the man's extraordinary resemblance to the individual described by Cox. The constable declined to arrest the man, saying that he was looking for a man of a very different appearance."

This article confirms that on the 14th Hutchinsons suspect was still assumed to be the one they were looking for. By the weeks end it was Cox's.

My best regards Lynn

[lynn cates]

pithy remark

Hello Greg. Thanks. Good point. I had almost forgotten. One must check carefully whenever there is an amber coloured fluid present

Reminds one of the old adage, "Never eat yellow snow."

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

friendless?

Hello Jon. Thanks. That helps.

"Do we really care what Kelly's client looked like?"

Well, for identification purposes . . .

Why must he be a client and not a friend?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

parity

Hello Mike. Thanks. Yes, the police believed the story.

I see no reason to believe one story concocted (A-man) but not the other.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Lynns question to you Jon is again one that needs to be addressed....why do we need to believe that the man accompanying Mary, seen by Mary Ann, was a client?

Ive cited the facts about the possibility she brought clients into her room ever, which boil down to only a few nights past November 3rd,.. 2 of which we can account for... we know she wasnt out soliciting those nights.

What you suggest about Mary bringing clients into her room amounts to a belief that she had only begun doing so within 2-3 days of her murder. Based on what evidence? Since we have zero testimony from anyone that Mary knew that she brought any clients to her room after Barnett left on Oct31 or after Maria left on Nov 3rd.

We also know she wasnt out soliciting that last night. She was drinking in a pub.

Seems to me that you are missing a critical element of the Mary Kelly profile here.....she doesnt care about arrears. She has been evicted before for the same thing. She owed over 2 weeks back rent and on Thursday night before Mayors Day, virtually the beginning of a 3 day weekend when people would be out and about, she doesnt work...she drinks. Most probably on Blotchy's nickel.

Mary isnt your desperate middle aged homeless whore, she has been in at least 3 brothels since being in London and had fancy dresses to boot. The room is in her name and she has been allowed to stay while in arrears. This woman is playing her youth and beauty card for all its worth.

You need some evidence to take a stand like Mary soliciting that last night......and arriving home staggering drunk with someone before midnight then singing for over an hour isnt evidence of copulation.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

Why must he be a client and not a friend?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.

I'm not insisting he was a client 'specifically', thats the traditional role for this character, whoever he was.
The question remains the same, does anyone really care what Kelly's companion looked like, as far as his existence goes?

Even if Hutch had not described him in any way, but only said Mary walked up the court with a man.
That this incident was witnessed by Lewis, she saw a man watching a man & woman pass up the court, confirms his existence at that time in that place.
That is all I am saying.

Regards, Jon S.