Could the Ripper have led his victims to murder sites?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Wickerman

Following onto a good post...

Hutchinson eliminates Sara Lewis, suspect [the salt and pepper trousers], or else the question is, why was he really waiting across from Millers Court?

Sara Lewis passed by the man that she had seen two days prior. Then, she walks up Dorset Street, and passes by Hutchinson. According to Hutchinson, Mary Kelly and the Astrakhan man are already in her room

If Sarah Lewis, suspect ever was one, besides the fact that Hutchinson lied would be, why was he ,lampin, in front of Millers Court before they arrived? Was he a look-out?

Finally. Hutchinson,s suspect seems to be an elaboration of the suspect seen with Elizabeth Stride (the parcel, the kissing, a deerstalker hat, a man dressed out of place for his surroundings).

hi Devil
The bethnal Green man, the man who frightened Sarah Lewis,and whom she had seen out again the night of Marys murder, has always intrigued me. he sounds like some of the other witness suspects as you say. Especially his behavior and how he talks. He said something along the lines to lewis after asking them to accompany him to a secluded place-Its something the ladies don't like-while opening his jacket. This is what frightened lewis and she seems to imply he was going to show them a package or knife. hes teasing, taunting almost. This reminds of the man marshal saw and heard with Stride the nigh of her murder-"you would say anything but your prayers". the ominous tease again.

One of my favored scenarios is that Hutch never saw Mary that night and was just an attention seeker and the whole astracan man story was made up. In this case after sarah lewis is with the keelers, mary would have ventured out again after Blotchy and ran into bethnal green man at some point after lewis had seen him and brings him back to her room and hes her killer and the ripper.

[Robert St Devil]

Hi Wickerman

Following onto a good post...

Hutchinson eliminates Sara Lewis, suspect [the salt and pepper trousers], or else the question is, why was he really waiting across from Millers Court?

Sara Lewis passed by the man that she had seen two days prior. Then, she walks up Dorset Street, and passes by Hutchinson. According to Hutchinson, Mary Kelly and the Astrakhan man are already in her room

If Sarah Lewis, suspect ever was one, besides the fact that Hutchinson lied would be, why was he ,lampin, in front of Millers Court before they arrived? Was he a look-out?

Finally. Hutchinson,s suspect seems to be an elaboration of the suspect seen with Elizabeth Stride (the parcel, the kissing, a deerstalker hat, a man dressed out of place for his surroundings).

[Wickerman]

Hi Abby,

Okay, he couldn't have known she was going to come forward, but has her evidence was clearly a highly pertinent to the inquiry, wouldn't it have been a reasonable assumption to make? Moreover, he may just have been inspired by Lewis' account to fabricate an account based on that evidence, regardless of whether he believed Lewis would come forward.

Hi John.

Sarah Lewis was not interviewed by the press over the weekend, so no-one who didn't know her had any idea that she would be called to the inquest.
Hutchinson (if he is the loiterer), may only have seen a woman quickly pass by, why would he have any cause to assume this woman saw anything worthy of note?
And, who was she anyway?

Remember, one main reason Lewis appeared at the inquest was to relate her Wednesday evening confrontation with the Britannia-man, then seeing him again on Friday morning.
Hutchinson had no idea about this, so equally had no cause to think this unknown (to him) woman would be called at the inquest.

If Hutchinson was not there on Friday morning, but fabricated a story to pretend he was there, it would have made far more sense to place himself there between 10:00 & midnight on Thursday.
The newspapers on Saturday carried stories of Kelly being seen with a man between those hours. Then of course there is the story by Mrs Kennedy timed about 3:00 Friday morning, so if Hutchinson made his story up there were various press stories he could have piggy-backed on as a sound basis to make his own story look good.

Sarah Lewis is the worst choice for modern theorists to pick. She never spoke to the press and the chances of Hutchinson even knowing who she was after the inquest, and obtaining enough of her story to create his own version within an hour or so after the inquest Monday afternoon, is to put it bluntly, the stuff of fiction.

[John G]

Sure. But he probably didn't know if she was even a police witness and or was going to be a witness at the inquest until the inquest. And come to think of it, how would he even know if she was going to come forward as a witness, or be found by the police?

Hi Abby,

Okay, he couldn't have known she was going to come forward, but has her evidence was clearly a highly pertinent to the inquiry, wouldn't it have been a reasonable assumption to make? Moreover, he may just have been inspired by Lewis' account to fabricate an account based on that evidence, regardless of whether he believed Lewis would come forward.

[Abby Normal]

I wondered that too, Jon.

But then, a woman already undressed and lying on a bed indoors will be that much easier to mutilate - and thoroughly - than a fully clothed one on the street.

If Blotchy did it, they could have met for the first time down the pub, brought beer back to her place and prepared to make a night of it. Assuming he was heterosexual he might just as well have taken advantage of all that was on offer on this occasion. Only she needed to know that Barnett was no longer living there, and only she needed to know the chances of anyone disturbing them and how to deal with it.

I really don't see why any of the victims necessarily knew their killer or had seen him around, although of course it's possible. Did Peter Sutcliffe know any of the thirteen women he murdered?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
I totally see what your saying but dosnt her actions and behavior with Blotchy make it seem that she knew him more than just meeting him earlier that night?
comfortable enough to bring him to her home, they have beer a song a warm fire-spend a lot of time together?

it dosnt seem like a normal prostitute client behavior or even a one night stand just met kind of behavior. at least to me anyway.

[caz]

We can never know the "why" something occurred, only the "what".
She was the youngest of the victims, maybe he actually did play the client - fully, then murdered her?

I wondered that too, Jon.

But then, a woman already undressed and lying on a bed indoors will be that much easier to mutilate - and thoroughly - than a fully clothed one on the street.

If Blotchy did it, they could have met for the first time down the pub, brought beer back to her place and prepared to make a night of it. Assuming he was heterosexual he might just as well have taken advantage of all that was on offer on this occasion. Only she needed to know that Barnett was no longer living there, and only she needed to know the chances of anyone disturbing them and how to deal with it.

I really don't see why any of the victims necessarily knew their killer or had seen him around, although of course it's possible. Did Peter Sutcliffe know any of the thirteen women he murdered?

Love,

Caz
X

[harry]

She might know someone who had been there,left,and later returned.He might know her condition,her intentions,and means of entry.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for the information , this is something I was unaware of. Do you think, therefore, that Kelly was probably soliciting and entertaining a client?

I do, yes.

However, if she was murdered by JtR, why would he have waited until she undressed before launching his assault? Why not take her by surprise and overpower her as soon as they enter the room?

We can never know the "why" something occurred, only the "what".
She was the youngest of the victims, maybe he actually did play the client - fully, then murdered her?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Thanks. You make some excellent points which I must admit I hadn't previously considered. As you point out, Hutchinson's account was exceptionally detailed -one reason, of course, why it raises a suspicion- and I agree that it's hard to believe that he could have made that up on the spur of the moment (I'd forgotten thst he attended the police station shortly after the inquest.)

If, however, he had prior knowledge of what Lewis was likely to say, wouldn't this have given him plenty of time to fabricate his account, i.e. assuming he was an attention seeker or hoping to sell his story to the press?

Sure. But he probably didn't know if she was even a police witness and or was going to be a witness at the inquest until the inquest. And come to think of it, how would he even know if she was going to come forward as a witness, or be found by the police?

[John G]

Correct, and women at this social level (men too), wore their clothes to bed.
Some of the witnesses in Millers Court quite openly state this.

Young attractive women in this class only undress to entertain, not to sleep, and Kelly was undressed.

Hi Jon,

Thanks for the information , this is something I was unaware of. Do you think, therefore, that Kelly was probably soliciting and entertaining a client?
However, if she was murdered by JtR, why would he have waited until she undressed before launching his assault? Why not take her by surprise and overpower her as soon as they enter the room?

[John G]

well he walked into the police station with his story very shortly after the inquest, so I find it hard to think he came up with such a detailed account so quickly. seems to me he had been thinking about it for a while-like over that weekend.

It has been argued in the past that he was aware that lewis was attending the inquest and maybe even found about what she said, including her waiting man (him) sequence, hence prompting him to come forward. I don't think this is unreasonable.


In my mind though, it dosnt really matter, it might have been enough that he merely knew she saw him and possibly did she know him (in his mind) that would be enough for him to come forward. and either way he was going to wait until the inquest was over anyway, because he didn't want to be called to it. He wanted to control the situation as much as possible-not be under oath, not have other witnesses around etc.

Hi Abby,

Thanks. You make some excellent points which I must admit I hadn't previously considered. As you point out, Hutchinson's account was exceptionally detailed -one reason, of course, why it raises a suspicion- and I agree that it's hard to believe that he could have made that up on the spur of the moment (I'd forgotten thst he attended the police station shortly after the inquest.)

If, however, he had prior knowledge of what Lewis was likely to say, wouldn't this have given him plenty of time to fabricate his account, i.e. assuming he was an attention seeker or hoping to sell his story to the press?

[Wickerman]

It seems very profound and significant to say that Mary probably knew her killer and I tend to agree that that was the case. But the next question becomes a little tricky --- knew him how? It could run the gamut from lover to someone she met earlier that day.

c.d.

I lean towards all the victims knowing him, but as nothing more than a previous client.

[Wickerman]

It's certainly a possibility that Kelly was alone and asleep when attacked. However, this has not been established as an historical fact.

Correct, and women at this social level (men too), wore their clothes to bed.
Some of the witnesses in Millers Court quite openly state this.

Young attractive women in this class only undress to entertain, not to sleep, and Kelly was undressed.

[Abby Normal]

I must admit that I'm not very knowledgeable about the Hutchinson theeads, which I know you've contributed too a lot: hasn't it been argued that Hutchinson may have been aware of Lewis's inquest testimony and therefore based his account on it?

well he walked into the police station with his story very shortly after the inquest, so I find it hard to think he came up with such a detailed account so quickly. seems to me he had been thinking about it for a while-like over that weekend.

It has been argued in the past that he was aware that lewis was attending the inquest and maybe even found about what she said, including her waiting man (him) sequence, hence prompting him to come forward. I don't think this is unreasonable.


In my mind though, it dosnt really matter, it might have been enough that he merely knew she saw him and possibly did she know him (in his mind) that would be enough for him to come forward. and either way he was going to wait until the inquest was over anyway, because he didn't want to be called to it. He wanted to control the situation as much as possible-not be under oath, not have other witnesses around etc.

[John G]

Well that's an argument many have made against blotchy-why did he wait so long? He might not have. The last time anyone heard any sign of life from Kelly was approx. 1:00 am. Blotchy may have killed her then. Which is apprx only about an hour or so after he entered her room. Or he might have waited till around 4:00 when the screams were heard. And waited that long because he possibly was waiting for things to die down in and around the court.

I also agree with you re David. His argument has made me also consider she may have been murdered in the daylight hours. I never even considered it a possibility before.

Re hutch. Yes I actually find his coming forward to police as a tick mark against his suspecthood, but not enought discount him by a long shot. Too many red flags against him, the main one in my book being the stalking behavior.
And for all he knew he might have been IDed. By sarah lewis.

I must admit that I'm not very knowledgeable about the Hutchinson theeads, which I know you've contributed too a lot: hasn't it been argued that Hutchinson may have been aware of Lewis's inquest testimony and therefore based his account on it?