Could the Ripper have led his victims to murder sites?

[John G]

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.

Hi Jon (again!),

Something's just occurred to me. If Hutchinson wasn't aware of Lewis's account, wouldn't this tend to virtually rule him out as a murder suspect as he would have no motive for coming forward?

[Wickerman]

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.

Regardless how the Astrachan story came about, I do think Mrs Kennedy did see Kelly outside the Britannia, as was reported in the press, about 3:00 am. And yes, that Bethnal Green/Britannia-man was, in my opinion, the likely killer.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon (again!),

Something's just occurred to me. If Hutchinson wasn't aware of Lewis's account, wouldn't this tend to virtually rule him out as a murder suspect as he would have no motive for coming forward?

Hi John.

Wouldn't that depend on whether his story was true, that he actually was there Friday morning?

[Robert St Devil]

Hi Wick & Abby.

I realized something after considering the scenario of the Bethnal Green accoster being Jack the Ripper. If so, the conclusion might be that he led the women to the sites since he led Sarah Lewis and her companion to the place beyond the gates.

Also. There,s sonething off about Jack the Ripper murdering Sarah or her friend on a Wednesday night. It wasn,t the space-time to perform the ,Mary Kelly, murder that he will in a couple of days.
And. He,s thought to be berserk, which should have meant him murdering some other woman after he fails with Sarah.

Abby. I like how you correlate phrases. I can see one in the man who tells the milkman about a dreadful murder [Stride] and the man who says he knows more about the murder [Mary Kelly]. Your phrases suggest a man of wit, a man who could banter albeit mysoginistically. Between ,,good night , old ****,, and ,,anything but your prayers,, i just wonder about the conversation that may have took place between Catherine Eddowes and Jack the Ripper.

[John G]

Hi John.

Wouldn't that depend on whether his story was true, that he actually was there Friday morning?

Yes, of course, if Astrachan existed that would be a reason for coming forward.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wick & Abby.

I realized something after considering the scenario of the Bethnal Green accoster being Jack the Ripper. If so, the conclusion might be that he led the women to the sites since he led Sarah Lewis and her companion to the place beyond the gates.

Yes, that appears to be the case with this character.

Also. There,s sonething off about Jack the Ripper murdering Sarah or her friend on a Wednesday night. It wasn,t the space-time to perform the ,Mary Kelly, murder that he will in a couple of days.
And. He,s thought to be berserk, which should have meant him murdering some other woman after he fails with Sarah.

What we might have here are examples of his unsuccessful attempts to accost women, the nights of the murders are his successful attempts.
Some have assumed JtR only hunted women on the nights of the murders, this is perhaps short-sighted, as we cannot know how many nights he was on the prowl - this is why the actual dates of the murders likely mean nothing.

Interestingly, to me at least, Sarah Lewis was giving evidence in public, in a court of law, so perhaps toned her involvement down, and tried to present herself as a victim. She said he only wanted one of us, and tried to entice one of us (me), into an entry. That he offered to "treat us", or one of us.
Whereas Mrs Kennedy claimed he refused to stand the women a drink. Why would the subject even be raised unless these women had asked him to buy them drinks in the first place?

" The stranger refused to stand Mrs. Kennedy and her sister a drink, but invited them to go with him down a dark sideway off the main road. They accompanied him as far as a gateway with a small door in it, but when he stepped through and left his bag on the ground, saying he would take either of them with him, a feeling of distrust seized the women."
Evening News, Nov. 10.

I have to wonder if they were part-time prostitutes and actually it was they who initially approached him, as he/they passed each other.

Also, on the same Wednesday evening Bowyer saw a well-dressed man talking to Kelly. The report does not say if this was in the street or in the court, likely the latter
Then on Thursday night a man was seen in the court again.

I wonder if this Britannia-man/Bethnal Green-man was searching for someone - maybe he followed Sarah Lewis & Mrs Kennedy into Millers Court on Wednesday evening, and was seen by Bowyer?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Wick & Abby.

I realized something after considering the scenario of the Bethnal Green accoster being Jack the Ripper. If so, the conclusion might be that he led the women to the sites since he led Sarah Lewis and her companion to the place beyond the gates.

Also. There,s sonething off about Jack the Ripper murdering Sarah or her friend on a Wednesday night. It wasn,t the space-time to perform the ,Mary Kelly, murder that he will in a couple of days.
And. He,s thought to be berserk, which should have meant him murdering some other woman after he fails with Sarah.

Abby. I like how you correlate phrases. I can see one in the man who tells the milkman about a dreadful murder [Stride] and the man who says he knows more about the murder [Mary Kelly]. Your phrases suggest a man of wit, a man who could banter albeit mysoginistically. Between ,,good night , old ****,, and ,,anything but your prayers,, i just wonder about the conversation that may have took place between Catherine Eddowes and Jack the Ripper.

Hi Devil
bingo. well no one heard anything between Eddowes and the ripper so cant really extrapolate how that went down conversationally. However, she had her hand resting gently on his chest as they talked so heres a man who can quickly gain confidence of his victims-and yes wit would have something to with it.

with Stride though, and marshal hearing him say "anything but your prayers" I would imagine it went down something like this:

stride: (half jokingly) your not the killer are you?
man: (half jokingly in return)You never know.
Stride: well then Id better say my prayers.
man: you would say anything but your prayers.

[Robert St Devil]

Interestingly, to me at least, Sarah Lewis was giving evidence in public, in a court of law, so perhaps toned her involvement down, and tried to present herself as a victim. She said he only wanted one of us, and tried to entice one of us (me), into an entry. That he offered to "treat us", or one of us.
Whereas Mrs Kennedy claimed he refused to stand the women a drink. Why would the subject even be raised unless these women had asked him to buy them drinks in the first place?

I have to wonder if they were part-time prostitutes and actually it was they who initially approached him, as he/they passed each other.

The definition of "casual prostitution" in Whitechapel 1888 may have removed the stigma that we affiliate in modern times. The practice may have been looked upon as a monetary resort for the household. Or (maybe) drunken infidelity was the taboo of its time. That being said...

Sarah Lewis claims that she was visiting the Keylers for the night because she had an out with her husband, making her a taken woman. On its own, a married woman following a stranger down a dark passage makes for a suspicious act and character. The question is never asked,

"Why were you willing to follow a strange man into that passage in the first place?"

, and the answer can only be assumed. Altho it does seem like a safe assumption to make, considering they probably weren't stupid to his intentions.

I have witnessed the media phenomenon before - where a witness comes forward to make claims on an event, and tells half-truths but only to protect their character... even tho they weren't directly involved. Like, a man who reports the events of a hotel robbery, but doesn't want the part about him being there with a mistress to 'get out', so the victim role get 'played up'. In this case, the focus was more on the description of the accoster and his assumed intentions rather than 'why' they had made a group of themselves.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Accosting women may have been fodder for the grapevine, and a possible reason why Mary Kelly (may have) told Lottie Owen,
"I hear Jack has been busy in this quarter lately."

[caz]

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.

Agree totally, Jon.

It's all too easy for people with hindsight to link Hutch's appearance at the police station directly with what Sarah Lewis had just said at the inquest. They have to explain why he never mentioned Lewis in that case, which would have added valuable support to his account. She could even have been asked to identify him as her (innocent) watcher. Why not, considering that was precisely what he was claiming to be? They argue that drawing attention to Lewis would only have led to the suspicion that it was her testimony that had compelled him forward. It's a circular argument.

It's much more likely that, just like the police, the press and the public, Hutch made no connection with Lewis, because in his case he may have seen 'a' woman, fleetingly, while his attention was on Kelly and her unusually flashy client, and not given her another thought, much less discovered her identity and made it his business to find out what she might reveal about him. There is also nothing to suggest Lewis ever piped up after Hutch's story was published to say "that was the man I saw". Why not?

The coincidental timings of Lewis's testimony and Hutch's appearance were probably just that, coincidental. They were both responding to a recent event, in the capacity of a witness. One did it more promptly and discreetly than the other, that's all. If the authorities at the time had no reason to think that Hutch would/could have accessed and come armed with Lewis's inquest testimony when he told his own story, why should we do so today?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

Hi Abby,

Well we know, don't we, that Mary Kelly and Joe Barnett met on one day and shacked up with each other the next, as was quite common with unmarried lower class couples in the LVP. If she could do that once, I daresay she could have done it again, especially now she was badly in arrears with the rent and Barnett had moved out, leaving her to sleep alone, and therefore more vulnerable. If Blotchy was generous with the drinks and good company, and they hit it off well, she may have seen him as the next Joe, in which case why waste time?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I've just had another thought. Let's suppose Hutch was never there, but made up his story directly on the back of Lewis's, which he heard about by whatever means. He'd have been expecting the police to make the connection for him and therefore accept that he was there. That would surely have been the point. But what if they had called Lewis in for confirmation and she had said Hutch was nothing like the man she saw? Hutch and his story would have been - er - discredited, with no witnesses to put him anywhere near Miller's Court that night. But I suppose he might still have taken the risk, as an out-of-work opportunist, hoping to make a bit of easy money. So could something like this have happened with nobody informing the press of the details?

What I have the most difficulty with is the idea of the ripper knowing he had been seen loitering, and coming forward to admit it, fully anticipating that the police would realise he was the man Lewis saw, without him having to mention it. He'd have come forward totally unnecessarily if it didn't even occur to the police that he could be Lewis's loiterer, which it apparently never did. So why would he then have drawn even more attention to himself and his presence close to the murder scene by going to the papers with an embellished account? Why would he not have kept as low a profile as possible until his undoubted return to total obscurity, after the search for his suspect proved fruitless? The argument is usually that some serial killers enjoy putting themselves in the spotlight like this, while at the same time desperate to deflect suspicion. But does this fit with someone who never again courted police or press attention, despite having so little to fear from doing so?

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Well we know, don't we, that Mary Kelly and Joe Barnett met on one day and shacked up with each other the next, as was quite common with unmarried lower class couples in the LVP. If she could do that once, I daresay she could have done it again, especially now she was badly in arrears with the rent and Barnett had moved out, leaving her to sleep alone, and therefore more vulnerable. If Blotchy was generous with the drinks and good company, and they hit it off well, she may have seen him as the next Joe, in which case why waste time?

Love,

Caz
X

absolutely possible. and as you frame it like that then I would actually tend to agree. Ive said many times it does not seem like she was actively prostituting-but perhaps looking for her next boyfriend/sugar daddy.

they might of just met that night sure, but as Mary was young, attractive, had her own place, and apparently knew a lot of men, I would imagine someone like Mary would have a boat load of suiters lined up. meaning obviously that she probably knew Blotchy, even casually as a pub acquaintance, from before that night.

but perhaps not-but even if they just met that night, I strongly doubt she was out actively prostituting.

[Abby Normal]

Agree totally, Jon.

It's all too easy for people with hindsight to link Hutch's appearance at the police station directly with what Sarah Lewis had just said at the inquest. They have to explain why he never mentioned Lewis in that case, which would have added valuable support to his account. She could even have been asked to identify him as her (innocent) watcher. Why not, considering that was precisely what he was claiming to be? They argue that drawing attention to Lewis would only have led to the suspicion that it was her testimony that had compelled him forward. It's a circular argument.

It's much more likely that, just like the police, the press and the public, Hutch made no connection with Lewis, because in his case he may have seen 'a' woman, fleetingly, while his attention was on Kelly and her unusually flashy client, and not given her another thought, much less discovered her identity and made it his business to find out what she might reveal about him. There is also nothing to suggest Lewis ever piped up after Hutch's story was published to say "that was the man I saw". Why not?

The coincidental timings of Lewis's testimony and Hutch's appearance were probably just that, coincidental. They were both responding to a recent event, in the capacity of a witness. One did it more promptly and discreetly than the other, that's all. If the authorities at the time had no reason to think that Hutch would/could have accessed and come armed with Lewis's inquest testimony when he told his own story, why should we do so today?

Love,

Caz
X

he seemed to remember the events of that evening like reading a script. were going to accept his incredible memory but not his seeing Sarah Lewis?
they obviously saw each other.

Why didn't he mention her?

[Abby Normal]

I've just had another thought. Let's suppose Hutch was never there, but made up his story directly on the back of Lewis's, which he heard about by whatever means. He'd have been expecting the police to make the connection for him and therefore accept that he was there. That would surely have been the point. But what if they had called Lewis in for confirmation and she had said Hutch was nothing like the man she saw? Hutch and his story would have been - er - discredited, with no witnesses to put him anywhere near Miller's Court that night. But I suppose he might still have taken the risk, as an out-of-work opportunist, hoping to make a bit of easy money. So could something like this have happened with nobody informing the press of the details?

What I have the most difficulty with is the idea of the ripper knowing he had been seen loitering, and coming forward to admit it, fully anticipating that the police would realise he was the man Lewis saw, without him having to mention it. He'd have come forward totally unnecessarily if it didn't even occur to the police that he could be Lewis's loiterer, which it apparently never did. So why would he then have drawn even more attention to himself and his presence close to the murder scene by going to the papers with an embellished account? Why would he not have kept as low a profile as possible until his undoubted return to total obscurity, after the search for his suspect proved fruitless? The argument is usually that some serial killers enjoy putting themselves in the spotlight like this, while at the same time desperate to deflect suspicion. But does this fit with someone who never again courted police or press attention, despite having so little to fear from doing so?

Love,

Caz
X

well if hutch was never there and wasn't the man she saw then he would merely be a lying attention seeker.

But he was there, they saw each other. and I agree with you-him coming forward voluntarily is a tick mark against him as a suspect IMHO, but not enough with all the other red flags to eliminate him-not by a long shot.