Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does The Killer Scope Out Locations Before He Kills?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by caz View Post
    Hi Chava,

    I have also wondered if Blotchy paid the unemployed George Hutchinson handsomely for his 'last man in' account. Might explain the delay in Hutch coming forward and the various problems with his story. Blotchy could have told Hutch that he was innocent but had been seen with Kelly, and couldn't come forward to clear himself as he had a family and reputation to consider. Hutch's story might have sounded dubious, but as long as it couldn't be disproved, he could take the money and disappear, and Blotchy could disappear too, without giving Hutch any personal information.

    Blotchy was in deep water, whether he killed Kelly or was merely 'entertained' by her singing.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Blotchy would need to know Hutch though, enough to be able locate him after the news broke and to convince him to lie, potentially covering for the most wanted killer in the world. That would all need more than a passing acquaintance between the two.

    Right enough though, the boys in blue would have very much liked a word in Blotchys shell like.
    Thems the Vagaries.....

    Comment


    • according to the witnesses, mary was with four men that night:

      Barnett
      Blotchy
      Hutch
      Aman

      I suspect theres a good chance one of these men were her killer.

      Barnett was cleared by police and seems to have an alibi (i still have him as a possibility, because mates have been well known to lie to police for a friend)
      Blotchy-last valid "suspect" seen with her
      Hutch-was there around TOD, no alibi and very dodgy circs.
      Aman-probably a fignewton of Hutchs imagination

      That leaves hutch and blotchy-who I got 1 and 1a on my list of least weak suspects for the ripper.

      Bowyer gets honorable mention.
      Last edited by Abby Normal; 10-27-2020, 03:22 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
        according to the witnesses, mary was with four men that night:

        Barnett
        Blotchy
        Hutch
        Aman

        I suspect theres a good chance one of these men were her killer.

        Barnett was cleared by police and seems to have an alibi (i still have him as a possibility, because mates have been well known to lie to police for a friend)
        Blotchy-last valid "suspect" seen with her
        Hutch-was there around TOD, no alibi and very dodgy circs.
        Aman-probably a fignewton of Hutchs imagination

        That leaves hutch and blotchy-who I got 1 and 1a on my list of least weak suspects for the ripper.

        Bowyer gets honorable mention.
        According to Inquest testimony, she was seen by Mary Ann Cox entering her house with Blotchy Man at 11:45pm Thursday. Maria saw her with Barnett earlier that evening. Hutchinson is discredited before weeks end, and therefore so is his story and the characters within it. So, 2 of the men you listed was accurate.
        Michael Richards

        Comment


        • Originally posted by caz View Post
          Hi Chava,

          I have also wondered if Blotchy paid the unemployed George Hutchinson handsomely for his 'last man in' account. Might explain the delay in Hutch coming forward and the various problems with his story. Blotchy could have told Hutch that he was innocent but had been seen with Kelly, and couldn't come forward to clear himself as he had a family and reputation to consider. Hutch's story might have sounded dubious, but as long as it couldn't be disproved, he could take the money and disappear, and Blotchy could disappear too, without giving Hutch any personal information.

          Blotchy was in deep water, whether he killed Kelly or was merely 'entertained' by her singing.

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          With Hutch it cannot be ignored that the place he says he was in and what he says he was doing match precisely a man seen by another witness that night, who gave her story 4 days earlier.
          Michael Richards

          Comment


          • Originally posted by caz View Post
            Hi Chava,

            I have also wondered if Blotchy paid the unemployed George Hutchinson handsomely for his 'last man in' account. Might explain the delay in Hutch coming forward and the various problems with his story. Blotchy could have told Hutch that he was innocent but had been seen with Kelly, and couldn't come forward to clear himself as he had a family and reputation to consider. Hutch's story might have sounded dubious, but as long as it couldn't be disproved, he could take the money and disappear, and Blotchy could disappear too, without giving Hutch any personal information.

            Blotchy was in deep water, whether he killed Kelly or was merely 'entertained' by her singing.

            Love,

            Caz
            X
            I think it's possible that someone did pay Hutchinson to come forward. But I also think it's possible that he came forward himself. There's a long tradition of cheque-book journalism in the UK and journos routinely paid sources. I can't imagine Mary Ann Cox having to buy her own drinks for weeks. In fact the killings were likely something of a bonanza for those denizens of the East End who could claim to know or have seen any of the victims. Hutchinson may have spotted an opportunity to make a few bob. I don't think he was bright enough to realize he'd put himself in the frame for the Kelly murder. He doesn't seem to have been rated highly by the police after the initial interviews even though Abberline was impressed at first.

            One thing we don't have is any real idea of Hutchinson the person. All we know is Hutchinson the testimony. Whoever the killer was I'm pretty sure he knew how to put his victims at ease, to get them to trust him at a time when every Whitechapel whore would have been on her guard. Let's not forget that Nichols was the third tart to have been killed in nasty circumstances in 3 months. So even before he starts, his potential victims would have been on the lookout for possible trouble.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
              according to the witnesses, mary was with four men that night:

              Barnett
              Blotchy
              Hutch
              Aman

              I suspect theres a good chance one of these men were her killer.

              Barnett was cleared by police and seems to have an alibi (i still have him as a possibility, because mates have been well known to lie to police for a friend)
              Blotchy-last valid "suspect" seen with her
              Hutch-was there around TOD, no alibi and very dodgy circs.
              Aman-probably a fignewton of Hutchs imagination

              That leaves hutch and blotchy-who I got 1 and 1a on my list of least weak suspects for the ripper.

              Bowyer gets honorable mention.
              For a long time I thought Kelly was not a Ripper victim at all. I thought the level of ferocity there was much more personal. But the neck wounds seem to be identical to the others. And I could see a logical progression from what he'd done to Eddowes. If it's Blotchy, then he's in her room for over an hour listening to her warble. I could see where he might get angry & frustrated! Barnett's interesting. We only have his statement as to what went on with him & Mary. We can't hear the other side of it. We don't know if any of it's true. There are aspects of his account that I'd love to stress test a little. But I'm not sure he's a candidate for the other killings. He's living with Mary during this time. Where would he hide his little souvenirs?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Chava View Post

                For a long time I thought Kelly was not a Ripper victim at all. I thought the level of ferocity there was much more personal. But the neck wounds seem to be identical to the others. And I could see a logical progression from what he'd done to Eddowes. If it's Blotchy, then he's in her room for over an hour listening to her warble. I could see where he might get angry & frustrated! Barnett's interesting. We only have his statement as to what went on with him & Mary. We can't hear the other side of it. We don't know if any of it's true. There are aspects of his account that I'd love to stress test a little. But I'm not sure he's a candidate for the other killings. He's living with Mary during this time. Where would he hide his little souvenirs?
                I think the primary suspect for Marys murder is Blotchy Face. I dont believe though that the neck wounds were "identical", because the totality of the damage needs to be factored in with any cut data comparisons.

                The venue, Marys demeanor and dress, the time of night, the location off the beaten track, the fact that she is well inebriated and apparently fed when she first arrives home before midnight, ...all lead one to conclude she likely stayed in, and therefore we have either Blotchy or someone that comes there to kill her. Thats not jumping a stranger in the dark at night when the opportunity suddenly becomes a risk worth taking...thats going to a specific place with the intention of killing someone specific.
                Michael Richards

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                  I think the primary suspect for Marys murder is Blotchy Face. I dont believe though that the neck wounds were "identical", because the totality of the damage needs to be factored in with any cut data comparisons.

                  The venue, Marys demeanor and dress, the time of night, the location off the beaten track, the fact that she is well inebriated and apparently fed when she first arrives home before midnight, ...all lead one to conclude she likely stayed in, and therefore we have either Blotchy or someone that comes there to kill her. Thats not jumping a stranger in the dark at night when the opportunity suddenly becomes a risk worth taking...thats going to a specific place with the intention of killing someone specific.
                  I don't think we have enough evidence to suggest that. The Whitechapel Murderer may simply have taken advantage of a victim that wasn't outside for once so he could have his version of a jolly good time. Or Kelly may have been the victim of a copycat murder by someone who wanted her dead and chose to try and pin her murder on someone else. But my problem with that is that no one seems to know Blotchy. He hasn't been seen with Kelly before. And if he just wanted to kill her and make it look like the Ripper he could cut her throat, maybe slice her abdomen up a bit. But I can't see anyone who's not fantasized exactly these kinds of acts doing what Kelly's killer did to her. That takes a certain kind of intent.

                  Comment


                  • Or Kelly may have been the victim of a copycat murder by someone who wanted her dead and chose to try and pin her murder on someone else.

                    Hello Chava,

                    That only works if the police knew who the Ripper was. Since they didn't anyone could be the killer.

                    c.d.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                      Or Kelly may have been the victim of a copycat murder by someone who wanted her dead and chose to try and pin her murder on someone else.

                      Hello Chava,

                      That only works if the police knew who the Ripper was. Since they didn't anyone could be the killer.

                      c.d.
                      The whole MJK as a "copycat" killing is a bit tenuous at best. Compare it to some of the later murders that had superficial abdominal wounds, which might suggest an attempt at creating the Ripper impression by one who can't actually bring themselves to disembowel the victim. If MJK was a copycat killing, Jack himself would saying "that's a bit much".
                      Last edited by Al Bundy's Eyes; 10-30-2020, 06:58 PM. Reason: Missing 'to'
                      Thems the Vagaries.....

                      Comment


                      • If MJK was a copycat killing, Jack himself would saying "that's a bit much".

                        Very well put, Al.

                        c.d.

                        Comment


                        • Another point is that assuming a copycat had both the cojones and the stomach for the job he went way beyond what was necessary to accomplish his task. Excessive mutilations were a needless risk and only increased his chances of being caught in the act.

                          c.d.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                            The whole MJK as a "copycat" killing is a bit tenuous at best. Compare it to some of the later murders that had superficial abdominal wounds, which might suggest an attempt at creating the Ripper impression by one who can't actually bring themselves to disembowel the victim.
                            Which of these is the most plausible:
                            1. The killer planted the ginger beer bottles, to make it look like a JtR job, by association with Dear Boss
                            2. MJK drank both beer and ginger beer, and was keeping the bottles to eventually return them for money
                            3. Same as #2, but the ginger beer was actually alcoholic
                            4. MJK sold ginger beer, and became known as 'Ginger'
                            5. Same as #4, and some people were confused as to who was Mary

                            If MJK was a copycat killing, Jack himself would saying "that's a bit much".
                            Or he might try to match it.

                            The last job
                            was a bad one and no mistake nearly
                            buckled, and meant it to
                            be best of the lot & what curse it
                            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                              Which of these is the most plausible:
                              1. The killer planted the ginger beer bottles, to make it look like a JtR job, by association with Dear Boss
                              2. MJK drank both beer and ginger beer, and was keeping the bottles to eventually return them for money
                              3. Same as #2, but the ginger beer was actually alcoholic
                              4. MJK sold ginger beer, and became known as 'Ginger'
                              5. Same as #4, and some people were confused as to who was Mary



                              Or he might try to match it.

                              The last job
                              was a bad one and no mistake nearly
                              buckled, and meant it to
                              be best of the lot & what curse it
                              Which is more plausible:

                              A non Jack killer, in an attempt to make the murder in Miller's Court look like a continuation of what was very much at the time believed to be the serial killing of women going as far back as Emma Smith and up to Eddowes, eviscerates a woman and pulls her apart, but, concerned that it might not be perceived as yet another killing by the Whitechapel Fiend, places a common, everyday, found in their hundreds ginger beer bottle at the scene in the hope that that will make the investigating authorities say "Ah. He strikes again!"?

                              Or..

                              You've yet again got carried away with what starts out as a reasonable question and rapidly snowballs into some overly convoluted theory that proves that the vital piece of 'missing evidence' that'll crack the case was staring us in the face?

                              Still, you do have a somewhat over excitable approach to your new ideas, and that's not without its charm.

                              On the subject of scoping out locations, that "Meet the Richardsons" thread by Simon Wood was very interesting. Maybe Jack didn't scope out Hanbury St, Annie already had. And I will concede, Mrs Richardson's remarks about the bowl of water / apron are interesting.

                              By all means, explore the ginger beer connections. But I kind of think the body was a bigger suggestion that Jack was at work again.
                              Thems the Vagaries.....

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                                Which is more plausible:

                                A non Jack killer, in an attempt to make the murder in Miller's Court look like a continuation of what was very much at the time believed to be the serial killing of women going as far back as Emma Smith and up to Eddowes, eviscerates a woman and pulls her apart, but, concerned that it might not be perceived as yet another killing by the Whitechapel Fiend, places a common, everyday, found in their hundreds ginger beer bottle at the scene in the hope that that will make the investigating authorities say "Ah. He strikes again!"?

                                Or..

                                You've yet again got carried away with what starts out as a reasonable question and rapidly snowballs into some overly convoluted theory that proves that the vital piece of 'missing evidence' that'll crack the case was staring us in the face?

                                Still, you do have a somewhat over excitable approach to your new ideas, and that's not without its charm.

                                On the subject of scoping out locations, that "Meet the Richardsons" thread by Simon Wood was very interesting. Maybe Jack didn't scope out Hanbury St, Annie already had. And I will concede, Mrs Richardson's remarks about the bowl of water / apron are interesting.

                                By all means, explore the ginger beer connections. But I kind of think the body was a bigger suggestion that Jack was at work again.
                                Okay, so 2, 3, 4 or 5.

                                By the way, plausibility is a trap.
                                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X