Jack the........ Police Officer??

[Ben]

Spot on as usual, Abby.

It's one of the long-standing myths about serial killers that they only target strangers. Even prostitute-killers will know some of their victims, albeit vaguely in many cases, and this is hardly surprising considering that all known prostitute killers have been prostitute users. There is nothing remotely unlikely about Jack laying low for a month owing to fears he might have of committing further murders on the streets (or perhaps no prostitute would approach him, or vice versa, owing to the mounting terror that pervaded the district), and then taking advantage of an indoor dwelling whose occupant he might know to some extent.

There is certainly no evidence that anyone else saw Hutchinson and related as much to the police. Had it been otherwise, Hutchinson would have been treated very much as a suspect once the police came to disregard the content of his statement as untrustworthy, as they evidently did. Relying on, or hoping for, the mythical "lost report" that "must have" existed once upon a time is a futile exercise. Any "witness evidence" presenting itself as such that did not appear at the inquest invariably found its way into the press (note the Morris Lewis example), and yet we see no evidence anywhere of anyone attesting to the presence of Hutchinson hanging around that night. A sure indication that no such evidence existed. That isn't to say we don't have evidence of Hutchinson's presence there that night. The statement of Sarah Lewis establishes his presence there more or less for certain, in my opinion, although it is equally certain that the police at the time failed to make the connection. Moreover, Hutchinson (assuming he was wideawake man) was evidently seen by others who never made themselves known to police or press, such as the young couple who Lewis saw pass along Dorset Street.

To argue that Cox is no more reliable than Hutchinson is nonsense. Cox was an inquest-attending witness who was taken seriously by the police, whereas Hutchinson apparently timed his appearance to coincide with the termination of the inquest, and after a short-lived clean bill of health, his evidence was discredited owing to doubts about his credibility.

Hi Caz,

both to my mind are infinitely more likely than Hutch hanging around all that time and eventually going in and killing Kelly, then coming forward and literally getting away with murder by telling a story that should never have added up in those circumstances.

Well, you pays your money and takes your choice and all that, but the behaviour you've outlined which you consider unlikely actually has a good deal of historical and criminological precedent. For instance, "hanging around" is precisely what the vast majority of known serial offenders have done when targetting their victim's homes and other indoor locations, because it affords them a measure of surveillance - monitoring the movements of the victim herself as well as her neighbours, thus enabling him to strike at the safest moment. A modern-day investigation would take the Sarah Lewis sighting extremely seriously for that reason.

Serial killers coming forward voluntarily with bogus stories and pretending to be innocent witnesses is also very well-documented, and even anticipated (correctly) on occasion by law enforcement.

But this has all been pointed out before, and we don't really want to get bogged-down in a repetitive suspect debate on a thread that's supposed to be exploring the premise that Jack was a police officer. However, a problem I have with the suggestion that an "innocent Hutch" changed Blotchy into Astrakhan - which is far from unreasonable, to be fair, in comparison to some other "innocent Hutch" explanations touted - is his inexplicable buggering off at 3.00am and then failing to return and check.

He was, by his own admission, "walking about all night" (which dispenses of the trifling matter of an alibi for the accepted time of death, despite such an alibi being fairly easy to procure in any other circumstance), so what was preventing him popping back occasionally for updates on Kelly's nocturnal status? If Hutchinson was the killer, it may be argued that he did precisely that (and that he found her alone shortly before 4.00, Blotchy having departed), but if innocent, popping back continually would have meant that at some point he would have found her murdered and mutilated.

Hutchinson had no reason to wait around for Kelly's company unless he thought there was a better than average chance of Kelly getting rid of her presumed client fairly quickly, and yet there was obviously nothing doing in room #13 according to Lewis (2:30) and Cox (3.00). On that basis, I'd submit that had Hutchinson turned up at 2.00ish hoping to spend time with Kelly, only to find a darkened room with two sleeping forms on the bed, he'd be quite the over-optimistic fool to plonk himself on Dorset Street and expect either to emerge before daylight.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

The point I'm making Abby is, on what basis?

Cox's story was never verified, and in fact was in conflict with Prater.
So why is her story any more reliable than Hutchinson's - who, by the way does find corroboration in Sarah Lewis.
But where is Cox's corroboration?

To claim Cox IS reliable, is not true - we simply do not know.
And, so long as another witness does claim to see Kelly on the streets at "about 3:00 am" - which is another unverifiable claim, where is the difference?

The difference is that cox story is corroborated by the fact that cox said Mary was singing when she was with blotchy and that is verified by other witness. Sarah Lewis corroborates hutches story only on his waiting and watching and not A man.

Cox gives her evidence of blotchy the day of the murder wheres hutch gives his several days later and in then such incredible detail. Not only the specific description of what he looked like but of what is said and specific actions between MK and Aman.

Cox-typical eyewitness description day of murder and given at inquest.
Hutch-movie script like interactions and computer database like memory description all somehow remembered in such detail several days later and after the inquest.

[caz]

Hi Errata,

If Mary Kelly had only very recently begun inviting men back to her room, following Joe Barnett's departure, then there wouldn't have been the constant stream of different strangers to her door as you suggested, for her near neighbours to take for granted and take no notice of. The reverse was more likely to be true, because Kelly's new situation would have been ripe for female gossip. If Cox is to be believed, she certainly took notice of the fact that a pickled Kelly was inviting Blotchy plus beer inside. She may have turned a blind eye had Kelly not been found murdered the following morning, but she had taken in enough to describe the man in reasonable detail. And there was no suggestion that she had seen this man sniffing round Kelly before.

Anyway, the point is not really whether these people made eager or reluctant witnesses concerning their neighbours' comings and goings and nocturnal visitors; the question is whether a frequent or even occasional male visitor to Miller's Court would have taken that risk to murder and mutilate one of the occupants on her own bed, when he would have been far safer killing Kelly on a back street if he was intent on targeting her, as a familiar face.

Hi Fishy,

I'm not married to my scenario for Hutch. Your hunch that he was describing events on the previous night is another possibility, and both to my mind are infinitely more likely than Hutch hanging around all that time and eventually going in and killing Kelly, then coming forward and literally getting away with murder by telling a story that should never have added up in those circumstances.

I can absolutely understand how an innocent Hutch, who had been hanging around for so long without ever entering the murder room, could have felt compelled to describe the man in there with Kelly (whether he had seen him or not) in order to give the police a 'last man in', lest they presume it was him, ie the man loitering long after Cox had seen Kelly with Blotchy.

If Hutch really was there, still waiting for a man to come out of Kelly's room at nearly 3am, he was a very important witness and must have known it. But what, or who, did he actually see? And what would you have done in the same position if you had left the man to it, with or without knowing what he looked like? That situation is not remotely complex or unlikely in itself, if Kelly had company and Hutch wanted her company too. But how bad could it have looked for him if there was nobody else for the police to focus on?

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

I'm sure no one was asked if they saw Hutchinson. But I am also sure they were asked if they saw any men hanging around. And even if they knew Hutch and had a fair idea that he was harmless, they would have said something.

They may have seen him and told police, we shouldn't confuse statements given at the Coroner's Inquest for the only statements the police had in their possession.
We do not have all the police statements, only the few selected by the Coroner. A Coroner does not select a variety of witnesses all telling the same story - he picks one. In this case the one was Sarah Lewis.
Lewis & Kennedy both provide similar stories, the Coroner picked Lewis.
Then Morris Lewis & Maxwell both saw the same thing, Kelly out in the morning, the Coroner picked Maxwell.
So, to say no-one else saw a man loitering in Dorset St. is false, given that only one witness is selected to tell a particular story.

If for no other reason that that the police were looking for every possible witness, and Hutch hanging out at her door for a couple hours puts him in a good position to have seen something. But either they didn't see him, which given his own statement seems unlikely, or they didn't "see" him.

The above is an example of what I mean, lets not confuse what the police knew with what we read at the Inquest - they are not the same.

I'm not sure it matters. Neither of them apparently even looked out the window to try and see something. They heard the cries. The cries were not uncommon. Crime in the neighborhood was not uncommon. They didn't check. They didn't check the next morning. They didn't make sure they knew where the women of their acquaintance were.

How different might Prater's reactions have been if she had heard banging on the partition wall? - we can't say can we?, because when you have direct reason to believe your neighbour is in distress you might act more responsibly than for a shout outside in the street or court which could have come from anyone.
These are different circumstances.

They didn't talk about it amongst themselves. They didn't contact the police. The went about their business like it never happened.

These women who typically stayed out till the early hours often slept until 12 noon, this is why the rent collector came in the morning. The best time to catch them in.
Therefore, "these women" had no idea the crime had been committed until they were awakened by the police.

Despite knowing that there was some guy out there mutilating women.

There had been no mutilations for the last six weeks - why would anyone be thinking about the Ripper on this night?

[Michael W Richards]

To be fair, Prater said the "cry" seemed to come from the Court, she didn't say "inside the same house".
Lewis made a similar assumption, that the scream came from outside, not from within Kelly's room.
Neither had any reason to suppose their neighbour had been harmed in any way, and according to Prater such screams were not unusual.

Jon, Prater said "faintly, as if from the court", and Lewis said "as if at the door", using those two statements the sound they heard must have emanated from somewhere in that courtyard..where Marys front door opened to. We also have Diddles being stirred and waking Prater at that same time.

Both women listened for further sounds....so, they didnt just blow it off like we hear many people did when they heard such things at night.

My guess is that they heard Mary Kelly exclaim while at her open front door between 3:30 and 4am...after answering a soft knock on it..or perhaps a tap on the window. Likely not to pleased to be woken by the sounds of it...or perhaps it was the visitor just showing up that she objected to.

At least 2 windows in addition to Marys were on that wall facing the pump and one was in the archway joining 26 and 27 over the entrance tunnel. Sounds from the court could be heard on the second floor based on those windows, open or closed. Windows were not sound barriers at that time...ill fitting frames, poor glass quality,..they neednt be open to have sounds penetrate them

Cheers

[Fisherman]

...Hutch hanging out at her door for a couple hours puts him in a good position to have seen something. But either they didn't see him, which given his own statement seems unlikely, or they didn't "see" him.

... or he was not even there in the first place - not on the night in question anyways.

That would provide an excellent reason for nobody seeing him.


The best,
Fisherman

[Errata]

To the best of our knowledge, no-one was asked if Hutchinson had been seen. Although, I would not be at all surprised if Abberline did not locate Sarah Lewis and bring her to Commercial St. to identify Hutchinson.
Though I'm not sure why you think he was at Millers Court "quite a bit", true he did claim to have known her "about 3 years", but this doesn't mean he had been to Millers Court before.
We may have a link that connects both Hutchinson & Kelly to a house in Pennington St.

I'm sure no one was asked if they saw Hutchinson. But I am also sure they were asked if they saw any men hanging around. And even if they knew Hutch and had a fair idea that he was harmless, they would have said something. If for no other reason that that the police were looking for every possible witness, and Hutch hanging out at her door for a couple hours puts him in a good position to have seen something. But either they didn't see him, which given his own statement seems unlikely, or they didn't "see" him.

To be fair, Prater said the "cry" seemed to come from the Court, she didn't say "inside the same house".
Lewis made a similar assumption, that the scream came from outside, not from within Kelly's room.
Neither had any reason to suppose their neighbour had been harmed in any way, and according to Prater such screams were not unusual.

I'm not sure it matters. Neither of them apparently even looked out the window to try and see something. They heard the cries. The cries were not uncommon. Crime in the neighborhood was not uncommon. They didn't check. They didn't check the next morning. They didn't make sure they knew where the women of their acquaintance were. They didn't talk about it amongst themselves. They didn't contact the police. The went about their business like it never happened. Despite knowing that there was some guy out there mutilating women.

People who care about their neighbors check on them. They talk to them. They talk to other neighbors about them. These neighbors didn't do that.They could not be bothered to find out if someone within earshot lived or died. They did not keep track of their neighbor's guests. They minded their own business. Not terribly unlike the Kitty Genovese case in New York.

[Wickerman]

... There is a lot of traffic. And no one identified Hutchinson as being there, and he was there quite a bit.

To the best of our knowledge, no-one was asked if Hutchinson had been seen. Although, I would not be at all surprised if Abberline did not locate Sarah Lewis and bring her to Commercial St. to identify Hutchinson.
Though I'm not sure why you think he was at Millers Court "quite a bit", true he did claim to have known her "about 3 years", but this doesn't mean he had been to Millers Court before.
We may have a link that connects both Hutchinson & Kelly to a house in Pennington St.

Her neighbor said she heard screams. Other witnesses said they heard screams. None of them checked to be sure everyone was okay. They didn't even check when they awoke the next morning.

To be fair, Prater said the "cry" seemed to come from the Court, she didn't say "inside the same house".
Lewis made a similar assumption, that the scream came from outside, not from within Kelly's room.
Neither had any reason to suppose their neighbour had been harmed in any way, and according to Prater such screams were not unusual.

[Errata]

Happily no.



That I would take issue with, talking about the 19th century again.

Sure, some may have the "I don't want to know" attitude, but the majority do want to know, though whether they choose to come forward as a witness is a whole other issue.
Even your average witness could have had conflict with the law in the past, so not every one is withholding information, or not coming forward, for the same reason.

I mean, maybe if it was a small town. Or maybe if it was some quiet neighborhood where she was the only one acting differently. But we're talking about like 800,000 people crammed in a couple square miles, and a couple other women in her building doing the same thing. So you imagine each woman has 30 different men in every month, times three, there has to be a point where you no longer keep track. And it's a busy throughway they are living in, and I think there are two other apartment buildings on either side. There is a lot of traffic. And no one identified Hutchinson as being there, and he was there quite a bit. Of all the people who described seeing some man, none of them said they saw this regular on the streets. I think they were minding their own business as hard as they could.

I know of the tradition of neighborliness. I grew up with it. But it is not and never has been a universal phenomenon. It is a privilege of safety and security. A middle class suburban neighborhood in the 50s is a perfect example. New York City on the other hand runs about 50/50. And destitute neighborhoods with high crime have never been like that. It's certainly not like that in Detroit. Most of us were privileged to have grown up with memories of that kind of vigilance. But it was never universal.

Her neighbor said she heard screams. Other witnesses said they heard screams. None of them checked to be sure everyone was okay. They didn't even check when they awoke the next morning. And despite the fact that her neighbor heard the scream coming from Kelly's side of the wall, she did nothing. Didn't check on Kelly, didn't check the next morning, didn't report it to the police, didn't report it to the landlord. And the cops saw nothing strange about it. That alone argues for the idea that everyone kept to themselves as much as possible.

[Wickerman]

I'm taking you never lived in crime ridden neighborhoods?

Happily no.

Because nothing deters interests in neighbors more than the possibility of being called as a witness.

That I would take issue with, talking about the 19th century again.

Sure, some may have the "I don't want to know" attitude, but the majority do want to know, though whether they choose to come forward as a witness is a whole other issue.
Even your average witness could have had conflict with the law in the past, so not every one is withholding information, or not coming forward, for the same reason.

[Wickerman]

Hi wicker
Of course you are posing all the above with the idea that hutch is to be believed and cox is not. I think most reasonable people with knowledge of the case would would go with cox.

The point I'm making Abby is, on what basis?

Cox's story was never verified, and in fact was in conflict with Prater.
So why is her story any more reliable than Hutchinson's - who, by the way does find corroboration in Sarah Lewis.
But where is Cox's corroboration?

To claim Cox IS reliable, is not true - we simply do not know.
And, so long as another witness does claim to see Kelly on the streets at "about 3:00 am" - which is another unverifiable claim, where is the difference?

[Abby Normal]

Hi again Abby,

I'm not particularly fussed whether Stride and/or Kelly were soliciting or not when they encountered their killer. But it was likely to have been something about where the victims were and what they were doing at the time that made them appear easy prey. So even if they had not been planning to solicit, and were hoping to find a new partner, we know that their killer (ripper or not) had a very different agenda, which required the victim to play ball to a certain extent. If Kelly's killer had shown her a decent amount of money, for instance, I'm not sure she would have refused on the basis that he was a stranger who probably just wanted sex and was never going to be her Mr. Right.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi caz
I see what you are saying but perhaps the ripper was changing tactics as the series went on. Instead of going after broken down street harrigans that he found literally down and out on the streets by chance he started going after ones that weren't quite as desperate that he met in the pubs like stride and Kelly. The evidence seems to point that this is the case. Perhaps he was doing this as a kind of escalation, looking for more attractive women or just refining his method, or because as the series went on and women became more cautious he felt he needed to put in more persuading time. And this would perhaps lead to him now mingling with and going after women he may have actually known or at least been familiar too,to some extant. Of course they could have still been total strangers when they met but to me it seems stride and to a greater extant Kelly may have met their killer in a pub who they had seen around before and felt comfortable hanging out with.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby.
Ok, lets list all the credible points associated with Blotchy.
Who was able to substantiate Cox's story?
Who saw Blotchy in any pub?
Who else saw Blotchy with Kelly anywhere?
Why no pot found in Kelly's room?

Have we found anything credible yet?



But that is bias talking. The story is only dubious if the police say so. As they actually met him and saw first hand his emotions and his demeanor, surely they know better than anyone in our time who only have the written word to go by?



But why would you promote something that is not true?



Agreed, but did he even exist?



More evidence of the same...



I think if you compared the two descriptions side by side, you'd have a lot of explaining to do



Do you really think a man carrying his own beer mug to a date is contemplating murder & mutilation?



Not true Abby.

Hi wicker
Of course you are posing all the above with the idea that hutch is to be believed and cox is not. I think most reasonable people with knowledge of the case would would go with cox.

[Errata]

We can't compare the social activities of the late 19th century, to today.
Even in my youth everyone in the street knew everybody's business. Watching your neighbors and gossiping on the doorstep was the norm for the mothers in the street.

All there was to talk about was why the coalman was at Mrs Jenkins for an hour, and how is Mr Smth's lumbago, and who was that little hussy on the corner talking to last night?
Their neighbourhood was their world, and they took notice, especially the women.

I'm taking you never lived in crime ridden neighborhoods? Because nothing deters interests in neighbors more than the possibility of being called as a witness.

[Wickerman]

We can't compare the social activities of the late 19th century, to today.
Even in my youth everyone in the street knew everybody's business. Watching your neighbors and gossiping on the doorstep was the norm for the mothers in the street.

All there was to talk about was why the coalman was at Mrs Jenkins for an hour, and how is Mr Smth's lumbago, and who was that little hussy on the corner talking to last night?
Their neighbourhood was their world, and they took notice, especially the women.