OK whos your favored suspect/s and why?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Wearing a hat is good way to keep your head warm when walking around outdoors at night in March. And Blotchy was wearing a widebrimmed hat when Mary Cox saw him.

You're making several assumptions and treating them as fact.

* You assume that Ada Wilson's attacker is the same man as the man Mary Cox saw with Mary Kelly.

* You assume a blotchy face means sunburn instead of a skin condition or anything else.

* You assume that the only people who got sunburn were sailors.

I did not make any of the assumptions you claim I did and I did not treat them as fact.

I have never assumed that Ada Wilson's attacker and the man Mary Cox saw with Mary Kelly were the same person.

I have never assumed that a blotchy face means sunburn.

I never claimed that the only people who got sunburn were sailors.



If you mean that the man seen by Ada Wilson had a blotchy face which she mistook for sunburn, then you are the one making an assumption and you are the one treating an assumption as fact.

Ada Wilson did not mention a blotchy face.

She mentioned a sunburnt face.


I did not write what you claim I wrote about sunburn and sailors.

What I wrote - and on this I am in agreement with Chava - is that a resident of Whitechapel would not have had a sunburnt face in the month of March.

The only explanation we can think of is that he would have been a sailor.

I never wrote that only sailors got sunburn.


I am rather tired of these allegations that I make invalid assumptions and present them as fact, which have been going on from almost the moment I posted my first comment here last October.

[Chava]

I made it quite clear that Ada Wilson's assailant could hardly have acquired his sunburn in Whitechapel.

That is why I argued that he was a sailor.

You miss the point.
He may well have been burned in sunnier climes.
But he was in Mile End. In March. Why does he have to wear a hat protect his skin there? The damage, after all, has already been done. And he won't pick up any further problems of a sunny nature down the Mile End Road.

[Chava]

What makes you think that Sarah Lewis' stout man wearing a wideawake hat was the same man as Hutchinson's suspect?

I don't,
Because I have no faith at all in Hutchinson's witness statement. In any case, he comes forward as the man Lewis saw. Not as the possible killer. and there's no suggestion that Hutchinson wore a wide-awake hat.,
To recap: Lewis testifies to have seen a man in a wide-awake hat standing at the mouth of the alley that leads to Millers Court. Hutchinson comes forward afterwards with a story that puts him as that man. And then describes a later encounter with Kelly in which he sees her pick up a man whom he describes right down to the fillings in his teeth. I think he did all this for drinks from journalists & some attention.
But, just to remind ourselves why we're here, Lewis saw a man in a wide-awake hat. At night. So no need to wear it to shield his face from the sun.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You miss the point.
He may well have been burned in sunnier climes.
But he was in Mile End. In March. Why does he have to wear a hat protect his skin there? The damage, after all, has already been done. And he won't pick up any further problems of a sunny nature down the Mile End Road.

He did not have to wear the hat, but many men did wear hats in those days and it was presumably the hat he had decided to wear in future in order to avoid being sunburnt.

He may have worn it partly in order to make it more difficult for witnesses to get a clear view of his face, but that does not mean he was more likely to have had eczema than sunburn.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

Yes, those reports are interesting, particularly as one could imagine a series of events where Kelly and Britannia Man go back to her room, she undresses for him, and then he murders her, all somewhere around 3:00-3:30 ish. That fits with the cry of Murder heard in the early hours, and the footsteps leaving the area after that.

Yes, thankyou, that is how I interpret the sequence of events that morning. The 'Britannia-man' was the same as the 'Bethnal-Green-Botherer', he openly displays suspicious activity towards women out at night, yet he is overlooked by most modern theorists in favor of innocent witnesses who have never displayed any suspicious activity - it makes you wonder.....

Still leaves the report of her seen around 10 am awkward to explain, but something like that reduces the number of dismissed sightings, might explain where she got her meal of fish and potatoes from, and ties together some of the other bits of information that otherwise are dismissed as irrelevant to the case.

Her being sighted (allegedly) some time after 8:30 am Friday morning doesn't help any suspect theory that I can recall.

I find it amusing when theorists criticize Hutchinson for not presenting his statement in court, as if it could have been tested by authorities, when Maxwell did precisely that and no-one was able to convincingly challenge her testimony. Maxwell's story was more controversial than anything Hutchinson had to say.

As I recall, the description of the man outside the Britannia is not inconsistent with the "Bethnal Green Botherer." I know we have limited information on that fellow, but he does intrigue me. I believe you've introduced him to the boards, and was wondering if you've ever posted the collection of information on him and other potential sightings? I know there are various bits and pieces scattered over the boards, but it would be nice to have a single post that brings all the potential sightings together. I know some, like Britannia Man, are not definitively the same person, but given how little we know about BGB, it might be interesting to start with the initial report, and then compare that with all of the descriptions from the case and others that you've noticed with interest? I'm presuming that you may have done something like this for yourself already, and if so would be very interested in seeing what you've come up with (would be suited to its own thread in my opinion). Of course, if you've not got the information readily to hand though, it might be require more effort than it's worth particularly as I get the impression you, like myself, are intrigued by him but not pushing him as the definitive solution.

- Jeff

At some point I did just that, some years ago. We cannot draw any firm conclusions from it mainly because none of the individuals were identified by name. They could all (at least 4 instances/individuals) have been different people, the chance exists though that they may have been the same person.

The common characteristics were that he was in his 30's, walked with a limp, and had something noticeable about his eyes; alternately described as 'weak', 'peculiar' or 'without eyelashes'.
Apparently, the loss of eyelashes can be brought on by syphilis which causes a condition known as madarosis, syphilis also causes a skin condition similar to rosacea which has the appearance of a red skin rash.
I looked up one of the treatments of this skin condition in the 19th century, and it was to apply a cream. Oddly, one of the descriptions of this suspect also has him with a white face, suggestive? of some skin application, which would be consistent with him having a rash-like condition.
All that said, this is all speculatory.

[Lewis C]

Her being sighted (allegedly) some time after 8:30 am Friday morning doesn't help any suspect theory that I can recall.

It might not help any suspect theory, but it does make anyone that was around or may have been around well before that - Mr. Blotchy, Hutchinson, probably Britannia Man - seem less likely to be the culprit.

[JeffHamm]

Yes, thankyou, that is how I interpret the sequence of events that morning. The 'Britannia-man' was the same as the 'Bethnal-Green-Botherer', he openly displays suspicious activity towards women out at night, yet he is overlooked by most modern theorists in favor of innocent witnesses who have never displayed any suspicious activity - it makes you wonder.....


Her being sighted (allegedly) some time after 8:30 am Friday morning doesn't help any suspect theory that I can recall.

I find it amusing when theorists criticize Hutchinson for not presenting his statement in court, as if it could have been tested by authorities, when Maxwell did precisely that and no-one was able to convincingly challenge her testimony. Maxwell's story was more controversial than anything Hutchinson had to say.


At some point I did just that, some years ago. We cannot draw any firm conclusions from it mainly because none of the individuals were identified by name. They could all (at least 4 instances/individuals) have been different people, the chance exists though that they may have been the same person.

The common characteristics were that he was in his 30's, walked with a limp, and had something noticeable about his eyes; alternately described as 'weak', 'peculiar' or 'without eyelashes'.
Apparently, the loss of eyelashes can be brought on by syphilis which causes a condition known as madarosis, syphilis also causes a skin condition similar to rosacea which has the appearance of a red skin rash.
I looked up one of the treatments of this skin condition in the 19th century, and it was to apply a cream. Oddly, one of the descriptions of this suspect also has him with a white face, suggestive? of some skin application, which would be consistent with him having a rash-like condition.
All that said, this is all speculatory.

Hi Wickerman,

Yah, the morning sighting is difficult to reconcile with most suspect based theories, which is probably part of why it gets set aside. Mind you, I too find it hard to imagine that the entire event, from meeting her killer through to his leaving and then body discovery, would fit in the window of time that remains and I have no suspect to champion. Of course, my lack of imagination isn't evidence against it having happened, so who am I to say?

Anyway, glad to hear the above is already on the boards. I'll have to do some searching to see if I can find it. While I don't focus on suspects myself, the "Bethnal Green Botherer" always piqued my curiosity, and like you, I find it curious that he gets mentioned so much less than perhaps he should? Sure, the sightings could be different people, but that's never stopped anyone before.

- Jeff

[Darryl Kenyon]

https://www.historicalemporium.com/top-ten.php?type=Wide+Brim+Hats&cat=Mens+Hats&theme=Vi ctorian

If Ada Wilson was attacked with someone with a sailors hat wouldn't she have said so ? And if she could have been mistaken thinking it was any wide brimmed hat, could she not make the same mistake with the assailants face being sun burned rather than say ruddy with drink.

Regards Darryl

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

https://www.historicalemporium.com/top-ten.php?type=Wide+Brim+Hats&cat=Mens+Hats&theme=Vi ctorian

If Ada Wilson was attacked with someone with a sailors hat wouldn't she have said so ? And if she could have been mistaken thinking it was any wide brimmed hat, could she not make the same mistake with the assailants face being sun burned rather than say ruddy with drink.

Regards Darryl

It is a fact that wideawake hats were commonly worn by sailors.

I uploaded months ago many illustrations of sailors wearing them.

[Darryl Kenyon]

It is a fact that wideawake hats were commonly worn by sailors.

I uploaded months ago many illustrations of sailors wearing them.

It is a fact that anyone could wear one , they weren't exclusive to sailors . They were also known as countryman's hats and mainly originally worn by farmers. Yes possibly in summer to help prevent sunburn on the face . The link to sailors is tenuous as evidence. Anyone could wear one who works outside in the sun, or just as an attire.

Why would a sailor want to draw attention to himself , IE the killer is a sailor , by wearing clothes which only a sailor would wear anyway ?

[Darryl Kenyon]

It might not help any suspect theory, but it does make anyone that was around or may have been around well before that - Mr. Blotchy, Hutchinson, probably Britannia Man - seem less likely to be the culprit.

Hi Lewis
It also covers Henry Maxwell , husband of Caroline. I am not suggesting he was the killer [ a long shot at best ], but he was the lodging house deputy were Sarah Lewis saw wideawake man who could easily have been Henry. It puts him in the clear of any awkward questioning, especially if no one could verify his movements around four in the morning at Crossingham's. Someone awake all night directly across, and not more than a few yards from were a murder occurred.

Regards Darryl

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It is a fact that anyone could wear one , they weren't exclusive to sailors . They were also known as countryman's hats and mainly originally worn by farmers. Yes possibly in summer to help prevent sunburn on the face . The link to sailors is tenuous as evidence. Anyone could wear one who works outside in the sun, or just as an attire.

Why would a sailor want to draw attention to himself , IE the killer is a sailor , by wearing clothes which only a sailor would wear anyway ?

I have never claimed that such hats were worn exclusively by sailors.

Can you explain why a farmer who wore such a hat to prevent sunburn should have a sunburnt face in Whitechapel in the month of March?

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis
It also covers Henry Maxwell , husband of Caroline. I am not suggesting he was the killer [ a long shot at best ], but he was the lodging house deputy were Sarah Lewis saw wideawake man who could easily have been Henry. It puts him in the clear of any awkward questioning, especially if no one could verify his movements around four in the morning at Crossingham's. Someone awake all night directly across, and not more than a few yards from were a murder occurred.

Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl,
He's not someone that I've heard put forward much as a suspect, but yes, good call.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I have never claimed that such hats were worn exclusively by sailors.

Can you explain why a farmer who wore such a hat to prevent sunburn should have a sunburnt face in Whitechapel in the month of March?

Why would anyone wear a hat like that in March to prevent sunburn , whether they had it or not ? More likely they were trying to hide their face as best as possible without drawing attention to himself prior. Much like hoodies today.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Why would anyone wear a hat like that in March to prevent sunburn , whether they had it or not ? More likely they were trying to hide their face as best as possible without drawing attention to himself prior. Much like hoodies today.

I never suggested that he was wearing it in Whitechapel in order to prevent sunburn.

I suggested that he had been wearing it elsewhere for that purpose.