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.

[Fiver]

Since you raised the issue of eczema, I would pose a slightly different question: why would a man suffering from facial eczema in Whitechapel, in the month of March, be wearing a wide-brimmed hat?

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.

[mpriestnall]

AMan + Blotchy working together IMHO.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It may well have been burnt PI. But it didn't get burnt in the smog-filled, smoke-filled heavily over-built environs of East London. You'd have a job to find a sunbeam there at the height of summer. Which this wasn't. March? I wonder how high the UV index was. Likely not very. No need to shade his face from the sun then. Especially since the damage was already done.

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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

No. But Sarah Lewis did. At the inquest:

Sarah Lewis, Great Pearl Street, stated:- I visited a friend at Miller's Court on Friday morning at half-past two o'clock. I saw a man standing on the pavement. He was short and stout, and wore a wideawake hat.

And she's a lot more reliable as a witness than Hutch is.

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

[Chava]

If Wilson's assailant had acquired a wide-brimmed hat overseas in order to prevent a worsening of his sunburn, then he may have simply carried on wearing it when he disembarked in London because that was the hat he had and he intended to wear it when next exposed to the sun.

I do not think Hutchinson described his suspect's hat as a wideawake hat.

No. But Sarah Lewis did. At the inquest:

Sarah Lewis, Great Pearl Street, stated:- I visited a friend at Miller's Court on Friday morning at half-past two o'clock. I saw a man standing on the pavement. He was short and stout, and wore a wideawake hat.

And she's a lot more reliable as a witness than Hutch is.

[Chava]

I did read your post carefully.

Your explanation is ingenious, but the fact that wide-rimmed hats were worn as protection against the rays of the sun, and the fact that in this case the wearer was reported to have had a sunburned face, do suggest that his face had been burnt.

What you are suggesting, namely that the wearer had eczema, that his victim mistook it for sunburn, and that the wearer's purpose in wearing a wide-brimmed hat was to avoid identification by any third party, seems less plausible.

It may well have been burnt PI. But it didn't get burnt in the smog-filled, smoke-filled heavily over-built environs of East London. You'd have a job to find a sunbeam there at the height of summer. Which this wasn't. March? I wonder how high the UV index was. Likely not very. No need to shade his face from the sun then. Especially since the damage was already done.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

A wide brim hat pulled down would partly hide the wearer's face and cast a shadow at night and cover the wearer's hairline. The shadow effect would also be accentuated by bending the brim downwards at the front and looking down. All reasons to assume it was a disguise. After all, even if he was sunburned it was not going to be worsened at night and a broad brimmed hat was useless for sun protection at that hour.

We have Hutchy's description - albeit not the most reliable - that he had to stoop to see the face of MJK's companion under the brim of his hat.

If Wilson's assailant had acquired a wide-brimmed hat overseas in order to prevent a worsening of his sunburn, then he may have simply carried on wearing it when he disembarked in London because that was the hat he had and he intended to wear it when next exposed to the sun.

I do not think Hutchinson described his suspect's hat as a wideawake hat.

[Enigma]

A wide brim hat pulled down would partly hide the wearer's face and cast a shadow at night and cover the wearer's hairline. The shadow effect would also be accentuated by bending the brim downwards at the front and looking down. All reasons to assume it was a disguise. After all, even if he was sunburned it was not going to be worsened at night and a broad brimmed hat was useless for sun protection at that hour.

We have Hutchy's description - albeit not the most reliable - that he had to stoop to see the face of MJK's companion under the brim of his hat.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I don't think you read my post carefully PI. I pointed out that it might obscure his features from people around him. Wide-brimmed hats cast a shadow on the face. I don't think he cares about the person facing him. That one is going to die sooner rather than later. Except Ada Wilson didn't die.

I did read your post carefully.

Your explanation is ingenious, but the fact that wide-rimmed hats were worn as protection against the rays of the sun, and the fact that in this case the wearer was reported to have had a sunburned face, do suggest that his face had been burnt.

What you are suggesting, namely that the wearer had eczema, that his victim mistook it for sunburn, and that the wearer's purpose in wearing a wide-brimmed hat was to avoid identification by any third party, seems less plausible.

[Chava]

I do not see how a wide-brimmed hat could hide the wearer's face from anyone facing him.

I don't think you read my post carefully PI. I pointed out that it might obscure his features from people around him. Wide-brimmed hats cast a shadow on the face. I don't think he cares about the person facing him. That one is going to die sooner rather than later. Except Ada Wilson didn't die.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I'm so happy to answer your question!
Possibly in an attempt to hide his features from any onlooker. He doesn't care about hiding it from his victims. They won't survive to describe him. However, unfortunately, one did.

I do not see how a wide-brimmed hat could hide the wearer's face from anyone facing him.

[Chava]

Why would a local labourer suffering from facial eczema in Whitechapel, in the month of March, be wearing a wide-brimmed hat?

I'm so happy to answer your question!
Possibly in an attempt to hide his features from any onlooker. He doesn't care about hiding it from his victims. They won't survive to describe him. However, unfortunately, one did.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

You're right. He can't be sunburnt & not sunburnt at the same time.

However you contend that the likelihood is that Ada Wilson's man's sunburn had healed--therefore not Mr Blotchy.


Even though we're talking about a deleted text, let's not forget what else I said in that deletion. Which was a man who was sunburnt in London in March did not get that sunburn walking down the Mile End Road. And, as I also said in that deleted text, the man is unlikely to have attained that sunburn basking on the 1st Class deck of a lovely liner or yacht.


I do not recall seeing any of that.


So--if he's sunburnt--he's very likely a sailor.


I do recall reading that and as I wrote in # 256, that is the answer I myself came up with long ago.


And he could be travelling broadly. He could have been on a ship that took him to sunburning climes for 5 or 6 months. Then deposited him back in Whitechapel with another sunburn. Because sunburn is for him a regular feature of his employment. And this is much more likely than your hypothesis of Ada Wilson's assailant's sunburn having healed.


I do not think so.


The whole point of wearing a wideawake hat in hot climes is to avoid sunburn or - as seems to have happened in this case - to prevent further damage and allow the skin to heal.

There was no need for sunburn to be 'a regular feature of his employment'.

I uploaded many illustrations some months ago of sailors wearing wideawake hats.

I suggest that Ada Wilson's assailant did not start to wear one until he had been badly burnt.


Because working class men got sunburnt during the course of their work. Upper class men stayed out of the sun as did their womenfolk. The fashion for a tan didn't start until the '20s.


You are right and I think that is quite well known.


So a sunburnt man will very likely remain a sunburnt man.


I don't think so.

That is why sailors wore wide-brimmed hats.


It's entirely possible that Mr Blotchy is Ada Wilson's sunburnt man. Also it's entirely possible that Ada Wilson's sunburnt man could have been a local labourer with a nasty case of facial eczema or psoriasis. She wouldn't have known the difference. Either way, he's still got a blotchy face in November.

I'm so glad we had this little chat


Quite.

But I posed a question in # 256, which you have yet to answer, and to which I am making a slight alteration to take account of the point you have just made:


Why would a local labourer suffering from facial eczema in Whitechapel, in the month of March, be wearing a wide-brimmed hat?

[Chava]

But you then went on - before deleting the comments - to ask why the man would have had a sunburnt face in Whitechapel in the month of March.

That is a very pertinent question and one which I asked myself long ago.

I imagine that you intended the question to negate the case for the man having sunburn and to support your contention that he had eczema instead.

You then answered your own question, about how he might have acquired sunburn, so satisfactorily - with the same answer that I had long ago come up with myself - that you actually negated your own argument that the man had eczema.

And that, presumably, is why you deleted the comments.

Since you raised the issue of eczema, I would pose a slightly different question: why would a man suffering from facial eczema in Whitechapel, in the month of March, be wearing a wide-brimmed hat?

The answer is that he would have no particular reason to wear a wide brimmed hat if he had eczema all over his face, but he would have needed a wide brimmed hat in the place from which he had recently come and where his face had been burnt by the sun.

You're right. He can't be sunburnt & not sunburnt at the same time.
However you contend that the likelihood is that Ada Wilson's man's sunburn had healed--therefore not Mr Blotchy. Even though we're talking about a deleted text, let's not forget what else I said in that deletion. Which was a man who was sunburnt in London in March did not get that sunburn walking down the Mile End Road. And, as I also said in that deleted text, the man is unlikely to have attained that sunburn basking on the 1st Class deck of a lovely liner or yacht. So--if he's sunburnt--he's very likely a sailor. And he could be travelling broadly. He could have been on a ship that took him to sunburning climes for 5 or 6 months. Then deposited him back in Whitechapel with another sunburn. Because sunburn is for him a regular feature of his employment. And this is much more likely than your hypothesis of Ada Wilson's assailant's sunburn having healed. Because working class men got sunburnt during the course of their work. Upper class men stayed out of the sun as did their womenfolk. The fashion for a tan didn't start until the '20s. So a sunburnt man will very likely remain a sunburnt man. It's entirely possible that Mr Blotchy is Ada Wilson's sunburnt man. Also it's entirely possible that Ada Wilson's sunburnt man could have been a local labourer with a nasty case of facial eczema or psoriasis. She wouldn't have known the difference. Either way, he's still got a blotchy face in November.

I'm so glad we had this little chat