hutchinsons suspect

[babybird67]

hi Richard

Question...[1] Was Prater lying?

Why would she?

[2] Was Cox lying?

Why would she?

Did Blotchy even exist? after all no evidence was found in her room of any such occurance.

He was seen by a witness with Mary going into her room. I cannot see any reason why Cox would lie about seeing Mary with Blotchy. None whatsoever.

and i feel that she returned home alone around midnight, and singing commenced.

Yes but that flies in the face of the evidence, Richard, which is that Mary was SEEN returning to her room at 11.45 with a Blotchy faced man accompanying her. You cannot simply discount witness testimony without good reason. Why are you so willing to accept Hutchinson's much more problematic witness testimony and yet discount Cox's without any good reason?

I have a strong feeling that kelly was paronoid about spending time alone in that room, and ventured out on the streets again around 2am, hoping to attract a suitable client who would stay the night.

I'm sorry Richard but that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me. She had her own room, in which, one would imagine, she would feel much safer than exposed out on the streets. How on earth would going out at 2am, knowing there is a serial killer of prostitutes on the loose, and intending to pick up a strange man to come back to her room with her, make her feel any safer? If anything, it would increase her fears. I am a woman. Believe me, if i had a room in which i could barricade myself i would do so...i don't for one moment think going out onto the streets to avail myself of a strange man would for one second make me feel at all safe or secure. There were plenty of women surrounding her in the court...if she felt unsafe she could have sought the company of Cox or Prater, not some unknown man on the streets at 2am...what possible motive could such a man who approached her have? He certainly wouldn't be out looking out for a woman he could console and make feel safe would he? There is just no common sense in that theory whatsoever.

I would say most certainly not, kelly meeting her death around 9am on the ninth.

but again Richard that flies in the face of the available medical evidence and other witness testimony. I don't believe she would have eaten a meal of fish which would have still been recognisable in the contents of her stomach at that time. I dont think she would have brought a man back to her room at 9am in the morning.

Sorry but there are too many holes in the theory that she was killed at 9am for it to be plausible for me.

[perrymason]

Mary was heard to commence singing shortly after her and Blotchy entered the room. There are numerous accounts of the singing being heard. That is very much in keeping with her entering her room with a man that she is entertaining while drunk.

For her to continue to sing after the company leaves is not. Since Mary Ann makes a few trips by that room and can approximate the time when the singing was not heard any longer, just after 1am, ...after Mary Ann walks past Marys door near 1:15...we probably have Blotchy leaving before Mary Anne passes the door to go back out soliciting around 1:15am, or Blotchy leaving sometime between 1:15 and 1:30 when EP enters the picture.

Best regards all.

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Richard.

The problem, as I see it, in attempting to establish fact through the statements of Joe Barnett is that he clearly loved Kelly and endeavoured whenever possible to place her character in the best possible light. His claim, for example, that she was of sober habits contrasts sharply with McCarthy's assertion that she was frequently drunk. Regulars at the Britannia not only echoed McCarthy's observation, but went even further in stating that she was often aggressively drunk. Even so, there is no reason to suppose that Kelly was befuddled when Barnett met her for the last time. The fact that she had been drinking should not necessarily infer that she was drunk. That she was drunk at midnight, however, is, to my mind, beyond dispute.

As for Mary Ann Cox, there are, as you point out, certain inconsistencies concerning her sighting of Kelly and Blotchy. During her inquest testimony, for instance, she claimed to have seen Blotchy only from the rear. If so, how is it that she was able to describe his complexion and whiskers?

The answer, I believe, is to be found in the Eddowes inquest when Lawende's description of the man he saw standing with Eddowes at the entrance to Church Passage was withheld at the request of the police 'in the interests of justice'. This attempt by the authorities to sanitize due process may also explain why Schwartz was never called to give evidence at the Stride inquest. In reading the testimony of Mary Ann Cox, there is the distinct scent of evasion in several of her responses to questioning. And yet, by comparison, the story she related to reporters was the model of consistency – including her description of Blotchy's complexion and whiskers.

Hence I think it more than possible that the police regarded Blotchy as a prime suspect and sought to keep his description under wraps as best they could – as would be standard procedure in the sophisticated, modern-day murder investigation. Since such a strategy was certainly employed in the case of Lawende, there is reason to suppose that Mary Ann Cox might have been requested to exercise discretion when giving evidence. If so, the seeming contradictions between her inquest and press accounts are easily reconciled, removing any question as to her reliability as an eyewitness.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Sam Flynn]

Found this printed in The Times, Friday, Sep 02, 1887...............

We discussed him at length a while back, Paddy, but I don't think he's our man. He was a long-term resident of Mile End, and resided with his parents, as I recall, before and after 1888. He occasionally appears in discussions here, referred to as "Ticker-Nicker George".

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam.

[SIZE=2]The afternoon of drinking was detailed by Maria Harvey in at least two press interviews.

Thanks, Garry, but the only plausible reference I have found so far is as follows:

St James Gazette, 10th November 1888
"Harvey... remained friendly with [Kelly], who visited her in New Court on Thursday night. After drinking together they parted at half past seven o'clock, Kelly going off in the direction of Leman Street... She was perfectly sober at the time [my underlines]. Harvey never saw her alive afterwards".

The same story, almost verbatim, is carried by the Times, the Evening News, the Star, and the Irish Times.


A few interesting things arise from the above. For one thing, the story flat-out contradicts Harvey's statement that she was with Kelly in Miller's Court when Barnett arrived - a fairly minor point, I'll admit. However, the statement that Kelly was "perfectly sober" when she left Harvey is quite clear, and the reference to drink is rather ambiguous - "after drinking" could refer to anything. That said, irrespective whether it was tea or beer, Kelly is said to have called in on Thursday night, parting with Harvey at 19:30. Could this have been a swift couple of halves in the Britannia during the early evening, perhaps? At any rate, this clearly doesn't support the idea that Kelly had been on the pop all afternoon, so I assume that the reports to which you refer appeared in different papers?

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Mike.

Whilst you make a number of perfectly sensible points, I would contend that sadosexual serialists do not operate on a painting-by-numbers basis. Lying at the core of their behaviour is a fantasy in which the sexual imperative has become intertwined with savage violence. But the fantasy that inspires specific offence behaviour evolves over time, which is one reason why the crimes of an individual offender become increasingly more brutal as the series progresses. In this context, I see a clear progression through Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. I would also be extremely surprised if the Ripper's first attack on a woman took place in Buck's Row. In all likelihood, the rage that was so apparent in the Whitechapel Murders would have been manifested in earlier incidents – physical assaults on women, possibly involving robbery and humiliation. Again, this relates to the evolution of behaviour.

It has been argued that the murder of Kelly is unlikely to have been part of the series because it occurred indoors – the assumption, presumably, being that the Ripper preferred to kill outdoors. But this, in my view, is to misunderstand the mindset of such men. Peter Sutcliffe committed almost all of his attacks outdoors, but when he chanced upon Patricia Atkinson he was presented with the rare opportunity of a streetwalker offering indoor sex. He could, had he been so inclined, have waylaid Patricia on the way to her flat. Instead he chose to go indoors before commencing the attack. Interestingly enough, the injuries that were inflicted upon Patricia Atkinson were unique in context of the series as a whole. Apart from using a knife to inflict the customary sharp-force injuries, Sutcliffe also used the claw end of his hammer to rip away portions of flesh from the body.

In the Patricia Atkinson case, therefore, we have a clear echo of the events that occurred in Miller's Court a century earlier – an indoor killing as part of a predominantly outdoor series that produced injuries that were inflicted on none of the other victims. No mystery. No contradiction. Just the overkill that one might expect from an offender accorded the opportunity to give full expression to his rage against women.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[richardnunweek]

Hi jenny,
We have two options[a] the tale told to Kit Watkins by court resident Lottie was true, making it almost certain that Kelly would have hated being alone in room 13... note the sleepovers.
[b] that was a load of rubbish, and kelly went to sleep with no fear.
I believe [a] and that would explain the 4am cry , and would also explain Praters interpretation.
As for my insistance that she was a daylight murder, i do have Mrs Maxwell on my side, not withstanding two other parties , albeit not inquest related.
This subject is a good debating point , and long may it continue.
Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

How on earth would going out at 2am, knowing there is a serial killer of prostitutes on the loose, and intending to pick up a strange man to come back to her room with her, make her feel any safer?

That didn't deter the likes of Prater and Cox, Jen. In Kelly's predicament, feeling "safe" meant not just avoiding being knifed, but finding a way to scrape some pennies together - conflicting goals shared by many "unfortunates" over the ages, even during the Autumn of Terror itself.

[richardnunweek]

Hi ,
Point surely is ,MJK, would never bring a man to her room , that she had no knowledge of, in the night hours, that would be rather dodgy to say the least.
But in daylight .. a different thing entirely.
We should not discount Maxwells statement.
Richard.

[babybird67]

Hi jenny,
We have two options[a] the tale told to Kit Watkins by court resident Lottie was true, making it almost certain that Kelly would have hated being alone in room 13... note the sleepovers.

Richard i did not dispute that Mary may well have felt unsafe. I did dispute the contention that in order to feel more safe, as you argued, she would have chosen to go out at 2am in the morning to find a complete stranger, male, to share her room, knowing there was a serial killer of streetwalkers on the loose. In no way shape or form would that make any woman feel any safer! there were other women around in the Court if she felt unsafe whose company she could have sought.

Speculating on Mary's fear is just that...sepculation. I would rather trust the testimony of Cox who saw her enter her room at 11.45 with Blotchy, than base a theory of what happened to her on pure speculation as to her going out for no other apparent reason than to find someone, a male stranger, who would apparently make her feel "safe". I don't accept that for one moment.

As for my insistance that she was a daylight murder, i do have Mrs Maxwell on my side, not withstanding two other parties , albeit not inquest related.
This subject is a good debating point , and long may it continue.
Richard.

You are quite welcome to your view, Richard, i just don't agree with it. How do you explain the fish meal? Do you think she would have eaten that early in the morning, even though Maxwell has her throwing up in the gutter? If this were true, do you think there would have been the remains of this fish meal still in her stomach? I'm genuinely interested in how you explain this in your theory. I agree about it being an interesting debating point.

[babybird67]

That didn't deter the likes of Prater and Cox, Jen. In Kelly's predicament, feeling "safe" meant not just avoiding being knifed, but finding a way to scrape some pennies together - conflicting goals shared by many "unfortunates" over the ages, even during the Autumn of Terror itself.

I totally agree Sam. What i was disputing was the idea that Mary would have ventured outside because she was so afraid of being alone it was preferable to her to find a male stranger to sleep with. I am sure she and the others did take awful risks, but these were i believe motivated by economic necessity, not just because they wanted a bit of company at 2am in the morning.

[babybird67]

Hi ,
Point surely is ,MJK, would never bring a man to her room , that she had no knowledge of, in the night hours, that would be rather dodgy to say the least.
.
Richard.

how do we know that Richard? We can't possibly know what she had done in the past. I don't think prostitutes had ways of vetting their customers and getting to know them for several weeks before they sold themselves to them.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Jenny,
I am not speculating on Marys fear, i am stating the written word,
It apparently is a FACT, that Kit Watkins had it in writing, that a court resident named Lottie ,indicated that Mjk had a dream that she was being murdered, and was fearful ever since that dream , which occured between oct 31st- 9th november.
It is a fact via the inquest, that Prater described the 'Cry 'Oh Murder', as like awakening from a nightmare.
Which as i have always maintained, would support Lotties version.
And it surely cannot be disputed, that a cry of 'OH MURDER' . would sum up a reoccurence of a nightmare in which the victim , believed she was being murdered.
I wil stay rigid on that view.
Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

We're straying rather far from the topic of "Hutchinson's suspect", I fear...

[babybird67]

Richard

Hi Jenny,
I am not speculating on Marys fear, i am stating the written word,
It apparently is a FACT, that Kit Watkins had it in writing, that a court resident named Lottie ,indicated that Mjk had a dream that she was being murdered, and was fearful ever since that dream , which occured between oct 31st- 9th november.

I think you should read what i write, not what you think i am writing. I have not disputed that Mary may well have been fearful. I should think most women were, especially those that prostituted themselves for money.

I am disputing the notion that in order to feel safer, she would have thought it a good idea to go out into the realms of the streets which she knew were being prowled by a vicious killer, and pick up a strange man to take back to her room, to make her feel safer! There were women in the court whose company she could have sought. It would not make sense that a male stranger in her room would have made her, or any woman, feel safer than being in her room on her own. Think about it.