Hutchinson and antisemitism ?? A possibility?

[bolo]

Hi Mac,

I don't know wether the police tried to track down Blotchy Face but I guess they believed Hutch and his sighting of Astrakhan Man. By doing so, they accepted or believed that Blotchy Face was gone when Mary went into the court with her next client around 2 a.m., and thus had no incentive to continue their BM enquiries any further.

Regards,

Boris

P.S.: The witness statements either mention "a quart can of ale" or a "quart pot". Were these cans sold at pubs? It must have been a can because surely customers were not allowed to take their beer pots off the premises of a pub? How did these Victorian beer cans look like? Sorry for bringing up this rather meaningless detail but I often pondered on it for some reason.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Mac,

I don't know wether the police tried to track down Blotchy Face but I guess they believed Hutch and his sighting of Astrakhan Man. By doing so, they accepted or believed that Blotchy Face was gone when Mary went into the court with her next client around 2 a.m., and thus had no incentive to continue their BM enquiries any further.

Regards,

Boris

P.S.: The witness statements either mention "a quart can of ale" or a "quart pot". Were these cans sold at pubs? It must have been a can because surely customers were not allowed to take their beer pots off the premises of a pub? How did these Victorian beer cans look like? Sorry for bringing up this rather meaningless detail but I often pondered on it for some reason.

Hi Boris.....

Yes - perfectly understandable with regard to Hutchinson's man. Though the police would surely still want to question Blotchy man - if nothing else to understand if he saw anything or if MJK had mentioned anything such as someone she was meeting?

With regard to selling on the premises....being from the North East there is a bit of a drinking culture...and my family talk of the 'off licence' days when you could take a jug to the pub and they had a small hatch on the side of the pub where you could get your jug filled with ale and take it home - it was known as an 'off licence'. This will have been the 1940s and before - so it was certainly an option then. My understanding is that a quart is a couple of pints - now were Blotchy a drinking man he would have necked one and a half of those pints within half an hour and MJK her bit within the same time period. Which leaves another 45 minutes with them out of beer and him just sat around waiting for her to finish singing so he can have sex - which seems unlikely unless he was waiting for something else.

[bolo]

Hi Mac,

Hi Boris.....

Yes - perfectly understandable with regard to Hutchinson's man. Though the police would surely still want to question Blotchy man - if nothing else to understand if he saw anything or if MJK had mentioned anything such as someone she was meeting?

I guess they ruled him out because he seemed like a normal client of Mary whom she may or may not have entertained with her singing and/or obliged him in other ways. Either way, he did not seem to mind getting seen by Mary Ann Cox who talked to Mary when she was his company. I don't think our man would have been so careless.

With regard to selling on the premises....being from the North East there is a bit of a drinking culture...and my family talk of the 'off licence' days when you could take a jug to the pub and they had a small hatch on the side of the pub where you could get your jug filled with ale and take it home - it was known as an 'off licence'. This will have been the 1940s and before - so it was certainly an option then. My understanding is that a quart is a couple of pints

Thanks for the info, this answers a lot of my questions!

now were Blotchy a drinking man he would have necked one and a half of those pints within half an hour and MJK her bit within the same time period. Which leaves another 45 minutes with them out of beer and him just sat around waiting for her to finish singing so he can have sex - which seems unlikely unless he was waiting for something else.

As lengthy musical performances probably were not a standard part of her range of services, I don't believe that Mary sang "A Violet From Mother's Grave" continously for an hour in order to entertain Blotchy Face, she was a streetwalker, not a singer, after all.

Mrs Cox said that she left the house around midnight and heard Mary singing the Violet song. Mary and Blotchy Face arrived at 11:45 p.m. so whe don't know what happened between midnight and one o'clock when Cox returned to warm her up in her room and found Mary still singing. Blotchy Man may have still been with her but I doubt it, she had reason enough to keep her clients' visits as short as possible because of her high rent arrears. Of course the latter is just a bit of speculation on my part.

Regards,

Boris

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Mac,

I guess they ruled him out because he seemed like a normal client of Mary whom she may or may not have entertained with her singing and/or obliged him in other ways. Either way, he did not seem to mind getting seen by Mary Ann Cox who talked to Mary when she was his company. I don't think our man would have been so careless.

Can't go with the didn't mind being seen...Boris.....more likely he didn't have a choice.

Thanks for the info, this answers a lot of my questions!

Not a problem.

As lengthy musical performances probably were not a standard part of her range of services, I don't believe that Mary sang "A Violet From Mother's Grave" continously for an hour in order to entertain Blotchy Face, she was a streetwalker, not a singer, after all.

And of course you're absolutely correct. Point conceded and I weren't exactly using my brain with that one.

Blotchy Man may have still been with her but I doubt it, she had reason enough to keep her clients' visits as short as possible because of her high rent arrears. Of course the latter is just a bit of speculation on my part.

Regards,

Boris

I'd say 50/50. He was the man in the room so best placed. But as you say could have left - and the fact that he wasn't seen leaving doesn't bother me at all - in my book that's a non-starter.

But the 50/50 of staying/leaving bolted onto having known to have been in the room still places him above anyone hanging around outside as a better option - though not necessarily the killer.

Best Wishes
Paul

[Observer]

Hi Observer....

a) It could quite easily be speculated that the 3 men didn't see that which they claimed to see - and made it up or changed the details for whatever reason you or I wish to imagine. Ditto Hutchinson. .

Incredible, you really are making it up as you go along, are we to believe any of the witnesses from the autumn of 1888? What say we throw them all out.

b) Looking up at a window does not make him a 'major suspect'. Take that to court - and it certainly wouldn't stand up. I'm a tad perplexed here on why people are claiming he should be viewed as a 'major suspect' or with 'considerable suspicion' when the best being offered is that he was at a murder scene - not sufficient. The only thing that would make him a major suspect is were it to turn out that the police had checked out his story and he was found to be lying - then again even that wouldn't make him a major suspect as he could just as easily have been an attention seeker and only claimed to be the man Lewis had seen.

It 's a bit more than looking up at a window though isn't it? Hutchinson claimed to have encountered Mary Kelly very shortly before her murder. He also provided the police with a rather remarkable description of a man he allegedly saw with Kelly, remarkable in it's detail considering the fleeting nature of the sighting, and the fact that the sighting was observed at night, under poor street lighting. The police eventually discounted Hutch's encounter, where would that have left Hutchinson, up poo creek without a paddle I would have thought.

Put yourself in Abberlines shoes shortly after he realised that Hutchinson wasn't telling the entire truth, how would he have percieved the situation at that juncture regarding Hutchinson? Here we have a witness in Hutchinson who stood opposite Millers Court shortly before Kelly's murder, and it turns out (in police eyes) that he's less than truthfull regarding his statment, surely the police would have viewed this development in the negative.

What questions would you have asked Hutchinson from this junction onwards? I know I would have asked him if his sighting of Kelly and Astrakhan was a fabrication then what was he doing there at 2 30 in the morning. Of course, all Hutchinson had to do was stick to his guns, and I'm quite sure that is what he did, I'd have had him very carefully watched though.

Observer

[Fleetwood Mac]

Incredible, you really are making it up as you go along, are we to believe any of the witnesses from the autumn of 1888? What say we throw them all out.

Not at all. The reverse in fact. I'm saying that to pick holes in Hutchinson's statement demands that you pick holes in other witness's statements. That is no more than logic. And it can't be proven that Hutchinson is lying anymore than it can be proven anyone else is lying - except where there is evidence which tips the balance beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm not making a case for Blotchy being the killer or Hutchinson not being the killer - I don't have a suspect that I've claimed for my own. I am saying however that Blotchy is a better bet than Hutchinson based on what we definitely know of that night (assuming you believe Cox's statement).

It 's a bit more than looking up at a window though isn't it? Hutchinson claimed to have encountered Mary Kelly very shortly before her murder. He also provided the police with a rather remarkable description of a man he allegedly saw with Kelly, remarkable in it's detail considering the fleeting nature of the sighting, and the fact that the sighting was observed at night, under poor street lighting. The police eventually discounted Hutch's encounter, where would that have left Hutchinson, up poo creek without a paddle I would have thought.

Except the police were privy to all of the above information and Hutchinson - in fact - was not left up **** creek.

I would have certainly questioned him about the details. But with no one having seen Hutchinson gone into the room then he could never be up **** creek - as you would have had to have least have had that in those days to mount a case against him.

[Observer]

It seems you are a great believer in adhering to the facts, how do you know that Hutchinson was not severly rebuked by the police? Wasting police time comes to mind here. Also,when we are assesing witness credibility isn't it a tad one sided when we put Hutchinson's fancifull statement alongside the very believable statements of Lawende, Harris and Levy? Can you not see this?

Observer

[Adam Went]

Frank:

Hutchinson gave no reason for being there in the first place, virtually no reason to go out of his way to take particular notice of the man, no reason follow the couple, no reason to wait that long.

Actually, he said that he'd just returned from Romford. Perhaps, after the hike, he felt like a drink, so he went for a drink at the pub, spending whatever money he had left and therefore having nothing left to give MJK when she asked him, eh?

And if Kelly was a personal friend or possibly a bit more to him than that, and the man looked somewhat suspicious, he has every reason to be curious/concerned and follow them to see what's going on.

As to the fact that Hutchinson’s description was much more detailed than that of other witnesses, my guess is that modern experts in the field and experienced police officers would be wary of Hutchinson because of his detailed description alone.

So are you suggesting then that if Hutchinson's story about where he had been and what he was doing had remained exactly the same, but he had delivered a basic, generic witness description like all the rest of them did, you would be more inclined to believe him, right? That seems somewhat ridiculous, to judge a witness not by their character or the story they gave, but by the details of their sighting?

Observer:

Incredible, you really are making it up as you go along, are we to believe any of the witnesses from the autumn of 1888? What say we throw them all out.

It is quite "incredible", isn't it? As I mentioned before, people complain because we don't know enough about JTR and what he looked like and how he acted - here we have a clear description and yet a good percentage of people choose to ignore it, or even label the witness as a serial killer. It's a lose, lose situation for the witnesses....

Cheers,
Adam.

[Observer]

Indeed Adam. I'd say that Lawende, Harris, and Levy saw what they said they saw, to put them on a par as witnesses with Hutchinson is a bit silly.

Observer

[DVV]

Yeah...

[harry]

Lets have a little truth here.
If it was not a fact that the person Hutchinson described was not identified,then please state who he was.

If it is not a fact that the described person did not resemble anyone in the company of other victims,then state who he did resemble.

Hutchinson described the man as Jewish appearance.Fact,and the word I used was appraised not mislead.Read carefully.

It is a fact that there was a delay in Hutchinson coming forwasd.The body was discovered Saturday,Hutchinson did not come forward untill the Monday Evening.

I did not say each one separately raised suspicion,but indicated that taken in total they did.

It is a fact that many people treat Hutchinson with suspicion.

We do not know whether Aberline acted to prove the belief he expressed in Hutchinson,except letting Hutchinson accompany officers.In principle he should have done more,but any in depth enquiries appear to have failed to locate the last,and therefore best suspect,reportedly,seen in Kelly's company.I wonder why?

[Observer]

Hi Dave

Yeah...

Is that a yeah yeah, or a yeah yeah?

all the best

Observer

[Observer]

Hi Harry

Lets have a little truth here.
If it was not a fact that the person Hutchinson described was not identified,then please state who he was.

Somewhat reminicent of the Goulston Street graffiti that one hehe. It could well be that Hutchinson did not see anyone in the prescense of Mary Kelly that night, in effect he made it all up.

If it is not a fact that the described person did not resemble anyone in the company of other victims,then state who he did resemble.

No one, he was a ficticious figure.

It is a fact that many people treat Hutchinson with suspicion.

Can you blame them Harry considering his rather detailed description of the man he alledgedly saw with Mary Kelly that morning?

We do not know whether Aberline acted to prove the belief he expressed in Hutchinson,except letting Hutchinson accompany officers.In principle he should have done more,but any in depth enquiries appear to have failed to locate the last,and therefore best suspect,reportedly,seen in Kelly's company.I wonder why?

Because eventually the police dismissed Hutchinsons Story as highly highly unlikely?

all the best

Observer

[The Good Michael]

Because eventually the police dismissed Hutchinsons Story as highly highly unlikely?

I'm glad you used a question mark.

Mike

[Observer]

Hi Mike

So am I, I very nearly left it out though.

all the best

Observer