Hutchinson and antisemitism ?? A possibility?

[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

[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 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,

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]

So, we agree to an important extent and that's good enough for me, Fleetwood.

I'm sure we do Frank - but then perhaps we'd agree that 'a decent chance of him not telling the whole truth' does not equate to 'major suspect'?

Although I don't know if your comments on his intention and need would hold up in a court of law ,

Ha! Yes....well....were I the judge and jury..... ;-)

I agree that Mr Blotchy Face should be of interest to the police. More than Hutchinson, who firmly linked himself to the court and Kelly on that fateful night? I don't know, it might depend on the accepted time of death.

Cheers,
Frank

A man who was seen going into her room with a load of ale - inference being that he was planning on being there for a while - and didn't come forward to exonerate himself versus a man hanging around outside who did come forward? Surely logic dictates that the blotchy faced fella is better placed - regardless of whether not he murdered her? Let's say you didn't know anything about this case and you were presented with two options: in the room and declined to come forward versus not in the room and came forward - on that basis which would you go for?

And of course you're leading me down the accepted time of death route....point taken....yet did anyone see him leave and at what time?

Now surely these two facts mean this fella is the most likely: a) he was seen going into her room b) he didn't come forward to clear himself - you could argue he wouldn't come forward out of concern for being fingered but then you could argue that were he innocent he'd be falling over himself to tell his story rather than have others decide in his absence - which is effectively disenfranchising yourself from the right to a trial including a defence - surely a better defence is to explain your reason for being there versus offering no defence whatsoever?

[Marlowe]

You distorted the facts by being totally selective in your account of the description given by Hutchinson of the man he claimed he followed back to Millers Court with MJK : to whit "Astrakhan Man".
This amounts to lying by omission.

I'm afraid you've been snared by one of my traps. I never said that the witness I was quoting was Hutchinson, did I?. It was Mrs Kennedy who I was quoting. She said everything I wrote there and what little difference there was between HER description and Hutchinson's description, I placed in parentheses. They were clearly describing the same man. There can be ZERO debate about this. Hutchinson is a good suspect, but the narrative needs to be changed. Hutchinson's description is the same as Kennedy's, but upgraded. Why? That should be the main question.

[FrankO]

I would absolutely believe Hutchinson's reason for noticing and memorising the man and I don't think that it's a thin reason at all (although the lighting poses a problem);

Can you tell me why you would absolutely believe this, Ruby?

Frank

[FrankO]

I could go with there's a decent chance that he wasn't telling the whole truth. But no more than that.

So, we agree to an important extent and that's good enough for me, Fleetwood.

I'm not so sure about that. Because a man seen entering the room with a jug of beer - suggesting he expected to be there for a while - who didn't intend to stay the night - and didn't need a room for sex - and didn't come forward to clear himself - now I'd hazard a guess that this man would be of far more interest to the police than someone who came forward to admit he was outside for an hour.

Although I don't know if your comments on his intention and need would hold up in a court of law , I agree that Mr Blotchy Face should be of interest to the police. More than Hutchinson, who firmly linked himself to the court and Kelly on that fateful night? I don't know, it might depend on the accepted time of death.

Cheers,
Frank

[Rubyretro]

I have responded to the lack of facts. You have created a bizarre story that is the antithesis of factual. What do you want, support? It won't happen. Horseshoes, grooms, and anti-semitism. Wow. Just wow!

Mike

Horse shoes : Hutchinson gave a "witness statement to the police with the description of a man who he INFERRED was the ripper"

Hutchinson described this suspect as wearing a gold pin on his tie in the form of a horse shoe.

Hutchinson is described as being an unemployed GROOM/labourer

Hutchinson described this 'suspect' as looking jewish (amended by the police
to 'foreign looking' , as his description was considered so inflammatory )

JtR left a piece of Catherine Eddowes' apron under some graffiti which was
quickly rubbed out by Sir Charles Warren as it was considered inflammatory.

All the JtR murders took place in proximity to synagogues, jewish sacred spots or clubs.

A description by the only believable witness of JtR does not describe a jewish looking person.
(ALL TRUE STATEMENTS)

I would hope that some people might be interested enough to do some research on Hutchinson's early life themselves -because that is where 'proofs' will lie..

[The Good Michael]

I started this thread, and if you can't reply to each point ( that is to each FACT and then prove that the hypothoses linking them are illogical), then please go away since your contribution is not useful.

I have responded to the lack of facts. You have created a bizarre story that is the antithesis of factual. What do you want, support? It won't happen. Horseshoes, grooms, and anti-semitism. Wow. Just wow!

Mike

[Rubyretro]

"Rubyretro",

Please explain to me how I distorted the facts. Thank you.

You distorted the facts by being totally selective in your account of the description given by Hutchinson of the man he claimed he followed back to Millers Court with MJK : to whit "Astrakhan Man".
This amounts to lying by omission.

[Marlowe]

"Rubyretro",

Please explain to me how I distorted the facts. Thank you.

[Rubyretro]

I prefer to call it dealing with the madness in a satirical way.

Mike

Aha ! Big Clue to Your Character ! : what you "prefer" to call something is
not necessarily what it is. continue trolling me and I will report you to the administrators.

I started this thread, and if you can't reply to each point ( that is to each FACT and then prove that the hypothoses linking them are illogical), then please go away since your contribution is not useful.
(that's what this site recommends, I see)

[Rubyretro]

Hi again FM,

In my previous post I was just reacting to Adam Went’s claim that Hutchinson was no different than any other Ripper witness and your agreement with that. Your reply post hasn’t changed that.

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.

If he thought Kelly’s punter was the Ripper or wanted to harm her in any other way, he would have had reason to memorize what he looked like, follow the couple, etc.. If he was planning to mug him, he might have had reason to take a good look at him, follow the couple, etc.. If, out of jealousy, he wanted to remember Kelly’s punter for future encounters, he had reason to memorize what he looked like, follow the couple, etc..

Yet, the only very thin reason Hutchinson gave was that it surprised him to see Kelly in the company of such a well dressed man. That’s way too thin compared to all the trouble he took. And therefore, a healthy reason to question his veracity.

All the other witnesses were there for a mundane reason: they were there for a fleeting moment, on their way home or to work, which was quite easily checkable.

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.

Furthermore, you discount my post as ‘stringing together a few issues which could be disputed’, which is way too easy for my taste. First of all, they shouldn’t be observed in isolation, as you tried to do, simply because they aren’t isolated issues. They are issues that are quite firmly linked together by Hutchinson’s account and his coming forward after Lewis’ testimony.

All of this, like I said in my previous post, doesn’t mean Hutchinson had anything to do with her death, but as far as I’m concerned, there’s a very good chance that he wasn’t telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth about his being there.

Which, to end this post, brings me to your repeated point that ‘it wouldn’t stand up in a court of law’. We are not in a court of law here, but even if we were, there’s no use in approaching an old case like the Ripper’s like that. Based on what we know, nothing important would stick in whatever court of law.

Cheers,
Frank

You know -I would absolutely believe Hutchinson's reason for noticing and memorising the man and I don't think that it's a thin reason at all (although the lighting poses a problem); my problem is that no one else did notice the man, and that such a man would ever be there in the first place. Let alone the fact that Hutchinson added in the 'red stone' , thought that he saw the man again in Petticoat Lane, the man had a horse-shoe symbol on him (and hutchinson was an ex-groom) , and that hutchinson only came forward to volunteer this remarkable and detailed description after the inquest (and after a witness had come forward to place a description of himself at the scene of the crime in the right time frame).

[The Good Michael]

Is this what's called 'Trolling ' ???
I wondered what that was ..

I prefer to call it dealing with the madness in a satirical way.

Mike