You are Hutchinson and you're in trouble....

[Rubyretro]

Fleetwood -I was under the impression that it was more like 2am/3am ?

And wasn't the woman who heard 'Murder!' screams tucked up in bed ?

Just because you're a neighbour doesn't make you a close friend...even if you're on chatting terms.

The person that MIGHT of heard her was a lone woman, who would have had no chance against a desperate JtR.

Also I think Mary was more Moll Flanders than Ned Flanders, and so cries from her room would have had her British neighbours minding their own business rather than sticking their noses in.

JtR might well have been an inadequate -but he can't have had scruples about killing. Even a fit young man -lets imagined armed- would feasibly have hesitated before attacking another human being. I can't believe that JtR would have lay down and rolled over whimpering, if confronted.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I've come to the conclusion that nothing at would have happened...

A stranger.......possibly.....

A friend...a different matter.....

And at 12ish.....there'd be no need to get out of bed......they'd be awake

Imagine that someone caught JtR in the act -JtR had a knife and risked hanging, & he would be desperate not to be caught & not to be identified
-I can't imagine that he would let a witness live.

Good old Jack could well have been a coward......an inadequate.....he might not have fancied a one on one with a bloke bigger than him....knife or otherwise.....

[Fleetwood Mac]

Think it over.

Presumably he went to the police station because he'd heard/read MJK had been murdered....?

There are some dim people wandering around.....but surely he wouldn't have wandered into a police station and said......"you know that murdered woman Kelly?".....to which the police replied....."what murdered woman...know nothing of the sort"......Hutchinson: "ahhh ****"....

I doubt he was imbued with the spirit of the enlightenment.....but I doubt he was stupid enough to murder someone.....and waltz into the police station to give a statement....before it had been made public!

[harry]

Without Hutchinson's story,there is no Jewish presence in MJK's killing.There would be only an unknown male in close proximity to the murder room,and an unknown man(blotchy face)who was seen to enter that room and not leave.Lewis's testimony does not alter that.Hers is only circumstantial evidence that supports Hutchinson's presence.It does nothing else.

Hutchinson,if he is to be believed,gives circumstantial evidence that Blotchy face had departed prior to Kelly's meeting with Hutchinson.He introduces another entirely different person into her room.Had Hutchinson not come forward,Blotchy face would seem to be the principle suspect.

Now how does that fit with the overall picture.Well it would destroy the credibility of certain high ranking police and theorists that a Jewish person was JTR,and that Kelly was a Ripper victim.

Hutchinson opens his statement with the following words included."I met the murdered woman Kelly".How did he know that the woman he met,and the woman that had been murdered in Millers court were one and the same.You may say that it was because it was common knowledge on the streets that a woman named Kelly from Millers courthad been killed.You may be correct.I would like to think maybe it was a subconcious statement that he knew because he had killed her.Apart from that those words are enlightening for another reason.Think it over.

[Rubyretro]

One or two screams at 12 midnight could quite easily have a neighbour poking his/her nose in....and with him being in a room and only one exit path...he would have been caught red handed....it follows the advantage of waiting until she's knocked out.....

[/QUOTE]

Personally, I believe that Mary was asleep when she was attacked.
However, I have thought about those 'murder !' cries, and what would have happened if Mary had been able to scream her head off with JtR cornered in her room and sadly I've come to the conclusion that nothing at would have happened...

I live within the City walls of Avignon, but in a 'quarter' which has some prostitutes working in the road behind (who attract some dodgy customers),
and which has a little shop selling cheap drink until about 1H 30am. There are
alot of cheap bedsits with a rapid 'turnover', and it's a favourite place for drug dealers. We even had some muggers working the street at one time
(robbing the prostitutes punters), and a man was stabbed under my window.

Fights, 'domestics', screams of 'murder', sounds of breaking glass and splintering wood are a regular occurrence, and unless it goes on for a very long time, we don't even call the police anymore (and we have 'phones).

Once, when I was 6 months pregnant a man got into the house (by reaching through a window & getting the key from the back of the front door). I was in bed, and he came into the bedroom to look for cash and I flew to the window, totally naked. I screamed 'Help ! Thief' etc at the top of my voice :
the bloke just stood and laughed. Not suprisingly -nobody came, even though it was about 8am, with lots of people about. My neighbour had her front door jemmied off in broad daylight, and nobody stopped the thieves.

So to imagine that someone would get out of bed in the middle of the night,
with no 'phone and no electric lights, in response to Mary's screams, is
stretching it. A woman wouldn't. Even a young fit man would have to be brave -people that interfere in a dispute are often the ones to be killed.

Imagine that someone caught JtR in the act -JtR had a knife and risked hanging, & he would be desperate not to be caught & not to be identified
-I can't imagine that he would let a witness live. I can't imagine that anyone would WANT to catch Jack, alone. I don't think that you'd even want to meet him coming out of Mary's room into Miller's Court. I wonder how many of us, hand on heart, would have got up and gone down to the court
to save Mary ?

True that there is safety in numbers, and a group of people could barricade the door and fetch a policeman -but they had no 'phones to call the neighbours or police, and it would take alot of time to knock on doors and persuade other people to get up, get light, get dressed, and come and help -and Jack would hardly hang around whilst they were doing it.

So whilst it's not impossible that a have-a-go hero could have caught Jack
in Mary's room -the reality is that the neighbours would keep well out of it,
and he didn't have such a risk from Mary being awake as we might think.

[Marc]

but you'd have to believe Blotchy would have waited around for an hour or two and I don't find that much of a stretch

Well, I must admit that on the contrary, I do

Blotchy might have been JtR (and a strong music lover)...or a simple client
who didn't came forward, by fear of being suspected by the police, or hacked down by his wife
Whether he's a better suspect than Hutch or any other individual is IMHO a matter of opinion, and you've made yours very clear, through this thread
as well as others dedicated to MJK's murder.
Thanks for sharing it with us again.

Following your statement that MJK is most probably a JtR victim, and that Blotchy is as good a suspect as others, if not better than some, it could be wondered why no other JtR killings 'witnesses' (brackets are meant to be there mind you) described a man with a 'blotchy face'.

What do you think ?
JtR would have at last let his face seen, for some reasons, or else ?

P.S : basically, I'm not interest in 'suspectology' , rather in the 'how', 'when', 'why' of the WM, so discussing around 'who' is better than 'who' doesn't have much appeal to me, but if this can shed light on the MO and psychological profile of the killer, I welcome it heartedly

[Fleetwood Mac]

How did he know that Lewis had sighted a man observing the Court shortly before Kelly's murder? How did he find out?

Wasn't it made public?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Cox was the only one to see Mary Kelly in the company of Blotchy, and at an hour (11:45) when there would be plenty of people out on the streets. Was Cox telling the truth about Blotchy?

As I said....it's dependent upon whom you find more believable...given the nature of the witness statements...I'll go fro Cox being more believable.

Although as I've said before.....I find it strange that she walked behind them and noticed she was drunk only when she spoke....now every drunk person I've seen is struggling to walk straight......she may have meant half cut I suppose.......

If Kelly was a Ripper victim, then she would not have been a problem to an experienced young fit serial killer, despite being 20 years younger than the previous victims.

One or two screams at 12 midnight could quite easily have a neighbour poking his/her nose in....and with him being in a room and only one exit path...he would have been caught red handed....it follows the advantage of waiting until she's knocked out.....

[Observer]

Surely not.....assuming he wanted to lend weight to a Jewish suspect...he just had to turn up and pretended to have been the bloke in the shadows.....and if no one else said they saw the man....then he'd have fallen back on it being late and not many people about....and it seems this is exactly what happened as no one else saw that man.....

How did he know that Lewis had sighted a man observing the Court shortly before Kelly's murder? How did he find out?

[Observer]

It certainly does......

Put simply I think it's more likely to be a man witnessed going into the room by a neighbour....than a man identified by a man who came forward with a description that is highly questionable......

I think the former is more likely than the latter....but you'd have to believe Blotchy would have waited around for an hour or two and I don't find that much of a stretch....she was tanked....they had more beer.....kill while she's lively and singing and capable of putting up a fight and screaming her head off....or wait until she is nigh on comotosed which he knew wouldn't have been much of a wait......

Cox was the only one to see Mary Kelly in the company of Blotchy, and at an hour (11:45) when there would be plenty of people out on the streets. Was Cox telling the truth about Blotchy?

Jack the Ripper didnt have any problems quickly silencing his previous victims. If Kelly was a Ripper victim, then she would not have been a problem to an experienced young fit serial killer, despite being 20 years younger than the previous victims. In my humble opinion, if Blotchy was JTR he would of despatched her pretty quickly. But as I implied earlier did he exist at all?

O

[Fleetwood Mac]

Why not, but doesn't it imply that Hutch 'Astrakan Man' story is wholly false (AM seen with MJK later than Blotchy) ?

It certainly does......

Put simply I think it's more likely to be a man witnessed going into the room by a neighbour....than a man identified by a man who came forward with a description that is highly questionable......

I think the former is more likely than the latter....but you'd have to believe Blotchy would have waited around for an hour or two and I don't find that much of a stretch....she was tanked....they had more beer.....kill while she's lively and singing and capable of putting up a fight and screaming her head off....or wait until she is nigh on comotosed which he knew wouldn't have been much of a wait......

[Fleetwood Mac]

There's no evidence for Jack having an overwhelming desire to put himself through any of this, and no evidence that he would have felt any need at all to do so. It's still possible that he did, I just think it's not very likely in reality.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz.....

Yes.....

Would be interesting to know what came of trying to track Blotchy.....seems there are no surviving documents.....

[Fleetwood Mac]

The trouble with Lewis testimony,is that she declares the person she saw was in shadow,so while she could be believed as to the general appearance of coat and hat,facial features would be harder to swear to.None the less,Hutchinson couldn't be sure of that.

Not that it matters in my opinion,as I believe the focus of Hutchinson's story is to place a Jewish suspect in Kelly's company,and in her room,and to do that,he would have to have had to be in a position to observe the court.In that respect,Lewis's sighting of him,adds weight to Hutchinson's statement.

Surely not.....assuming he wanted to lend weight to a Jewish suspect...he just had to turn up and pretended to have been the bloke in the shadows.....and if no one else said they saw the man....then he'd have fallen back on it being late and not many people about....and it seems this is exactly what happened as no one else saw that man.....

[Marc]

I think some people keep forgetting this was 1888.

May be, but individuals were sometimes arrested and positively identified in those days too, often from accurate descriptions including specific traits (wound or birth marks, etc...) from people who knew them well.
Judging from period (late 1800's, early 1900's) sources, descriptions of people are often very precise, with a luxury of detail which are seldom heard of today.
Also, clothing of these days was often less standardized, and could be pointed more specifically to describe someone.

[Marc]

Blotchy is a much better bet when comparing the two.....

Why not, but doesn't it imply that Hutch 'Astrakan Man' story is wholly false (AM seen with MJK later than Blotchy) ?