The Red Handkerchief...

[Abby Normal]

A. Blotches on the face wouldn't be particularly noticeable in a fleeting nocturnal encounter at a distance.

B. On account of their size, peaked caps and neckerchiefs are easy to spot from afar. A moustache - especially a carroty one - would be far less likely to register under such circumstances... Tumblety's excepted.

Is it possible that someone else on casebook actually thinks as i Do, that the best candidate for the ripper is blotchy?

[GUT]

G'day Abby Normal

At the very least Blotchy has to be right in the Frame for MJK.

Not much to tie him to the others.

[Sally]

1. Kelly meets somebody known to her at the corner of Dorset Street
2. Kelly and A.N. Other have a conversation to the effect that Kelly has no money.
3. Kelly and A.N. Other part ways.
4. Kelly is observed by A.N. Other to be accosted by a 'well-dressed' man
5. A. N. Other observes said 'well-dressed' man offer Kelly money - Fabulous! The answer to her prayers!
6. A.N. Other observes Kelly and the man go back to Kelly's lodgings.
7. A.N. Other engages in overtly curious intrusive monitoring of Kelly’s meeting with a presumed client.
8. Kelly is not seen again until her death.
9. A.N. Other, or the pressman recording her, used the phrases “met the murdered woman” and “murdered woman Kelly”.

All of the above applies to Hutchinson.

Thanks Ben - your additions to the list highlght just how close the corrsepondence between the two accounts actually is.

Looking at the above, I don't see how it's tenable to argue that the striking similarity between the early account of the 'associate' and Hutchinson's later account can be dismissed.

If we can at least accept that there is cause for doubt as to the veracity of his story, we can move on.

[richardnunweek]

Hi
We have several witnesses, who claim to have seen Kelly on the night of the 8th, and the early hours of the 9th.. maybe all of them were telling lies.
Then where are we?.
The obvious truth teller would be Mrs Prater...who claimed to have seen, and spoken to Mary around 9pm[ 8th]..
Why?
Because she quotes the following...''She had her jacket and bonnet on. I do not own any''. the fact that she describes a bonnet , which had to have been Mrs Harvey;s... left to Kelly with the words'' I am leaving you my bonnet'' just a few hours previous.
It has to have been a accurate sighting, as Mary Kelly never owned a bonnet..
This being the case, it is quite possible ,that Mrs Cox lied about seeing Kelly at 1145 pm ..for the simple reason , she [ Kelly] then was not wearing the same outfit , as the truth teller described., this being the case ''Blotchy never existed'' at least that night.
It really is practise detective work...
Plus we have the portrayal of events relayed to Cox's niece ,[ of the night in question] that are conflicting to say the least....
Should we trust her...I would say No..
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

And another thing...

Hi Richard,

Thanks - Mrs Prater's account raises an interesting point.

Have you noticed that for all the detail in Hutchinson's account regarding the suspicious Astrakhan Man, there is no description on Kelly -a woman he said he knew 'very well' - at all?

What do you make of that?

[richardnunweek]

Hi Sally.
If I was interviewing Hutchinson, I would have ascertained if this witness had seen the correct women.
Firstly the clothing she was wearing[ after all he described the man vividly] and secondly arrange a identification of the dead person ASAP.
We know the latter was arranged..for the following morning..so it figures that the police had also a description of Kelly'c clothes , even though it is not stated on record, and never released.
It would have been fascinating to know if she was dressed in clothing similar to Mrs Cox's statement.some two hours previous..
Regards Richard.

[GUT]

G'day Sally

Have you noticed that for all the detail in Hutchinson's account regarding the suspicious Astrakhan Man, there is no description on Kelly -a woman he said he knew 'very well' - at all?

Of course we do not have the actual interview, but it would be surprising if that wasn't covered, ie "How do you know it was MJK".

[Sally]

G'day Sally



Of course we do not have the actual interview, but it would be surprising if that wasn't covered, ie "How do you know it was MJK".

Very true, Gut. Yet we do have Hutchinson's statement - nothing there; and we do have Hutchinson's chat to the press - nothing there either. He had more than one opportunity to provide a physical description - yet we have nothing. I'd have thought that it was at least relevant.

It strikes me as curious, considering that there are several descriptions of Kelly from other witnesses who claimed to have seen her in the hours before her death.

[GUT]

G'day Sally

Perhaps the one thing that keeps me coming back is that there is so much that we don't know because it has been lost over the years and we are left to speculate on what was or wasn't done / discovered / discounted at the time.

[Sally]

G'day Sally

Perhaps the one thing that keeps me coming back is that there is so much that we don't know because it has been lost over the years and we are left to speculate on what was or wasn't done / discovered / discounted at the time.

Well yes, there wouldn't be a site like this one if we knew more for certain

I don't know about this one - seems starkly at odds with the highly detailed description Hutchinson provided in other respects.

[Fisherman]

Well yes, there wouldn't be a site like this one if we knew more for certain

I don't know about this one - seems starkly at odds with the highly detailed description Hutchinson provided in other respects.

We know from Abberlines report that material was known to the police without making it into Badhams report - like for instance for how long Hutchinson had known Kelly.

We also know that Hutchinson was interrogated by Abberline. He would at that stage have put it beyond doubt that the woman he saw was Kelly. It was arguably at the very top of the priorities list to establish this, and we know that Abberline was pleased with the outcome.

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Hi
We have several witnesses, who claim to have seen Kelly on the night of the 8th, and the early hours of the 9th.. maybe all of them were telling lies.
Then where are we?.
The obvious truth teller would be Mrs Prater...who claimed to have seen, and spoken to Mary around 9pm[ 8th]..
Why?
Because she quotes the following...''She had her jacket and bonnet on. I do not own any''. the fact that she describes a bonnet , which had to have been Mrs Harvey;s... left to Kelly with the words'' I am leaving you my bonnet'' just a few hours previous.
It has to have been a accurate sighting, as Mary Kelly never owned a bonnet..
This being the case, it is quite possible ,that Mrs Cox lied about seeing Kelly at 1145 pm ..for the simple reason , she [ Kelly] then was not wearing the same outfit , as the truth teller described., this being the case ''Blotchy never existed'' at least that night.
It really is practise detective work...
Plus we have the portrayal of events relayed to Cox's niece ,[ of the night in question] that are conflicting to say the least....
Should we trust her...I would say No..
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard
so cox was lying because "Kelly was not wearing the same outfit?" really?

how about Prater was mistaken. how about Kelly changed her outfit after she saw her? How about cox was mistaken about the outfit?

cox story about Kelly and Blotchy is also corroborated by other witnesses. Pickett and her husband also heard Mary singing.

There is NOTHING to suggest Cox was lying.

[Observer]

The train of thought of certain posters here in Casebook Land never ceases to amaze me. The ever dodgy Hutchinson becomes even dodgier. He failed to provide (it seems) a description of Kelly. Why should he have?

From the Daily News 14th November 1888

"I came down Whitechapel road into Commercial street. As I passed Thrawl street I passed a man standing at the corner of the street, and as I went towards Flower and Dean street I met the woman Kelly, whom I knew very well, having been in her company a number of times. She said, "Mr. Hutchinson, can you lend me sixpence?" I said, "I cannot, as I am spent out going down to Romford."

Abberline initially took Hutchinson at face value. Bearing in mind the fact that Hutchinson said he had known Kelly for some time, why would Abberline require a description of what she was wearing?

[Observer]

Hi Richard
so cox was lying because "Kelly was not wearing the same outfit?" really?

how about Prater was mistaken. how about Kelly changed her outfit after she saw her? How about cox was mistaken about the outfit?

cox story about Kelly and Blotchy is also corroborated by other witnesses. Pickett and her husband also heard Mary singing.

There is NOTHING to suggest Cox was lying.

How about the only corroboration between Cox and the Pickets was the fact that they both heard her singing. Her description of Kelly in the company of Blotchy was not corroborated.

[Abby Normal]

The train of thought of certain posters here in Casebook Land never ceases to amaze me. The ever dodgy Hutchinson becomes even dodgier. He failed to provide (it seems) a description of Kelly. Why should he have?

From the Daily News 14th November 1888

"I came down Whitechapel road into Commercial street. As I passed Thrawl street I passed a man standing at the corner of the street, and as I went towards Flower and Dean street I met the woman Kelly, whom I knew very well, having been in her company a number of times. She said, "Mr. Hutchinson, can you lend me sixpence?" I said, "I cannot, as I am spent out going down to Romford."

Abberline initially took Hutchinson at face value. Bearing in mind the fact that Hutchinson said he had known Kelly for some time, why would Abberline require a description of what she was wearing?

hi observer
eventhoughi think hutch was probably lying, I somewhat agree with you-its a minor issue. Hutch seems to make very clear it was the right mary.

on the other hand, marys description seems to be of a lot of importance to the other witnesses, inquest etc. so why not from Hutch? especially with his apparent powers of observation you would have thought it would be a good point for abberline to question him on.