Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nov 16, The Star

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Nov 16, The Star


    A Man who Tallys with Kelly's Murderer Seen to Accost Women.


    "Mr. Galloway, a clerk employed in the City, and living at Stepney, has made the following statement :- "As I was going down the Whitechapel-road in the early hours of Wednesday morning, on my way home, I saw a man coming in the opposite direction, about fifty yards away. We both crossed the road simultaneously, and came face to face. The man had a very frightened appearance, and glared at me as he passed. I was very much struck with his appearance, especially as he corresponded, in almost every particular, with the man described by Mary Ann Cox. He was short, stout, about 35 to 40 years of age. His moustache, not a particularly heavy one, was of

    A CARROTY COLOR, AND HIS FACE BLOTCHY

    through drink and dissipation. He wore a long, dirty brown overcoat, and altogether presented a most villainous appearance. I stood still and watched him. He darted back almost immediately to the other side of the road, and then, apparently to avoid a group of women a little further on, crossed the road again. I determined to follow him, and just before reaching the coffee-stall past the church he again crossed the road. On nearing George-yard he crossed over and entered a small court. He reappeared in a couple of minutes, crossed Whitechapel-road for the sixth time, and proceeded up Commercial-street. Up to this time he had walked along briskly, but directly he got into Commercial-street, he slackened speed and

    ACCOSTED THE FIRST WOMAN

    whom he met alone, but was repulsed. On approaching Thrawl-street a policeman on point duty suddenly appeared. The man was evidently startled, and for a moment it looked as though he would turn back or cross the road. He recovered himself, however, and went on. I then informed the constable of what I had seen, and pointed out the man's extraordinary resemblance to the individual described by Cox. The constable declined to arrest the man, saying that he was looking for a man of a very different appearance."


    Youll note that the headline indicates a sighting of "Kellys murderer". I would imagine that reflects a popular opinion by Nov 16th of who the police should be looking for. Youll also note that in the last line it seems to suggest that the police were still operating on the assumption that her murderer was likely the toff alleged by Hutchinson to be seen in Marys company.

    Why would there still be contrasting opinion on this when the Irish Times had already reported that Hutchinson was discredited?


    Last edited by Michael W Richards; 11-23-2021, 04:53 PM.

  • #2
    It was the witnesses' opinion was that the man resembled the description given by Cox. But this man may or may not have resembled Hutchinson's "toff". Although an interesting story, it should be treated with caution -- especially since it's in the Star.

    This story was first recounted in Evans and Gainey's The Lodger.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
      It was the witnesses' opinion was that the man resembled the description given by Cox. But this man may or may not have resembled Hutchinson's "toff". Although an interesting story, it should be treated with caution -- especially since it's in the Star.

      This story was first recounted in Evans and Gainey's The Lodger.
      Thanks for chiming in Scott. I wonder though why the headline insinuates that we, the general population, should be considering Mary Ann Cox's Blotchy Man as perhaps "Kellys murderer" on the 16th. Hutch didnt even come in until the evening of the 12th, and in the article it appears that the local police are still considering Astrakan as the most probable murderer on the 16th. When did Blotchy make the move up the suspect ladder I wonder? Was it after they discredited Hutch..as reported on the 14/15th...and if so,...why are the rank and file still looking for Hutchs man on the 16th?

      Seems odd.

      Just re-read your post.... The witness was obviously referring to Blotchy in the sighting, and the police were obviously looking for someone quite different. The man Cox described, compared with Astrakan, were not similar.
      Last edited by Michael W Richards; 11-23-2021, 08:14 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
        ..... Although an interesting story, it should be treated with caution -- especially since it's in the Star.
        Interesting response, seeing as how the "Hutchinson was Discredited" story also came from the Star. One wonders why certain theorists refuse to apply the same amount of caution to that story.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

          Why would there still be contrasting opinion on this when the Irish Times had already reported that Hutchinson was discredited?

          It isn't the Galloway story that raises doubts over the claim of Hutchinson being "Discredited". It is the Echo, who on 19th November reported that the authorities are divided on who they think is the prime suspect.


          The police have not relaxed their endeavours to hunt down the murderer in the slightest degree; but so far they remain without any direct clue. Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson as to his having seen the latest victim with a gentlemanly man of dark complexion, with a dark moustache. Others are disposed to think that the shabby man with a blotchy face and a carrotty moustache described by the witness Mary Ann Cox, is more likely to be the murderer.
          Echo, 19 Nov.

          The press appear to be under the impression the police should only have one suspect, when in reality the police can and often do have several suspects at the same time.
          This press account indicates that four days after the bogus story of Hutchinson being "Discredited", the authorities were still investigating Hutchinson's story.




          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

            It isn't the Galloway story that raises doubts over the claim of Hutchinson being "Discredited". It is the Echo, who on 19th November reported that the authorities are divided on who they think is the prime suspect.


            The police have not relaxed their endeavours to hunt down the murderer in the slightest degree; but so far they remain without any direct clue. Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson as to his having seen the latest victim with a gentlemanly man of dark complexion, with a dark moustache. Others are disposed to think that the shabby man with a blotchy face and a carrotty moustache described by the witness Mary Ann Cox, is more likely to be the murderer.
            Echo, 19 Nov.

            The press appear to be under the impression the police should only have one suspect, when in reality the police can and often do have several suspects at the same time.
            This press account indicates that four days after the bogus story of Hutchinson being "Discredited", the authorities were still investigating Hutchinson's story.



            One then wonders what would cause the paper to run a headline on the 16th that suggests the probable suspect was seen by Mary Ann Cox, not the one claimed by Georgie. This is a few days after George came forward,....( 4 days after the murder), surely the press must be aware of what the investigation had revealed to that point.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

              One then wonders what would cause the paper to run a headline on the 16th that suggests the probable suspect was seen by Mary Ann Cox, not the one claimed by Georgie. This is a few days after George came forward,....( 4 days after the murder), surely the press must be aware of what the investigation had revealed to that point.
              Just let us not forget, we only have pieces of the puzzle. The article does not say which "authorities" are swayed towards which suspect, although the Echo, on the 13th, had published the scenario that the City police who pursued the Duke St. suspect do not think Blotchy is their man. Whereas the Met. police do take Blotchy to be their suspect.
              https://www.casebook.org/press_repor.../18881113.html

              The article goes on to claim that the Echo believe most suspect descriptions better fit the latest description (by Hutchinson) than what has been suggested to date. So, when the article of the 19th suggests the authorities are divided on suspects, we do not know if they mean a division within the Met. force, or a division between the City and the Met. police.
              All we can accept is that collectively the police had two suspects, but possibly three by the 13th, which was reflected in publications on the 16th & 19th.
              No suspect had been dropped due to a witness being discredited.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment

              Working...
              X