A Reasonable Suspect...

[Malcolm X]

thanks Perrymason

yes, i think she went to bed as well, to sleep off the drink....plus it was cold and raining outside

[carol smith]

Hullo all

I agree that Mary Jane didn't go out again that night for these reasons.

1...It was cold and wet, and she was in a warm lit room (fire was lit) she'd recently had a meal of fish and potatoes so all her immediate needs were taken care of.
2...She'd had a skinful, by all accounts she was roaring drunk, plus blotchy face had a carry out on him.
3...If blotchy was a client, he must have paid, otherwise in her drunken state she would have caused a ruction (these girls weren't daft, that was the first thing taken care of)...so why would she have gone back out in that weather and in that state...to ask Hutch for the loan of sixpence!
4...The Lord Mayors parade was next day, so she would probably have been anticipating a profitable working day...so why make it hard on herself by going back out that night.

I also have a question if anyone can direct me to the answer, in the police reports of Mary Janes death, was there any mention of money (blotchys payment) being found in her room.

[Chava]

also have a question if anyone can direct me to the answer, in the police reports of Mary Janes death, was there any mention of money (blotchys payment) being found in her room.

There wasn't any money found there or on any of the other victims. A lot of people think the Ripper took the money when he left them--as trophy rather than thievery, because there would have been very little of it.

I think he did retrieve his original 3d. But I'm willing to bet that the other money those poor women earned that night was drunk as soon as it was earned.

[Ben]

I think theft works better than trophy-taking if he removed any money that the victims had on them when they died, Chava. Coins change hands regularly and have no personal connection to any one individual.

[Malcolm X]

the most realistic scenario is that Kelly stopped singing and went to bed with Blotchy face..... but i'm wondering if Blotchy face already knew her quite well, Mary Cox didn't recognise him, but this could mean nothing .

it's odd that she was singing for so long in that room with Blotchy not singing too, he was either sitting there in a semi- drunken stupor with a silly smile on his face... or God knows what... because it's a bit odd to be singing for about 90 mins with a guest/ customer in her room... i would have got bored senseless and left after 20 mins... unless of course, i was pretty drunk and semi-crashed out on the floor.... done that a few times

was he really blotchy face.... or blotchy face due to heavy drinking..not sure!
but definitely a boozer...

he was seen at other murders ( if this is the Ripper) and nobody got close to catching him, the descriptions were far too vague and would fit so many men in the East End... the Ripper must have realised this, i expect a month later, he didn't give a damn if he was seen anymore...couldn't care less.

but in addition, she was making too much noise in her room and the fear that any friend could come around at any time, and knock on her door.... even one of her drunken friends at 4am....would definitely bother me..

well, my guess is the danger time is between midnight and about 3am... after this, nearly everyone settles down for the night.... in any case, if anyone was going to come around and complain about the noise etc, it would have been at that time or an hour ago.

even so, the Ripper took a huge risk carving her up in that room for so long, but i expect he thought that 4am was well late enough... and that woman that saw her, like all the rest; didn't see him well enough to ever recognise him again.

what we lack is a suspect that fits this ``blotchy face`` and no, it's not barnett.

[perrymason]

Hi all,

Robbery is an interesting aspect when considering these murders though Ben, wouldnt you agree? We have evidence that suggests he went through one victims inner skirt pocket and took her rings, another has items that would be in a pocket found about her....its a curious thing.

It seems obvious that the reason he is killing is for other than mere financial motives....he chooses the poorest members of the community,...yet there is evidence that the killer of Annie tore open her inner skirt pocket and ripped her rings off her, there is a possibility that Liz had the 6d she made that afternoon cleaning on her when she is killed, and Kate has a thimble...pocket contents, by her body. And although I hate to allow for this possibility...because there is no evidence that suggests it....but Mary may have earned money that night we dont know of...she may have had some on her when she got home for all we know....who knows, Blotchy may have intended to rob her!

That the killer seems interested in pocket contents while obviously seeking mutilation as a primary goal is curious.

Maybe suggests a man used to scrounging money anyway he can....even a petty thief. Wasnt Ostrog a fit for that...I know, he was in prison...but that kind of chap?

Best regards

[Roy Corduroy]

Maybe suggests a man used to scrounging money anyway he can

A low-life. Could be a clue. But I reject robbery as a motive, Michael.

He doesn't go to all that trouble, to strangle, slit throats, mutilate, just for chump change.

Roy

[Ben]

Robbery is an interesting aspect when considering these murders though Ben, wouldnt you agree?

Absolutely, Mike.

It wouldn't have been his primary goal, obviously, but it still seems likely to me that he did rob his victims after dispatching them. As you note, there's evidence to suggest the killer sifted through some his victims' belongings, discarding the obviously valueless items (muslin, pills etc) in the process. Certainly, none of the victims had any cash on their person when their bodies were discovered, and I can't believe that they were all completely penniless when they encountered their killer.

It had also been suggested that the killer may have used robery as a ruse to gain compliance.

All the best,
Ben

[perrymason]

Hi Ben,

It seems were in sync on this element. I do wonder though whether the person who rifled their clothing was looking for specific things as well.

Not that this is that "thing",... but I have read that some unfortunates were also informants...keeping police abreast of street goings on. Would they carry something on them that might identify them as such?...if some constable passes by he might be assuming they are soliciting and shuffle them along..but if they are keeping watch, it might be handy to have a badge or coin or piece of paper with the name of the officer they report to so that they can flash it to the constable.

Just thinking aloud.....but as an extension of that idea, if the killer did take something like that from the victims and the police when identifying the women discover they were informants but didnt have that "identifier" on them....that would send a message from the killer to the cops that he knew what they were up to.

Its a little easier to swallow his miracle entrances and exits if he is operating with some idea of the police methods being used to catch him...and maybe even the Vigilantees routes and patterns.

Best regards Ben.

[Fisherman]

Michael writes:

"Robbery is an interesting aspect when considering these murders though Ben, wouldnt you agree? We have evidence that suggests he went through one victims inner skirt pocket and took her rings, another has items that would be in a pocket found about her....its a curious thing."

Just wondering; could it be the other way around? Maybe he didnīt add robbery to murder - maybe he added murder to robbery...? Maybe he was an accomplished robber, who transformed into a serial killer?

Somehow that could perhaps explain the rifling through the victimīs pockets; it sort of came naturally, since this was what he always did...? It seems more odd to imagine a man who starts out by killing, and then simply adds robbery since it came in handy, so to speak.

Just a thought.

Regards,
Fisherman

[Malcolm X]

it would make sense, according to the suspects descriptions; that the Ripper was a Joe Average East Ender, therefore relatively poor... or in work, but still struggling to make a living........robbery therefore makes sense, but his primary goal is to mutilate prostitutes (for whatever reason we'll never know).

he would also definitely have been aware of the increased police presence on the streets/ vigilantees etc, after the murder of Eddowes.....because only a fool wouldn't, the Ripper would've been very street wise; he escaped discovery probably because he looked like a local and drew no attention when seen 5 minutes after killing, just a bloke walking down the street............rather than D'Onston, Tumblety ( especially him) or even i'm afraid; G.Chapman.

Mary Cox describes the suspect as only 5ft 5'' tall, that's pretty short.......doesn't really match the Lawende suspect or even Stride...........3'' too short and 2'' too short, well what does one say...

the Stride suspects might not be the Ripper, more likely that he stalked as a lone wolf... maybe he was close by watching from the shadows.

the Lawende suspect is most likely to the Ripper because the times are very tight indeed.....but he's even less of a match to ``blotchy face`` than the Stride suspects.

all's not lost because the ripper could've come along after the Lawende suspect too...

there is a slight pattern here with these two murders, it seems like the Ripper quickly sneaked in; which backs up my theory that the Ripper was an opportunist stalker and was attracted to the sound of womens' voices.. or a rumpus going on in the street.. rather than... a friend or somebody that knew the victims, i dont think he did... especially Kelly.

why no more ripper murders? well this is the biggest problem of all to solve...
he either downgraded, left the area, died or ended up in a loony bin!.....or finally was taken off the streets due to being arrested and locked up for another crime, probably robbery

all of this still points towards a killer who ( if not blotchy face and Kelly never went out again, highly unlikely) has to stalk outside in almost an identical manner to Hutchinson, like it or not Hutch is still a very strong suspect.

[Chava]

By the way, this comes from The Morning Advertiser of 13th November 1888. It's Mary Ann Cox's statement at the inquest. The other papers quote her verbatim but miss this addendum at the end.

The man I saw with the deceased was short and stout. All his clothes were dark. He appeared to be between 35 and 36. I did not notice the colour of his trousers. He looked very shabby, and his boots made no noise whatever in going up the court. The deceased had no hat on, and a red pelerine, and a dark shabby skirt. The deceased scarcely had time to say "Good night," as the man shut the door.

There's my Blotchy. She notes that his boots made no noise at all, and the fact that she noticed it meant that this was an unusual circumstance. As far as I can find out, rubber or soft-soled boots weren't common, especially in the East End. Working men wore hobnailed boots, which were durable and gave some protection to the wearer. Dockers especially would have wanted the security of the thick leather and reinforced sole and heel.

However the Ripper would have appreciated the quiet of a soft sole. Much easier to creep up or creep away quickly without the sound giving away the location.

[perrymason]

Just wondering; could it be the other way around? Maybe he didnīt add robbery to murder - maybe he added murder to robbery...? Maybe he was an accomplished robber, who transformed into a serial killer?

... It seems more odd to imagine a man who starts out by killing, and then simply adds robbery since it came in handy, so to speak.

Just a thought.

Regards,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman, hope all is well with you...

I would think that the acts he performs that are after he kills must in some way be linked to the reason he kills in the first place.....and so that wouldnt preclude robbery if he robs them after the throat cut. What may eliminate robbery as a motive in and of itself is if the killer is not poorer than the people he kills....and Im not sure that is probable with his choice of victims. Only one of them had a bed to sleep in each night that didnt require a payment each time....only Liz has bed and pocket money at the beginning of her last evening. And she didnt have the appearance that her pockets were rifled.

It seems to me to potentially be a habitual characteristic over and above his murder mutilation drives. Which would make him more likely a very poor person.

Some petty thieves even took up with unfortunates to rob clients....I could see that logic, clients have money....but to seek out other poor people to rob doesnt sound as logical. Unless its after the woman has earned some money....in which case we can eliminate Polly, Annie and Kate as being targets. Polly had earned and drank and was broke when we last see her, Annie is having difficulty finding a client, and Kate was just released from jail...and we have no reason to believe she had any money at that point.

The robberies if thats what they were...in Annies case its factual..he took her rings....were pretty fruitless ventures, I cant see it being anything like targeting the women to rob....maybe just a habitual thief as well as a murderer, for survival.

We know Annies rings never turned up in a pawn shop at that time, but people like that might steal "gifts" too,....something for the wife or girlfriend.

Cheers FM

[brotherjake]

A reasonable suspect

You might like to read 'The Fox and the Flies' by Charles van Onselen, the author suggests that the murderer was a Joseph Silver/Lis.
His description was said to be;

5ft 8.5in in height,
140lbs in weight,
grey eyes and brown hair,
broad shouldered
and a face full of pimples/pitted with small scars caused by secondary syphillis.

In the book there are a number of photos of Silver - he could well be
'blotchy face'

[perrymason]

By the way, this comes from The Morning Advertiser of 13th November 1888. It's Mary Ann Cox's statement at the inquest. The other papers quote her verbatim but miss this addendum at the end.

There's my Blotchy. She notes that his boots made no noise at all, and the fact that she noticed it meant that this was an unusual circumstance. As far as I can find out, rubber or soft-soled boots weren't common, especially in the East End. Working men wore hobnailed boots, which were durable and gave some protection to the wearer. Dockers especially would have wanted the security of the thick leather and reinforced sole and heel.

However the Ripper would have appreciated the quiet of a soft sole. Much easier to creep up or creep away quickly without the sound giving away the location.

What that may be Chava is a Patrol Policeman too,...because many beat cops took to attaching rubber from bicycle tires to the soles of their boots to aid in their stealth when out looking for Ripper clues. Remember how Pizers slippers were a big deal, because no-one seems to have heard bootsteps leaving a scene...I think that notion caused the Police to consider being as stealthy as he would have been. Interesting when you consider that in Mitre Square, he would likely be walking out a cobblestone alley when Watkins entered or maybe when Harvey leaves.

I dont know that many did this, but I do know some were said to have done so.

Cheers Chava.