Mary Kelly....Penny Illustrated

[Mr.Hyde]

Mr.Hyde

Donald Swanson described the writing as being "upon the wall of a common stairs", also claiming that it was blurred....he's the only one that mentions it being blurred and it might've been smudged by one of the earlier policeman; who was attemptiong to remove it, but kept quiet about it, whatever the case, for me the coincidence is too strong...especially with Dutfields earlier on.

I'm 60/40 the other way.Donald Swanson was an "interesting" person who made a lot of errors,given he was in charge of things and had access to everything.
Wasn't having a go at you Malcolm X.Appreciate the fact that you have made me examine some things more closely.I'm content to go with the flow.

[Malcolm X]

my guess is that HUTCH was sussed out during his stroll around Petticoat lane, he probably said something to one of the policeman; that raised suspicion that he made it all up, or didn't show enough emmotion for a dead friend/not enough guilt etc.

or maybe over time they started thinking like us, on reflection after all the media hype had died down..............but not a Ripper suspect?....no but neither was Bundy, peter Sutcliffe at first, HUTCH's face probably didn't fit their image of the Ripper and this is true of so many killers.

but the Ripper could be Blotchy too..easily.

yes, it's stretching through the lower broken window that triggered off another Hutch post in me, but quite a few threads go off topic around here............dont they Mr HYDE lol

[Mr.Hyde]

I strongly suspect Hutchinson was part of a blackmail attempt.He manipulated things in order to be the last in line for some money.Think about it!
Apologise for being so far off post,however I am following the originator.Eek,that looks bad!
Re Mary Kelly-Penny Illustrated.......so much wrong with their interpretation of MK,it is ludicrous.

[Malcolm X]

In relation to the GSG.After a previous post where I agreed JTR probably had the chalk for "Stride's location",I did some checking with the police files.The message was blurred.Reckon the GSG was written previously-someone had attempted briefly to rub it off.The police washed it off.Try it!
Goulston Street was possibly named after Theodore Goulston.If JTR was a surgeon.............bit of synchronicity.

Donald Swanson described the writing as being "upon the wall of a common stairs", also claiming that it was blurred....he's the only one that mentions it being blurred and it might've been smudged by one of the earlier policeman; who was attemptiong to remove it, but kept quiet about it, whatever the case, for me the coincidence is too strong...especially with Dutfields earlier on.

[Malcolm X]

``Im sorry mate by lately Ive come to the conclusion that Hutchinson is very probably what he is historically...a footnote, someone like hundreds of others who faked letters that wanted a piece of this history with their name on it.``

no need to be sorry mate, it's ok because many wont agree with us, i for one dont believe that Blotchy and Hutch are the same, but that's ok too.

[Mr.Hyde]

In relation to the GSG.After a previous post where I agreed JTR probably had the chalk for "Stride's location",I did some checking with the police files.The message was blurred.Reckon the GSG was written previously-someone had attempted briefly to rub it off.The police washed it off.Try it!
Goulston Street was possibly named after Theodore Goulston.If JTR was a surgeon.............bit of synchronicity.

Hi Ben,

So I address all of that post, Ill do so this way.....

Nor would we expect any, Mike, for reasons I've already mentioned. Obviously, you can't focus on a particular bit of alleyway or street and then hope that a suitable victim comes within assaulting range. If he did adopt a strategy of prior surveillance at earlier crime scenes, it would probably have taken the form of loitering/wandering in the general vicinity in search of victims - in which case, it's hardly surprising that nobody reported it. A non-descript man wandering around Aldgate an hour or so before the Eddowes murder was not likely to be noticed particularly at the time, let alone remarked upon later.

A man standing in place in plain view watching a soon to be crime scene for almost 45 minutes is hardly discreet Ben, and the only evidence that Jack ever scouted a scene is based on a premise that Hutch was also Jack. You might imagine prior scouting took place with the others, but theres no evidence that suggests it.

Obviously, his presence would assume a more significant resonance if he's seen in the company of an identified victim, but that doesn't mean for one moment that he wasn't seen earlier. He still needed to get to his crime scenes at the very least.

Quite right, and never once was he seen doing so...or leaving one. He was only seen, if at all, while picking the kill of the night up.

But there's no disputing that Lewis' description of her wideawke loiterer and the self-confessed actions and movements of Hutchinson match one another extremely well. Both in the same location at 2:30am, and both doing precisely the same thing; watching and waiting for someone.

Agreed. So why didnt anyone make that conclusion at that time? Why is that relationship logic completely absent from the records? Would his story, if conflicting with statements given at the Inquest, be questioned? Wouldnt a logical thing to be that once he gave the details of the time and location, that Wideawake Man would be brought up and addressed by the authority and the witness both?

It would be more hell of an implausible coincidence if there were two people doing precisely that at the same time, but they somehow managed to miss eachother!

Ordinarily Id agree with you on that Ben,... but with cases like Eagle and Lave, Harvey and Watkins, Brown and Schwartz, Long and Cadosche, we know that simultaneous timings are given,... while knowing at least one of them was wrong. In the case of Hutchinson....if he lied about the sighting whose to say he was there at all? Only himself....no cops suggested he was actually the man seen by Sarah....only his story does. Part of which was tossed in the trash bin.

I dont believe Hutchinson was there at all now.

But there's no indication anywhere that the police believed he wasn't either, and if they believed him for a couple of days but didn't identify him with wideawake, they'd have been embracing the same implausible "coincidence" that I outline above.

In the case of the authorities Ben...if they thought anything about him, Wideawake wise or not, wed have heard about that. They were not shy voicing opinions. No-one in authority linked Wideawake and Hutchinson.

Obviously, Astrakhan would have deflected suspicion away from both Blotchy and Wideawake, albeit temporarily.

I agree with you regarding Blotchy, but if they believed that Hutch and Wideawake were not the same man....what I believe we must conclude by the absence of such a comment, despite the contradiction it would bring with Sarahs story....then Wideawake could easily be someone just as I suggested....a lookout, watching the courtyard.

Hutchinson's account of his movements mirror the actions of the widewake man too closely to be dismissed as coincidence.

For you and I and most, Id agree. We have no issues saying that. Why did no-one in power say that then?

If Hutchinson lied about his very presence there, he was outrageously unlucky that the circumstances of his lie just happened to coincide with the recorded circumstances of a person who really was reported at the scene.

Using the logic you yourself have used to suspect the man Ben, he may have heard the details of Sarahs story over the weekend or at the Inquest that day. If someone went to enough trouble to play havoc with the investigation as to find and match a piece of a human being with a woman killed 2 weeks earlier and send it to someone..."just for the jolly"...whose to say that Hutch isnt some nut wanting to be important for a few days...like Packer perhaps.

I'd say Wideawake's a very viable candidate in Kelly's death, more so than a lookout or accomplice.

Id say the only thing we can say about him is that he surveilled a site that a murder was committed on later that night...and for that he is a suspicious character.

Best regards,
Ben

Im sorry mate by lately Ive come to the conclusion that Hutchinson is very probably what he is historically...a footnote, someone like hundreds of others who faked letters that wanted a piece of this history with their name on it.

It would seem the Police did not believe Wideawake was Hutchinson, based on the complete absence of any remark that suggests that...but for a few days did believe Hutchinson saw Mary Jane with her killer. Not neccesarily that he was in fact Wideawake as seen by Sarah. That leaves Wideawake as the unclaimed and suspicious watcher...nothing more.

Im not trying to butt heads on this Ben truly...but forget the moderns stats that revealed this about so and so, or the black spaces in the Ripper crime details and general information available from that time that allow for infinite possibilities, ...whats logical and whats seemingly apparent, despite any verification....what we have on this guy as Wideawake let alone Jack is non-existent, we cant even say the cops thought so.....and to give anything he says credibility when we have reason to believe that the contemporary authorities though he fabricated his Mary and Astrakan story, seems to me to be contrary to the rule with false testimony of any kind....it invalidates the statement as a whole.

You dont have to get back right away Ben...I might be off for a bit.

All the best Mate, as always.

[Malcolm X]

so we have this fabricated LA DE DA, that matches a wee bit too closely to the GSG... i.e it's anti-semetic and that matches a wee bit too closely to Dutfields yard and being disturbed at the Stride murder...............because i'm highly suspicious of the Ripper having chalk in his pocket ( very f***** suspicious) , i still think that the GSG was originally intended for the gates of Dutfields............those gates are a school blackboard, just dieing to have graffiti sprawled over it.

ok the Ripper killing Stride looks very dodgy indeed... very, but not when i switch my attention back onto Hutch, because then; it all makes sense.

no there is no book on HUTCH, but BEN and i should've written one ages ago... because this is one very strong suspect indeed, forget Maybrick and Sickert and Tumblety, this is much more convincing.

i wear my heart on my sleeve and i know every arguement that goes against HUTCH ... every arguement, and i still see the Ripper in him.

and i dont give a damn if he's Toppy or not, i still see him as the Ripper.... YEA' YEA' just blame someone else Toppy, a JEW one day and then a Royal conspiracy the next..........whatever the hell was going on in his mind, i dont sense any real guilt from him...not from somebody that was supposedly a friend, i'd be really ashamed of myself if i thought that Kelly's client looked like the ripper ( as he suggests all the time) yet wasn't brave enough to chase him off...i'd be distraut in front of Abberline, so guilty, almost in tears... but no, Abberline dismissed him as a fraud.......so i'm JACK THE RIPPER, who will i describe...i'm obviously going to describe somebody that looks nothing like me....and i'm going to get public support/ media on my side, i'm going to stir up a Hornet's nest, i'm going to describe a farcical Jew straight out of a twisted Gothic nightmare ......... sorry guys, i see the Ripper in him....

either him or Blotchy!

rant over, time for dinner

[Ben]

In fairness Ben I believe the only witnessed suspects that could even have possibly been Jack the Ripper in the 4 C deaths before Marys, were actually in the process of picking up their victims. No one was seen watching a site soon to be become a murder site

Nor would we expect any, Mike, for reasons I've already mentioned. Obviously, you can't focus on a particular bit of alleyway or street and then hope that a suitable victim comes within assaulting range. If he did adopt a strategy of prior surveillance at earlier crime scenes, it would probably have taken the form of loitering/wandering in the general vicinity in search of victims - in which case, it's hardly surprising that nobody reported it. A non-descript man wandering around Aldgate an hour or so before the Eddowes murder was not likely to be noticed particularly at the time, let alone remarked upon later.

Obviously, his presence would assume a more significant resonance if he's seen in the company of an identified victim, but that doesn't mean for one moment that he wasn't seen earlier. He still needed to get to his crime scenes at the very least.

I would think his story had to be matched up with what was already on record, and that would a natural line of questioning.

But there's no disputing that Lewis' description of her wideawke loiterer and the self-confessed actions and movements of Hutchinson match one another extremely well. Both in the same location at 2:30am, and both doing precisely the same thing; watching and waiting for someone. It would be more hell of an implausible coincidence if there were two people doing precisely that at the same time, but they somehow managed to miss eachother!

Yet there is no indication anywhere that the Police believed Hutchinson was Wideawake.

But there's no indication anywhere that the police believed he wasn't either, and if they believed him for a couple of days but didn't identify him with wideawake, they'd have been embracing the same implausible "coincidence" that I outline above. Obviously, Astrakhan would have deflected suspicion away from both Blotchy and Wideawake, albeit temporarily. Hutchinson's account of his movements mirror the actions of the widewake man too closely to be dismissed as coincidence. If Hutchinson lied about his very presence there, he was outrageously unlucky that the circumstances of his lie just happened to coincide with the recorded circumstances of a person who really was reported at the scene.

I'd say Wideawake's a very viable candidate in Kelly's death, more so than a lookout or accomplice.

Best regards,
Ben

[cappuccina]

...I think what it says Perry/Mike, is not so much that there was an accomplice, but that Jack knew the area very, very well...

[FrankO]

The inquest testimony makes it clear that both the upper and lower window panes on the right hand side of the smaller window were broken, and they are quite clear in the photos that Stewart Evans posted on the above thread.

Hi Jane (& all),

I completely agree with the very first part of your remark, as Dr Phillips clearly states that there were 2 broken panes and as he refers to the one he looked through as the ‘lower’ one. So, that obviously means there was an upper and a lower one.

However, Bowyer, in his inquest testimony, refers to the pane he looked through as the ‘farthest pane of the first window’, meaning one of the left panes. Seeing that an arm’s length is about 2 feet (60 cm) and that the division between the left and right panes must have been at least some 50 cm from the corner, it seems very unlikely that the broken panes were both on the left side of the window. It would not have been easy, as Abberline stated, to open the door through one of the broken left panes. Therefore, the broken panes were either the top left and bottom right or the top right and bottom left.

The bricks should us give some idea of the dimensions and measurements in the photo of the outside of Mary Jane's room. The door seems about 23 or 24 bricks high (23 x 8 cm is 184 cm = 6 ft); the panes are about 7 bricks high (7 x 8 cm = 56 cm = 1.84 ft). A brick is about 20 cm = 8 inches wide.

All the best,
Frank

In fairness Ben I believe the only witnessed suspects that could even have possibly been Jack the Ripper in the 4 C deaths before Marys, were actually in the process of picking up their victims. No one was seen watching a site soon to be become a murder site, there are no "suspects" lingering or loitering in plain view watching a soon to be crime scene.

We only see Jack, if at all, when he is beginning a kill and in the company of the victim.

I think its also quite possible that when Hutch gives his story, he might have been asked about what hat he wore that night, or even told that a witness stated earlier that day in the Inquest that a man was seen watching the court at the same time he says he was there. I would think his story had to be matched up with what was already on record, and that would a natural line of questioning.

Yet there is no indication anywhere that the Police believed Hutchinson was Wideawake. But they did believe his Astrakan story for a few days. Which implies they thought Hutchinson may have seen the real killer with Astrakan cuffs....but that he was not neccesarily the man Sarah saw that night. Nor was that Wideawake man the likely killer...Astrakan was.

So....whats the guy doing there at 2am spying? The cops dont say he is George, George doesnt say he was Wideawake, Astrakan is assumed to be Jack....whose Wideawake then?

The possible accomplice....a lookout.

Best regards Ben.

[Malcolm X]

Hi Ben and Malcolm,

The truth is here that Wideawake Man never usurped the last man seen with Mary as the primary suspect to date, only Astrakan did briefly, nor was he overtly suggested by any investigator that Im aware of as possibly being the killer. He is not considered as the man most likely to be Jack in the statements, or Marys killer.

What he was seen doing is nothing more malicious than spying...and that is inherently what Lookouts do.

Was he waiting for Blotchy to leave....and then intending to go in there and kill her...perhaps, but that would beg the question why is "Jack" lingering where he can be seen spying on a courtyard...only to then enter that courtyard later to kill? I dont think anything in the 4 previous Canonical deaths suggested scouting prior to any murder...certainly we have no such witness accounts of possible suspects surveying areas.

And again, a powerful indicator if correctly assessed, this is the only murder they even considered, and quickly provided, a pardon offer for a helper, "after the fact".

To my mind the only evidence that remotely suggests 2 men is a man seen spying on a courtyard that a murder will occur in. This site almost screams out for accomplice if only for the getaway. That is one dangerous place to get caught in just after a kill. There would be no escape.

Best regards gents.

well if HUTCH is the ripper he has to spy the court first, this the whole point..he was seen, so he went to the police with a fabricated story..or he was seen more than once and had to go to the police regardless, i expect that's why he went to the inquest first, to see what the police knew!

the other murders are different, because the ripper can scout from range/in the shadows, and achieve a quick intercept without being seen, (but probably seen at Eddowes), but to kill Kelly in her room via a break in, he has to wait outside to check if she's gone to bed... not gone out again and to be sure he's given her enough time to fall asleep, all of this means lurking outside for ages...

he can not walk off every 10 mins, just in case she sneaks out and he misses her in the dark... he has to stay there with her door in view

he probably didn't give a damn about being seen at the other murders, because these sightings weren't full face...plus the descriptions were poor anyway, but at KELLY'S he was seen full face, staring up at the court, military in appearence!.......no, standing there dead upright as if on guard duty....focused on something.

in this instance, your peripheral vision is greatly reduced, it's far harder to see somebody comming in from your side; especially when it's dark and then you wonder, how well she saw you.

the only difference with this murder, is that he's hanging around the crime scene for far too long and thus he maybe thought, ``damn it, that was a bit silly of me, i was seen a few times and all of those could match me well, i'd better go along to the inquest``

but lucky for Hutch that only one witness came forward and a very poor description too, because my guess is that HUTCH was seen quite a few times..... because H doesn't know what the police know and he lives close by too, a bit too close!

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

The truth is here that Wideawake Man never usurped the last man seen with Mary as the primary suspect to date, only Astrakan did briefly,

Probably because the Wideawake man wasn't seen in the company of Kelly, unlike Blotchy. The salient point is that a modern investigator would know from experience, as expounded above, to take that individual and his reported location/behaviour very seriously as a suspect, irrespective of the fact that he wasn't specifically seen with the victim. They certainly wouldn't assume he must have been a "lookout" instead. That isn't impossible, but it is by no means more probable than the premise that he was the actual killer.

It is also noteworthy that Blotchy and Wideawake resemble eachother in several key particulars.

why is "Jack" lingering where he can be seen spying on a courtyard...only to then enter that courtyard later to kill?

Well, for the same reason that he most probabaly allowed himself to be seen at earlier crime scenes, under far more perilous circumstances; in the company of the victim herself, and closer to the accepted time of death. We don't have any reason to doubt that he sruveyed his previous crime scenes. The difference here is that an indoor location lends itself rather better to that sort of scrutiny. You cannot, after all, moniter a particular bit of street and alleyway and hope that a victim walks into it. Different crime venues call for different pre-crime approaches, again as we learn from Bundy and others.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Ben and Malcolm,

The truth is here that Wideawake Man never usurped the last man seen with Mary as the primary suspect to date, only Astrakan did briefly, nor was he overtly suggested by any investigator that Im aware of as possibly being the killer. He is not considered as the man most likely to be Jack in the statements, or Marys killer.

What he was seen doing is nothing more malicious than spying...and that is inherently what Lookouts do.

Was he waiting for Blotchy to leave....and then intending to go in there and kill her...perhaps, but that would beg the question why is "Jack" lingering where he can be seen spying on a courtyard...only to then enter that courtyard later to kill? I dont think anything in the 4 previous Canonical deaths suggested scouting prior to any murder...certainly we have no such witness accounts of possible suspects surveying areas.

And again, a powerful indicator if correctly assessed, this is the only murder they even considered, and quickly provided, a pardon offer for a helper, "after the fact".

To my mind the only evidence that remotely suggests 2 men is a man seen spying on a courtyard that a murder will occur in. This site almost screams out for accomplice if only for the getaway. That is one dangerous place to get caught in just after a kill. There would be no escape.

Best regards gents.