Mary Jane and Blotchy

[Wickerman]

... However, to be honest how ANY doctor could have made that call on recent connection on what was left on MJK's remains is mind boggling.

Just throwing it out there as food for thought.

Helen x

A perfectly sound observation, given the state of the mutilations.

This argument appears to deal only with two clients, yet Mrs Kennedy told the press, there is a third man:

On Thursday night Gallagher and his wife retired to rest at a fairly early hour. Their married daughter, a woman named Mrs. Kennedy, came home, however, at a late hour. Passing the Britannia, commonly known as Ringer's, at the top of Dorset street, at three o'clock on the Friday morning, she saw the deceased talking to a respectably dressed man, whom she identified as having accosted her a night or two before......
Mrs. Kennedy is confident that the man whom she noticed speaking to the woman Kelly at three o'clock on Friday morning is identical with the person who accosted her on the previous Wednesday.
Evening News, 10 Nov. 1888.

We must include everything. It's very likely Kelly's story does not end with Astrachan.

[Wickerman]

I discussed in another thread ( "Which Suspects are Viable Candidates") the conflicting scenarios we are presented with when discussing the roles played by Blotchy and Hutchinson in the last hours of Mary Jane's life.

Mrs Maxwell says that she saw a "very much intoxicated" Mary entering Millers Court with Blotchy just before midnight on the 8th.

Mrs Cox, not Maxwell.
"Very much intoxicated" is relative, one person's 'drunk' is another person's 'tipsy'.

Hutchinson says that he saw Mary with Astrakhan Man at about 2.00am on the morning of the 9th.

If we accept Hutchinson's evidence as being true, then Blotchy is out of the picture as being the killer.

If however we reject Hutchinson's evidence, we are left with Mrs Cox's evidence, and the very strong likelihood that Blotchy was the killer.

Which is quite possibly the actual reason Hutch came forward on the Monday evening.
In the late afternoon publication of the Star it was reported the killer had been seen by Cox.
Hutchinson, whether he read it himself or learned it from others, he knew it was wrong.
Good enough reason to go to police and tell them his story.

As I've said before, I think that it is highly unlikely that a very drunk Mary would leave Millers Court to wander round the streets of Whitechapel in the rain.

Right, so maybe she wasn't as intoxicated as Cox described?
Cox also says she didn't know Kelly was drunk until she turned and spoke. So, by her own words then not all that drunk. Cox had followed behind Kelly so Kelly must have been walking fine, not apparently bouncing off the passage walls.
Cox may have been exaggerating. Kelly was afterall able to pull at least two clients that night, Cox hadn't managed to pull any - resentment?

There is another aspect to this whole scenario that has just come to me.

If Blotchy was just a "punter", we can safely assume that he picked up Mary for sex.

If Blotchy did indeed have sex with Mary, and Mary then left Miller's Court, bumped into Hutchinson and Astrakhan Man and was later killed, why did the post mortem show no signs of recent sexual activity?

So, maybe Blotchy had been too drunk to perform?
We have no account of how drunk he was.
Kelly just sang & possibly danced for him - who knows?

We know that the doctors in all five murders looked for signs of recent sexual activity.

The fact that Mary's post mortem found no evidence of sexual activity, is surely indicative that Mrs Cox's testimony is true, and that Hutchinson's is not.

Another small detail that adds to the likelihood of Blotchy being the killer?

More likely your argument appears bias in favor of Cox.
I have to wonder if you know that many streetwalkers did practice safe sex, even in those days.
The last thing a young prostitute needs is a baby. Kelly had worked at a brothel (so we are told), in the West End.
Here she would be taught the essentials of her trade.
I have read about how this was done by Victorian prostitutes - without getting into sordid details, suffice to say the method avoids penetration.
I wouldn't expect any Doctors to have personal experience along those lines.

[Parisi North Humber]

I take it by the report saying "funny" we are to infer odd/strange/unusual/weird rather than just a stranger?

Helen x

[Wickerman]

Although a time is not given, apparently there was a 'funny' (funny looking?) man in the court on Friday morning, before anyone knew about the murder.
We may query if Blotchy could be classed as 'funny', as opposed to Astrachan?


Mrs McCarthy herself gives a slight clue as to a person who was seen in the court early on Friday morning, as one of her customers remarked to her – before the murder was known - “I saw such a funny man up the court this morning”. Mrs McCarthy says she has been so worried by the shocking affair that she cannot now remember the customer who thus spoke to her.
The Echo Wed. Nov. 14 1888

[Parisi North Humber]

"if Blotchy did indeed have sex with Mary, and Mary then left Miller's Court, bumped into Hutchinson and Astrakhan Man and was later killed, why did the post mortem show no signs of recent sexual activity? [...] The fact that Mary's post mortem found no evidence of sexual activity, is surely indicative that Mrs Cox's testimony is true, and that Hutchinson's is not"

So let's REALLY think out the box. What if....... "blotchy" was a relation of hers (MJK)?
Ginger hair a familial trait perhaps, singing sentimental songs about a mother's grave for hours on end, no sign of sexual connection and no money exchanged so needed some pennies to the point she accosts Hutch for some money and when that wasn't forth coming had to try somewhere else ie Aman.

It was just a thought and doesn't even have enough grounds for supposition but would explain no signs of connection. However, to be honest how ANY doctor could have made that call on recent connection on what was left on MJK's remains is mind boggling.

Just throwing it out there as food for thought.

Helen x

[Mark J D]

I discussed in another thread ( "Which Suspects are Viable Candidates") the conflicting scenarios we are presented with when discussing the roles played by Blotchy and Hutchinson in the last hours of Mary Jane's life.

Mrs Maxwell says that she saw a "very much intoxicated" Mary entering Millers Court with Blotchy just before midnight on the 8th.

Let the record show that Lechmere's digitally enhanced 1912 photograph (Clayton Hickman version; produced without case information) shows him to be rather blotchy...

Hutchinson says that he saw Mary with Astrakhan Man at about 2.00am on the morning of the 9th.

Hutch may well have got the day wrong, as suggested by the weather. But, okay...

If we accept Hutchinson's evidence as being true, then Blotchy is out of the picture as being the killer.

I think not. Having seen earlier how the door could be opened, Lechmere could have come back and quietly let himself in while Mary was asleep.

If however we reject Hutchinson's evidence, we are left with Mrs Cox's evidence, and the very strong likelihood that Blotchy was the killer.

Okay.

As I've said before, I think that it is highly unlikely that a very drunk Mary would leave Millers Court to wander round the streets of Whitechapel in the rain.

I understand, old bean. But if she did, she'd have been staggering around completely ratted, and the most obvious target any serial killer ever saw. I don't discount the possibility that the poor girl did this.

There is another aspect to this whole scenario that has just come to me.

If Blotchy was just a "punter", we can safely assume that he picked up Mary for sex.

Not necessarily, mate. If Blotchy was Lechmere, who may well have known MJK from the time her pimp's kids went to the same school as his kids (one of whom was even named 'Mary Jane'), then he'd have been there as 'an old pal', happy to have a drink and a song, and to lend her some money, and not at all as a punter...

If Blotchy did indeed have sex with Mary, and Mary then left Miller's Court, bumped into Hutchinson and Astrakhan Man and was later killed, why did the post mortem show no signs of recent sexual activity? [...] The fact that Mary's post mortem found no evidence of sexual activity, is surely indicative that Mrs Cox's testimony is true, and that Hutchinson's is not.

I think not, my friend. In that appalling crime scene, the last thing you'd have been able to find is one teaspoon's worth of spooge. Pardon my Yiddish.

Another small detail that adds to the likelihood of Blotchy being the killer?

Pretty good work, on the whole.

Bests,

M.

[barnflatwyngarde]

I discussed in another thread ( "Which Suspects are Viable Candidates") the conflicting scenarios we are presented with when discussing the roles played by Blotchy and Hutchinson in the last hours of Mary Jane's life.

Mrs Maxwell says that she saw a "very much intoxicated" Mary entering Millers Court with Blotchy just before midnight on the 8th.

Hutchinson says that he saw Mary with Astrakhan Man at about 2.00am on the morning of the 9th.

If we accept Hutchinson's evidence as being true, then Blotchy is out of the picture as being the killer.

If however we reject Hutchinson's evidence, we are left with Mrs Cox's evidence, and the very strong likelihood that Blotchy was the killer.

As I've said before, I think that it is highly unlikely that a very drunk Mary would leave Millers Court to wander round the streets of Whitechapel in the rain.

There is another aspect to this whole scenario that has just come to me.

If Blotchy was just a "punter", we can safely assume that he picked up Mary for sex.

If Blotchy did indeed have sex with Mary, and Mary then left Miller's Court, bumped into Hutchinson and Astrakhan Man and was later killed, why did the post mortem show no signs of recent sexual activity?

We know that the doctors in all five murders looked for signs of recent sexual activity.

The fact that Mary's post mortem found no evidence of sexual activity, is surely indicative that Mrs Cox's testimony is true, and that Hutchinson's is not.

Another small detail that adds to the likelihood of Blotchy being the killer?