Mary Jane and Blotchy

[barnflatwyngarde]

hi PI
Im not so sure we can readily dismiss blotchy. If there is reason to have issues with Hutches Aman story-and I think there is ample reason to do so, and or reason to question if mary really went back out that night after him, and again I think you can, then that puts Blotchy in the frame for being Marys killer. Im also not too sure about the blotchy is "too early" in the evening argument either. He hangs out with her for a while, plies her with more alcohol, waits for things to settle down around Millers court before killing her.

Yes Abby, that's pretty much my take on it.

I don't believe Hutchinson, but I do believe Mrs Cox.

[Abby Normal]

Yes Abby, that's pretty much my take on it.

I don't believe Hutchinson, but I do believe Mrs Cox.

Hi Barn
Totally agree.

[Aethelwulf]

I don't believe Hutchinson

Why, out of interest?

I've never understood the sort of vendetta against Hutchinson. He sees someone he knows with someone who he must of thought was unusual. Not necessarily suspicious, but perhaps not the sort of person Kelly was usually seen with. Aman being in with Kelly, followed later by the screams around 4, tie better to Aman that Blotch. No one has ever produced a realistic reason why Hutch would step forward and lie (bearing in mind Lewis only said she saw a man lurking, not that she saw George Hutchinson lurking). And if you are going to come forward and lie, would it not be wise to keep it simple, with a limited number of details that could trip you up? All of detail in Hutch's statement is just asking for a mistake to be made under interrogation. Why not just say he saw her with a man of average height/build in dark clothes? Nothing to get confused about.

I think it's most likely Aman killed Kelly around 4.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Why, out of interest?

I've never understood the sort of vendetta against Hutchinson. He sees someone he knows with someone who he must of thought was unusual. Not necessarily suspicious, but perhaps not the sort of person Kelly was usually seen with. Aman being in with Kelly, followed later by the screams around 4, tie better to Aman that Blotch. No one has ever produced a realistic reason why Hutch would step forward and lie (bearing in mind Lewis only said she saw a man lurking, not that she saw George Hutchinson lurking). And if you are going to come forward and lie, would it not be wise to keep it simple, with a limited number of details that could trip you up? All of detail in Hutch's statement is just asking for a mistake to be made under interrogation. Why not just say he saw her with a man of average height/build in dark clothes? Nothing to get confused about.

I think it's most likely Aman killed Kelly around 4.

Hi Aethelwulf, I can do no better than refer you to Christer Holmgren's excellent article entitled "The Man Who Wasn't There" in issue 5 of The Casebook Examiner.
However, I'll try and just list a few of the problems that exist with Hutchinson's statement.

These points are in no particular order.

It is true that Abberline initially gave Hutchinson's statement some credence, however a day later The Echo stated that "very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the decease don the night of the murder."
A few days later The Star reported "Another story now discredited is that of the man Hutchinson who said that on Friday Morning he say Kelly with a dark complexioned, middle aged .......gentleman".

If these reports are accurate, the police must have been utterly convinced that Hutchinson was wrong, and that their prime suspect "Astrakhan Man" was in the clear.
Walter Dew is clear in his memoirs that he considered Hutchinson to be mistaken.

It was raining heavily that night, why on earth would Hutchinson lean against a lamp post getting soaked?
Wouldn't it be logical to take shelter in a shop doorway, or in a close?

Hutchinson told The Daily News on the 14th that "after I left the court I walked about all night as the place where I usually sleep was closed."

I don't think Hutchinson deliberately lied, I just think that he was mistaken.

Dig out Christer's article.

[Wickerman]

...

These points are in no particular order.

It is true that Abberline initially gave Hutchinson's statement some credence, however a day later The Echo stated that "very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the decease don the night of the murder."
A few days later The Star reported "Another story now discredited is that of the man Hutchinson who said that on Friday Morning he say Kelly with a dark complexioned, middle aged .......gentleman".

If these reports are accurate, the police must have been utterly convinced that Hutchinson was wrong, and that their prime suspect "Astrakhan Man" was in the clear...

A very selective choice of press articles.

How about this one concerning a Mr Galloway, who followed a Blotchy look-alike up & down the street, then pointed the man out to a policeman, we read the exchange:

"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.
Evening News, Star, 16th Nov. 1888.

I guess Astrachan would be described as "a very different appearance".


Then, on the 19th Nov. we have another article that tells us the police are still in pursuit of both suspects:

"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.

So, my question, regardless of Mrs Kennedy, regardless of what Bowyer saw, or what Mrs McCarthy learned. My question is why do you ignore press articles that portray the police believing Hutchinson?
And, that they were still investigating his story at least 4 days after the Star published that Hutchinson had been discredited?
Clearly, the Star published another false account, but you choose to believe the Star, and not the Echo?

[barnflatwyngarde]

A very selective choice of press articles.

How about this one concerning a Mr Galloway, who followed a Blotchy look-alike up & down the street, then pointed the man out to a policeman, we read the exchange:

"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.
Evening News, Star, 16th Nov. 1888.

I guess Astrachan would be described as "a very different appearance".


Then, on the 19th Nov. we have another article that tells us the police are still in pursuit of both suspects:

"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.

So, my question, regardless of Mrs Kennedy, regardless of what Bowyer saw, or what Mrs McCarthy learned. My question is why do you ignore press articles that portray the police believing Hutchinson?
And, that they were still investigating his story at least 4 days after the Star published that Hutchinson had been discredited?
Clearly, the Star published another false account, but you choose to believe the Star, and not the Echo?

Hi Wick,
You are of course correct in your comments re the use of newspaper articles.

Every reference to a particular newspaper article can be said to be selective. It would be very difficult to include every newspaper article, both for and against a particular witness.

I am very hesitant to quote newspaper articles, simply because they cannot be relied on to be completely accurate, however they can be useful, if only we could be sure of their accuracy.

Walter Dew thought that Hutchinson was wrong, not lying, just plain wrong. That is indicative.

Hutchinson wandering around Whitechapel in the rain, is unlikely. That is indicative.

We all, I think, see this fascinating case through a particular prism. My particular prism is the evidence of Mrs Cox.

She saw Mary Kelly "very intoxicated". I would assume that if Mary had merely been tipsy, Mrs Cox would not have used those particular words.
Whitechapel was a hard drinking area, "very intoxicated" means that Mary was very drunk.

Is it likely that Mary, already very drunk, and presumably about to drink more from Blotchy's pail of beer, would venture out to wander the streets in the rain?

I don't think so! I don't think she left her room that night.

I could be wrong of course, but I do think that my take on what happened that night is the most logical explanation of the facts.

[Aethelwulf]

Hi Aethelwulf, I can do no better than refer you to Christer Holmgren's excellent article entitled "The Man Who Wasn't There" in issue 5 of The Casebook Examiner.
However, I'll try and just list a few of the problems that exist with Hutchinson's statement.

These points are in no particular order.

It is true that Abberline initially gave Hutchinson's statement some credence, however a day later The Echo stated that "very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the decease don the night of the murder."
A few days later The Star reported "Another story now discredited is that of the man Hutchinson who said that on Friday Morning he say Kelly with a dark complexioned, middle aged .......gentleman".

If these reports are accurate, the police must have been utterly convinced that Hutchinson was wrong, and that their prime suspect "Astrakhan Man" was in the clear.
Walter Dew is clear in his memoirs that he considered Hutchinson to be mistaken.

It was raining heavily that night, why on earth would Hutchinson lean against a lamp post getting soaked?
Wouldn't it be logical to take shelter in a shop doorway, or in a close?

Hutchinson told The Daily News on the 14th that "after I left the court I walked about all night as the place where I usually sleep was closed."

I don't think Hutchinson deliberately lied, I just think that he was mistaken.

Dig out Christer's article.

Hey Barn,

I've read that article a couple of times before, and whilst interesting and could be true, I'm not convinced. How do we know it was raining all the time? We don't. It could have been spotting on and off, drizzeling for a bit then, stopped, the raining heavily. We don't know. What about this from casebook:

• 1:00 AM: It is beginning to rain. Again, Mary Ann Cox returns home to warm herself. At that time Kelly is still singing or has begun to sing again. There was light coming from Kelly's room. Shortly after one, Cox goes out again.
• Elizabeth Prater, the wife of William Prater, a boot finisher who had left her 5 years before, is standing at the entrance to Miller's Court waiting for a man. Prater lives in room number 20 of 26 Dorset Street. This is directly above Kelly. She stands there about a half hour and then goes into to McCarthy's to chat.
• 2:00 AM: George Hutchinson, a resident of the Victoria Working Men's Home on Commercial Street has just returned to the area from Romford.

If the rain is so bad, what is prater doing standing about for half an hour between 1 and 2 am. The only reference to heavy rain is: 3:00 AM: Mrs. Cox returns home yet again. It is raining hard.

The events with Kelly and Hutch could easily have taken place in a spell when it wasn't raining or wasn't raining heavily enough to be a problem. I just don't see the weather as a deal breaker.

Remember, Fisherman has an agenda to make sure Aman isn't relevant. The dress of Aman would be an issue for someone on a basic wage with a large family. The time is an issue as well.

Regards what Wick said, if Aman is dust, why, when the police are all over Bury's past are they saying they thought 'he looked very like the man seen talking to Kelly on the night of the crime'. The only man we know of talking to Kelly was Aman. They are investigating Bury in 1889.

There were undoubtedly lots of people out and about that night. We don't know anything about them. What we do know through Hastings, who got his info directly from detectives who worked the case, is that Bury wasn't at his home in the east end that very night. We don't know where he was, but we also know apart from his permanent address, he had others, some the police couldn't trace. We don't know where these addresses were, but the police also talked to neighbours at these places and found out Bury quite possibly had the opportunity to commit the crimes. So wherever these other addresses were, they must have been in or very near whitechapel to give him the possible opportunites.

That is my take on it anyway. The only suspect known to be a post-mortem sexually motivated killer wasn't at home that night, or the night of the Chapman murder, or on one of the other nights a crime took place. The others, as I said, it was considered he quite possibly had the opportunity. It sin't rated, but 100 years later a profile was put together as to the character of the killer, and Bury fits that profile almost exactly. He was a killer who matches the profile of a killer and he wasn't at home. Finally, Bury liked nice clothes and was vain. He wore a tweed suit with soft felt hat in the day, and changed into a black coat with satin hat in the evening. His neighbours remarked on his jewellery. He owned things like kid gloves and fur-lined cloak. Surely the best place to start with crimes like these is form - he had form and was almost certainly out and about in the east end somewhere.

[Fiver]

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

Your opinion about the colorized picture tells us a lot more about your imagination than Charles Lechmere's complexion.

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....

So now you're implying that the Lechmere kids were helping dear old dad hunt up prostitutes?

I thought you were trying to fit him up as Jack the Ripper, not Sawney Bean.

...(one of whom was even named 'Mary Jane'), .

And now you're implying that Charles Lechmere was naming his daughters after prostitutes? That's a rather unique opinion.

Back in the real world, Mary Jane Lechmere was born in 1875, roughly a decade before MJK moved to London. And Mary Jane Lechmere had an aunt named Mary Jane Bostock.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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

The quart of beer and Mary singing suggests this wasn't your run-of-the-mill 5-minute agreement and so what was the agreement: a couple of pints and a sing along, or a bed for the night? Furthermore, the post-mortem suggests that Mary was murdered up against the partition and you'd have to assume someone was sleeping beside her.

The well-worn path is that you have to argue witnesses were lying. At least one of them must have been but we can't nail down which.

You have a job on your hands trying to make sense of the witness statements from that night: in a small court some neighbours heard singing and others didn't; some heard a cry of murder and others didn't; Mary Cox was awake worrying about the rent falling due whereas Mary was 6 weeks in debt and taking in Maria Harvey for a few days, presumably rent free. John McCarthy stated that he just had to try and get whatever rent he could, whereas over the road and the other places we hear about, they were promptly shown the door no questions asked.

There was reason for witnesses to lie. I think rooms were let at a small fee for people to look into the yard at 29 Hanbury Street and people gathered 'round to discuss their theories. There may have been a few bob in it, or perhaps a day of being a local celebrity in an otherwise dreary life.

The "good night" exchange between Cox and Mary is interesting. Where I come from in the Northeast of England, "good night" means turning in for the night. According to Cox, she initiated the "good night" exchange: perhaps Cox's experience of prostitution led her to believe Mary would not to be on the streets again that night (given Mary was three sheets to the wind and having a punter with booze at her door).

In the end you're left with a gut feel. Mine is that Blotchy is a better bet for being the WM than the other nameless characters such as: A-Man and BSM.

[Wickerman]

...Is it likely that Mary, already very drunk, and presumably about to drink more from Blotchy's pail of beer, would venture out to wander the streets in the rain?

I don't think so! I don't think she left her room that night.

And yet the police had to canvass the Millers Court residents a second time, where they found out she had indeed been seen out between 2-3:00 am.
She was apparently drunk at 11:45 pm when Cox saw her, but Hutch saw her over 2 hours later. Plenty of time to shake off the worst of it, which is likely why she was still a bit 'spree'ish'.
Even so, we don't know what 'very drunk' means in Cox's eyes.

I just find it fascinating the reasoning some will use to justify ignoring any reports that reflect favorably on Hutchinson.
It's all the more strange because if we follow all these reports, the finger ends up pointing at the one character, in all these murder cases, who was actually seen accosting women and attempting to get them into a dark alley.
Jack the ripper is right there looking at us in the face, yet no-one wants to look at him because that means they have to accept Hutchinson's story.

Amusing

[Abby Normal]

And yet the police had to canvass the Millers Court residents a second time, where they found out she had indeed been seen out between 2-3:00 am.
She was apparently drunk at 11:45 pm when Cox saw her, but Hutch saw her over 2 hours later. Plenty of time to shake off the worst of it, which is likely why she was still a bit 'spree'ish'.
Even so, we don't know what 'very drunk' means in Cox's eyes.

I just find it fascinating the reasoning some will use to justify ignoring any reports that reflect favorably on Hutchinson.
It's all the more strange because if we follow all these reports, the finger ends up pointing at the one character, in all these murder cases, who was actually seen accosting women and attempting to get them into a dark alley.
Jack the ripper is right there looking at us in the face, yet no-one wants to look at him because that means they have to accept Hutchinson's story.

Amusing

huh? your talking about the bethnal green botherer right? one can believe the BGB was the ripper and still discount hutchs story, either because he was lying or off on his days. what do the two have to do with each other?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi Aethelwulf, I can do no better than refer you to Christer Holmgren's excellent article entitled "The Man Who Wasn't There" in issue 5 of The Casebook Examiner.
However, I'll try and just list a few of the problems that exist with Hutchinson's statement.

These points are in no particular order.

It is true that Abberline initially gave Hutchinson's statement some credence, however a day later The Echo stated that "very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the decease don the night of the murder."
A few days later The Star reported "Another story now discredited is that of the man Hutchinson who said that on Friday Morning he say Kelly with a dark complexioned, middle aged .......gentleman".

If these reports are accurate, the police must have been utterly convinced that Hutchinson was wrong, and that their prime suspect "Astrakhan Man" was in the clear.
Walter Dew is clear in his memoirs that he considered Hutchinson to be mistaken.

It was raining heavily that night, why on earth would Hutchinson lean against a lamp post getting soaked?
Wouldn't it be logical to take shelter in a shop doorway, or in a close?

Hutchinson told The Daily News on the 14th that "after I left the court I walked about all night as the place where I usually sleep was closed."

I don't think Hutchinson deliberately lied, I just think that he was mistaken.

Dig out Christer's article.

I remember many years ago finding the location of that lamp post.

I think that may have been in front of the Queen's Head Tavern.

I recall finding the pub.

It had become the Bank of Lisbon, but was still recognisably a former public house a century later.

[DJA]

I remember many years ago finding the location of that lamp post.

I think that may have been in front of the Queen's Head Tavern.

I recall finding the pub.

It had become the Bank of Lisbon, but was still recognisably a former public house a century later.

Wrong pub.

Some policeman changed Hutchinson's statement to the Queens Head,as he'd name the wrong pub.

[GBinOz]

huh? your talking about the bethnal green botherer right? one can believe the BGB was the ripper and still discount hutchs story, either because he was lying or off on his days. what do the two have to do with each other?

That's what I was thinking. How does Hutch exclude the BGB? I think that Christer was right in his opinion that Hutch got his day wrong.

[Abby Normal]

That's what I was thinking. How does Hutch exclude the BGB? I think that Christer was right in his opinion that Hutch got his day wrong.

well, Its a possibility, but remote IMHO. I think he was there, per Sarah Lewis. The BGB has always intrigued me as a possible suspect, so I agree with Wick to that extent.