Mary Jane and Blotchy

[Wickerman]

We are. Look at this murder case and the witness statements. Where are the people wandering 'round at half two in the morning looking like they have something worth taking? We know from historians that going into the pubs in that area with a watch on show, for example, was a bad idea. We know from historians also that the place was teeming with thieves and the police couldn't necessarily help you, including the police choosing to avoid certain streets.

People did get mugged, day or night, cases were reported in the press. What some theorists tend to forget is you have to be there to get mugged, so the argument that people didn't wander through the back streets is clearly wrong.
You can logically say it is not a good idea, but as you should well know many people think "it'll not happen to me". Especially after you've had a few beers, your ready to take on the world - "just let them try....."
People got mugged, ergo, people wandered through the back streets, regardless how many historians think otherwise.
A true historian would be aware of the assaults & muggings.

I cannot pass judgement on information I do not have, for the obvious reason that I do not have that information.

Absolutely not, Jon. I'm looking at George's statement and asking you: when has that ever happened? George tells us why he's there, is it suspect when consider his 45 minute vigil? We're assessing his statement as opposed to putting a case forward based upon information that nobody has ever seen.

Ah, I thought you wrote that your primary concern was that he gave no reason for his vigil?
So, now you say he did give a reason, it's just that you don't believe him?

We're not talking of people at their door or neighbours gossiping, we're talking of George telling you he undertook a 45 minute vigil simply because he was intrigued by the man....

The meat of it is that George reckoned: he was intrigued by the man, he decided to hang around for 45 minutes, he didn't bother to go and see if Mary was alright, then he left. The reason why I suggested that it may be worth finding a similar situation from any other murder case in the world, is because in the event you can't that renders George one in a million.

The entrance to Crossinghams was the doorway about opposite to Millers Court, Hutchinson was just another loiterer lounging around doorways.
Yes he did stop and watch the couple disappear up the court, and he did actually follow on after, and went up the court himself. He says he stood around listening but couldn't hear any noise coming from the room, so he went back to the street and waited a while longer before walking off.

George's tale should stand or fall on the merit of that which he suggests. An appeal to authority and Inspector Abberline's judgement is not a worthy argument. Inspector Abberline wasn't borrowing from science, it was his gut feel.

It isn't enough to condemn him on.
Badham's interview does not go into sufficient detail for anyone to make a judgement call.
The way the system works is the witness gives his story with as little input as possible from Badham. This statement is then used by Abberline with which to question the witness should an interview/interrogation be deemed necessary.
That subsequent report is where we would find most of the answers to the questions posed by today's theorists.
We know Abberline interviewed him, he says as much.
What we do not know is for how many hours, and if Abberline sent someone to bring Sarah Lewis, and did he produce the beat constables pocketbook to see if the constable noticed Hutchinson at any time.
The fact Abberline used the term 'interrogate' with respect to Hutchinson, could easily mean his questioning was thorough, and above the normal treatment of a witness.

[Wickerman]

I have seen it argued that Abberline may not have believed Hutch, but acted like he did because he suspected Hutch, and acting like he believed him may have been a tactic for investigating him. It seems to me that this is a possibility.

Except that what Abberline wrote was to his superiors, not the press.
You don't believe Abberline had to include his superiors in the deception too, do you?
There was nothing in the press about Abberline believing Hutchinson, only that the police continued to investigate both witness stories.

[Fleetwood Mac]

It isn't a case of ignoring or changing anything. Both Blotchy and A-man were genuine suspects, we read as much in the press. The police didn't dismiss either witness, though we do read the City police did dismiss Cox on the basis they didn't think she described their suspect.
The Met. police choose to believe Blotchy, and continued to investigate both stories, as they should.
My argument has never been to believe one over the other, but that the Met. police were correct to investigate both stories, as we read a week later on 19 Nov..

In discussing all of this, we're not simply agreeing with everything that was stated, including by the polis. We're looking at the statements and trying to work out that which is most probable, regardless of what people believed at the time.

Modern theorists not familiar with the attire of people who passed through Dorset St.

We are. Look at this murder case and the witness statements. Where are the people wandering 'round at half two in the morning looking like they have something worth taking? We know from historians that going into the pubs in that area with a watch on show, for example, was a bad idea. We know from historians also that the place was teeming with thieves and the police couldn't necessarily help you, including the police choosing to avoid certain streets.

Yes, but you are passing judgement based on information you do not have. How is that any different?

I cannot pass judgement on information I do not have, for the obvious reason that I do not have that information. You cannot reasonably put a case together on some supposed information that you haven't seen. That much should be obvious.

A perfect example, you do not know the reason he stands around - so you make your judgement based on that.

Absolutely not, Jon. I'm looking at George's statement and asking you: when has that ever happened? George tells us why he's there, is it suspect when consider his 45 minute vigil? We're assessing his statement as opposed to putting a case forward based upon information that nobody has ever seen.

People did stand around, read up on any casual meanderings of writers or journalists walking through Whitechapel, or anywhere across the East End, at night.

"The street is oppressively dark, though at present the gloom is relieved somewhat by feebly lighted shopfronts. Men are lounging at the doors of the shops, smoking evil-smelling pipes. Women with bare heads and with arms under their aprons are sauntering about in twos and threes, or are seated gossiping on steps leading into passages dark as Erebus."
An Autumn Evening in Whitechapel, 3 Nov. 1888.

We're not talking of people at their door or neighbours gossiping, we're talking of George telling you he undertook a 45 minute vigil simply because he was intrigued by the man.

The meat of it is that George reckoned: he was intrigued by the man, he decided to hang around for 45 minutes, he didn't bother to go and see if Mary was alright, then he left. The reason why I suggested that it may be worth finding a similar situation from any other murder case in the world, is because in the event you can't that renders George one in a million.

but you're suggesting that Abberline didn't know any more than you know.

George's tale should stand or fall on the merit of that which he suggests. An appeal to authority and Inspector Abberline's judgement is not a worthy argument. Inspector Abberline wasn't borrowing from science, it was his gut feel.

[Lewis C]

I have seen it argued that Abberline may not have believed Hutch, but acted like he did because he suspected Hutch, and acting like he believed him may have been a tactic for investigating him. It seems to me that this is a possibility.

[Wickerman]

...It doesn't change the fact that Blotchy would be a person of interest in any murder case. From there it's a case of assessing the other information.

...Implausible, Jon. Both Mary C and Mary J K had lived at the court for a good while.

...Aye, feel free to ignore it on that basis. I don't think you have a good case to ignore it, however.

It isn't a case of ignoring or changing anything. Both Blotchy and A-man were genuine suspects, we read as much in the press. The police didn't dismiss either witness, though we do read the City police did dismiss Cox on the basis they didn't think she described their suspect.
The Met. police choose to believe Blotchy, and continued to investigate both stories, as they should.
My argument has never been to believe one over the other, but that the Met. police were correct to investigate both stories, as we read a week later on 19 Nov..

The police have not relaxed their efforts in the slightest, but so far they remain without any direct clue....
Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance on the statement made by Hutchinson....
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. 1888.

Both witnesses were equally valid, but there are some who put Cox/Blotchy above Hutch/A-man, which I am saying is wrong. The circumstances, as I have hi-lited, used by some to argue Cox is a better witness are not valid, she isn't a better witness. Not knowing where Hutch came from does not invalidate his story. Modern theorists not familiar with the attire of people who passed through Dorset St. through the night does not make Hutch a liar. Whether Cox knew Mary Kelly, and to what degree she knew her is also irrelevant.

It is a well known fact in police circles that we are often in more danger from the people we know than those we do not know.

You're presenting a case based on information that you do not have, you assume exists and in the event it does exist then you assume it adds credence to George's tale. 'Problem being: you're imagining information that we do not have at our disposal.

Yes, but you are passing judgement based on information you do not have. How is that any different?

My primary objection to Hutchinson is this: he gives no explanation for his vigil.

A perfect example, you do not know the reason he stands around - so you make your judgement based on that.

People did stand around, read up on any casual meanderings of writers or journalists walking through Whitechapel, or anywhere across the East End, at night.

"The street is oppressively dark, though at present the gloom is relieved somewhat by feebly lighted shopfronts. Men are lounging at the doors of the shops, smoking evil-smelling pipes. Women with bare heads and with arms under their aprons are sauntering about in twos and threes, or are seated gossiping on steps leading into passages dark as Erebus."
An Autumn Evening in Whitechapel, 3 Nov. 1888.

Common people with nothing else to do lounge around doorways, by themselves or in groups, just watching the world go by.
Hutchinson didn't need a reason, he had nowhere to go and all the time to get there. It was after 2:00 so most registered lodging houses were closed until around 5:00am? I think.
I think you do know this was common, you are I'm sure sufficiently well read to have learned how common this was, but you are trying to make an activity that was natural a century ago appear suspicious.
Lets suppose, for arguments sake Hutch though he might mug the gent when he comes out of Millers Court. He may have been desperate for cash, he may have thought this gent was a wimp, an easy roll, he could grab some of that jewelry to porn it?
Does that make his story invalid?, of course not, but he's not likely to admit his motive to Abberline, which makes the basis for your suspicions also irrelevant - it makes no difference what his intentions were, he waited for a while, then walked off.

Why is that we do not read of anyone else in this murder case undertaking a vigil based on nothing except a man and a woman walked past him?

In fact, here's a challenge for you, Jon. Can you find one example of any murder case in the world where somebody decided to undertake an half an hour to 45 minutes vigil prior to a murder when the witness had not seen any physical or verbal attack?

We don't hear of it because none of them who have stood around went to the police to tell them about it - thats all.

There is a reason why George's vigil is so unusual.

You're trying too hard to make the 'usual' appear 'unusual'.
This was the late 19th century, sure it might be seen as loitering today, times change. We can't judge every event back then as if it has happened today.

There is a secondary piece of information from George which also seems fanciful. George would like us to believe that a man was wandering 'round on his own looking like he had something worth taking, at half two in the morning or whatever, in a place that was teeming with thieves and desperation.

Like someone coming home from Whitechapel Station, or the Red Lion Theatre perhaps? or just one of the many night clubs, scattered around the East End?
Dorset St. wasn't the 'den of iniquity' that some fictional authors have painted it, besides A-man was walking up Commercial Street which was perfectly safe when compared with the many side streets.
There were plenty of Jewish businesses all around Commercial Street, no justification for implying A-man had no business being there.

Add in the third component that George mentioned who he saw that night, but Sarah Lewis wasn't one of them.

Neither was Cox, who says she returned about 3:00am, as Hutch left the street, but women were just part of the background their presence add's nothing to his story.

In the event George was straight down the line, I'll eat hay with a horse.

When the above is pointed out, some people fall back on: 'the police believed him'. The police aren't infallible. We know from experience that they get a lot of things wrong. I think the strength of George's statement should stand or fall on that statement, as opposed to who believed him.

Quite frankly, George's statement is ludicrous.

Of course the police are not infallible, but you're suggesting that Abberline didn't know any more than you know. Which, if you think about it, must be ludicrous in itself - don't you think?
The police knew far more about this case than the meager notes that have survived in the police files, I think you also know this, it's just you're not thinking about it.

Any reasonable person is going to know Abberline will learn more details that we have read about. So, of course his conclusion is based on more knowledge than we have, more importantly - than you have, because I'm not questioning it.

[Abby Normal]

It doesn't change the fact that Blotchy would be a person of interest in any murder case. From there it's a case of assessing the other information.



Implausible, Jon. Both Mary C and Mary J K had lived at the court for a good while.



Aye, feel free to ignore it on that basis. I don't think you have a good case to ignore it, however.



You're presenting a case based on information that you do not have, you assume exists and in the event it does exist then you assume it adds credence to George's tale. 'Problem being: you're imagining information that we do not have at our disposal.

My primary objection to Hutchinson is this: he gives no explanation for his vigil.

Why is that we do not read of anyone else in this murder case undertaking a vigil based on nothing except a man and a woman walked past him?

In fact, here's a challenge for you, Jon. Can you find one example of any murder case in the world where somebody decided to undertake an half an hour to 45 minutes vigil prior to a murder when the witness had not seen any physical or verbal attack?

There is a reason why George's vigil is so unusual.

There is a secondary piece of information from George which also seems fanciful. George would like us to believe that a man was wandering 'round on his own looking like he had something worth taking, at half two in the morning or whatever, in a place that was teeming with thieves and desperation.

Add in the third component that George mentioned who he saw that night, but Sarah Lewis wasn't one of them.

In the event George was straight down the line, I'll eat hay with a horse.

When the above is pointed out, some people fall back on: 'the police believed him'. The police aren't infallible. We know from experience that they get a lot of things wrong. I think the strength of George's statement should stand or fall on that statement, as opposed to who believed him.

Quite frankly, George's statement is ludicrous.

yes it is. which makes Blotchy even more of a valid suspect. and with the obvious yellow flags with hutch and his aman story, and hutchs stalking behavior, hutch is in tje frame too as marys killer. but other than these two, i got the bethnal green botherer as the third most likely man as marys killer. personally i dont think mary went back out after blotchy, but did the bgb follow Sarah from a distance perhaps to millers court?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Right, no question, but you omit the context, and context matters because there was 11 hours between what Cox saw and what Bowyer found.

It doesn't change the fact that Blotchy would be a person of interest in any murder case. From there it's a case of assessing the other information.

We tend to use 'know' when me mean 'assume', we all do it. In this example we do not 'know' how well Cox knew Mary Kelly.

Implausible, Jon. Both Mary C and Mary J K had lived at the court for a good while.

According to Cox, and no-one else.

Aye, feel free to ignore it on that basis. I don't think you have a good case to ignore it, however.

What is missing in this story is what Hutchinson told Abberline in the subsequent interview. Hutchinson is mostly judged on the answers he gave Sgt. Badham when he initially gave his statement to police, but Badham's focus was suspect based. He didn't take down a lot of background information.
A more complete story will have been taken by Abberline when they met later Monday night.
So we are judging Hutchinson on only part of what he told police.

You're presenting a case based on information that you do not have, you assume exists and in the event it does exist then you assume it adds credence to George's tale. 'Problem being: you're imagining information that we do not have at our disposal.

My primary objection to Hutchinson is this: he gives no explanation for his vigil.

Why is that we do not read of anyone else in this murder case undertaking a vigil based on nothing except a man and a woman walked past him?

In fact, here's a challenge for you, Jon. Can you find one example of any murder case in the world where somebody decided to undertake an half an hour to 45 minutes vigil prior to a murder when the witness had not seen any physical or verbal attack?

There is a reason why George's vigil is so unusual.

There is a secondary piece of information from George which also seems fanciful. George would like us to believe that a man was wandering 'round on his own looking like he had something worth taking, at half two in the morning or whatever, in a place that was teeming with thieves and desperation.

Add in the third component that George mentioned who he saw that night, but Sarah Lewis wasn't one of them.

In the event George was straight down the line, I'll eat hay with a horse.

When the above is pointed out, some people fall back on: 'the police believed him'. The police aren't infallible. We know from experience that they get a lot of things wrong. I think the strength of George's statement should stand or fall on that statement, as opposed to who believed him.

Quite frankly, George's statement is ludicrous.

[Wickerman]

When you have a person seen going into a victim's room late at night, and the victim is found dead the next morning, that renders the person very much a person of interest; in every possible police investigation in the world.

Right, no question, but you omit the context, and context matters because there was 11 hours between what Cox saw and what Bowyer found. From 11:45 pm to 10:45 am, so much can happen in one hour in the East End, let alone eleven hours.
So, on what grounds do we connect two events that are 11 hours apart?
Was anybody standing watch over Millers Court for all eleven hours?, of course not.
Could anyone else have come and gone at any point in those eleven hours? Yes, of course.
Could Mary have left & returned in those eleven hours?, Yes, certainly.
You disagree with any of that?

Add in that we know Mary Cox did actually know Mary, they lived in the same court, and you have a witness who we can reasonably hedge our bets on.

I'd be careful in how we use 'know', Cox did live at the far end of the court, what some 50? feet away.
There's something like 12 feet between my house and my neighbours, I've spoken to them once in passing, I know nothing about them least of all their names. Cox did at least know the victim by the name she used, and apparently Cox knew she lived in room 13, but what else did Cox know about Mary?
Cox tells us nothing about Mary, her partner or friends, or whether they often drank together.
So, we are justified in asking just how well did she know Mary?
We tend to use 'know' when me mean 'assume', we all do it. In this example we do not 'know' how well Cox knew Mary Kelly.

In addition, Blotchy was carrying booze, so whatever the arrangement it certainly wasn't your average 5 minutes on the street.

According to Cox, and no-one else.

And then, the medical evidence suggests that Mary was murdered lying at the side of the bed, which in turn suggests somebody was lying on the other side, i.e. somebody who had an arrangement with Mary that was more than your average 5 minutes on the street.

If that is not good reason to make Blotchy a reasonable suspect then I don't know what is.

That circumstance applies to any client who may have come and gone through those eleven hours that we spoke of at the beginning.
All we can reasonably deduce from the above is she was likely murdered by a client, someone who shared her bed that night.

Countering this, we have press reports suggesting that Mary was out again after say 1.30am. How much store do you place in these? I'm sceptical.

Nothing wrong with being skeptical, the question then becomes what is the cause of the skepticism, conflicting evidence? - there isn't any, or the reluctance to believe an alternate scenario?

And of course we have George, with his unlikely stake-out for no particular reason. George suggests that his only reason for his vigil, was to watch A-man walk past him again. It's one of the most ridiculous concoctions in the entire investigation.

On balance, I'd say he is the most reasonable suspect.

That concluding sentence answers the previous question.

What is missing in this story is what Hutchinson told Abberline in the subsequent interview. Hutchinson is mostly judged on the answers he gave Sgt. Badham when he initially gave his statement to police, but Badham's focus was suspect based. He didn't take down a lot of background information.
A more complete story will have been taken by Abberline when they met later Monday night.
So we are judging Hutchinson on only part of what he told police.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I think Blotchy is a red herring.

When you have a person seen going into a victim's room late at night, and the victim is found dead the next morning, that renders the person very much a person of interest; in every possible police investigation in the world.

Add in that we know Mary Cox did actually know Mary, they lived in the same court, and you have a witness who we can reasonably hedge our bets on.

In addition, Blotchy was carrying booze, so whatever the arrangement it certainly wasn't your average 5 minutes on the street.

And then, the medical evidence suggests that Mary was murdered lying at the side of the bed, which in turn suggests somebody was lying on the other side, i.e. somebody who had an arrangement with Mary that was more than your average 5 minutes on the street.

If that is not good reason to make Blotchy a reasonable suspect then I don't know what is.

Countering this, we have press reports suggesting that Mary was out again after say 1.30am. How much store do you place in these? I'm sceptical.

And of course we have George, with his unlikely stake-out for no particular reason. George suggests that his only reason for his vigil, was to watch A-man walk past him again. It's one of the most ridiculous concoctions in the entire investigation.

On balance, I'd say he is the most reasonable suspect.

[Wickerman]

...
Actually no-one but Hutchinson claimed to see specifically Mary Kelly out after 11:45pm Thursday night....

See, that's not true either, and you know it.
Mrs Kennedy saw Kelly outside the Britannia about 3:00 am, oh but of course you dismiss her too.
Then we have a report from the Morning Advertiser, 14 Nov... "that the police have obtained statements from several persons who reside in Millers Court, that she was out of her house and in Dorset street between two and three o'clock", but again your typical response is to dismiss anything that contests your argument.
You choose your own evidence Michael, as you have with the Stride case.

Do you know where the source was for that article? Me neither. Does that invalidate it? No.

When the press criticize some current story they give their reasons why, so how come the Star never gave their reason?
Surely they knew the importance of denying the validity of a story by the police number 1 witness, so they have every justification to explain their position - but they didn't.

As you are quite willing to accept an unsubstantiated story from a newspaper, why do you not apply that same reasoning to Hutchinson's unsubstantiated story?
We all know why don't we Michael?

Using only your own faculties you must understand that the alleged Hutchinson sighting and the descriptions therein have always been suspect.

By who?
Modern theorists, with their own theories to promote?

The only opinion that matters concerning Hutchinson's story is that of the police. And it is obvious how it pains you so incredibly that the police trusted Hutchinson, all through November into at least Dec. 6th when Abberline mistakenly believed Joseph Isaacs was the mysterious Astrachan.
A circumstance that demonstrates Hutchinson's story was foremost in Abberline's mind for close to a month following his interview with him. Not, as the Star erroneously published, that his story was discredited.

All this has been pointed out to you more than once, yet you choose to ignore the facts above and blindly regurgitate the same ill-informed, baseless arguments.

[Michael W Richards]

No-one claimed to have been with Mary at some other location between 2:00-2:30.

Actually no-one but Hutchinson claimed to see specifically Mary Kelly out after 11:45pm Thursday night. Some claimed to see her the next morning, but we dont know if they really knew Mary either.

No-one claimed they saw Hutchinson playing cards in some lodging house at the time he says he was in Dorset St.
That is the kind of evidence we need to call Hutchinson a liar - some details which contradict his story.
There isn't any.

The fact that only he claimed Mary Kelly specifically was out and about at the times stated should be an indicator for you. We know someone that DID know Mary Kelly was out on the street until 3am and she didnt see Mary.

If the Star newspaper were so intent on showing why Hutchinson was discredited, why do you think they didn't provide anything?
They didn't have anything, thats why. They were trying to be controversial to sell papers. Like they were when they accused Pizer of being Leather Apron, and were sued for it.

Do you know where the source was for that article? Me neither. Does that invalidate it? No. Using only your own faculties you must understand that the alleged Hutchinson sighting and the descriptions therein have always been suspect. As is he. He hasnt even been identified historically.

Its circular arguments and frankly really tedious now. If you dont accept something lets just leave it at that ok? You can lead a horse to water...

[Wickerman]

One point in your rebuttal previous to the post addressed above is that you claimed Hutchinson isnt contradicted by anyone. How would you know that? He never gave the statement publicly. His story is "discredited" though, according to an article a few days later.

Well that is easy Michael.
No-one claimed to have been with Mary at some other location between 2:00-2:30.
No-one claimed they saw Hutchinson playing cards in some lodging house at the time he says he was in Dorset St.
That is the kind of evidence we need to call Hutchinson a liar - some details which contradict his story.
There isn't any.

If the Star newspaper were so intent on showing why Hutchinson was discredited, why do you think they didn't provide anything?
They didn't have anything, thats why. They were trying to be controversial to sell papers. Like they were when they accused Pizer of being Leather Apron, and were sued for it.

[Michael W Richards]

Because something may be logical does not mean it is correct.
I think your first problem is explaining why it is logical, given that much of your last two replies to me consisted mostly of errors and assumptions.

Perhaps not, but Id rather employ logic, reason, knowledge and common sense when assessing something, rather than just offhandedly dismissing or accepting anything. The odds of finding Truth are much better that way.

[Michael W Richards]

"Belief" can run a gamut. Anywhere from I think his statement is more likely to be true than not to I will bet the souls of my children that his story is true. We don't know where Abberline fell on that scale. We also don't know if he changed his mind at some future point as more information became available to him.

So in this instance I think we have to take his "belief" with a grain of salt.

c.d.

?.... a statement that suggests caution when blindly accepting something? Nice cd. Now go back and apply that same logic to his statement about Schwartz.

[Michael W Richards]

I take your point but why does any witness "suffer" from lack of corroboration? If only one person sees or hears an event their evidence is uncorroborated. That doesn't mean that the incident described didn't take place. Corroboration is always helpful but it isn't the be all and end all. A corroborated account is stronger but that's not the same as an uncorroborated one being invalidated. Hutchinson may have been lying (or mistaken as to the day) but Abberline was an experienced DI. They get lied to every day and Abberline uses the word "interrogated" to describe his interview of Hutchinson, ergo he didn't just take his account at face value. If Hutchinson lied (and I concede that he may have done) then he fooled a man used to being lied to. Abberline was no mug.

Does any witnesses "suffer" from a lack or corroboration, I assume you mean loses credibility? When multiple witness accounts agree and all disagree with that singular account, then I suppose it does, and should, "suffer". As for Abberline, he is recorded as saying he believed Schwartz, who wasnt a participant in Stride Inquest, he supported Hutchinsons story, even though days later it is printed that his story had been discredited, he is on record as saying no-one had any idea of who the Ripper was and that Chapman was the Ripper. Dont put too much faith in human beings, they will ultimately disappoint you.