Mary Jane and Blotchy

[Aethelwulf]

hutch probably waited to come forward because he didnt want to be a part of the inquest. As hutch seemed to try as hard as he could to convince the police he saw the ripper, seems like he was trying to gain some kind of fortune and or fame from it.

Hes a sketchy "witness" any way you cut it.

Assuming Aman is who the police are referring to below there is an interesting addition to Hutch that seems like the police belived him:

• Scotland Yard felt that “his description was very like that of the man who had been speaking to the young woman Kelly on the night of the crime”
• Scotland Yard “had established the fact that he was missing from his lodgings on the night that Marie Kelly was done to death in her home in Dorset Street”

[Abby Normal]

hutch probably waited to come forward because he didnt want to be a part of the inquest. As hutch seemed to try as hard as he could to convince the police he saw the ripper, seems like he was trying to gain some kind of fortune and or fame from it.

Hes a sketchy "witness" any way you cut it.

[Observer]

Indeed, you can understand his reluctance to come forward. Perhaps this is one of the reasons it took three days for him to approach the police

[c.d.]

And Hutchinson is taking advantage of what she said to talk to the police & possibly to the press where he can make a good thing out of being the last person to see Kelly alive.

Maybe so but unless he was a complete idiot or extremely naive about police matters he would also have realized that it immediately made him a person of interest and possibly a suspect.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

To be fair, Hutchinson only became a suspect after it was noticed in the Star (15 Nov) that the paper had claimed his story had been discredited, though the paper never offered a reason or justification, not even an official source for their claim.
Subsequently, theorists all jumped on the bandwagon to accuse him of lying, but there has never been a consensus among those theorists as to what he is supposed to have lied about, or what his role in the crime actually was. As a result, and lacking any true evidence, none of the accusations against him find any credibility.

[etenguy]

Unfortunately Sarah Lewis gives her inquest testimony before Hutchinson turns up with his statement. Which means Sarah Less saw a man. But that man may be someone else. And Hutchinson is taking advantage of what she said to talk to the police & possibly to the press where he can make a good thing out of being the last person to see Kelly alive. I haven't seen any account that suggests Lewis was shown Hutchinson to see if she recognized him.

Hi Chava

You may very well be correct. Hutchinson's evidence has long been questioned. Why did he wait to come forward? Why did he follow Kelly and the man? How did he take in such a detailed description?

I speculate that there is an explanation for the seemingly strange behaviour and that is based on Hutchinson's statement to the police and Abberline's statement that he believed Hutchinson's evidence. As part of his statement, Hutchinson stated 'he was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch them' - he also stated that he had spent his money in Romford and had none to share with Kelly.

A possible explanation for Hutchinson's behaviour is that he was taken to see such a well dressed man with Kelly. One who looked like he had money. Hutchinson might well look hard at this man to see what else might be stolen. He possibly followed kelly and companion and then waited for him to finish with her and leave. He may well have planned to mug him once he had left Kelly. However, it seems the man was taking his time and so Hutchinson left.

His reluctance to come forward initially may have been that he had no reasonable explanation for his behaviour - he is unlikely to tell the police he was going to set upon the man. It might have taken him a couple of days to pull together an explanation for his behaviour (which was weak nonetheless) before providing the police with what he knew to help catch the killer of his friend.

[Chava]

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.

Unfortunately Sarah Lewis gives her inquest testimony before Hutchinson turns up with his statement. Which means Sarah Less saw a man. But that man may be someone else. And Hutchinson is taking advantage of what she said to talk to the police & possibly to the press where he can make a good thing out of being the last person to see Kelly alive. I haven't seen any account that suggests Lewis was shown Hutchinson to see if she recognized him.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.

[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.