Mary Jane and Blotchy

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

As in a "carotty herring"?

Helen x

I was going to call him a ginger herring.

[Parisi North Humber]

As in a "carotty herring"?

Helen x

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In what way?

Actually, I was trying to make a pun, but I think he met Kelly far too early in the evening/night to be a suspect in her murder.

[Wickerman]

I think Blotchy is a red herring.

In what way?

[Wickerman]

Apologies Wick, of course it was Cox and not Maxwell. It's those kind of silly mistakes that I proof read to the nth degree, and still get it wrong that make me hesitant about posting anything. And then it's another day, and I gird my loins and jump back into the debate.

You & me both, only with me it's spelling. What looks perfectly fine as I'm about to post, I suddenly see something, then another, and another. I'm wondering if I have a touch of dislexia (I had to look that one up).
I'm used to seeing red lines here & there but most are Americanisms because this is American software & I still use British spelling, mostly anyway. So I mostly ignore any red lines.
See dislexia has a red line,....oh for rice cake it's a y = dyslexia, yeh, got it!

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

"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

I think Blotchy is a red herring.

[barnflatwyngarde]

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



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.




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?



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?



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.

Apologies Wick, of course it was Cox and not Maxwell. It's those kind of silly mistakes that I proof read to the nth degree, and still get it wrong that make me hesitant about posting anything. And then it's another day, and I gird my loins and jump back into the debate.