Mary Jane and Blotchy

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

The important point is that George tells us his reason for being there: he is intrigued by the man.

He has seen no physical or verbal assault, he has no indication a murder is in store.

George claims he undertook a 45 minute vigil simply because he is intrigued by a man. Not merely standing around idly, but a vigil as a result of an intriguing man.

We know from history that this is an extremely unlikely event. Witnesses do not undertake a 45 minute vigil based on an 'intriguing man' when they have no indication that a crime is about to be committed. You'll struggle to find any such events related to any murder case in the world.

That renders George one in a million, meaning an extremely unlikely event.

[Lewis C]

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.

That's a good point.

[c.d.]

The important point is that George tells us his reason for being there: he is intrigued by the man.

He has seen no physical or verbal assault, he has no indication a murder is in store.

George claims he undertook a 45 minute vigil simply because he is intrigued by a man. Not merely standing around idly, but a vigil as a result of an intriguing man.

We know from history that this is an extremely unlikely event. Witnesses do not undertake a 45 minute vigil based on an 'intriguing man' when they have no indication that a crime is about to be committed. You'll struggle to find any such events related to any murder case in the world.

That renders George one in a million, meaning an extremely unlikely event.

But what if the real reason for his vigil was that he was hoping that the man would leave shortly so that he could ask Mary if he could spend the night? Free shelter and maybe a roll in the hay. That would be in line with his close inspection of Mary's client possibly in an attempt to convince him that a quick one with Mary would be better than spending the night with her. In other words, intimidation.

c.d.

[Fleetwood Mac]

But what if the real reason for his vigil was that he was hoping that the man would leave shortly so that he could ask Mary if he could spend the night? Free shelter and maybe a roll in the hay. That would be in line with his close inspection of Mary's client possibly in an attempt to convince him that a quick one with Mary would be better than spending the night with her. In other words, intimidation.

c.d.

In my view, it is more likely that George was there but the motive he gave us was a lie, than it is George was there and his simple motive of 'intriguing man' led him to undertake a 45 minute vigil, was true.

The problem is that we have to invent motives to give George credence, and in the event we assume one part of George's statement was a lie, i.e. the motive; then that compromises his entire statement.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

Wow, I get to agree with someone, and they with me. This is new. The suspect description alone should cause anyone to question his entire statement. Its also 4 days late. Its also based on an unsubstantiated knowledge of Mary and her of him.

We do know from someone else that there was someone there at the time, before George steps in to take his place on Monday night. That someone caused the police to take action Saturday afternoon, issuing the Pardon for Accomplices. So when George comes in the police have been under the suspicion that Wideawake Hat man may have been an accomplice. What happens after George comes in Monday night? That idea is shelved, because George seems to indicate he was just watching out for a friend. Someone...which we will never know...may not have even known George.

George changed police perceptions about Wideawake with his statement, and in my opinion, thats why he gave the statement in the first place.

[Wickerman]

The important point is that George tells us his reason for being there: he is intrigued by the man.

He has seen no physical or verbal assault, he has no indication a murder is in store.

George claims he undertook a 45 minute vigil simply because he is intrigued by a man. Not merely standing around idly, but a vigil as a result of an intriguing man.

Yes, his focus appears to be the man, and the fact Mary was with someone so well dressed, well above her usual clientele.

For those who think George was involved, it is odd that he would say the man did not look threatening, as if Mary was in any danger. George said he did not suspect the man to be the murderer.
This is counterintuitive, for if George was involved, as some suspect, a more natural response would be for him to say he did have suspicions about the man. It would be a perfect justification for being there and waiting so long.

We know from history that this is an extremely unlikely event. Witnesses do not undertake a 45 minute vigil based on an 'intriguing man' when they have no indication that a crime is about to be committed. You'll struggle to find any such events related to any murder case in the world.

That renders George one in a million, meaning an extremely unlikely event.

I understand the point you are making, it's just that I doubt people keep lists of crimes where someone waited a few days before coming to police.
Or make lists of witnesses watching a suspicious couple, or lists of how long witnesses waited before they lost interest.
I certainly don't, I can't imagine you do either.

There are times we have read about people watching suspicious characters. One case I know about involved two female real estate agents. One watched a suspicious man enter the house opposite where her friend was on duty in charge of an open-house.
She was suspicious because the man circled the housing estate in a white mustang several times, then stopped at the house opposite.
He entered the house, she was concerned because she saw no movement in the windows of figures walking around the house.
The white mustang was still there an hour later when her shift ended, she went home.
The first estate agent did not go to police until she heard of the murder.
We are not going to find an exact duplicate of the Hutchinson vigil scenario, but we know he had nothing else to do and nowhere to go. One place was just as good as any other.
Apparently, Abberline was sufficiently street-wise to not see anything suspicious about a man standing around doing nothing, troubling no-one.

There are crimes though where we hear of witnesses coming forward several days after a crime is reported, some don't come forward at all until found by police. Lawende falls into that last category, he was discovered by police.
Many witnesses resist coming forward out of reluctance to get involved, or only show up days after the event.
There's nothing intrinsically suspicious about either of these activities, though lots of theorists try to play it up out of all proportion.

I think Hutchinson's actions and reactions are perfectly normal for the times and for the circumstances, assuming what we read is true.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I understand the point you are making, it's just that I doubt people keep lists of crimes where someone waited a few days before coming to police.
Or make lists of witnesses watching a suspicious couple, or lists of how long witnesses waited before they lost interest.
I certainly don't, I can't imagine you do either.

We would have written statements just as we have from the witnesses in this case and witnesses in every other case.

Of all of those witness statements we have, George alone kept a 45 minute vigil when he had absolutely no idea a crime was about to take place.

That's pretty unusual, Jon, to the point of being extremely unusual.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The more I think about it, the more I think Blotchy is our man.

I reckon that by the time Elizabeth Prater returned to her room, Mary was either asleep or dead.

We have George's unlikely 45 minute vigil; we have the odd newspaper account and no way of knowing where they got that information from; we have Mary's unlikely 'murder' shout (given that studies suggest most women freeze in that situation and we do not hear of other women being attacked shouting 'murder' in pretty much any murder case). I reckon these have served merely to confuse.

We have Blotchy seen going into the room, with his booze suggesting this was more than a 5 minute arrangement, and we have Mary murdered at the side of the bed which suggests somebody was lying beside her, i.e. someone there with a more than 5 minute arrangement.

Which means Dr Bond may well have fluked his way to an approximately accurate TOD.