Ripper Victim?

[Ben]

Oh shut up Ben you Quack!!!! Focus!

I thought you were banned for resorting to precisely this sort of deranged and hysterical behaviour?

i do not know of any killer changing his MO or Signature that quick at the same time with a victim, not in history, not in modern times either.

Then educate yourself on the topic, and you'll find some, but don't reinforce your ignorance as though it somehow constitutes evidence of you being right. That just makes it worse.

[DVV]

i'm beginning to wonder if she detected JTR in one of her lovers, be it Fleming or Hutch or someone else, and any one of 3 of these could be Blotchy!

Houlà Malcolm !

Had Hutch bloches on his face, and had he sported a carrotty moustache, he would have undoubtedly ended in custody on Monday 12.
At least until Cox could identify him.

And where have you found that Hutch was Mary's lover ? There's no evidence of this. Certainly Hutch could have been a client, but calling him her lover, and giving him the status of Barnett and Fleming, in this respect, is going too far. Unless he was Fleming, of course - but this is also for another thread.

The physical description we have of Fleming, I must add, has nothing to do with Blotchy.

Amitiés,
David

[Malcolm X]

Houlà Malcolm !

Had Hutch bloches on his face, and had he sported a carrotty moustache, he would have undoubtedly ended in custody on Monday 12.
At least until Cox could identify him.

And where have you found that Hutch was Mary's lover ? There's no evidence of this. Certainly Hutch could have been a client, but calling him her lover, and giving him the status of Barnett and Fleming, in this respect, is going too far. Unless he was Fleming, of course - but this is also for another thread.

The physical description we have of Fleming, I must add, has nothing to do with Blotchy.

Amitiés,
David

yea HUTCH wasn't Blotchy,.....that's my **** up, i was trying to get the post up within the 1/2 hour limit and didn't read it properly.

but Hutch could've been a lover that Kelly never mentioned, a lover for not as long as BARNETT OR FLEMING though, a lover may only need be from one to 2 weeks.........or he could've been a regular client and therefore ``a friend of sorts``, but my guess is that HUTCH was a stranger; but i have to mention other possibilities

i wasn't aware of an accurate description of Fleming, i only saw that he probably wasn't 6' 7'', but may have been 6ft1'' or 5ft 7'' ........... i didn't check every page... so Fleming doesn't match Blotchy either, well well; why am i not surprised!

as for Hutch being Fleming, almost definitely not....i wont even go there, totally rediculous in my opinion!

[Ben]

I wouldn't rule out any of those three as Blotchy, chaps.

Barnett isn't so likely, since Mary Cox would surely have recognised him at the inquest, but Hutchinson could conceivably have been Blotchy; the height, weight and headgear tallies well with the wideawake man at, at least, and Fleming is only really a problem if he really was as lofty as all that!

All the best,
Ben

[Malcolm X]

Hi Mike, all,

One more thing that can hardly be missed about Tabram: the fact that she's been found legs apart, her clothing being turned up to the centre of her body.
That's why Barrett first thought that intercourse might have taken place.
Isn't that typical of the Ripper?

Amitiés,
David

that could've been any killer that did that, (e.g any drunken sailor... whatever) that's not nearly enough to suspect the Ripper.......the M.O is totally different, Alice Mckenzie yes, Tabram no...............in my opinion!

[Malcolm X]

I wouldn't rule out any of those three as Blotchy, chaps.

Barnett isn't so likely, since Mary Cox would surely have recognised him at the inquest, but Hutchinson could conceivably have been Blotchy; the height, weight and headgear tallies well with the wideawake man at, at least, and Fleming is only really a problem if he really was as lofty as all that!

All the best,
Ben

Hutch might've been recognised by Cox later on, or even shown to her by Abberline. Fleming, i dont know; i'm only going by what DVV has said, i have no idea what he looked like.

[DVV]

Barnett isn't so likely, since Mary Cox would surely have recognised him at the inquest, but Hutchinson could conceivably have been Blotchy;
Ben

Hi Ben,

if Hutch looked like Blotchy, then Blotchy's description has to be completely inaccurate... and if so, how can we say that Hutch looked like Blotchy ??!!

I mean: could Hutch have lost his blotches within 3 days ?
Could Abberline be fool enough to have forgotten Blotchy's appearance within 3 days ?
Just remember Blotchy was the suspect # 1, before the world heard of Mr Astrakhan.
So no, Hutch can't be Blotchy. Neither Barnett, of course.

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

that could've been any killer that did that, that's not nearly enough to suspect the Ripper.......the M.O is totally different

I didn't say it was the ultimate proof, Malcolm, but that's something significant, as you certainly understand.
I agree, of course, that the MO is different, though not "totally" (see my post "Two schools").

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

Hutch might've been recognised by Cox later on, or even shown to her by Abberline. Fleming, i dont know; i'm only going by what DVV has said, i have no idea what he looked like.

True, Malcolm,
for what we know about Fleming, I maintain he makes an unlikely Blotchy.
But IF one of those 3 guys (Barnett, Fleming, Hutch) was Blotchy (and I firmly believe none of them was), Fleming would be the more likely - or rather, the "less unlikely".

Amitiés,
David

[Malcolm X]

I didn't say it was the ultimate proof, Malcolm, but that's something significant, as you certainly understand.
I agree, of course, that the MO is different, though not "totally" (see my post "Two schools").

Amitiés,
David

yes lifting up the dress is odd, i do have to agree, but i wouldn't read too much into that, it's simply this wildly differing M.O that visions in my mind's eye a totally different killer, he's a street thug in a wild rage... probably two of them due to the ``bayonnet`` or similar, being used as well.

the Ripper not only had a totally different M.O ( as you well know), but he was calm and cold!

it could only really be the Ripper, if he lost his temper and exploded into a rage... and this could've easily happened, but i extremely doubt it.

also, MARTHA probably upset the other killer too, it looks like he definitely flew off the rails .

[Malcolm X]

True, Malcolm,
for what we know about Fleming, I maintain he makes an unlikely Blotchy.
But IF one of those 3 guys (Barnett, Fleming, Hutch) was Blotchy (and I firmly believe none of them was), Fleming would be the more likely - or rather, the "less unlikely".

Amitiés,
David

yes, unfortunately i wasn't around when that Fleming thread was being discussed, so this suspect is relatively new to me.......Blotchy is definitely not BARNETT, that would be almost suicidal of him to kill Kelly, because he could've been recognised, if not going in; THEN MAYBE LEAVING ........no way Hose'

Blotchy as Fleming........ maybe, but Fleming doesn't seem like a killer anyway....because i didn't sense a killer when reading those threads.. i'm not being bias at all, i just felt ``no, he dosn't seem like JTR``.... more like Kosminski

[DVV]

I see your points, Malcolm,
but the Ripper wasn't so "cold", and be sure his soul was full of rage.
If you doubt, just watch Kelly's pic.
So "cold" isn't the proper adjective to me. Somehow he learnt to be more controlled and more efficient.
And Martha's murder could well have given him a lesson.
As pointed out recently (by CD, I think), perhaps we all make the mistake of focusing too much on mutilations, forgetting somehow that Jack was, above all, a prostitutes' killer and a women's destroyer.
Martha was a prostitute, and her killer tried to destroy her body with a knife.
That's how I read it.

This said, I'm not flat at all. I think, on balance, that Martha has a good chance to be canonical. And I agree with Paul Begg's statement:
"She should, perhaps, be placed in the canon."
Think about the period (even the DAY - remember JtR weekends, the Lord Mayor Day, etc), the location, the victimology, the signature, the stabs on her "lower body"...
We'll never be sure, but she's not to be categorically discounted.

Amitiés,
David

edit: that's my reply to your post 1435, Malcolm, of course!

[Ben]

Hi David,

A full moustache can obviously be trimmed, and as for blotches, we simply don't know how many impoverished men in the district suffered from skin skankiness on account of heavy drinking. I'm not nailing my colours too confidently to the Hutchinson-was-Blotchy mast, but I don't seem any major obstacles to that possibility. I can't imagine that billycock/wideawakes were all that common, for what it's worth.

Best regards,
Ben

[DVV]

Hi again Ben,
sorry to insist, but I'd rather say I don't see any reason for Hutch to be Blotchy.
Even if there were many a blotchy face in the East End, blotches (together with a carrotty moustache) were the distinctive feature of the best Miller's Court suspect.
Well enough to bring Cox to Commercial St police station.

Amitiés,
David

[Malcolm X]

i totally understand what you're saying, no worries about that, i mean he was cold and efficient about the act of killing only, but maybe more controlled and efficient..whichever....but not 5 mins later, he went crazy after that, but still very much aware of his environment; otherwie he wouldn't have escaped Mitre square.

now was TABRAM killed by JTR?........does it matter, because the important one is who killed Eddowes, because if Lawende was right, this weakens HUTCH and BLOTCHY........but only slightly.

moustache and hair .............fair
build..................................medium
appearence of a sailor

this aint HUTCH is it, not unless he changed his appearence and Lawende got his build wrong!