Galloway and the Blotchy Faced Man

Sorry Mike. Originally posted this to the wrong thread!

Anyway ...

... Whilst you make a number of perfectly sensible points, I would contend that sadosexual serialists do not operate on a painting-by-numbers basis. Lying at the core of their behaviour is a fantasy in which the sexual imperative has become intertwined with savage violence. But the fantasy that inspires specific offence behaviour evolves over time, which is one reason why the crimes of an individual offender become increasingly more brutal as the series progresses. In this context, I see a clear progression through Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. I would also be extremely surprised if the Ripper's first attack on a woman took place in Buck's Row. In all likelihood, the rage that was so apparent in the Whitechapel Murders would have been manifested in earlier incidents – physical assaults on women, possibly involving robbery and humiliation. Again, this relates to the evolution of behaviour.

It has been argued that the murder of Kelly is unlikely to have been part of the series because it occurred indoors – the assumption, presumably, being that the Ripper preferred to kill outdoors. But this, in my view, is to misunderstand the mindset of such men. Peter Sutcliffe committed almost all of his attacks outdoors, but when he chanced upon Patricia Atkinson he was presented with the rare opportunity of a streetwalker offering indoor sex. He could, had he been so inclined, have waylaid Patricia on the way to her flat. Instead he chose to go indoors before commencing the attack. Interestingly enough, the injuries that were inflicted upon Patricia Atkinson were unique in context of the series as a whole. Apart from using a knife to inflict the customary sharp-force injuries, Sutcliffe also used the claw end of his hammer to rip away portions of flesh from the body.

In the Patricia Atkinson case, therefore, we have a clear echo of the events that occurred in Miller's Court a century earlier – an indoor killing as part of a predominantly outdoor series that produced injuries that were inflicted on none of the other victims. No mystery. No contradiction. Just the overkill that one might expect from an offender accorded the opportunity to give full expression to his rage against women.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

Hi Gary,

Thanks for taking the time to answer... twice
I put that last part in bold because that again, in my opinion, is making assumptions about the killer that are not warranted by the evidence in all the respective and alleged Ripper cases.

I dont see any anger or realized emotions myself in any Canonical victims wounds prior to the facial wounds Kate gets,... aside from raw anger likely provoking the Stride single slash. If anything, Cold, Clinical and Dispassionate is how I would describe both Polly and Annies murders. Someone who was emotionally flat at the time he was cutting, because either he had a learned skill that taught him how to dehumanize the human form, or because he was intent on his work and the time he had to do it.

I think that the fact only weak, desperately poor women were victims really only says 2 things about him and women.....1, that they had inside them things he wanted, and secondly, that he felt they were the least contentious prey. He didnt attack women generally....just Unfortunates. That tells me he likely saw little value in their being alive at all, as did most of greater London....they were not seen as important lives, more as lost souls.... but perhaps he saw some value in their parts. Either financially, or as something to covet.

All the best Gary

[Garry Wroe]

Sorry Mike. Originally posted this to the wrong thread!

Anyway ...

... Whilst you make a number of perfectly sensible points, I would contend that sadosexual serialists do not operate on a painting-by-numbers basis. Lying at the core of their behaviour is a fantasy in which the sexual imperative has become intertwined with savage violence. But the fantasy that inspires specific offence behaviour evolves over time, which is one reason why the crimes of an individual offender become increasingly more brutal as the series progresses. In this context, I see a clear progression through Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. I would also be extremely surprised if the Ripper's first attack on a woman took place in Buck's Row. In all likelihood, the rage that was so apparent in the Whitechapel Murders would have been manifested in earlier incidents – physical assaults on women, possibly involving robbery and humiliation. Again, this relates to the evolution of behaviour.

It has been argued that the murder of Kelly is unlikely to have been part of the series because it occurred indoors – the assumption, presumably, being that the Ripper preferred to kill outdoors. But this, in my view, is to misunderstand the mindset of such men. Peter Sutcliffe committed almost all of his attacks outdoors, but when he chanced upon Patricia Atkinson he was presented with the rare opportunity of a streetwalker offering indoor sex. He could, had he been so inclined, have waylaid Patricia on the way to her flat. Instead he chose to go indoors before commencing the attack. Interestingly enough, the injuries that were inflicted upon Patricia Atkinson were unique in context of the series as a whole. Apart from using a knife to inflict the customary sharp-force injuries, Sutcliffe also used the claw end of his hammer to rip away portions of flesh from the body.

In the Patricia Atkinson case, therefore, we have a clear echo of the events that occurred in Miller's Court a century earlier – an indoor killing as part of a predominantly outdoor series that produced injuries that were inflicted on none of the other victims. No mystery. No contradiction. Just the overkill that one might expect from an offender accorded the opportunity to give full expression to his rage against women.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

Presumably, then, Mike, trusting to the above logic, Patricia Atkinson couldn't have been killed by Peter Sutcliffe.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

Hi Gary,

I dont read about other serial killing lore much, so Ill have to take your word that the woman mentioned was indeed killed by Sutcliffe.....youll notice though I didnt say specifically that Mary wasnt killed by Jack, just that a very real argument exists that suggests she wasnt killed by the same man that killed Polly or Annie. Based on skill shown, the decided and repetitive traits Jack showed in the 2 first murders..some carrying on through Kates, the circumstantial differences...some of which suggest a killer known to the victim, the known love triangle, the acts that defy any real explanation..like thigh stripping, and the fact that the facial mutilations, the abdominal flaps, the removal of organs which are left around...which do include the colon, but do not include a reasonable reason for the placement of them as in the cases of the women who had intestines removed so further access to the objectives could be enhanced.....were all in printed press articles prior to this death.

If Jack the Ripper killed Polly and Annie, then they are the basis for comparisons with other murders....setting aside rampant speculation that he likely changed approach, victim profile, objectives and methodology...much of which is based upon studies of modern serial killers through interviews with them and is therefore not immediately applicable resource materials....

The "guesses" that he just slit one artery of one womans throat because he got sloppy or impetuous, and that he performed a broad range of dissection curiosities that he discovered he desired once he had more privacy are just that.... guesses. For my money the profile of the man that killed Polly and Annie need not have changed 1 iota, because we have medical opinion that he achieved what he wanted with Annie. That his cuts were to achieve objectives that resulted in "trophies", or whatever they represented....and with Polly, that removal and "trophy" taking may simply have been the result of a poor choice to kill in front of houses on the street....an issue which he successfully addressed within 10 days.

Jack the Ripper isnt known to be a bloodthirsty serial killer who just wants to cut women to pieces....he is suspected of being such.

I personally dont see the hands of the man that killed C1 and C2 in many other murders.

Cheers Gary

[Garry Wroe]

Presumably, then, Mike, trusting to the above logic, Patricia Atkinson couldn't have been killed by Peter Sutcliffe.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

Thats not really true is it Michael. We can look at the wounds inflicted on MJK and suggest that who ever perpetrated the attack did so with some similarity to Eddow's and Chapman.

It is the similarities in the method of attack that suggest a serial killer is at work.

Pirate

Hi Pirate,

Ill stick with my original wording mate as far as "known" goes....because no matter how many people, including many contemporary investigators, decide that Marys death looks to be in keeping with the deaths we can more readily attribute to the killer/mutilator that surfaced in August, there is an overwhelming case for the Kelly murder to be considered an anomaly in the Ripper profile. There are many, many circumstantial factors that suggest reading the last page as it were to decide how the story proceeded isnt the best approach here.

To decide that Kelly is a Ripper victim based on the mutilations is a mistake I believe, because clearly other men killed some of these women, and cutting up a woman indiscriminately is not what Jack the Ripper did. The attending medical experts for the cases of Polly and Annie suggested that the killer killed the women to obtain the objectives he achieved, and was likely foiled in Pollys case primarily due to the venue choice. He was skilled with a knife, and he cut where he takes things from, knowing how to extract a uterus complete.

Mary Kelly's killer in almost everyones opinion showed none of the skill or knowledge that Jack showed, (including Bonds), but repeated many acts that had been reported in the papers copiously in the months and weeks before the Kelly murder.

Most think that lack of prior focus is cause he "lost it" when presented with the opportunities to cut away indiscriminately for a longer period of time.

I think thats a weak bit of conjecture myself....kinda like linking Druitt to these cases cause he committed suicide not long after Marys murder.

Best regards PJ

[Jeff Leahy]

The line between the line suggests hes not Jack just because "Mary was killed by Jack"....because in fact, we dont know whether Mary was killed by the Ripper or not......only that she was killed, and Blotchy is the last man believed seen with her.

All the best.

Thats not really true is it Michael. We can look at the wounds inflicted on MJK and suggest that who ever perpetrated the attack did so with some similarity to Eddow's and Chapman.

It is the similarities in the method of attack that suggest a serial killer is at work.

Pirate

surely if we are to believe Mary Cox's version(which is believeable) she states that blotchy went in MJK room at 11.45am,and after she went out again till 1.00am, MJK was still singing in her room.
This dont add up if blotchy is the killer(Jack) would he really wait at least 1hour 15 mins before doing the deed?


Please be gentle with me if i am way out of line,as i am a newbee to this.lol

Hi Dixon,

I think you make a very valid point there......I would think the odds of Jack the Ripper sitting still for 1 1/2 hours of song before killing a street prostitute he has been alone in the room with.....are reasonable speaking, quite long.

If Blotchy was really Jack the Scapegoat, he'd likely have surprised and choked her early on and we would never have heard singing at all. Jack did silence his women when alone with them. That doesnt mean Blotchy didnt or couldnt have killed her at all though.....he is still by far the only suspect in terms of evidence....hes the only one seen with her in her room that night after she may have gone indoors for the evening.

The line between the line suggests hes not Jack just because "Mary was killed by Jack"....because in fact, we dont know whether Mary was killed by the Ripper or not......only that she was killed, and Blotchy is the last man believed seen with her.

All the best.

[Sam Flynn]

blotchy went in MJK room at 11.45am,and after she went out again till 1.00am, MJK was still singing in her room. This dont add up if blotchy is the killer(Jack) would he really wait at least 1hour 15 mins before doing the deed?

I don't think it's entirely out of the question, Dixon. Perhaps, in previous murders, Jack was forced to employ a "quick-strike" because of the open surroundings in which he found himself - a restriction which didn't apply in Miller's Court.

[dixon9]

surely if we are to believe Mary Cox's version(which is believeable) she states that blotchy went in MJK room at 11.45am,and after she went out again till 1.00am, MJK was still singing in her room.
This dont add up if blotchy is the killer(Jack) would he really wait at least 1hour 15 mins before doing the deed?


Please be gentle with me if i am way out of line,as i am a newbee to this.lol

[alucard]

Didn't Thomas Cutbush have a blotchy face?

Wouldn't the constable be required to stay on that very spot on point duty?

Roy

Not positive on this Roy, but I think the apprehension of the murderer at large would supercede the remain at your station edict, if not, immediate notification of any relevant sighting would be mandatory I would think.

This episode shows that Astrakan was at that time their number one suspect for Marys murder, and as a by-product since she is believed killed by Jack, the most wanted man in London.

Very soon thereafter that changes back to Blotchy face, leading one to conclude that Mary Ann Cox was deemed to be accurate and truthful and Hutchinson was not.

All the best Roy

[Roy Corduroy]

On approaching Thrawl Street, a policeman on point duty suddenly appeared. The man was evidently startled, and for a moment it looked as though he would turn back or cross the road. He recovered himself, however, and went on. 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 positively declined to arrest the man, saying that he was looking for a man of very different appearance."

Wouldn't the constable be required to stay on that very spot on point duty?

Roy

This was after all the only murder where the authorities issued documentation suggesting more than one man involved with the killing, if not the actual murder.

Cheers again.

Hi Martin
many thanks for the message
I must admit to being puzzled by this point. The only construct I could put upon it was based on the sentence
The constable positively declined to arrest the man, saying that he was looking for a man of very different appearance
This would suggest that any man resembling the blotchy faced man (as not matching the current description in the frame) had been effectively discounted from the investigation. As Mary Cox's testimony featured a man of just this description it would have no bearing on the Kelly death as he did not match the appearance to which the police were then working.
Chris

Hi Chris,

I think the key here is the timing, Astrakan not Blotchy Face is being actively sought from late on the 12th until the 16th, this article is the 17th, and rank and file Patrolmen may not have been briefed that Hutchinson has turned out to be some kind of fraud yet.

As to Fidos comments, I believe that this story does in fact corroborate Mary Ann Cox, whose suspect seen with Mary that night becomes the replacement for Astrakan. I believe it went cold with that as the official working thesis.

This may be a coincidental slip up in the investigation of Mary Kelly's murder, but I dont think a missed opportunity to nab Jack.

Best regards all.

[Normy]

Hi all
His skin might have become blotchy due to alcohol.
When some people's faces flush it's not always the whole of the face that goes red.
If he drank a lot his face might have flushed but not totally, only in patches.

Norm