Prater/Lewis/Hutchinson/Cox

[caz]

Hi Nats,

In my scenario, Blotchy could have been the companion who was in with Mary when Hutch arrived. Hutch could have turned Blotchy into Astrakhan Man, without either man having seen each other. Had Hutch not left when he did, he might have heard that cry of "Murder!" and his supposed curiosity could have killed him too.

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Chava



But why? Why would Hutchinson want to impersonate a witness and possibly incriminate himself in one of the worst killings in British criminal history? Perhaps he thought (as some posters to this web-site maintain) that the police were as thick as the proverbial docker's sandwich, and would take him at face value, I don't know.

Think about it, coming forward in the place of a genuine witness in a gruesome murder, it's not the wisest of things to do is it? Did he crave noteriety? Did he think he could make a few bob out of it? Either way if he was not the man seen by Lewis, then he's not the brightest star in the sky is he?

Observer

.....to say nothing of the noose! Capital punishment by hanging by the neck until dead being one of Matthews hobby horses-he was a very unbending about this "deterrant" when Home Secretary . I cant picture Jack the Ripper nipping into the Commercial Street Police Station and announcing he was at the scene of the crime at 3 am when Mary was being murdered.
Not Jack the Ripper,a murderer careful enough never to leave a clue,never known to have allowed a sound to slip from his victims mouth"s when he murdered them.Who took great care not to be seen.Thats why I dont believe the Astrakhan man was the Ripper.He may have been a client of the murdered Kelly that night but I doubt he was the ripper.

[caz]

.....and since there are no records anywhere that suggest Mary Jane Kelly of 13 Millers Court ever brought a client to her room....what are the odds she just happened to start doing so on this particular night?

Hi Perry,

Why not just try, for one moment, to look at this the other way round and then assess the odds? To state the bleedin’ obvious (as Observer and Dan and others keep having to do with you, for reasons I still have not managed to fathom) MJK was a known prostitute and a drinker, who now had the freedom to use the room (which was essentially her bedroom) in whatever way she chose, and who was, according to her landlord, way behind with the rent, and we know the rent man was coming in the morning, and she may have known that too.

What are the odds - in early November - that the ripper would be looking for a new victim from among the area’s ‘unfortunates’ who were still not taking adequate measures to protect themselves from him?

Rather good, I would have thought.

What are the odds that if the paths of the ripper and a woman in the circumstances referred to in my first paragraph happened to cross, she would have entertained the idea of ‘entertaining’ him in her bedroom (in any bloomin’ way he was prepared to pay for), especially if he had bought her drinks and maybe a meal, did not have the proverbial two heads and was obviously up for something more?

Rather good, I would have thought.

Does MJK fit the definition of an unfortunate, who ‘just happened’ to be trying to make ends meet at the height of the ripper scare, and ‘just happened’ to live at the heart of ripper territory, and who ‘just happened’ to fail to take adequate measures to protect herself from being viciously murdered and mutilated?

Absolutely.

All your concerns about odds and the evidence stop right there, don’t they?

…it seems that Blotchy man is a flesh and blood reality. In my opinion he was a client, if he wasn’t, and was a casual acquaintance of Kelly then how was he not recognised by Kelly’s friends? Therefore Blotchy man must remain a prime suspect in the murder of Mary Kelly.

I don’t know what to think of Hutchinson, his detailed description of the well heeled man beggars belief, but he was in position, opposite Miller’s court at 2:30 on the morning of Kelly’s murder, he must remain a suspect. The only saving grace for Hutchinson might remain in the fact that he buttered up his description of the man he saw with Kelly, witnesses have been known to do this, if he did, then it’s quite possible that he saw Kelly with a man who was more suited for the locale.

Observer

Great post, Observer.

I’m beginning to think we may all have been looking at Hutchinson the wrong way round. Why could he not have been just another prospective paying guest of Mary’s that night, who never made it into her room because he was waiting for her previous customer to emerge?

What are the odds of a murder victim’s clients - or prospective clients - being reluctant to come forward and admit that they had gone with her on the fatal night, or had intended to go with her?

Rather good, I would have thought.

We don’t hear from the last three men to supply Polly’s doss money before she met her killer. Nobody admits to buying Kate drinks before she was taken off to the nick. Blotchy doesn’t come forward either, to say his only crime was to listen to Mary singing before someone came in later and silenced her for good. So would Hutch have admitted it, if he had arrived by himself at Kelly’s doorstep, around 2.15 am, hoping to avail himself of her services, only to find her already engaged with an unknown companion? Would he have admitted to waiting nearly an hour for the services of a prostitute - any prostitute - never mind one who was found horribly murdered just a few hours later?

Could Hutch have given up waiting and pushed off without ever having seen who Mary was entertaining? When the horrific news broke, and he realised that virtually anyone could have seen him hanging around the crime scene, he decided to come forward, but not in the capacity of a disappointed customer who may not have seen anyone. He claimed to be an innocent witness showing a healthy curiosity about his friend’s companion. If that was a cover story, he had to describe a man who would have aroused his curiosity while not ringing any obvious alarm bells; he had to imagine how Mary may have picked her companion up and pretend to have witnessed it and been curious enough to follow the couple back to the court; he also had to make the timing fit with his own arrival.

I'm not wedded to this Hutch scenario by any means. But it might make a bit more sense of the evidence if we don't expect him to be a) an entirely truthful witness with nothing to hide, b) a liar and a fool who was not even there that night, or c) the killer, with no obvious reasons for coming forward at all.

Love,

Caz
X

[Observer]

Hi John

Hi Chava and Observer

The initial police statements were taken on Friday afternoon, inc Lewis`.

Hutch may have had all weekend to investigate,if it was necessary,whether or not someone had clocked him Fri morning.

And how did Hutchinson have access to

a. Police statements

b. Sarah Lewis, or someone whom Lewis had told about the man she saw at 2:30 on the morning of the 9th. It's obvious that the police would have told Lewis to keep schtum about her sighting of Hutchinson, at least until the cessation of the inquest. Whether she did or not is a different matter.

Why do I have a strange feeling that someone is going to tell me that Lewis's sighting was reported in a newspaper prior to the inquest?

Observer

[Observer]

PS

This to both Chava, and Perry. Hutchinson spent the whole week-end oblivious of the fact that he would be presenting himself at Commercial Street police station on Monday evening. In effect he concocted the whole story of the toff he saw with Mary Kelly between the inquest's cessation and his eventual arrival at Commercial Street police station at approx 6 p.m.

With respect gentlemen, pull the other one it's got bells on it.

Observer