Prater/Lewis/Hutchinson/Cox

[Ben]

Agreed, Mal and Celesta. Good points.

Hi Chava,

Otherwise that description would still stand, wouldn't it? And if they are checking that, they are checking him.

Yes, but checking the validity of a witness account needn't always equate to investigation into him as a suspect. You say that "by his own account he was in the right place at the right time", but if the police dismissed "his own account", it's quite possible that they dismissed that aspect of his account too, i.e. the bit about him loitering near the crime scene. In other words, they'd have been lumping him into the came category that many other false witnesses had already been consigned, such as Packer and Violenia. They may have done so in error, but it would have been more than understandable.

But I'm as certain as certain could be that whatever they got on him takes him out of the frame for the murders.

That's utter nonsense.

Your "certainty" is completely unfounded.

It perpetuates the obvious fallacy that the dismissal of a witness is tantamount to a dismissal of a suspect. There was nothing to rule him out as a suspect anyway, short of some miraculous alibi for a fleeting moment in the small hours of a particular morning. If he never murdered anyone, the overwhelmingly strong chances are that he was asleep in the Victoria Home on the nights in question anyway, which would have been impossible to contradict or verify. There's no evidence that Hutchinson was even considered a suspect, but even if he was, there isn't always this magical formula for determining guilt or innoncence. Gary Ridgeway was interviewed as a suspect for the Green River killings, but they had to release him, not because they had proof that he didn't do it (he did), but because they lacked the evidence to rule him out.

Best regards,
Ben

[Chava]

Gary Ridgeway was interviewed as a suspect for the Green River killings, but they had to release him, not because they had proof that he didn't do it (he did), but because they lacked the evidence to rule him out.

Refresh my memory, Ben. How do we know this? Oh, that's right, it's in the case files. Because they thought he was the murderer. If there was a hope in hell that Hutchinson was the murderer, even though they couldn't get him for it, they would be noting that down on paper somewhere to be used on a later occasion.

But there aren't any such notes, are there?

[Ben]

With respect, Chava, you're missing the point.

Yes, you're quite right to note the absence of any evidence that Hutchinson was suspected. There aren't any such notes, true, and one very sensible conclusion we can deduce from that is that the police did not entertain the prospect of Hutchinson being the murderer. That's a trillion miles away from any justifcation for arguing that there's no "hope in hell that Hutchinson was the murderer". All it means is that they didn't suspect him, and not suspecting him is very different to ruling him out as a consequence of suspecting him.

Best regards,
Ben

[Chava]

With respect, Chava, you're missing the point.

Yes, you're quite right to note the absence of any evidence that Hutchinson was suspected. There aren't any such notes, true, and one very sensible conclusion we can deduce from that is that the police did not entertain the prospect of Hutchinson being the murderer. That's a trillion miles away from any justifcation for arguing that there's no "hope in hell that Hutchinson was the murderer". All it means is that they didn't suspect him, and not suspecting him is very different to ruling him out as a consequence of suspecting him.

Best regards,
Ben

Actually Ben, you're not understanding what I'm saying. But that's my fault, because I realize I didn't make myself clear. I am not ruling out Hutchinson as a killer. He's not my candidate, but I won't say categorically he isn't the killer, because I don't know that. However what I am ruling out is that the police ever thought he was the killer. They had him. They talked to him. They believed him. Then they didn't, and they let him go. And what I am sure about is that they checked him out before they sent him on his way. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that the cops thought 'ok this is the guy, but we've got nothing on him so he's gonna walk'. They did not have him as the murderer. We don't know why this happened. What I said before still stands. Abberline put himself on record that Hutchinson was credible. Then he was found for whatever reason to be incredible. No one wanted to put that on record as well. The upshot is that Hutchinson vanishes into history. We don't know any more about him than his name and his statement. He could be one of hundreds of George Hutchinsons turned up in census inquiries. He could be the Ripper. He could be a time-waster. He could be after a reward. We'll never know.

[Ben]

However what I am ruling out is that the police ever thought he was the killer.

Fair enough, Chava, and since there's no evidence that Hutchinson was considered a suspect, your explanation seems highly plausible. All agreed so far. However, if they never considered him as suspect, it automatically follows that they could not rule him out as one.

Best regards,
Ben

[Malcolm X]

Actually Ben, However what I am ruling out is that the police ever thought he was the killer. They had him. They talked to him. They believed him. Then they didn't, and they let him go. And what I am sure about is that they checked him out before they sent him on his way. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that the cops thought 'ok this is the guy, but we've got nothing on him so he's gonna walk'. They did not have him as the murderer. We don't know why this happened. What I said before still stands. Abberline put himself on record that Hutchinson was credible. Then he was found for whatever reason to be incredible.

YES THIS IS SO TRUE, why Abberline dismisses Hutch as unreliable we dont know... he obviously found out something, he either checked him out more thoroughly than we know, or Hutch said something to Abberline later on in the police station (weeks later) that Abberline thought was bullshit and thus he lost confidence in him..

an unreliable/ discredited witness..in other words Abberline probably realised that Hutch made it all up, some weeks later.

unfortunately... Hutch could indeed be lieing about it all and was never there, this is the one weak spot in favouring Hutch as the ripper, even so; my guess is that Hutch made it all up ( it's fairly obvious he did )...but was still there as Jack the Ripper.

Abberline sussed him out as a liar ? yes indeed, another tabloid seeking time waster.... but he missed a few very crucial points in Hutch's statement, that tell you that he was indeed there......add to this, Hutch looked like Joe Average and not a Jew that Abberline was after and more importantly; probably not even `` a violent street thug`` the type that attacked and threw Stride to the ground...

Abberline might simply have read his statement over and over again and said like us..this is crap, how did he know exactly what the posh Jew was wearing/ colour etc, so late at night bla bla bla ... just like us here....and then said ``this is rubbish, Hutch wasn't even there, he's wasted the last 3 weeks ``.....it could be as simple as this, dont forget; he had encountered quite a few timewasters already!

[Celesta]

Malcolm,

In addition, it could be as simple as nothing developed out of the "lead." With MJK being "the last murder," or appearing to be for some time, the police lost confidence in Hutch's story, or decided he made up his story, as distance from the murder date widened.

Would be nice if something turned up on this, wouldn't it?

Best,

Cel

[perrymason]

Just to address a small point In MalX's last post.....its quite clear by the fact that Blotchy Faced man is as of November 16th, once again the suspect believed to be the last man seen with Mary Jane Kelly, that Abberline.. or the force... made their call on Hutchinson's credibility quickly...not over weeks. In less than 3 days.

That is the recorded position....and it is never changed then reverted to again...which makes the official line of the investigators that Mary Jane was seen for the last time..in their opinion based on all statements including Hutch's by that point in time... at 11:45pm on November 8th entering her room.

There is no recorded or believed exit from her room from that time on.

Cheers all

[Celesta]

.its quite clear by the fact that Blotchy Faced man is as of November 16th, once again the suspect believed to be the last man seen with Mary Jane Kelly, that Abberline.. or the force... made their call on Hutchinson's credibility quickly...not over weeks. In less than 3 days.

That is the recorded position....and it is never changed then reverted to again...which makes the official line of the investigators that Mary Jane was seen for the last time..in their opinion based on all statements including Hutch's by that point in time... at 11:45pm on November 8th entering her room.

There is no recorded or believed exit from her room from that time on.

Cheers all

Ah, thanks, Michael. I've been saying this over and over, as you probably noticed once or twice. I've even contemplated Blotch and Hutch to be the same guy. Probably they weren't, but what the hay, it's worth contemplating, if but briefly.

[Chava]

Blotchy dunnit! I agree.

[Celesta]

Blotchy dunnit! I agree.

Whew! Guess that's that then! Oh...wait...erm...who was Blotchy?

[perrymason]

Whew! Guess that's that then! Oh...wait...erm...who was Blotchy?

Hi Ms C,

Although many would like to think he is seen throughout the series as different suspects, its likely that he was at least the same man who ran from Mr Galloway during the all to brief Astrakan Suspect Period....perhaps due to the fact that he believed Galloway recognized him from the press reporting.

The fact that he does not come into the station when his description hits the papers makes him suspect of at least some guilt associated with the recognition....is that guilt that he has information about that murder he has not given up voluntarily...that he played some role in it or that his wife didnt know he sometimes went to street whores rooms around midnight, who knows.

I know your asking who he was....but at this point, what role he may have played is the really critical part I think.

If he was a punter and just enjoyed Marys singing...got turned out instead of invited for the balance of the evening and leaves Mary alive before 1:30....he is almost irrelevant. But why would that man fear being identified?

And if he was identified correctly that week....then he likely looked very much like he did in the press account....moustache, billy-**** and all. Which means he didnt dramatically alter his looks to avoid being recognized after the death was reported. Which is weird to me.

I believe the man who is seen by Sarah Lewis is not the killer himself, but one in league with him...and awaiting the killers exit from the room. If thats accurate....based on the time, it would probably mean that Blotchy was still in the room...even after it went dark and quiet at 1:30am.

Did he kill her then? When the room is silent and dark? Before Elizabeth climbs the stairs at 1:30....before Mary Ann is in for the night? If so....and he takes perhaps 25-35 minutes doing everything there...he'd be ready to leave right about the time Wideawake is first spotted. So perhaps Wideawake waits in vain for 20 minutes, then leaves.

Im guessing here...but what if Blotchy was supposed to rough her up only...and he kills her accidentally in anger. And then he tries to make a Ripper crime scene, taking longer than expected due to his inexperience.

I cant see my idea about Wideawake waiting for him working if Blotchy was supposed to kill Mary...why risk lingering in front of a murder scene just to help your pal whisk off into the night. If its a beating...or even a kidnapping, it might not even have made the press...or at least for a few days. That might mean minimizing risk in terms of potential jail time if caught...and make having a lookout worth it.

Blotchy is in the details of the murder somewhere, Im fairly sure about that...but how is puzzling.

Cheers Celesta

[Chava]

Whew! Guess that's that then! Oh...wait...erm...who was Blotchy?

There are a number of witness descriptions during the series that could pertain to the same man. And a possible early victim of the Ripper called Ada Wilson described a short-ish fair-haired sunburnt man with a wideawake hat and a blond moustache as her attacker. Similar descriptions come from witnesses who saw a number of victims just before they died. I noted that 'sunburned' could also read 'blotchy-faced', which is how Mary Ann Cox described the man she saw go into #13 Millers Court with Kelly a couple of hours before she was killed.

Wilson says her guy was a sailor. If that is the Ripper, then it explains the odd gaps between attacks. I don't know if Blotchy was the kiler, but I think he's a damn' good candidate!

[DVV]

Wilson says her guy was a sailor.

Hi Chava,
are you sure...?

Amitiés,
David

[Celesta]

Sorry, Chava, I wasn't making light of what you said. Yes, I've thought for a long time that Blotchy is a serious candidate. Some people say "Oh no one ever saw the Ripper," but, from early days, I've wondered about the guy with the carroty mustache and the stoutness. As you amply point out, a man with this description, or very close to it, was described earlier in the investigations. For him to be the last one seen with her, if we discount Hutch, prods my interest.

Some fair-skinned people, after they accumulate some tan, will look a bit blotchy due to peeling from previous sunburned. I wonder, sometimes, if that's the kind of blotchy Cox might have meant. An uneven blotchy tan would fit with the sailor.