Prater/Lewis/Hutchinson/Cox

[Jon Guy]

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.

Hello Celesta

I also see Mr Blotchy as the best Ripper candidate to date. As you have noted, someone with a strong tan in England in November could be a sailor, especially as Lawende`s man with the fair moustache had the appearance of a sailor. As Mr Blotchy seems so distinctive you would have thought that someone would know him if he was a local, maybe just a regular visitor ?
That would be my current view.

[Celesta]

Hi Mike,

I follow you. I'm thinking the role he played was that of murderer, accomplice, or someone who saw something. Knowing he was the last person seen with Mary might have been enough to make him fearful of being accused, a powerful deterrent in itself. An innocent man might be more likely to come forward, but maybe Blotchy didn't want the scandal. People were so sensitive about that in those days.

He may well have been the man who ran from Galloway, and wasn't that a lucky escape, thanks to Hutch's story. It always comes back to Hutch's short little statement. No blotchy man described. No blotchy man even spotted by Hutch leaving, or by anyone else either. As Suzi pointed out, maybe it's not so extraordinary for him to not be seen leaving, and she's right. Yet he was there, apparently for quite awhile, he was carrying a container and could cart away whatever would fit in it (depending on whether one thinks that's relevant,) he matches descriptions of a man seen earlier in association with the cases, he ran from Galloway. [ Editorial note: see Jon guy's nice and timely post # 526 above.] A man comes out of left field and gives the police a story that describes the opposite sort of man from Blotchy.

Maybe my imagination works overtime, but it could signify that Prater heard nothing when she climbed the steps. Or maybe they were just doing the deed and she didn't hear anything out of them. Maybe Blotchy and Hutch were buddies.

Sorry to ramble, Mike, I'm still puzzling this out. Thanks for your nice response.

[Celesta]

Hello Celesta

I also see Mr Blotchy as the best Ripper candidate to date. As you have noted, someone with a strong tan in England in November could be a sailor, especially as Lawende`s man with the fair moustache had the appearance of a sailor. As Mr Blotchy seems so distinctive you would have thought that someone would know him if he was a local, maybe just a regular visitor ?
That would be my current view.

Hi Jon,

Very good point. A tan at that time of year would catch the eye of a local person and signify that the person with the tan spent at least some of his time in warmer, more southern climates, and out of doors a lot. Thank you!

[perrymason]

Dont thank me for getting the pleasure of your conversation Ms C.

Im wondering lately if this works...Blotchy attacks Mary when her singing stopped, closer to 1:15 I believe than 1:30. He could douse the lights, toss some clothes on the fire for small light, and when Elizabeth gets to the stairs at 1:30...he has commenced and would make little if any real noise. That explains why Elizabeth didnt see Blotchy leave when she was near and about the entrance for some time. And it might explain why Wideawake is seen at the time he is, less than 45 minutes from Elizabeth's presence there. Enough time for Blotchy to do a few things....maybe murder is that thing...or maybe failed robbery and murder...or,....he does address one particular point if this was the case, it was someone Mary knew well enough to invite in for "a song".

All the best Celesta.

[Sam Flynn]

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

No recorded exit, specifically, Mike - hardly surprising, given the paucity of witnesses. I've pointed out umpteen times that there were very few witnesses from that time on, and the few witnesses who came forward were only passing fleetingly through Miller's Court. Nobody, whether those three women flitting in and out, or those who stayed indoors, was keeping #13 under surveillance.

A tree falls in a forest, and there's nobody around to witness it - yet it still falls. The same applies, precisely, to the question of whether Kelly stayed in or went out again. We just don't know - and the fact that nobody reported anything either way means nothing, because the same argument applies in reverse - nobody saw her stay in, either.

[perrymason]

No recorded exit, specifically, Mike - hardly surprising, given the paucity of witnesses. I've pointed out umpteen times that there were very few witnesses from that time on, and the few witnesses who came forward were only passing fleetingly through Miller's Court. Nobody, whether those three women flitting in and out, or those who stayed indoors, was keeping #13 under surveillance.

A tree falls in a forest, and there's nobody around to witness it - yet it still falls. The same applies, precisely, to the question of whether Kelly stayed in or went out again. We just don't know - and the fact that nobody reported anything either way means nothing, because the same argument applies in reverse - nobody saw her stay in, either.

Hi Sam,

Its actually my intention to address Hutchinson with that remark....as his sighting is dependent on her having left the room after 11:45 Thursday night.

I like to explore this pragmatically Sam,...we know Blotchy does enter and he does leave, we dont know when he leaves,...we should believe Mary stayed in if Hutchinsons fabricated account doesnt place her outside the room after midnight. At least until she goes out and gets some hair of the dog and throws up and then talks to "Corrie",.......

Cheers Sam

[Sam Flynn]

we should believe Mary stayed in

Why should we believe that? (Rhetorical question - I really don't want an answer!) It's clear that neither Cox, Prater nor Lewis were "in" after that time, otherwise we wouldn't have had any witnesses apart from Hutchinson. In that parallel universe, I dare say more people would be inclined to treat him more kindly

Anyhow - let's not go over the "she stayed/she didn't" territory again here, Mike.

[perrymason]

Im not going to Sam, after I suggest that when we have snapshots of the state of a site or object at at least 2 points in time, early and later, and we have observed data that suggests that at those 2 points nothing was different in terms of the state of the object or site in question, we have a maintained status quo argument that needs to be defeated.

If no record of change exists at 2 points in time, we cannot suggest that its equally probable that there was change during the intervening time.

Dark and silent by 1:30am.

Nite Gareth....you should be sleeping.

[Celesta]

I think he was there, Mike, because she was still singing, when Cox left. He'd have had to leave after Prater went upstairs, and of course Prater said she saw no one, (depending on whether you believe her first or second story.) One would have to assume she was positioned such that she could have seen someone come through the passage. It was a nasty night, and as Sam pointed out, there's no way to prove it. Witnesses were scarce.

Remember the illustration in Evans' JTR Letters from Hell depicting Mr. Astrakhan? It's on page 126. On the left hand side, with "hinson" written underneath, is a figure that's supposed to be Hutch. I wonder how close to reality that sketch was. Was it based on the real Hutch or just a generic male figure? It's very much the way I visualize Hutch and, to some extent, Blotchy, too. The reason I wonder about how accurate it is, is because just above it there are little sketches of other key figures and they are accurate enough to be recognizable. At any rate, that figure depicts the way I was visualizing "stout"---sturdy, squarish, but not fat.

[perrymason]

I think he was there, Mike, because she was still singing, when Cox left. He'd have had to leave after Prater went upstairs, and of course Prater said she saw no one, (depending on whether you believe her first or second story.) One would have to assume she was positioned such that she could have seen someone come through the passage. It was a nasty night, and as Sam pointed out, there's no way to prove it. Witnesses were scarce.

Remember the illustration in Evans' JTR Letters from Hell depicting Mr. Astrakhan? It's on page 126. On the left hand side, with "hinson" written underneath, is a figure that, I believe, is Hutch. I wonder how close to reality picture was. Was it based on the real Hutch or just a generic male figure? It's very much the way I visualize Hutch and, to some extent, Blotchy, too. The reason I wonder about how accurate it is, is because just above it there are little sketches of other key figures and they are accurate enough to be recognizable, I think. At any rate, that figure depicts the way I was visualizing "stout"---sturdy, squarish, but not fat.

Hi Ms C,

She was heard singing by Cox as she left shortly after 1am, and there was no singing when Prater climbed the stairs...so she ended singing at that time, before 1:30ish. When Cox returns later there is no noise or light. Sarah Lewis doesnt mention any.

Methinks within these words lies stability....

Cheers Celesta...and nite.

[Sam Flynn]

She was heard singing by Cox as she left shortly after 1am, and there was no singing when Prater climbed the stairs...so she ended singing at that time, before 1:30ish. Methinks within these words lies stability.

Methinks within those words there's nothing at all that contradicts the possibility that Kelly was out at the time, Mike.

When Cox returns later there is no noise or light.

No - Cox didn't notice any, and neither did Prater. That's not to say that there wasn't any.

Sarah Lewis doesnt mention any.

Sarah Lewis was escaping from a row with her husband, heading towards the Keylers' for the night. Like the other (two) witnesses, she wasn't on "Kelly-patrol" either. She didn't even live in Miller's Court, for that matter, so she'd have been less attuned to her surroundings, perhaps, than the drunkard Prater (who didn't even live "in" the Court itself) and the wet and tired Cox (who lived at the far end of the Court, and would not have been well-placed to notice Kelly's window when she finally called it a night).

Furthermore, Lewis's fluctuating - and gossipy - testimony marks her out as a particularly dodgy witness in my book, on all counts.

[perrymason]

Hi Gareth,

I said I wouldnt take it down that road, so Ill just say that in the case of Mary Ann Cox, she had to walk towards Marys room twice after Mary had been seen going inside..youve seen the shot of Marys windows and the alcove many times, and I think you know light inside would have caught her eye. Sarah is really more important from a sound perspective IMHO, since she is right across from Marys door, and her Wideawake contribution. I think her story about earlier in the week is unrelated to November 9th.

I think all in all, Mary Ann Cox has stood the test of time better than any of the others in this thread. She is the suspect witness of record for this murder as of November 16th, 1888....and she openly admitted that she was soliciting that night unsuccessfully. We can be fairly sure that Elizabeth praters "man" might be one that pays for her company, but she makes it sound like a date. Hutchinson we know was disbelieved.

Best regards my friend.

[Sam Flynn]

in the case of Mary Ann Cox, she had to walk towards Marys room twice... Sarah is really more important from a sound perspective IMHO, since she is right across from Marys door.

But both only passed fleetingly, Mike, and neither had any especial interest in monitoring the activity going on in any of their neighbours' rooms.

On another tack, I still think Lewis comes across as a gossip-monger, and possibly a less reliable witness because of it. Of her account of the night of the 9th November, as told to both the police and the Inquest, most of it is taken up by her observation of the Wideawake Man and brief mention of the scream at ~4AM. However, the majority of what she told the Inquest seems to have been taken up with her tale of her "Bethnal Green Botherer".

For what it's worth, Lewis doesn't mention noticing (or NOT noticing) any light or sound in Kelly's room when she arrived at Miller's Court. So, among our three son et lumière witnesses of the period leading up to Kelly's death, she has nothing to offer.

It's hard to see how she could have been of much help either. She passed Kelly's room only briefly, on her way to the Keylers', and once inside their room she was hardly in a position to have heard any "domestic" noises (such as a door opening/shutting, or boots being taken off) emanating from Kelly's room. And that's assuming she was paying particular attention to Kelly's room, which she clearly would not have had any reason to do.

[perrymason]

I think that some of what she says isnt relevant to the matters we are looking to resolve too Sam...but as I mentioned her "oh-murder" cry witness statement may well be very important, because the volume with which she suggests its not very likely the noise emanated through the small broken panes in Marys window.

If it represents a startled Mary Jane at approx 3:45am from inside her room with her door open...thats critical data. It may not be the case....but that is one plausible explanation for her hearing the noise "as if at the door".

Mary cannot be reasonably be Astrakans victim if she is the one crying "oh- murder", thats almost 2 hours after he was supposedly seen going in the room with Mary...and Mary Ann still has one last pass by the alcove going out, with Marys windows easily in view. She cant be Wideawakes victim unless he didnt actually leave the area or he returned later....but she still can be Blotchy's victim since we cant be sure he was gone yet or he could have returned......all the above pivoting on whether it was in fact Mary crying out.

If she was the source, and the door was open at the time, I think it less likely that the thing that startled her was already inside the room with her at the time the cry is heard...it was said to be of some volume by Sarah and as I mentioned, 2 small broken panes as the only escape source for the cry isnt sufficient to address that volume. I believe the door being open is one viable answer...and that she was startled by an arrival.

If thats correct, then she is likely alone in the room at the time, meaning if it was Blotchy, he was returning. If he just starts in on her in her sleep while still in bed with her, and she wakes, how does the door get open so Sarah could hear the cry as being loud?

I think this argument can also be possibly be used to remove Blotchy as the primary suspect, because if the murderer was someone who only just arrived when the cry "oh-murder" is heard at around 3:45, it could be anyone just arriving...not only Blotchy returning.

Best regards Sam.

[perrymason]

If any of that speculation is correct, the next area to cover would be who would have a chance in hell of startling Mary from the open door...at near 3:45am, and still getting into the room with her without any further appreciable noise heard by either "cry" witness.

My guess would be few people...and someone that is close to her. You know what I wonder....if she had made a Mayors Day date with a lover and he came earlier than expected to meet her..maybe planning on spending a few hours in bed with her first.

Best regards Sam