Prater/Lewis/Hutchinson/Cox

[Observer]

Hi gentlemen

Sorry to state the obvious.

Mary Kelly was a prostitute make no bones about that, even the occupation on her death certificate states prostitute. I have every sympathy for Kelly and all the other victims of Jack the Ripper, but they were all prostitutes. In my opinion, all the murdered women were actively soliciting when they met their killer, the fact that they were soliciting made it all the more easy for their killer.

I know there are some posters who doubt the word of Cox, but her evidence is to some extent corroborated by the couple who also heard Kelly singing in the early hours. Therefore 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

[Chava]

Forgive, me Observer, but we don't know Hutchinson was in position at the entrance to the court. We know Lewis saw someone, but it wasn't necessarily Hutchinson who comes forward after the inquest. All we have to prove that Hutchinson was there is his own word. He could be making the whole thing up.

[Observer]

Hi Chava

Not a chance my friend, I think it was proven a while back that Hutchinson could not have learnt of the inquests details from newspapers, he going to the police station before he could have got his hands on and edition containing the details. This leaves word of mouth, and could you seriously see Hutchinson learning of the details between the inquests close, and his eventual entrance into the the police staion on the night of the 12th Nov

[revpetero]

Sorry to bring up old theories

If MJK was asleep with the ripper in the room and she was comfortable enough with this person to fall asleep (although drink helps this as I can testify). Then Blotchy is an option but I feel that the one person whose pipe was found in the room and who would have easy access and without being questioned. Would have been able to lock the door (with no key) on his way out, is Joseph Barnett.

I know that is not what people want to hear. None of the witnesses would have noticed him as being out of the ordinary so wouldn't think to mention him. He would have been seen with Kelly for the previous 18months to 2 years.

[Dan Norder]

I would think youd cover your a** before shoving someones comments back down their throat and making insane ones of your own,..

What, I am "insane" for pointing out that Mary was a prostitute and that Blotchy-Faced Man was acting like the stereotypical john?

Well, then I guess all the major Ripper authors in the field are insane as well. How is it that you always end up proclaiming yourself the only sane person in the field despite offering some of the most ridiculously misinformed opinions ever seen on these boards as if they were facts?

[Chava]

Observer, all it took was someone at the inquest--and I'm certain there were a ton of rubberneckers--to say something that Hutchinson overheard. No reason to believe he got the Lewis info from the newspapers--I doubt he had a subscription to the Pall Mall Gazette! The news was out as soon as Lewis said it, and he could have heard it anywhere. The reporters were all over the area, and I'm sure they were talking and prying and trying to find out info. A chance trip into the Ringers for a half pint would fetch up 4 journos discussing the case...

[Jon Guy]

If MJK was asleep with the ripper in the room and she was comfortable enough with this person to fall asleep (although drink helps this as I can testify). Then Blotchy is an option but I feel that the one person whose pipe was found in the room and who would have easy access and without being questioned. Would have been able to lock the door (with no key) on his way out, is Joseph Barnett.

I know that is not what people want to hear. None of the witnesses would have noticed him as being out of the ordinary so wouldn't think to mention him. He would have been seen with Kelly for the previous 18months to 2 years.

Hello Revpetero

Good point,but by locking the door Barnett would drawn attention to himself. but,I suppose he may not have thought it through.

Wasn`t the door on a spring lock anyway ?
Meaning that anyone could have pulled the door shut behind them and it would have locked. Then to open it,they would lean through the side window.
The key was lost, so they had to rely on the spring lock.

[Dan Norder]

And this statement is just so amazingly ignorant it bears highlighting:

Youre accusing Mary of activities that we know she didnt do in that room,... and Im talking nonsense.

We "know" she didn't entertain clients in her room? Who is this "we" you refer to? We not only do not "know" that, the evidence strongly points to the exact opposite. Most Ripper authors say just the opposite (in fact I can't think of a single one who claims she didn't entertain clients in her own room). The standard practices of prostitutes in general, as well as specifically news reports about other prostitutes known to have lived in Miller's Court, say just the opposite. Hell, common sense points to the opposite.

Listen, if you are going to try to contradict what everyone else in the world says, then you're going to need more than childish insults and mere stubborn insistence that you are right to back you up.

[Jon Guy]

Observer, all it took was someone at the inquest--and I'm certain there were a ton of rubberneckers--to say something that Hutchinson overheard. No reason to believe he got the Lewis info from the newspapers--I doubt he had a subscription to the Pall Mall Gazette! The news was out as soon as Lewis said it, and he could have heard it anywhere. The reporters were all over the area, and I'm sure they were talking and prying and trying to find out info. A chance trip into the Ringers for a half pint would fetch up 4 journos discussing the case...

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.

[perrymason]

Dan,...we dont need to do this all the time, and I get tired of it quicker than you, so Ill just add that there is no account anywhere that I have seen or heard of, that has either Mary, or Marys courtyard gal pals, mentioning her bringing clients in. There are habits that are established when for months she was unable to bring men in, with Joe living there, and he specifically objected to her working "the streets". Those two points lead one to surmise that her "hooking" was being curtailed by Barnett in general.

We do know both Joes have been in there, and Bowyer likely, maybe McCarthy..and who knows who else in terms of men...but we do not have an occassion where such a visit is described as business, or the visitor described as a client.

When Mary enters the courtyard with Blotchy Face, according to her neighbour Mary Ann Cox...she is very drunk, and quite upbeat, announcing that her and her company were going to "have a song". And true to her word, she was heard singing... off and on, until after 1am. By 1:30am when Elizabeth Prater climbs the stairs to her room, the singing has stopped, and the light that Mary Ann saw in Mary Janes room earlier, was out.

It seems there are 3 obvious conclusions...One is that she decided to bed down with Blotchy Face, or Two, she let him out after Mary Ann Cox went by the room just after 1am and then she went to bed herself, just before Mrs Prater ascends the stairs at 1:30am..or Three, she and Blotchy Face go back out. Since the status of the room doesnt change again...it remains dark and silent until at least 3am when Mary Ann comes in for the night, that would mean Mary is out of the room from just before 1:30am, until at least after 3am. Nullifying the story that has her returning at around 2ish with a "cleint".

I know full well Mary was a street whore, its documented, but I do not know, or have any reason to surmise, that she uses her room to conduct that business since Barnett has left. The only man that we do not know the nature of the relationship between himself and Mary is Blotchy Faced Man, and by all accounts, the majority of the time between 11:45pm Nov 8th, to just after 1:00am on the 9th, Mary was simply engaged in song. That leaves this "client" sitting patiently for over an hour...waiting for her to stop singing, so he can get "paid" for the drinks he likely bought her. And shortly after the singing has stopped, the room goes dark and quiet for the rest of the evening. Unless it was the source of the "oh-murder" cry at around 3:45am.

Best regards.

[perrymason]

A note on Hutchinson....we know he came forward on Monday evening, Nov 12th, immediately after the conclusion of the Inquest, and we know his statement indicates that he watched Mary enter the courtyard with Mr Astrakan...we do not know that the man seen by Sarah Lewis in the Wideawake Hat was George Hutchinson.

Its natural to make that assumption by his statement, but it is not a proven fact. Wideawake could easily have been someone else, and Hutchinson could have sat in the back row at the Inquest, heard Sarah Lewis state she saw a man "loitering", and marched straight over to the station with a story that he saw Mary out of her room, and watched her with a man entering the courtyard, very close to the time and location Sarah saw her man.

Why would he do that? I have ideas, but why would he wait almost 4 days if he really intended on helping....and said with authority... that he could recognize the man again. That doesnt sound like a man that has been scared of possible retribution all weekend long, preventing him from coming forward and "fingering" a suspect.

Best regards.

[Observer]

Hi Chava

Observer, all it took was someone at the inquest--and I'm certain there were a ton of rubberneckers--to say something that Hutchinson overheard. No reason to believe he got the Lewis info from the newspapers--I doubt he had a subscription to the Pall Mall Gazette! The news was out as soon as Lewis said it, and he could have heard it anywhere. The reporters were all over the area, and I'm sure they were talking and prying and trying to find out info. A chance trip into the Ringers for a half pint would fetch up 4 journos discussing the case...

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

[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

[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

[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