A stout JtR?

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

By all means Ben, show me, in fact show everyone this fact.

Oh, but I have - time and time again. Surely it wouldn't be worth copy and pasting from one of the many threads where this argument was duplicated over and over?

All sources - with the solitary exception of the Daily News - make clear the fact that the couple in question passed along Dorset Street, and did not enter Miller's Court. Had it been otherwise, the detail of the couple entering the court would at the very least have appeared in Lewis's police statement, and yet we know it didn't. Only you insist that Lewis saw a couple enter the court. Guess why?

You must stick to arguing points that are actually debatable, rather than insisting that impossible, proven-false events actually happened.

Sarah Lewis did not see anyone enter Miller's Court - an absolute ironclad set-in-stone irrefutable FACT.

Slightly annoying that we haven't moved past this.

You can disagree with whatever articles I've "promoted" on a more suitable thread; none of them have been proven false as the Daily News extract has.

If they just stuck to reporting the facts, and leave their ill concieved opinions out of it.... mind you, we all know why they took this approach, to earn ratings (ie; to sell copy), to be intentionally controversial, to appeal to the under informed masses.

This is an outdated, black-and-white view.

The Star had their good and bad points, but it's a bit fogeyish to make them out to be the ultimate villains of the piece. It's irrelevant anyway. I've already explained that I'm not in any way influenced by their negative view of Kennedy. It just so happened that they were right to be sceptical.

No, because Sarah Lewis does not say, as Cox does, that she followed the couple down the passage.

It doesn't matter.

She did say that there was nobody in the court, which would be an extremely weird observation if she'd just seen a couple enter the court. But we know for certain that she didn't.

Ah, the "parroting" argument again, no, it has been demonstrated irrefutably that any "parroting" was confined to the claim of hearing the cry of "murder"

Is that really how you think it panned out?

(Parroting woman): "Hey, Mr. Reporter..."Murder!"...that's what I heard last night. Bye!"

I hardly think so.

No. Obviously these woman sat down with a reporter and delivered a narrative that included the detail that a cry of "murder" was heard. It was subsequently observed that a certain account that included a "murder" cry had been plagiarized by half a dozen woman.

And then - in a shocking coincidence - we find that one of the two known "oh murder" accounts that would ultimately appear at the inquest appeared in strikingly similar form under a different name and with the odd detail altered. Gosh, do you think this could have something to do with the discovery that an "oh murder" account was being parrotted?

We in the Land of Logical Inference reckon so...

Regards,
Ben

[J6123]

If Mary Kelly did go out after her liaison with Blotchy at midnight then Blotchy is in the clear, is he not?

Unless Blotchy was the killer, but decided not to attack at first, maybe because he felt the area was not secure enough, because there were people coming and going outside maybe. So he left, but left armed with the knowledge of her vulnerable situation, and returned later to kill her when things had quietened down a bit.

wild, wild, wild speculation of course. we've been there before. we go there all the time.

[Wickerman]

All sources - with the solitary exception of the Daily News - make clear the fact that the couple in question passed along Dorset Street, and did not enter Miller's Court.

We are not only talking about the Daily News though, you also have a problem with the Morning Post and the Daily Telegraph.

These are all morning papers, so none are copying from the other. All are an original source, doubtless from their own reporters present at the inquest.
So your "special pleading" does not work, three unconnected newspapers are not all making the same mistakes, which coincidentally just happens to show how wrong your theory is.

All three papers describe how the female was "the worse for drink".
This detail was not included in the court record, but was mentioned by Hutchinson, unknown to the press - this is your first problem.

Both the Morning Post and the Daily News describe the female as being "without a hat".
Another detail not provided in the court version, but also mentioned by Hutchinson, and confirmed by Cox, but unknown to the press - this is your second problem.

The fact the Daily News included the couple walking up the court, a detail not provided in the court version, but inconveniently for yourself, was also mentioned by Hutchinson, and unknown to the press - provides you with your third problem.

The fact we have confirmation of Hutchinson's basic story is understandably a thorn in the side of all those who argue that Hutchinson was making it all up.
Apparently, he was not.

Had it been otherwise, the detail of the couple entering the court would at the very least have appeared in Lewis's police statement, and yet we know it didn't.

Lewis made NO mention of the couple at all in her police statement.
I can't see where you are going with this one.

She did say that there was nobody in the court, which would be an extremely weird observation if she'd just seen a couple enter the court.

Why is it "weird" that the couple goes indoors?, this is what many of these tenements were used for.
What we have is confirmation of the sequence of events.

Is that really how you think it panned out?

(Parroting woman): "Hey, Mr. Reporter..."Murder!"...that's what I heard last night. Bye!"

I hardly think so.

Well, for the sake of all the new members who have joined in the past few weeks, lets read the relevant piece from the Star.

"One woman (as reported below) who lives in the court stated that at about two o'clock she heard a cry of "Murder." This story soon became popular, until at last half a dozen women were retailing it as their own personal experience. Each story contradicted the others with respect to the time at which the cry was heard."
Star, 10 Nov. 1888.

That is as clear as we can expect, the only error is the reference to the time, it was not "two o'clock". Likely just another sloppy error by the Star.

Your "parroting" only refers to the time of the cry of murder, nothing else.

[Batman]

It was The Star that raised suspicions about Mrs. Kennedy. The other person she was with was not Lewis, it was Mrs. Kennedy's "sister". East London Advertiser called them the "Kennedy sisters".

Source: Jack the Ripper A-Z by Begg, Fido & Skinner.

Just read the bits on Lewis and Kennedy there. Kennedy was discredited early on by The Star but the ELA kept running the story (as they thought it was their scoop).

[Batman]

Mary Kelly probably died sometime around 4am. The cry of murder is around this time and the estimated TOD is 3:00am - 3:30am.

Mary arrived home at around 11:45pm.

Which means Blotchy face would have to have been there for 3-4 hours before he started killing her if he is the killer.

[Batman]

Now maybe MJK was drunk and fell asleep with Blotchy next to her.

Hutchinson is not accounted for by Cox when she saw Blotchy go in with Kelly.

Hutchinson didn't describe Blotchy leaving. No one did.

We assume Blotchy left because Hutchinson said he saw MJK go out looking for a punter.

Hutchinson seems the only one beside's Cox to be able to describe her.

Lewis gives an account of a JtR type character (literally cloak n dagger stuff from TV) who accousted her before. She is scared of this man. She sees a woman meet this man. We don't know if this is Mary. It might be.

Hutchinson claims to have seen Mary meet a man in the same manner down the road.

There is a timing problem with Hutchinson's claim and the claims of Lewis.

Hutchinson is clearly describing a wealthy looking Jew. Lewis doesn't mention anything foreign about this, even after meeting and talking with him. He is more like some warped medical student in full JtR gear.

There is even a problem establishing that Hutchinson was really the man standing there. We assume they are one and the same because he came forward to clear himself. Who knows? Maybe he was covering for someone else who was there and looked like him and did the deed. Anyway let's assume they are one and the same. Lewis claims to have seen him.

Hutchinson makes no mention of Lewis going into the court. Why?

A few simple suggestions...

A) Hutchinson was going to see Mary. Mary was with a client singing. Hutchinson hung around. Lewis went in. He left when Mary didn't come out.

Problem: Why then make up the Rich Jew story? Why not say, she was with someone inside singing?

B)Blotchy was gone before Hutchinson arrived. Mary went out. Brought a man back. Hutchinson saw him. Hutchinson left when they didn't leave.

Problem: Lewis disagrees with this somewhat in the timing and details.

C) Hutchinson waited for Blotchy to leave. Hutchinson killed Mary after she left him stay the night. Hutchinson is JtR. He is the man seen assaulting Stride by Schwartz, etc. etc.

Problem: Massive risk taking. He was seen standing there. Lewis's JtR type character on the loose only a few hundred meters away has nothing to do with this.

D) Blotchy planned to kill Mary much earlier than his usual post 1am MO. However Hutchinson standing there (could he see him from the window?) freaked him out somewhat so he decided to stay longer?

Problem: He was identified by Cox.

E) Blotchy went back to the frying pan pub told his mates about MJK, they had a laugh about her broken window trick, which reminds JtR who is there and he goes on his way later when Hutchinson is gone to open up and sneak in.

Problem: Far-fetched and someone was sleeping with Mary before they killed her.


No one saw Blotchy face leave.
No one saw Hutchinson leave.
Lewis has some freak on the loose.

Go figure?

[Ben]

We are not only talking about the Daily News though, you also have a problem with the Morning Post and the Daily Telegraph.

Where did you get that idea, Jon?

I haven't the slightest problem with either newspaper.

Neither source mentions anything about Lewis's couple entering Miller's Court.

The Daily Telegraph: "When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake. There was no one talking to him. He was a stout-looking man, and not very tall. The hat was black. I did not take any notice of his clothes. The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink. There was nobody in the court"

The man presumed to be Hutchinson was standing on Dorset Street, and further on (i.e. further on Dorset Street) there was a couple. Nobody in the court.

No problem at all with the Daily Telegraph, and hence no obstacle to whatever "theory" I'm supposed to have (my only "theory" here is that we ought not to revive proven errors as factual realities).

I'm not as familiar with the Morning Post, but I'll bet you silly sums that they said nothing about a couple being observed by Lewis entering the Court. I'm afraid that boo-boo was quite unique to the Daily silly News.

What's the biggie about the woman reportedly being drunk without a hat, incidentally? I do hope you're not seriously implying that this description - which could apply to many thousands of gin-soaks in the area - must apply exclusively to Kelly? Oh, you think it helps Hutchinson's story out? I'm afraid that doesn't work either. Lewis described her woman as "the worse for drink", in other words drunk. Hutchinson, however, observed that Kelly did NOT seem to be drunk.

The fact the Daily News included the couple walking up the court, a detail not provided in the court version, but inconveniently for yourself, was also mentioned by Hutchinson

There is no "also" here.

Only Hutchinson mentioned a couple enter the court after 2.00am. Lewis most assuredly did not, despite the erroneous report by one crap press source to the contrary. To make matters worse for any hope of a correlation between Lewis and Hutchinson - if they can get any worse, that is - Lewis saw her loitering man already stationed on Dorset Street at the same time as she clocked the "in drink" couple. If the man was Hutchinson, and if Hutchinson told the truth, Astrakhan and Kelly would already be inside room #13 by the time the second couple showed up.

It doesn't matter how many versions of "who told the truth" we play around with, the assertion that the "passing along" couple were identical with Kelly and Astrakhan fails in all of them, which means that if you must champion Hutchinson's credibility, you must try to find another "way in".

Why is it "weird" that the couple goes indoors?

Check again, please. I said that it is weird to observe a couple enter the court and then say there was nobody in the court.

Your "parroting" only refers to the time of the cry of murder, nothing else.

That's plain silly, as I've illustrated already.

Are you seriously suggesting that the "parroters" took the form of several women running up to reporters, one by one, saying "I heard a cry of murder!" and then running away with a cheeky giggle?

What obviously occurred instead is that the female plagiarists in question related a story which included a cry of "murder". The Star even acknowledged that the story being parrotted was the one "reported below"; that's "story", not a brief exclamation.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Batman,

With reference to option C), I wouldn't agree that loitering alone involved any great risk - at least not compared to his behaviour prior to previous murders where he was seen actually in the company of the victims, even physically assaulting one of them in front of witnesses (if Stride was a ripper victim, that is). In addition, he would not have anticipated Lewis entering Miller's Court.

All the best,
Ben

[Michael W Richards]

Ben,

You must let me know when you are coming to Toronto, pm me and well see if we could meet...Id enjoy that opportunity amigo.

Jon.....based on your support of Mrs Kennedy as a reliable and trustworthy witness, you must then see Sarah Lewis as the opposite...since their stories coincide with respect to time and a loitering fellow.

So its either one witness was lying, or there was only one, and the early reports were either misquotes or mistakes.

With respect to a stout JtR, Blotchy seems to have been fairly called stout, and Blotchy wasn't seen leaving before Marys lights were out and she was silent, so he also seems to be a viable suspect even though she isn't killed until later that morning. But JtR he is not.

It seems that this needs to be repeated every thread that pre-supposes Jack killed each of the Five Canonicals. Up until Mary the 4 Canonicals who were killed were it appears strangers to the killer..they first meet outdoors, and if they discussed "activities", those would be outdoors as well. And the public display of the results is also an integral part of his character. Trouble with the Canon is that only 2 victims confirmed they were soliciting that ill fated night....leaving the 2 just before Mary a puzzle to discern what they were doing where they were when they met their killer. Or Killers.

So Blotchy is a suspect, for sure, but if he killed Mary then youll have to look for some other murder to assume JtR as the killer, because all the previous characteristics are missing as we can see clearly, and the carnage in room 13was unlike all the other Canonical murders.

People see knife wounds and think its the same guy,.. there is so much more to uncovering the truth than mere actions anyone could attempt to replicate if they chose to.....but lets not forget that there are acts committed in the murder of Polly and Annie that anyone off the street could not accomplish.

Cheers

[Batman]

The signature leg(s) bent, arm over above hysterectomy, organ placement of intestines lengthways, amputation knife, heart removal from below ribcage, body left exposed, apron wearing victimology, killing at the end of the week or close to a holiday, done by different people would rewrite forensic pathology.

The simplified solution is that Hutchinson wasn't even there. Lewis saw JtR after Mary let him out. Blotchy was waiting to go back in. Mary wouldn't let a punter stay the night. She isn't a B&B. He knew the trick about how to get in. He has been identified. He still goes for it.

He gets a break when an attention seeker gives the police what they want. A jewish rich pizer.

Blotchy face isn't a million miles away from Schwartz's suspect.

Blotchyness can be the result of a drinking response. There are other reasons though.

So which suspect has a blotchy face and is stout?

[GUT]

The signature leg(s) bent, arm over above hysterectomy, organ placement of intestines lengthways, amputation knife, heart removal from below ribcage, body left exposed, apron wearing victimology, killing at the end of the week or close to a holiday, done by different people would rewrite forensic pathology.

The simplified solution is that Hutchinson wasn't even there. Lewis saw JtR after Mary let him out. Blotchy was waiting to go back in. Mary wouldn't let a punter stay the night. She isn't a B&B. He knew the trick about how to get in. He has been identified. He still goes for it.

He gets a break when an attention seeker gives the police what they want. A jewish rich pizer.

Blotchy face isn't a million miles away from Schwartz's suspect.

Blotchyness can be the result of a drinking response. There are other reasons though.

So which suspect has a blotchy face and is stout?

She may well have let hm stay the night if he paid her enough, after all 6p a trick [probably at best I'm allowing for her being younger and perhaps more attractive than the norm and with a room not a lane way] as her usual rate or a couple of bob for the night? I suspect it would be a rather tempting offer.

[GUT]

But aside from that you may well be right.

[Batman]

I was going to put Lewis in the same category as Hutchinson but she has a reason for going to the court. The person she describes is more like Blotchy than Hutchinson. Cox got the best look at JtR if this is the case. So while I agree the money offer is tempting it seems more likely that she wasn't in the habit of doing that with men (only other prostitutes). She asks him to leave in her drunken state beside the bed. He gets up and goes. She tells him just to pull the door shut. It locks. He knows how to get in. He leaves, maybe even goes for his kill kit if it wasn't in the beer pot he might prasarve his soveigners in. Waits awhile. Knows she will be fast asleep soon. Lewis sees him and goes into the court. He waits awhile longer then goes in.

The person Lewis saw with the 'JtR'-like qualities going about the town is maybe just her recollections getting muddled and making a nutter punter out to be more dangerous than he was. It is doubtful he was JtR because he accousted them together. How could his signature/MO pull that one off?

I think it just all makes sense if we give Cox the credit, Lewis some breath, Kennedy we forget about, she is another Hutchinson and whichever modern researcher figured out the locked door trick without a need for a key has explained how a punter once in, could get back in.

I don't think any of the suspects really matches Blotchy face well. To this extent, I would think Blotchy a good path for any modern researcher to have for a solid JtR candidate.

[RockySullivan]

Did Fleming, barnetts brother & hutch all live at the victoria home?

[GUT]

G'day Rocky

It seems that at one stage or another they all may have.

But I'm not persuaded that:

a. They were all there at once

b. Even if they were that they knew each other.