A stout JtR?

[Wickerman]

Kelly is drunk. Cox says her words are slurred. That alone is enough to tell me it is highly unlikely MJK went out ever again in that state especially given she was up all day.

What do you base that conclusion on?

Where is the connection between slurring your speech at 11:45 pm, and being out on the streets 2 1/4 hours later, about 2:00 am?

Kelly eats fish and potatoes to sober up.

Where did she get them?

[RockySullivan]

Kelly being very drunk is consistent with Caroline Maxwells story that she saw Kelly with a hangover and she even threw up in the street. If she never saw Kelly that morning how would she know that she was so drunk the night before? I guess someone could've seen Kelly wasted and told her

[Batman]

Wickerman,

I rejected the Kennedy story because of the A-Z book on Lewis and Kenedy. (Fido/Begg/Skinner).
I rejected any female Lewis saw was MJK. Lewis didn't say she saw her.
I reject Hutchinson because of essays like this one http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...roo-hutch.html

If someone goes home and can't say Goodnight without slurring then they are well on. She is singing because she is drunk enough too and annoy some neighbours while she is at it. We know she was sleeping and killed while on the right side of the bed and the body dragged a bit to the middle.

Since I have rejected the above 'witnesses' she never left at 2:00am. Lewis describes a man unlike Hutchinson. This appeared in the papers. Hutchinson stepped forward with his claim to fame story dissected in the essay above. Abberline for the time being had a Jewish suspect. A Jewish quarters was raided and a mentally ill Kozminski identified as a suspect and kept watch over.

Blotchy never came forward. No one knows who he is. No one cared either it seems.

Later on Abberline realized some mistake with Hutchinson which is why Hutchinson dissapears off the randar and isn't even used as a witness for identification parades unlike Lewende and or Schwartz. By this stage a Jewish suspect had cemeted itself into the media and minds of law enforcement and with a halt to the Ripper murders, Abberline slowly withdrew from the Whitechapel murder investigation and the men on the ground dropped dramatically to lower numbers.

Blotchy doesn't even get a second mention yet he is free to go and come back into MJKs as much as he pleases given her condition and magic trick with the door.

I have a timeline a few previous pages back. This is a much simplier explanation and doesn't force anyone to include the brainmash that comes with Hutchinson and Kennedy.

[Wickerman]

Wickerman,

I rejected the Kennedy story because of the A-Z book on Lewis and Kenedy. (Fido/Begg/Skinner).

Fair enough, but the A-Z only takes information from the case, which we know already, so there's nothing new or persuasive about this issue in the A-Z.

I rejected any female Lewis saw was MJK. Lewis didn't say she saw her.

Lewis didn't know her, so Kelly was just "a woman", did Lewis see a woman, at the correct time & place, or not?

I reject Hutchinson because of essays like this one http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...roo-hutch.html

Mistakes and all, no doubt?

If someone goes home and can't say Goodnight without slurring then they are well on. She is singing because she is drunk enough too and annoy some neighbours while she is at it.

How can you claim she is incapable of going out, when Cox herself tells you that she couldn't tell Kelly was drunk until she spoke.
Clearly, Kelly was not that drunk she was unable to walk straight.

I guess you ever thought of that...


So how did she get fish & chips, if she never went out again?

We know she was sleeping and killed while on the right side of the bed and the body dragged a bit to the middle.

No, we do not know she was sleeping.

Lewis describes a man unlike Hutchinson.
This appeared in the papers. Hutchinson stepped forward with his claim to fame story dissected in the essay above.

Not sure what you are referring to here, if you mean the man outside the Britannia was unlike the man described by Hutchinson, then yes, of course, they were different men, in different locations, at different times

Abberline for the time being had a Jewish suspect. A Jewish quarters was raided and a mentally ill Kozminski identified as a suspect and kept watch over.

Are you saying that Kozminski was a police suspect in Nov 1888?
If so, many Casebookers would be intrigued as to where you obtained this information.

Later on Abberline realized some mistake with Hutchinson which is why Hutchinson dissapears off the randar and isn't even used as a witness for identification parades unlike Lewende and or Schwartz.

Cox also disappeared off the radar, did Abberline have suspicions about her too?
We have press cuttings well into November that report the police still looking for the Hutchinson suspect.

I have a timeline a few previous pages back. This is a much simplier explanation and doesn't force anyone to include the brainmash that comes with Hutchinson and Kennedy.

Maybe when you make a few corrections it will look somewhat different?

[Wickerman]

Just to nit-pick a little on the subject of Keyler/Gallagher, but Sarah Lewis didn't just "pronounce" the name of her 9th November roomies, she read and signed a written statement to the effect that "Keyler" was the correct spelling. Even if Lewis had some inexplicable trouble pronouncing her plosive (g) sounds (Gallagher), she would surely have noticed something very wrong about the name written down on the statement if it was something like Gallegher or Kellegher.

Ben, the press often make spelling mistakes with peoples names, the mistake does not need to be Sarah's.

[Batman]

6The A-Z covers the story in the press that discredited Kennedy on p.261 It was The Star that cast doubt on her story because it had heard it all before from Lewis. So contemporary doubt was cast on her. After the inquest nobody corrected the press or anyone else if we are to support Kennedy and the confusion still reigned. What is more likely is that Lewis was the scoop the other papers didn't get and so tried to push the Kennedy story.

Lewis saw a woman with a man walk along Dorset St. They didn't go into the court. They were walking along Dorset St. That's all. Nothing to corroborate what Hutchinson or Kennedy claims.

How did you know the link I posted has mistakes in it? It doesn't work because I posted a bad URL.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/ripperoo-hutch.html

I don't see any retraction or correction of this at all.

Your view that MJK wasn't drunk suggests that JtR changed his victimology. What sort of a sober person can't say Goodnight without slurring it? Her companion even had a pot of beer with him going in. She sang for ages annoying people. This is consistent with pissed, not sober.

If you don't think she was sleeping, then you can only have her lying in bed at best. This is the forensics. She was lying on the right side of the bed when murdered. She was moved after she was murdered. Her light was out well before she died. Drunk + darkness = wideawake, right? That's not the option I would go for. Drunk people in darkness in their room with a bed tend to do what eventually? Sleep right?

The man Lewis described is the man Hutchinson claims to be after reading about it in the paper. He is nothing like the description.

If you read Robert House, House proposes that following the search of Jewish properties after MJKs murder Kozminski came to light as a mentally ill person with sexual problems who was Jewish. He was in and out of asylums following that and was watched by the police before long-term commital a few years later. The raids are likely due to Hutchinson's Jewish description of JtR.

Again there is absolutely no reason what-so-ever to include Hutchinson, his statement or Kennedy in the account of what happened to MJK. In this respect I see no difference between George Oldfield of the Yorkshire Ripper investigation being presented with a Wearside Jack tape and then off looking for a Geordie killer, which Sutcliffe was not. Turns out the tape contained nothing new not found in newspaper clippings. No inside details.

Lewis claims to have seen a man standing near the enterance to Miller Court before she went in. Hutchinson can't even bring himself to include Lewis who walks into the court into his testimony even though can hear conversations across the road and remember details like eyelash colour. He is a farce, through n through.

[Ben]

Hi Batman,

I agree with most of your points.

Like you, I doubt very much that Kelly ventured out again after she returned home drunk with Blotchy; more likely she drank from her companion's ale pale, became progressively more sozzled and called it a night some time between 1.00am and 2.00am. Others cite the impending rent-collection as an impetus for returning to the streets in the small hours, and yet her behaviour when in the company of Blotchy - singing away for over an hour - is not at all compatible with rent-related anxiety.

I wouldn't agree that Hutchinson was a pure publicity-seeker, though. The "coincidence" between his self-confessed behaviour and that of Lewis's wideawake man is too strong to be dismissed as unrelated, and I can't see any logical motive in him hearing about the wideawake man and then falsely assuming his identity. That isn't to say I accept his story - far from it, but regardless of which other aspects of his account may have been false (such as his stated reason for being there), it seems more than likely that he was stationed outside Miller's Court at 2:30am.

All the best,
Ben

[Batman]

This is why I compare Hutchinson to Wearside Jack.

Wearside Jack didn't add any new information to the Yorkshire Ripper investigation but at the time George Oldfield believed Wearside Jack had inside details.

Yet later on when the press was looked into it became apparent Wearside Jack need only have read them and repeated them.

Could Hutchinson have read the report about Lewis seeing someone and then interjected himself into the investigation as that man? Lewis description of Hutchinson doesn't match others that describe him as military looking. Her description is much more like Blotchy without the Blotchyness.

MJK was murdered on the 9th.

The inquest into the death of Mary Jane Kelly, which took place at Shoreditch Town Hall on 12 November 1888.

At 6.00pm that evening Hutchinson went to the police.

I seriously the doubt the inquest was at night.

Conclusion: Hutchinson on hearing the story at the inquest put himself into the narrative that evening by visiting the police.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Batman,

I agree with most of your points.

Like you, I doubt very much that Kelly ventured out again after she returned home drunk with Blotchy; more likely she drank from her companion's ale pale, became progressively more sozzled and called it a night some time between 1.00am and 2.00am. Others cite the impending rent-collection as an impetus for returning to the streets in the small hours, and yet her behaviour when in the company of Blotchy - singing away for over an hour - is not at all compatible with rent-related anxiety.

I wouldn't agree that Hutchinson was a pure publicity-seeker, though. The "coincidence" between his self-confessed behaviour and that of Lewis's wideawake man is too strong to be dismissed as unrelated, and I can't see any logical motive in him hearing about the wideawake man and then falsely assuming his identity. That isn't to say I accept his story - far from it, but regardless of which other aspects of his account may have been false (such as his stated reason for being there), it seems more than likely that he was stationed outside Miller's Court at 2:30am.

All the best,
Ben

Which would make his being there very much like someone watching to room for activity Ben...which we understand actually ended before 1:30. So why is he there so long, with a dark and quiet room to watch?

If he was there, it was as probably as a lookout, he reported to someone else that the coast was clear.

remember...let me know when you are coming here, it would be a real pleasure to meet you for a pint and a nosh Ben.

Cheers Mate

[Ben]

Hi Batman,

Wearside Jack made a false murder confession, in common with many other weirdos and publicity-seekers that derail or inconvenience serial murder inquires. There is precedent for such behaviour, whereas there is no precedent at all for individuals making false confessions to being witnesses, to the extent that they appropriate the identity of a real person seen at the murder scene.

I totally agree that Hutchinson was motivated into coming forward by Sarah Lewis's sighting of a wideawake man stationed opposite the court, but only because he recognised himself, not because he wanted to claim the identity of that man. The latter is needlessly self-incriminating, in my view.

The wideawake man was described as "not tall, but stout" which is perfectly compatible with a "military appearance", while tall and gangly is definitely not, contrary to comedic stereotype! In fact, one of the two surviving press sketches of Hutchinson depicts him as shortish, stoutish, and wearing a wideawake hat, exactly as Lewis described.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

remember...let me know when you are coming here, it would be a real pleasure to meet you for a pint and a nosh Ben.

Definitely, Mike!

It'll be around March and April, and I'll PM you details nearer the time.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

If I understand you correctly, Hutchinson was there, but nothing of what he said to the police was true?

Have you read this? -> http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...roo-hutch.html

Yes-pretty much.

he was there, corroborated by sarah lewis, but never spoke to mary.
I believe the only thing else about his story that might have been true was that he knew her.

If Blotchy was her killer (and not hutch) then hutch probably was looking for a place to crash. Later after hearing about her murder, he decided to try and cash in and invented the story about seeing mary and the A-man.

That dissertation, while possible I guess, is pretty far fetched.

[RockySullivan]

Why would Hutch identify himself as a person of interest, opening up the possibility he could be suspected of being the ripper if he was never there? Ben, nice point that he's watching a room with no activity...makes little sense...but if he's an accomplice...why come forward?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Batman,

I agree with most of your points.

Like you, I doubt very much that Kelly ventured out again after she returned home drunk with Blotchy; more likely she drank from her companion's ale pale, became progressively more sozzled and called it a night some time between 1.00am and 2.00am. Others cite the impending rent-collection as an impetus for returning to the streets in the small hours, and yet her behaviour when in the company of Blotchy - singing away for over an hour - is not at all compatible with rent-related anxiety.

I wouldn't agree that Hutchinson was a pure publicity-seeker, though. The "coincidence" between his self-confessed behaviour and that of Lewis's wideawake man is too strong to be dismissed as unrelated, and I can't see any logical motive in him hearing about the wideawake man and then falsely assuming his identity. That isn't to say I accept his story - far from it, but regardless of which other aspects of his account may have been false (such as his stated reason for being there), it seems more than likely that he was stationed outside Miller's Court at 2:30am.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben
agree. and actually the screams of "oh murder" around 4ish actually fit quite nicely with hutch, after waiting for a long time until quarter of 4 for Blotchy(if blotchy isn't the killer, of course) to leave, finally gets his wish and makes his move.

[Batman]

Lewis describes a man who is more than a witness. He would have been a major suspect also.

So has anyone ever come forward to claim to be a person like that, but was just an attention seeker. The answer is yes, and even during The Whitechapel Murders, people came forward claiming to be JtR or having murdered the victims, but were subsequently cleared as just being attention seekers and police time wasters.

If Hutchinson came forward before the story broke, that would give credability to Hutchinson in some way. The story broke before Hutchinson turned himself in. If Hutchinson turned himself in, then it is that story that made him want to do that. Hutchinson has the facts before him to install himself in the narrative.

Yet his narrative is completely botched to the point he doesn't even claim to have seen Lewis (who was the first to talk about this man on a vigil) enter the court. Pretty poor vigil keeping. Doesn't even mention Mary saying hi to him on the way back. Doesn't describe anything that can be corroborated by anyone as far as I can see, yet we get all these details of JtR that are never used again by the police during identification parades.

As for artist impressions - what do you mean?

Either they sketched Lewis's description or they sketched Hutchinson himself. I say the former.

http://forum.casebook.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=15701&d=1384834693

I'd say that's an artists impression. Would you say the man is a military looking man?

http://www.casebook.org/images/stewarthutchgraysm.gif