|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through 08 November 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects:
The British George Hutchinson:
Archive through 08 November 2002
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 05 November 2002 - 02:05 am |        | | I'll try to post an image |
Author: Garry Wroe
Tuesday, 05 November 2002 - 02:44 am | | Hi Timsta.
If, as your previous post infers, Mary Kelly was attempting to maximize her earnings due to the impending visit by Indian Harry, one would assume that she would have serviced Blotchy Face as soon as possible, got rid of him, then gone out immediately in search of further punters. Instead of this, however, she entered her room at 11:45pm and enjoyed a jolly old sing-song until 1:00am - hardly the behaviour of a woman desperate to earn money.
I would also suggest that the comparison with Kate Eddowes is a little unfair since Kate had at least three, possibly three and a half hours' sleep after her arrest in Aldgate. Kelly, on the other hand, began drinking in the early afternoon and appears to have continued sporadically for the rest of the evening. After meeting her at 11:45pm, Mrs Cox described her as "very drunk." Kelly then entered her room with Blotchy Face and yet more alcohol and was heard singing until approximately one o'clock. Given these factors, she could have had very little, if any, sleep before the alleged 1:50am encounter with Hutchinson. So unless she had the combined constitutions of Ollie Reed and Keith Moon, Hutchinson's assertion that she was no more than a little tipsy must be viewed with considerable suspicion.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Jim Leen
Tuesday, 05 November 2002 - 07:28 am | | Hello Everybody,
Garry, you state "...First, it is highly unlikely that Kelly would have serviced Blotchy Face and then gone in search of further clientele when the streets were all but deserted as a consequence of the cold, wet and windy weather conditions."
There's really not that much of an inconsistency present if we consider the actions and testimony of Mary Ann Cox whom, lest we forget, was in and out of the close for most of that wet and windy night.
On the other hand, however, you do make a valid point about the midnight sing-song which can only lead to the conclusion that Kelly had no intention of clearing or reducing the arrears. So did M'Carthy perhaps have some other payment arrangement with Mary Jane? The sum of arrears owed was, for the time, rather frightening after all.
Thanking you.
Jim Leen |
Author: Garry Wroe
Tuesday, 05 November 2002 - 12:22 pm | | Hi Jim.
Many thanks for your observations. Unlike yourself, though, I discern important differences between Kelly and Cox. Whereas Kelly was, by all accounts, an attractive and intelligent young woman, Mary Ann Cox was described by the Star as 'a wretched specimen of East End womanhood.' It therefore follows that Mrs Cox would have experienced some difficulty in attracting paying customers, a likelihood that explains her extraordinary behaviour in the hours preceding Kelly's murder. It must be considered doubtful that Kelly was ever forced into such a situation.
I also think it interesting that Kelly was singing when Mrs Cox passed her room at approximately 1:00am. Elizabeth Prater returned to the court at about the same time and sheltered from the rain in the interconnecting passage as she waited for her husband. After a few minutes, she gave up and made for her room. On passing Kelly's room, she noted that all was in darkness and Kelly was no longer singing. This, of course, would seem to support the contention that, after drinking their pail of beer, Kelly and Blotchy Face retired to bed together. And if this was indeed the case, the possibility that Hutchinson encountered Kelly on Commercial Street at 1:50am becomes so remote that it can be all but excluded.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: David Radka
Tuesday, 05 November 2002 - 03:44 pm | | Distinctions are here being drawn between Harry standing with Sam on the one hand, and Sam standing with Harry on the other. In other words, distinctions are being drawn not because there really are any differences between two things, but because of a pre-conceived agenda to make certain particular statements. A need thereby arises to have empirical evidence on which to base these statements, thus differences miraculously appear.
It all adds up to bloody nothing, except perhaps that it illustrates how we fictionalize reality to get what we want out of it. The reason why the technique works is because we all do this, and thus we automatically go along with the game as soon as an author suggests it.
WHEN will somebody writing Ripperology learn to differentiate between identity and difference?
David |
Author: Garry Wroe
Tuesday, 05 November 2002 - 05:48 pm | | Mr Radka.
Rather than your usual rambling, abstruse criticisms of others and their ideas, why not contribute something that is both clear and constructive?
Tweedledum. |
Author: Dan Norder
Tuesday, 05 November 2002 - 07:34 pm | | David,
Certainly some people do ignore some differences and highlight others to try to argue for a pre-conceived agenda. Garry, however, is one of the few Ripperologists I've seen willing to admit the differences between known facts, logical conclusions, speculation and outright guesses when it comes to his favorite suspect.
MJK's singing was observed and reported by several people over substantial length of time. This is a known fact. Theories of what happened that night must recognize this and account for this difference instead of just ignoring it. Similarly, MJK was a different level of streetwalker than the other victims and took very different actions. Recognizing this is not making anything "miraculously appear"-- it's simply a matter of looking at the evidence instead of glossing over it.
You say it "all adds up to bloody nothing" but are unwilling to explain why. This smacks more of a preconceived agenda on your end than anything else. If you have logical arguments to make to support whatever conclusions you are trying to make, let's see them. Pure bluster doesn't get anyone anywhere.
Dan |
Author: David Radka
Tuesday, 05 November 2002 - 08:11 pm | | None of the conclusions Mr. Wroe gives above follow validly from his premises. The whole thing is surmise on top of surmise.
1. If Kelly was notches better than Cox, she wouldn't be the lowest kind of prostitute in Whitechapel. But she manifestly was the lowest kind of prostitute in Whitechapel, no better than Cox. Look at the sum total of information we have about her, how she lived, how she worked, etc. There is no significant difference between her and Cox. The remark by the reporter can't be used the way Wroe uses it. All it is is a little flourish to add color to his article. Wroe picks it up and accords it great seriousness, because he wants to use it as a subject to make his predicates. If you want me to believe that Kelly was a regular Doris DeLuxe compared to Cox, you have to give me more. I wouldn't doubt that Kelly thought she was a notch better, however.
2. Were you in Kelly's room? Did you see her go in there with Blotchy? Drink a pail of beer with him? Get tired with him? Retire with him? How do you know these things happened? Plus, all or most of these things could have happened, and Hutchinson still sould have encountered Kelly on Commercial at 1:50. There is no serious information to prove or disprove Hutchinson's motions that night, and no significant difference to be reasonably accorded to his motions arising from the whole Blotchy affair. Truth is, we just don't know.
It seems to me that Mr. Wroe is in such desperation to make it all come out his way, he assumes his readers just aren't going to reflect on how he builds his case logically. You've got to get a sense of what serious, confirmed information is, and what it isn't.
Ah, but this is the computer age.
David |
Author: John Dow
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 04:51 am | | Would I be right in saying that the only reason why blotchy face is not a suspect is that MJK was "seen" by Hutchinson and Cox afterwards?
Or am I forgetting something? |
Author: Caroline Morris
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 05:53 am | | Hi John,
She was also "seen" afterwards by Maurice Lewis, Carrie Maxwell and possibly one other female (although this last was referred to in a separate report, but not by name, so it could just be Maxwell again).
It all depends on which, if any, of the various eyewitnesses you place your trust in. If at least two come forward independently with similar accounts - hearing the cry of "Murder!" for instance - it's a bonus. But as no one hearing that cry thought to investigate, that supports the suggestion that such cries were common and that there was nothing about this one that rang alarm bells, despite the fact that the ripper can't have been far from the listeners' minds at the time.
Love,
Caz
PS Just a thought, though - blotchy face is not necessarily in the clear if Kelly was seen afterwards. Couldn't he have made a date to see her again in the morning, perhaps promising to settle her rent arrears then?
"What brings you up so early?"
I know it would have to be something pretty special for me to be out uncommonly early if I had a hangover from hell.  |
Author: Jim Leen
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 07:00 am | | Hello Everybody,
Mary Jane, as one old nun reportedly remarked, has a lot to answer for! I'm, surprisingly, in some agreement with my old mucker Mr. Radka although I would rather have seen him make his points in a more polite manner.
Y'see, David, Garry affords everyone the same opportunity to read and criticise his work. He's not trying to convert anyone, he's always willing to discuss his findings and, of course, promote his suspect. We're all aware that, not only is that Garry's agenda, it really is the whole rationale of the message boards.
We all have our pet theories and suspects and, naturally, slant our postings toward our own personal bias. Unfortunately, this bias has a tendency to become increasingly personal as exchanges continue. Which is a shame.
Anyway, enough of my diplomatic rambling, to Mary Jane.
In fiction, the old cliche of the prostitute with a heart of gold and looks of a model is a well worn old chestnut. I think there has been a tendency to ingrain this ideal with Kelly; she was the youngest/prettiest/most mutilated etc etc.
We do have testimony that Mary Jane was a bit of a looker. But, as David pointed out, "she manifestly was the lowest kind of prostitute in Whitechapel". Therefore one has to admit to the feasibility of Mrs. Prater seeing and hearing nothing in MJK's room because Mary Jane was back on the street.
Who knows, perhaps old blotchy-face suffered a touch of brewer's droop and his ardour turned to robbery after, ahem, he failed the audition. It would certainly explain why no money was found in Mary Jane's room.
Thanking you.
Jim Leen |
Author: Garry Wroe
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 07:46 am | | Hello All.
Dan.
Many thanks for your kind remarks. As ever, you have got to the core of the matter in direct, concise fashion.
John.
In actuality, Blotchy Face wasn't seen by Cox and Hutchinson after he entered Kelly's room. This is the very issue at hand. Here we have a man who can be placed with a victim in the hours prior to her death, yet he has been all but forgotten. And why? Because Hutchinson's claims have Kelly very much alive subsequent to the Blotchy Face encounter. But if Hutchinson's claims were, for whatever reason, untrue, Blotchy Face represents the last known contact with Kelly and therefore assumes prime importance in the events leading up to her death.
This is just one of the reasons why Hutchinson is pivotal in the Ripper case. If, as would appear to be certain, the widespread and longstanding assumptions concerning his claims have been misplaced, then the events surrounding Mary Kelly's death must be re-evaluated in an entirely different light. This explains my previous observations regarding Blotchy Face, Mary Ann Cox and Elizabeth Prater. To some, such issues are an irrelevance. But to those who are not content to accept assumption as fact, they are of genuine significance.
Mr Radka.
Thank you for what was by your standards a relatively courteous post. It is, of course, your prerogative to believe that I manipulate information in order to bolster my viewpoint. And if you believe me to be 'desperate', then fine. But it certainly strikes me as odd that someone who is purportedly writing a book about the Ripper murders is labouring under the misapprehension that Mary Kelly and Mary Ann Cox were Whitechapel residents when both, as most students of the case are aware, lived in Spitalfields.
Equally, your manifest ignorance regarding Mrs Cox's physical appearance is not what I'd expect of someone who is presumably researching the case in some depth. Apart from the Star reference cited previously, a number of other newspapers carried similar observations. Whilst one described her as a 'dissipated-looking woman', another noted that she was prematurely aged. So tell me, do you seriously maintain that Mrs Cox's physicality would not have affected her potential earning power as a prostitute? Is it so difficult to accept that, given the choice, most punters would have opted for intimacy with a young, attractive prostitute rather than a 'wretched specimen of East End womanhood'? But then, recalling your views on the Washington sniper, I shouldn't expect any better.
Garry Wroe. |
Author: The Viper
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 11:06 am | | It is rather dangerous to be too dogmatic about the relative physical attributes of Mary Jane Kelly and Mary Ann Cox. For a start there is bound to be a subjective element about what makes somebody attractive or not. Besides which, our impressions of people are likely to be influenced by things such as clothing, cleanliness, make-up, time of day and the light quality when we observe them.
Many of those East End women did age prematurely – contemporary writers tell us that. Factors such as poor diet, alcohol dependence, hard work and the stresses and strains of bringing up a large numbers of dependents in cramped conditions with little money and with no servants or modern household appliances to held them would all have left their mark. We know little enough about MJK, and less about Mrs. Cox, so which of these or other factors had influenced their lives is hard to say. However, they are unlikely to have had big wardrobes and they both lived in the same dirty court in single rooms which didn’t have en-suite washing and toilet facilities.
What else do we know about Mrs. Cox? Well she was probably about thirty years old; may have had a criminal record; she claimed to be a widow (though many such women did); got her living as a prostitute and felt the need to go traipsing the streets on a cold, wet night looking for customers that would earn her rent money, apparently without much success. There is also somewhere (I can’t find it now) a woodblock illustration of her from one of the papers which appears to show her with a rather thin, gaunt face.
What of Mary Kelly? Her mutilations were so horrific that we can’t glean too much from the Miller’s Court photographs, but here are some contemporary press descriptions culled from the Casebook:-
“She was short, stout, and dark; and stood about five feet three inches” (Illustrated Police News, 17/Nov/88).
“The unfortunate woman was twenty-four years of age, tall, slim, fair, of fresh complexion, and of attractive appearance”, (Daily Telegraph, 10/Nov/88)
“About 12 months ago Kelly, who was about 24 years of age, and who was considered a good-looking woman, of fair and fresh complexion…” (The Times, 10/Nov/88)
“The Kelly woman is described as tall, and not bad looking, dark complexioned, and generally wearing an old black velvet jacket.” (Boston Daily Globe, 10/Nov/88)
The first statement can be dismissed. It is clearly at odds with the others and emanates from the unreliable Maurice Lewis, who was never called as a witness at the inquest. The likelihood is that Lewis didn’t know Kelly and was describing somebody else who lived locally. He’s typical of a lot of the people speaking to the newspapers in the days after the murder, which is why we have so many contrasting descriptions of MJK. But consider the descriptions of The Times and the Daily Telegraph. They are pretty similar, and since both accounts go on to describe the reactions of John McCarthy, they appear to emanate from somebody who knew Kelly. In the case of the Telegraph they quote Elizabeth Prater too. For that reason I suspect that we have here a reasonably good physical description of Kelly.
Both accounts mention that Mary was good looking, but we should exercise care here. If your neighbour had just been murdered would you describe their appearance unflatteringly to the hoards of press hacks? I think not. It’s a fact that only one set of Kelly’s clothes were found in her room. She had to wear them every day. There was nothing else in the way of personal effects to aid her appearance. She had a serious drink problem, the effects of which were very often visible in the faces of these women (if you ever wander through places like King’s Cross in London today, where there are a lot of low-grade street prostitutes you’ll recognise this). And Mary lived in insanitary Miller’s Court where she was weeks behind with the rent. We don’t know the extent of truth in her stories, related by Barnett, about the high class West End brothel and the trip to France, but one has to be sceptical about them, for if they are true she must have suffered one of the fastest descents ever into her state of degradation.
I’m not saying that it’s impossible that Mary was very attractive, and she probably was better able to attract customers than Cox, but all things are relative and I feel it’s unlikely that she was remotely any kind of Doris DeLuxe (love that name by the way). Over the years there has been a lot of romanticism of MJK, perhaps starting with her own self-account, and we ought to be aware of the fact. There were plenty of poor but good looking girls in the East End who turned to prostitution to make a comfortable living. Some of them even used to ride up to the classier red light areas of the West End in cabs every day! Mary evidently wasn’t making much use of whatever attributes she had to be so far behind with the rent. The reason for that may lie in her probable alcoholism, a condition that can destroys one’s will to work. But in addition a loud, lurching, and perhaps puffy-faced prostitute reeking of drink is not an attractive proposition anyway, and it does appear that she was only heading one way – down to the same state of desperation that Mrs. Cox had seemingly reached. With the debts piling up and the rent collector due in the morning I don’t think we can discount the possibility that Mary Kelly, having got rid of Mr. Blotchy, went out again late at night looking for more customers. Whether Hutchinson’s account of matters is correct or not is a different issue entirely.
With apologies for diverting matters further from the thread’s title.
Regards, V. |
Author: Garry Wroe
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 06:16 pm | | Hi Viper.
Excellent post. Very informative and impartial. On the subject of Mrs Cox, I seem to remember that, at the time of the murders, she had at least one child and was living with a man who was almost certainly an alcoholic.
Hi Jim.
Many thanks for your earlier kind remarks. I would also like to apologize to yourself and the other posters for the acerbity of my previous response. Hopefully, we can now return to a courteous and civilized mode of discussion.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Dan Norder
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 06:46 pm | | I don't think anyone was suggesting that MJK looked like Heather Graham in the movie From Hell or anything, but I think it's quite safe to say she was at a better level than Cox. Ignoring some details and then wildly exaggerating what other people are trying to say in the attempt to disprove it doesn't accomplish anything, David.
Viper is right to say that MJK's better looks alone does not preclude her from having gone out again that night. But I don't think looking at any one piece of the puzzle by itself gets us anywhere. Start pulling more than one piece together and we might get part of a picture.
To me, MJK's singing is one of the biggest clues about how things were going that night. Since the singing happened after the sighting with Blotchy Face Man and continued for a long time, it seems likely (along with the other things we know) that Kelly was in no rush to go out to earn more money and that BFM had either already left or had paid enough for a quite long visit and had lived up to expectations as a customer.
Knowing what we now do about serial killer psychology for those who mutilate like this, I don't think it's likely the Jack could perform sexually with his victims (excepting the victim being someone they had previous intimate contact with, though that'd be unusual as part of a string) so I think Blotchy has to be ruled out as a Jack suspect, especially since Hutchinson later had info that either incriminates himself or the remarkably distinctive man he described.
And, for those keeping track, that gets filed under speculation... which is all the farther anyone can get on this particular topic without much better factual information than we have currently.
Dan |
Author: Garry Wroe
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 08:37 pm | | Hi Dan.
I couldn't agree more with regard to Kelly's singing. And at the risk of boring everyone into stupefaction, Mrs Cox heard the singing at 1:00am. Mrs Prater appeared on the scene at about the same time and waited for the return of her husband. By the time she decided to return to her room, Kelly's room was silent and in darkness. Given that Mrs Prater had seen neither Kelly nor Blotchy Face emerge from the room, the likelihood is that a very drunk and presumably very tired Kelly retired to bed during the few minutes that separated the comings and goings of Cox and Prater.
Naturally, we cannot know for certain that this is how events unfolded. But on the basis of current evidence, it would appear to be the likeliest of several possible scenarios.
On top of this we have the reality that the streets were largely deserted as a consequence of the foul weather conditions. So is it likely that an experienced streetwalker such as Kelly would have braved the cold, wind and rain on the off-chance that she might encounter a stray punter? It is possible, yes. But in view of Kelly's drunken, tired state, it seems highly improbable.
Again, I would suggest that Kelly was indoors and therefore in bed when Mrs Prater passed her room. She may have been alone, but it is also possible that Blotchy Face had shared his beer with her in return for casual sex. Given that Kelly was singing until 1:00am, any such arrangement could not have been fulfilled until after this time. If so, Kelly and Blotchy would have retired to bed together.
Irrespective of all other considerations, Hutchinson claimed to have encountered a slightly tipsy Mary Kelly at 1:50am or thereabouts. Once more, I would suggest that this is an impossibility. Kelly was "very drunk" shortly before midnight and almost certainly continued drinking until one o'clock. And contrary to popular belief, it is physiologically impossible to drink oneself sober. So even if Hutchinson did meet Kelly on Commercial Street, how could he have overlooked her transparent drunkenness?
Again, my apologies for going over well-worn ground.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Timsta
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 09:21 pm | | Hi Garry, Dan, etc.
Not gonna wear that ground down no more, but I am becoming kinda convinced that MJK's killer knew where she lived (possibly as a result of prior invitation, possibly not), and did what we would today call a 'home invasion'.
That's why I think we will find our man in the Frying Pan, or other similar watering holes.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 09:23 pm | | "Knowing what we now do about serial killer psychology for those who mutilate like this, I don't think it's likely the Jack could perform sexually with his victims (excepting the victim being someone they had previous intimate contact with, though that'd be unusual as part of a string) so I think Blotchy has to be ruled out as a Jack suspect, especially since Hutchinson later had info that either incriminates himself or the remarkably distinctive man he described."
This is about the most logically scattered post I've seen on these boards. A general perusal indicates several invalidities.
1. How do you know what JtR's individual psychology was? To some extent, extrapolation from other known sexual serial murderers would be appropriate, but how do you know what elements to extrapolate in this case? Please advance propositions in this regard, based on the murderer's real behavior as it appears in the evidence of the case.
2. What information do you have that Blotchy could or could not perform sexually with Mary Jane? Were you there in that room with them? How do you know they attempted sex? How does the question as to whether Mary Jane's murderer, whoever he was, could or could not perform sexually with her impinge on Blotchy's guilt or innocence concerning her murder?
3. Where do you derive the idea that anything Hutchinson says or does not say about Blotchy has got anything whatever to do with the question of whether or not Blotchy was the murderer? As best as I can determine, your assessment of Blotchy's innocence rests in part on trusting Hutchinson, but why should Hutchinson be trusted?
Several pages of refutations of this monstrous sophistry could be written, IMHO.
David |
Author: Garry Wroe
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 10:19 pm | | Hi Timsta.
Couldn't agree more. And since the Ripper is unlikely to have allowed himself to be seen at close quarters with an intended victim, Blotchy Face is not liable to have been the killer. My belief is that, whoever he was, the murderer let himself into Kelly's room while Kelly lay asleep on the bed. If so, he must have had some prior contact with her and been vaguely aware of her domestic situation. This, of course, would seem to point to Joe Barnett. But Hutchinson was certainly seen loitering on Dorset Street at a time relevant to the killing; and he did, on his own admission, wander down the court as far as Kelly's room at 3:00am.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Howard Brown
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 10:38 pm | | | Dave; Why not blow Garry out of the water with "A.R." ? Show this dunce where its at ! What does he know,anyway? Come on down,Zarathustra,and set his silly Tweedledee ass straight !!! |
Author: Dan Norder
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 11:09 pm | | David, David, David.
To answer your three disputed points...
1) The ripper was sexual serial killer who performed mutilations on the bodies of his victims. We now know the psychologies of people who do that. In fact, MJK's death is the one that most clearly shows the pathology involved.
2) You are aware that prostitutes have sex, right? Sexual serial killers typically have dysfunctions that would get in the way, especially in situations where they can move on to what really gets them off. If they didn't attempt sex then that kind of defeats the purpose for MJK in letting him in or Blotchy for following her. And if he did perform sexually he missed the perfect time to kill and mutilate his victim -- when she was unawares and in an awkward position. It's ludicrous to think that Blotchy was a sexual serial mutilator killer, got into her private room, and then let her sing the night away. Jack was a predator and would jump when he knew he had the opportunity to kill. Blotchy didn't.
3) Blotchy couldn't have still been there if Hutchinson saw someone enter the room with Mary later. If Hutchinson lied about it, it's likely he was the killer (for reasons expressed multiple times on this thread). Either of those scenarios, plus all the other evidence, indicate that Blotchy was probably long gone.
Dan |
Author: Garry Wroe
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 03:23 am | | Hi John.
Please accept my apologies. On seeing your previous post, I misread 'he' for 'MJK' and responded accordingly. In my defence, it was an error that any imbecile could have made. Sorry again.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Timsta
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 05:01 pm | | Garry:
"If so, he must have had some prior contact with her and been vaguely aware of her domestic situation. This, of course, would seem to point to Joe Barnett."
- amongst many others, I would have thought.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Garry Wroe
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 07:59 pm | | Hi Timsta.
Yes, absolutely. Unfortunately, though, given Mary Jane's lifestyle, the list of 'contacts' is liable to be extensive. But, trusting to the profile I constructed, I'm fairly satisfied that the likes of Barnett, McCarthy and Bowyer lacked the psychopathology to have committed such a series of crimes. Equally, Dan is absolutely correct in his assertion that, whoever he was, the killer would have been sexually dysfunctional. And therein lies the paradox: a sexually dysfunctional individual who appears to have had at least some prior contact with a prostitute. But this explains why the psychology of this case is so important, and why I explored it in some depth in Person or Persons.
In Hutchinson, of course, we have a man who not only had prior contact with Kelly, he was also at the crime scene at a time critical to her murder. And there can be no doubt whatever that he provided a demonstrably false statement during his police interview. Add these to a number of other factors and Hutchinson becomes an individual of considerable interest.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: kevin sharpe
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 08:24 pm | | | The most interesting point in the MJ Kelly murder is the fact that her door was obviously locked and not bolted. Garry stated in his excellent work of the fact that the door was secured by MJK by putting her hand through a broken window to physically bolt the door. I believe I am right in saying this glass had only been broken a few days prior to her death during an argument. The key had been mislaid, yet the door had been locked following her murder. This must without doubt show the murderer had visited the property.Am I right in saying it was not the usual practice for prostitutes at the time in the murder area to take clients back to their drab living quarters? If this was the case, then the ability to lock the door with a supposed missing key must rule out a 'first time' client.There are too many inconsistent comments made by Hutchison in his belated statement. Why was he hanging around for 3/4's of an hour after following MJK to her lodgings etc etc. I know these comments have been made before on this board, but I am a novice at this, so excuse if I am stating the obvious and not adding anything yet to the conversation!! The one point I would like to raise is, although Hutchison is a strong candidate for the MJK murder, can any links be shown linking him to the other victims? |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 09:12 pm | | "...trusting to the profile I constructed, I'm fairly satisfied that the likes of Barnett, McCarthy and Bowyer lacked the psychopathology to have committed such a series of crimes."
Succotash! Not even a tiny percentage of the knowledge of the characters of these people that would be needed to base such a statement exists! Nobody can make such a statement!
The bovine now arcs over crater Tycho Brahe.
David |
Author: Timsta
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 09:19 pm | | Garry:
I am as you know not swayed by the Hutchinson arguments, although they are outlined most eloquently by many including yourself.
I do however think that Hutchinson is a fine exemplar of the kind of man we should be looking for. A man with prior social (and maybe sexual?) contact with one if not more of the victims.
My man is watching the Frying Pan.
Regards
Timsta
PS a) the Cullen quote from Sarah Lewis' niece: palpably embroidered but mentions MJK bringing home men from the FP ('mostly sailors' if my memory serves); b) Polly Nichols, killed after being in the FP. |
Author: Garry Wroe
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 09:20 pm | | Hi Kevin.
Many thanks for your kind remarks. In context of Victorian prostitution, a client could be charged more for indoor intimacy than was the case for a quick knee-trembler in a filthy alley. But there again, the outdoor girls tended to service more customers. Often in the Victorian East End, a woman would service a customer or two, buy something to eat, visit the pub, then, once her money had been spent, would return to the streets in search of more customers. Late at night, many of these girls would either look for one final punter whose money would ensure a bed for the night, or accompany a stranger to a lodging house in a straight sex-for-bed arrangement. It is important to recognize that the 1880s saw mass unemployment. With no real welfare system to help those who, through no fault of their own, had fallen on hard times, sex became a mode of currency, a means by which a woman could stave off homelessness and starvation. It was the law of the jungle, I'm afraid.
As for any potential links between Hutchinson and the other Ripper victims, nothing is known at present. There again, there is no reason why the Ripper must have known the outdoor victims. It is likely that his trawling activities were conducted when the streets were relatively quiet. This would not only have ensured that few people saw him, but that the women he did encounter would be drunk and desperate to earn the money for a bed. Kelly, of course, for the reasons already enumerated, represents a slightly different proposition, with the circumstances contingent on her death being strongly suggestive of prior contact.
Hope this helps.
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Garry Wroe
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 10:18 pm | | Mr Radka.
The relative stability in the lives of Barnett, McCarthy and Bowyer is just one of several reasons for supposing that they lacked the rare form of psychopathology characteristic of all sadosexual serial killers.
Hi Timsta.
Naturally, everyone has their own perspective on the Ripper case. Like yourself, and, I suspect, most posters, I simply offer observations which I believe may be pertinent. Thankfully, most of us are able to disagree with an air of courteousness and cordiality. Most of us, but not all.
As I've stated previously, I tend to agree with your Frying Pan connection. Whatever his identity, you may be sure that the Ripper was drawn to those places frequented by the local prostitute community. He would have visited many of the local watering holes simply to observe the women there. This would have been a component of the fantasy that directed his behaviour. It has been observed in many such offenders and is certainly not a new phenomenon. It might be interesting if you were to take the Frying Pan as the origin of a circle with, say, a radius of two hundred yards. It would be interesting to determine which of the suspects' homes and other salient locations were circumscribed by the circle.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 11:32 pm | | A little yellow bird sat in its little nest in the lower branches of a little tree growing out of the well-manicured lawn of a little, fenced-in back yard. Looking up, it beheld the flight of a mighty eagle that had lept off a far mountain in search of game. The great bird glided on its massive wings composed of rich, dark feathers; its eyes turned at great distance to the ground, focusing on the movements of the smallest of mice; it turned and banked, then dove and swooped up again. 'Peep' went the little yellow bird at this. It wanted to wheel and bank and fly high like the eagle did. 'Peep!' it went again. But the little yellow fellow couldn't fly so high, he hadn't the perspective that high flight brings, his little wings could only get him from his little nest to the ground, to peck at grains and corn provided for him there, and back to his little nest. So the little yellow bird took a deep breath, opened his eyes as wide as he could, opened his beak as wide as he could, and 'PEEEEP!!!' he went.
So goes the tale of the little yellow bird and the eagle. And thus the same with Ripperology.
David |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 11:36 pm | | "The relative stability in the lives of Barnett, McCarthy and Bowyer is just one of several reasons for supposing that they lacked the rare form of psychopathology characteristic of all sadosexual serial killers."
These people could have been the most scatological schizophrenics on the face of the earth as far as we know. We have completely insufficient information about them to suggest any particular psychological profile.
David |
Author: brad mcginnis
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 12:02 am | | David,
So now we should refer to you as "David Yellowbird"? |
Author: Garry Wroe
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 12:49 am | | Mr Radka.
Without the benefit of modern medication, 'scatological schizophrenics' do not hold down long-term employment, enjoy relative familial stability or communicate with the press in a lucid, articulate fashion. If you had actually conducted some meaningful research into the case, you'd be aware that Barnett, McCarthy and Bowyer more than met such criteria.
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Monty
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 11:50 am | | Garry,
Just something I would like confirming.
Barnett, McCarthy and Bowyer do not have the disfunctional mentality, in you opinion, to commit these crimes. This is due to their seemngly stable lives....yeah ??
Ok, I agree. I was just wondering where Hutchinson stood in all this. Does he have, in your opinion, these disorder(s) ?
Hutchinson had prior contact with her. Yes, as did indeed the others mentioned above and including Barnett.
Hutchinson was at the scene of crime at a time critical to the murder. What time is the critical time ?? Time of death ?? Depends on who you believe...Maxwell or Bond.
False statement ??? If this is a line of thought then would you put Packer in the frame for Stride ??
Re-reading this post I can see how it looks like Im provoking, forgive me, Im not intending to, I just wonder what your thoughts are exactly.
Ultimate regards
Monty
|
Author: David Radka
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 12:40 pm | | 1. Barnett did not hold down long-term employment! He had recently lost his work as a market porter! Study the case, Mr. Wroe! He also didn't communicate with anybody in a lucid, articulate fashion! He spoke in a freakish manner! Echolalia is a pretty wild speech pathology! Open any book on the case and there it is!
2. McCarthy was a landlord and a small-time grocer! He was nobody's employee, didn't have to report to anyone, and couldn't get fired! He might have been sitting in his back room playing with himself all day, molesting cats, or engaging in other scatological actions for all we know.
3. Bowyer was nothing but a local toughguy sporadically used by McCarthy to enforce the rents! He had no long-term employment! At 22, he looked 40+ from having lived a hard life, likely as little more than a bum! He only had a part-time occupation, with a rather antisocial element to it at that! Read the books!
By no means can we attest to the social adequacy of any of these characters. Mr. Wroe is deeply coloring the data to fit his superficially-considered presumptions.
David |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 02:03 pm | | David, I've had trouble whenever I've read or thought about Bowyer. I've seen him described as a young man, but in sketches of him, as you have mentioned, he looks to be a man of about 45 years. It seems he was an ex-army man, thats how he got his nick-name, and the job I suppose, I was wondering if you had any further information on him,--seeing you mention his age?, I've never seen his age stated as 22 before.
Regards, Rick. |
Author: Timsta
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 02:51 pm | | Garry:
Interesting idea about the map. I've put a pic up on the Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Pictures From Various Threads: Frying Pan board.
200 yds doesn't seem to show much, but the 400yd circle is kinda interestingly placed.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 07:48 pm | | I don't get why people are assuming that Hutchinson knew Mary Kelly just because he claims to have. Personally I don't trust anything he said. It seems to me that claiming the two of them were old pals could just have been a way to try to explain why he was stalking around outside her room that night... Or conceivably he was nowhere near the place at the time and made it all up for the papers.
I really wish we knew more about what Hutchinson told the police, and if a serious effort was taken to confirm any of it.
Further, I am also not sure that we should necessarily be looking for someone who knew the victims. I think Jack was an opportunist and could have stumbled upon the ultimate opportunity by seeing MJK reaching through the window to unlock her room or otherwise finding out about the easy access to a private location.
Assuming that Jack knew the victims beforehand goes against the standard methods of most serial killers. Some do sometimes pick people they know, but that tends to be more toward the start of the killings (I think more research should concentrate on this avenue), and occasionally at the end of killings (I don't know if we can assume Kelly was the last one or not... although barring potential foreign victims she was almost certainly the last mutilation).
There may be some cases where a SK chose someone they were acquainted with as a middle victim too, but all I can think of along those lines is one where the killer (Australian I think, I don;t recall the name) picked someone to kill that he knew in the middle of a string but had to take his rage out on the pets instead because she wasn't home at the time.
Barring people offing a series of spouses or relatives, I can't think of a serial killer offhand that knew all of his/her victims.
I also don't get why the Frying Pan was chosen as the potential place where Jack would supposedly meet his victims. I mean, sure, it's possible, but it seems rather arbitrary.
Dan |
Author: Timsta
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 08:01 pm | | Dan:
"I think Jack was an opportunist and could have stumbled upon the ultimate opportunity by seeing MJK reaching through the window to unlock her room or otherwise finding out about the easy access to a private location."
I accept that is perfectly possible. I'm sure you'll agree it's equally possible that he knew about it through having visited the location (perhaps clandestinely?).
I'm not really arguing that our man knew all the victims. I think he may have moved in the same social circles (pubs, mainly) and hence may have known one or more of the victims by sight (and perhaps known a few personal details). And hence one of more of the victims may have known the killer by sight, if only vaguely.
As for the Frying Pan, I think most of the victims shared the same circle of pubs (please, someone correct me if there is evidence otherwise), and where we find them, we may also find our man. As such choice of the Frying Pan was somewhat arbitrary, it being suggested mainly because it's cropped up a couple of times in the literature and appears to have been a place where men would meet prostitutes or 'unfortunates' as I guess we should think these days.
Regards
Timsta
|
Author: David Radka
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 10:37 pm | | Rick,
I'm looking up where I read Bowyer's age for you. It is probably in the A-Z, but I don't have mind handy.
David |
|
|
|
|
