Romford

[Monty]

Also, the implication of a Jew in the GSG and in Hutch's story has always stood out to me.

Agreed.

Disagreed.

Monty

[Rubyretro]

On the Jewish issue:
I take it as most likely that the victim led the Ripper to the murder scene.

I
Certainly, but that doesn't mean that he didn't know beforehand where prostitutes working certain pitches would most likely lead him.

f this was the case then it would mean that Stride took him to Duffield’s Yard, rather than the Ripper choosing that spot

.
But maybe he knew that Liz would lead him to Dutfield's yard..or anywhere in the vicinity of the club would have done.

Although if the Ripper was a local man he would probably have
known that the Berner Street area had a large Jewish population.

Obviously. He probably knew there was a club meeting, too. It doesn't sound like a 'secret' meeting.

It must be the case that the Ripper then chose to go to the vicinity of Mitre Square (presuming that he committed both crimes which I believe was almost certainly the case).

Well, yes. I can't believe anyone dragged him there.

But again the exact location of the murder scene, Mitre Square itself, was most probably chosen by Eddowes rather than the Ripper.

But if he knew that prostitutes used Mitre Square, and he stood outside Mitre Square and made eye contact with a prostitute, he might guess that she would lead him to Mitre Square. On the otherhand he could just say "Wait ! I know a better place near here.."

He must have chosen to pass Goulston Street and throw the apron and possibly scrawl the graffiti at the same time.

what ? -he got out a candle, and some handy chalk, turned his back on the dangers on the street, and concentrated on his neat little letters and grammar ? Rather than just buzzing the cloth in the open doorway and hurrying on ?

But the route past Goulston Street may have effectively been chosen for him if it was on his route home.

I've no quarrel with that.

Why drop the apron there? Maybe he used it to wipe his hands and by the time he got that far he had no further need for it. Maybe he saw someone and ditched it. Who knows.

Maybe he knew (living nearby), that the building was inhabited by Jews.

Wentworth Model Dwellings had only been built about a year before. I very much doubt they would have resembled slum dwellings that would likely be frequented by ‘low class Jews’.

It would have required very detailed local knowledge to know that most residents were in fact Jewish

, although it would be widely

known that lots of Jewish people lived in that vicinity.

If he lived in the Victoria Homes, then he was a neighbour. If he was very anti-semite, then he might have been particularly aware of the fact.

Having said this... I think that it is probable that the Ripper was a local. That being the case, unless he was Jewish himself, there would have been a good chance that he harboured some sort of anti-Jewish sentiment to one degree or another

.
yes.

On aliases – they tended to be used by people who were on the wrong side of the law. Like prostitutes. I don’t think there is any evidence that they were used by the general population. That is of course why Cross is suspicious.

Well, Hutchinson might not have been the most law abiding citizen prior to 1888 for all we know. Soldiers weren't criminals, and Cross seems to have had a good reason for using a different name..

I read what you said about Cross -just don't tell me that you have no agenda !

Regarding Toppy, what other explanations are there apart from Reg being a liar?

[/QUOTE]
Quite a few -but they'll have to wait for my morning coffee !

[Wickerman]

There is a possibility that George Hutchinson had been in the army. Only a possibility mind you, based on his 'military' description -yet London held many ex-soldiers without a trade and looking for casual work, and it would explain why Hutchinson had been a groom but was now a labourer.

That is a good point, sadly we don't know how old George was in 1888, so how long a stint could he have served?, we don't know.
[note: all the soldiers serving at the Tower should be in the 1881 census]

Certainly soldiers did use an alias, not forgetting, as you rightly point out, the general populace would also use an alias, either to the police or press.

What occured to me was that "George" may not have been his legal first name. I don't know how many people I've come across who prefer to use their second name but still acknowledge their first name in official circles.

There are so many points to consider, Hutchinson could still be in a Census, under a different 'first' name.

Regards, Jon S.
Note, There is a Joseph J. Hutchinson, Single, age 32?, General Labourer, from Mile End, living at 63 Cleveland St. (with his Mom), in the 1891 Census.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE][QUOTE]

That is a good point, sadly we don't know how old George was in 1888, so how long a stint could he have served?, we don't know.
[note: all the soldiers serving at the Tower should be in the 1881 census]

After 1870, soldiers would of enlisted for 12 years. Interesting that they got extra pay for taking on extra duties , of which 'groom' was one (cook, and 'officer's servant' were others)

Note, There is a Joseph J. Hutchinson, Single, age 32?, General Labourer, from Mile End, living at 63 Cleveland St. (with his Mom), in the 1891 Census.[/QUOTE

]
interesting

[Bridewell]

Maligning Caroline Maxwell

There are a couple of points I would make here. The first relates to the subject of the thread - "Romford". As has been acknowledged, we don't know much about George Hutchinson. It is therefore conceivable that he came from the north of England originally. Although his statement reads "to Romford", not "the Romford", he could (just a possibility - don't shout at me) have alluded to "t'Romford".

I'd also like to take issue with Perry Mason's description of Mrs Maxwell:

"She was all but called a liar, or a scatterbrain...forgetting the correct day the event happened.... if at all. Her story is not credible based on her own content"

The fact that her statement is at odds with the accounts of other witnesses does not prove that she was wrong, mistaken, or some kind of nincompoop. Walter Dew, a young officer at the time of the murderers, but who retired in the rank of Chief Inspector, referred to her thus:

"If Mrs Maxwell had been a sensation seeker - one of those women who live for the limelight - it would have been easy to discredit her story. She was not. She seemed a sane and sensible woman, and her reputation was excellent. In one way at least her version fitted into the facts as known. We knew that Marie had been drinking the previous night, and, as this was not a habit of hers, illness the next morning was just what might have been expected."

Perry Mason says she was "a scatterbrain". Walter Dew says she was "a sane and sensible woman". They can't both be right. You pays your money and you makes your choice. Mrs Maxwell, like any other witness then as now, may or may not have been right, but she was seen as a credible witness at the time.