Two things that don't make sense!

[Ben]

Hi Joel,

the idea that he was protecting himself i find less convincing. i cant see that if another witness could have possibly identified him, he would have made himself known. after all it was dark & you never knew who was watching.

I would encourage you to consider the following:

You say you can't see how another witness could possibly have identified him, but you're working from the assumption that Hutchinson knew the full and true extent of Sarah Lewis' sighting, which wasn't possible.

At the inquest into the murder of Eddowes, Lawende mentioned only a "rough and shabby" appearance in connection with a suspect he observed from a few yards away, and at that stage, the killer may well have adopted the very attitude you suggest. "Oh well, that was a crap description. He obviously didn't get a very good look and therefore can't identify me".

But by the 19th November, the full description was published (neckerchief, cap, height, age and all) and circulated. Whoever the killer was, he must have alarmed him to know that his physical particulars were suddenly and unexpectedly doing the rounds weeks after he committed the murder. What started as a lame descipton suddenly mutated into something more detailed and potentially more incriminating.

Suddenly, the chances of his description being circulated (and consequently, his being noticed or recognised in the streets) were increased, and by the time of the Kelly murder and the publication of Lewis' evidence, he must have considered the strong possibility that the authorities would withhold Lewis' description as they did with Lawende's.

What if they tried that tactic again with Lewis?

Best regards,
Ben

[joelhall]

i did go along with hutchinson protecting someone else at one point. though the idea that he was really fleming has niggled at me for years. the idea that he was protecting himself i find less convincing. i cant see that if another witness could have possibly identified him, he would have made himself known. after all it was dark & you never knew who was watching.

however, unless he was suspicious this person was a murderer, then why his detailed memory of the man.

he could of course have been spying for fleming or barnett, and so he would remember these people who went in or out, so kelly wouldnt realise someone was keeping tabs on her.

then again... sadly as happens in murder investigations, it could frankly just be some nutter taking the p*ss?

joel

[Bailey]

I like the theory here, and it's well put, but for me the big stumbling block is that there were rewards on offer by this stage, worth a great deal more than is likely to have been paid by one man for an alibi. If they were in cahoots over something else that would have gotten them both in trouble, or the Blotchy Killy Twitchy dude had something else on Hutch, then maybe.

Alternatively, Hutch as the lookout part of a two man Ripper team? With Blotchy Twitchy Killy (could he be Flemy?) as the other portion.

B.

[c.d.]

Sorry, I can't get behind this one. Maybe if it Blotchy and Hutchinson were running some sort of scam or white collar crime. But here, it's your neck in a rope if you are convicted. Blotchy would have to have a hell of lot of money for that. This is something that you don't want to be mixed up in in any way, shape or form.

c.d.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

One of the better ideas, certainly, but I feel that anyone who is prepared to accept the notion that Hutchinson came forward to take the heat of someone else ought to recognise equal merit in the suggestion that he came forward to take the heat off himself. They amount to the same thing in principle, but the latter involves just one person looking out for himself rather than two.

Best regards,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Ben,

But it was a cracker idea, eh? You know that I don't see Hutch as the Ripper, but I do see him possibly being run out of town on a rail after the police think he's lied to them, but they can't prove it. That might be why he has remained silent to us for 120 years.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

It's a lot better than a good deal of Hutchinson theories put forward, and was originally mooted by Derek Obsbourne in an article entitled - I believe - "The man who shielded Jack the Ripper". The problems I see with it are as follows:

1) Why so self-sacrificing for another bloke? I can understand if Hutchinson was looking out for himself, but for someone else? On a purely superficial basis, Blotchy doesn't strike me as the kind of chap to have a lot of dosh knocking around to pay others to "alibi" him out, besides which it was a tad risky. What if Hutchinson went straight to the cops with a "Guess what Blotchy told me to do?" story?

2) In your scenario, wasn't it of paramount importance for Hutchinson to say where he really was at the time of the murder (i.e. after 3.00am) just in case he gets suspected himself? "Walking around all night" strikes me as the perfect alibi-disposing excuse of someone who wanted to cover up what he was really doing at that time, but if Hutch-the-blotchy-helper had fulfilled his purpose by planting a fictional Jew on the scene, surely it was then time to look out for himself and establish his genuine alibi for the time of the murder?

I believe you have the basic principle spot on:

You believe Hutchinson came forward to deflect suspicion away from someone else.

I believe Hutchinson came forward to deflect suspicion away from himself.

The two aren't that dissimilar, but I plump for the latter. I find it easier to condense it into one person, rather than two.

Best regards,
Ben

[caz]

Cheers guys!

Love,

Caz
XX

[Steve F]

Nice 'n clear

Hi Caz
Nice and clear thinking.I wonder if you are right
Steve

[The Good Michael]

Caz,

The Blotchy-as-Hutch-benefactor idea is quite good. In fact, I really like it.

Remember the fellow who was a contemporary of Kelly, who lived in the court, that Chris posted about before the crash? He had some sort of run-in with the law as I recall. I've always wanted to give him a bit of blotch. His name escapes me however.

Cheers,

Mike

[caz]

Hutchy, Twitchy & Blotchy

Why did George Hutchinson stand around outside MC in the pouring rain and cold weather?

The question for me is why come forward and admit to standing around for that long - three-quarters of an hour - if the longer Hutch lingered close to the scene of this horrific crime, the less credible his tale would sound that he was simply curious to see this unusually ‘cut above’ client of Mary’s again?

By extension, why claim to have stood around for that long if he did nothing of the sort? Or why not just say he couldn’t be sure how long he waited, but pushed off as soon as he suspected that this well-heeled customer had paid enough to cover his bed as well as his broad?

I still wonder if Hutch was being paid by a twitchy customer (who may or may not have been the real killer, but could have been seen with Mary that night - Blotchy springs to mind) to give the police a man who was alone with Mary in her room at a later hour, and for substantially longer than an act of sex in exchange for payment would normally take - hence the lengthy vigil part of the story.

In short, Hutch is paid to claim he saw it all: he sees Mary pick up the Jew at two and take him back for a screw, then stays around until three, conveniently confirming that this was one hell of a screw. Bob’s your uncle, Hutchy's made a few bob and Twitchy Blotchy's in the clear.

Hutch can't produce the Jewish goods, but if his story unravels he will be the only one answering questions. He can't drop his paymaster in it without completely changing his story and proving himself to be Aldridge Prior, Hopeless Liar. But according to Ben, Hutch would not have too much to fear in any case, since the police would have little on him that could be made to stick. Of course, if he is just a lying witness on the make, there is nothing else on him. So whether his story is told for money or self-preservation, he evidently considers it worth the risk of putting himself near the murder scene for nearly an hour and making himself the last but one man to see the victim alive.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi All,

Why did McCarthy 'allow' Mary to get behind with her rent?

Drawing on all the suggestions put forward so far, I wonder if McCarthy himself put a bit of pressure on Mary when Joe lost his job and the full rent money was no longer there when Bowyer or whoever came to call. The room was rented in her name and McCarthy obviously wasn't too fussy about how she got the money together as long as nobody could prove he was running a brothel for profit.

This might be the explanation for other women being introduced into the room (to help with the rent - a problem shared being a problem halved) causing the jobless Joe (who didn't have the earning equipment the ladies had) to move out. Mary may have made the excuse to Joe that she was just being kind-hearted, but I always thought there was more to it than that. While there could have been an element of inviting women to stay because she was tiring of Joe but wanted it to be his decision to go, rather than telling him straight, I suspect the reality may have been that McCarthy wanted Joe squeezed out so the squeeze could be put on Mary to start earning something, and if it wasn't enough she could get her 'sisters' in on the rent act.

Once McCarthy was satisfied that the room's inhabitants were bringing in some money again one way or another, he sent Bowyer round to collect. You have to wonder how much had been earned since the previous rent payment, but was spent on booze or ended up lining Jack's pocket - assuming not a penny was found in the room.

Love,

Caz
X

[celee]

Brad,

but we don't know that they were behind in the rent. We only have Mcarthy's statement that that was the reason Bowyer was sent 'round. My belief is that she was behind on Mcarthy's share of her evening's take.

Cheers,

Mike

Hi Mike,

That good be a very good guess. I never thougt about that possibility.

Your friend, Brad

[Supe]

I think it important that we consider just what sort of man John McCarthy seems to have been before we give way to flights of fancy. He was a sharp, overly sharp some might say, businessman who was increasingly successful on several different fronts. To suspect that he would imperil his growing business empire by getting too closely involved with prostitution strains credulity. Hence his "Casablanca"-worthy exclamations of shock at hearing Mary Jane Kelly was so engaged.

In most instances i would think he kept well away from any leagal shoals, while keeping a weather eye on things. After all, as pointed out, the shop--front and back--provided ideal vantages for giaging how busy some tenants, particularly Kelly, may have been. Moreover, the long chat with McCarthy that Liz Prater mentioned was likely about more than the weather.Those who were on the game knew very well how the competition was faring and such chats could well have kept McCarthy up to date on what "extras" he might be able to charge.

Kelly, as I suggested in my article, might have been a slightly different deal. One does not have to believe Paley's rather excessive estimates of Joe Barnett's wages at Billingsgate to believe that he and Kelly were able to afford the rent when they took the room. This, of course, changed when he lost that position, but most likely the shortfall each week (even if it eventually came to 29s) was not great and there was always an expectation Barnett would regain work as a fish porter.

Moreover, Kelly was by all reports, more attractive than the usual Whitechapel unfortunate and as such could be something of a "cash cow" (all things being relative). That is why, as the debt and weekly shortfall grew, I suggested in my article that a special arrangement was agreed to in her case by the usually cautious McCarthy (necessitating his entering the room after Bowyer hied off to the cop shop). I even speculated the sharing of the room with other prostitutes may have been a try at some sort of "Box and Cox" arrangement to increase the take from Number 13. Certainly the complaints by some residents that there were comings and goings by men all night suggesta that some of rooms in the court were early examples of "hot-pillow" motels.

Nonetheless, to return to the point of this post, I would think that in every instance, except possibly that of Kelly, John McCarthy provided a sufficient amount of plausible deniabilty to protect himself. Whatever else he may have been, he was not ordinarily a fool.

Don.

[claire]

Oh, for sure, Gareth (although I'd imagine that rent in the area now quite happily takes up at least a third of many residents' incomes!), and I'm sure what you're saying is the more likely of the two scenarios. But McC. would have had to have been aware of her potential 'sources' of income, not just to give him a reason to let her stay, but also to have sent Mr Bowyer round for an early morning knock-up, so to speak.