What's your "Standard of Proof"

[RedBundy13]

Wasn't the Victoria Home the Peabody Building, which was located at Commercial Street and Folgate Street? (which is up near Annie Chapman's murder location). Or have I got that wrong?

- Jeff

Hi Jeff, I'm not quite sure about the Peabody building but the Victoria Home for Working Men which later became the Salvation Army Home was opened in 1887 and was located on the South West corner of Commercial and Wentworth (on the site of Ladbroke Court) with the address of 39 & 41 Commercial St. However there was another Victoria home that was called Victoria Home No. 2 which was located at 77 Whitechapel Road (which later became 177 Whitechapel Road).

The Victoria Home that Hutchinson stayed at was literally directly in the heart of all the Ripper activity. Within a half a block of the Emma Smith, Martha Tabram, Alice McKenzie murders & the Goulston St. Graffito and about two and a half blocks from Mary Kellys murder site. Check it out on a map, its almost chilling when you look at it, how close everything is around it. And if you draw a line from Mitre Square to Goulston St Graffito and continue past it it almost hits directly the Victoria Home.

Its not what anyone would call definitive proof, but it is something to think about. For me at least, there are a couple of things that don't fit with George Hutchinson being JTR, but on the other hand theres quite a bit that does. IMO, so far he's my favorite suspect, by a long shot.

[RedBundy13]

Hi RedBundy13. The leather apron belonged to one of the residents of number 29. His mum told the police that she had washed it and put it out to dry a day or two before the murder.

Thanks Beav, I just noticed how I wrote that, whoops. I was trying to mean that sarcastically lol, how at the time they actually thought that Leather Apron had left his.. leather apron.. when he was washing up. But it did come out that it looks like I was trying to claim that the Apron WAS left by the killer. Yikes, haha! Thanks for pointing that out, too bad its too late to edit it on my part though.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff, I'm not quite sure about the Peabody building but the Victoria Home for Working Men which later became the Salvation Army Home was opened in 1887 and was located on the South West corner of Commercial and Wentworth (on the site of Ladbroke Court) with the address of 39 & 41 Commercial St. However there was another Victoria home that was called Victoria Home No. 2 which was located at 77 Whitechapel Road (which later became 177 Whitechapel Road).

The Victoria Home that Hutchinson stayed at was literally directly in the heart of all the Ripper activity. Within a half a block of the Emma Smith, Martha Tabram, Alice McKenzie murders & the Goulston St. Graffito and about two and a half blocks from Mary Kellys murder site. Check it out on a map, its almost chilling when you look at it, how close everything is around it. And if you draw a line from Mitre Square to Goulston St Graffito and continue past it it almost hits directly the Victoria Home.

Its not what anyone would call definitive proof, but it is something to think about. For me at least, there are a couple of things that don't fit with George Hutchinson being JTR, but on the other hand theres quite a bit that does. IMO, so far he's my favorite suspect, by a long shot.

Thanks for that. Yes, I've updated my map to place Hutchinson at the SW corner of Wentworth and Commercial Road. Much appreciated.

- Jeff

[KRS]

G U T that is a very interesting question, and it is something I’'ve thought through since I'’m a student in an area related to philosophy of religion which interacts with epistemology, the study of belief and knowledge. But, I'’ve noticed a pattern in the interest we take in the ripper, first we come in because of a sensational suspect, such as the Royal conspirators, in these cases, the approaches offered are heavy on narrative and storytelling to make up for weaknesses in the evidence, and besides an exciting narrative, they are often accompanied by overblown media campaigns; the emotion carries us more than the facts in the case. Then, we tend to gravitate towards some more serious suspect, often a police suspect. Then, we move to interest in sociological views of the ripper, how is he viewed in fiction and film, how is used by politicians and feminists, or even the history and thoughts of ripperologists (if we consider ourselves too much the amateur to claim to be one ourselves). I think this last step may come when we tend to think the crime itself unsolvable. That is, I think if we are thinking we consider the warrant for any particular solution weaker the more we understand the cases dynamics.

My own history may illustrate my point. My first exposure to the Jack the Ripper case as an unsolved crime, was in elementary school in the very early eighties on a rerun of the “In Search of” television program, which examined (favorably) Stephen Knight’s theory. When I started to read more serious works in high school and early college, my preferred theory was Martin Fido'’s discussion of David Cohen, and agree with his theory or not, he has done an incredible job of tracing out facts and analyzing details. I was very certain he had ferreted out the truth. But when I found out about the Littlechild letter, and started reading the casebook and other works on the subject, my certainty faded, not because I consider Tumblety a better candidate but because it forced a reassessment of the quality of extant evidence.

We do not know who Anderson’s witness was, and it might be someone who is otherwise not referenced in the piecemeal documents we have. We do not know what this eyewitness claimed to have seen—merely a suspect who talked to a victim, an assault, an actual stabbing, someone running from the location with bloody clothing? We do not know why other officers did not share Anderson’s certainty in the case. We do not know what private information was offered concerning Montigue Druitt. The problem of missing information means that when something is found, its importance or certainty is magnified beyond its actual probative value due to the accident of its survival into the modern period. What is most often debated are the facts themselves, did the ripper write the GSG or any of the ripper letters? The very fact that so much debate centers on these questions, which are secondary and tertiary value indicates how little we actually know of the case. Additionally, we often forget that our own age has its own intellectual vices, as seen in the rise of poor philosophical systems like post-modernism; we should be cautious about overconfidence in our understanding of criminal psychology or chronological snobbery to avoid 21^st century hubris.

For the case to be solved, we should not look for some “smoking gun” which will undoubtedly have issues of provenance, though if something passes all the relevant tests with flying colors, perhaps something like this could be useful if it matches with previously known facts. In my opinion though, the majority of the police notes on the murders would be necessary for high degrees of certainty.

[RedBundy13]

For the case to be solved, we should not look for some “smoking gun” which will undoubtedly have issues of provenance, though if something passes all the relevant tests with flying colors, perhaps something like this could be useful if it matches with previously known facts. In my opinion though, the majority of the police notes on the murders would be necessary for high degrees of certainty.

Absolutely agreed! But even on this, if some "new" evidence was found that pointed to one particular suspect which more than likely proved that he was JTR, I'm positive that quite a few people still would not hop on that boat and be agreed that the case has been solved. Either because the person found to be the Ripper was NOT their suspect (some of whom have devoted years and years of their lives into proving that "their" guy was Jack) or because, and this is what makes this case so attractive to so many people, the fact that we DONT know who the Ripper was for an absolute certainty and there are SO many possibilities out there that the more you dig, the more possible suspects are found making this case almost an obsession for quite a few people. And if it was solved, where would they go?
So IMO no matter what, we would still be having discussions and arguments about the new evidence and why it doesn't fit and why we shouldn't be buying into the "new" solved theory. And of course, this is a necessity. We need our answers, theories and suspects to be scrutinized to the utmost degree (even if some people or most even, don't agree with it).

In my opinion, the only way to absolutely solve this case, to the point that almost everyone is in agreement as to who The Ripper was, would be nothing short of a time machine, Ha, Ha, HA!

[The Baron]

Ok Beav, this is what I believe, mostly (I guess it changes every now and then and I go back and forth a bit on it); After the Emma Smith, Martha Tabram and Polly Nichols murders there was an ever growing idea that it was the work of a Jew known as Leather Apron, especially after the Nichols murder it became wide spread especially on the streets but also in the newspapers.

After the murder of Annie Chapman though, this theory reached its boiling point culminating in a small riot which broke out on Hanbury St. following the discovery of her body when it was assumed that no Englishman could be responsible for such a horrific deed and that it must be the work of the Jew known as Leather Apron (after all, a leather apron was found in the yard at 29 Hanbury so it makes perfect sense that the killer left it there as some kind of calling card...). The mob there that morning and afternoon was so incensed that they actually started attacking Jews that were just passing by on the street. All of this was widely covered in the newspapers and soon after "Leather Apron" was "found" and cleared. Unfortunately that didn't clear up the idea that only a foreign Jew could be responsible for these murders.

The next murder occurs in Dutfield's yard right outside of IWMEC's Jewish Socialists Club who just happened to be giving a lecture that night on why all Jews should be Socialists. Israel Schwartz reported seeing Liz Stride being attacked and thrown to the ground. The attacker sees Schwartz and says one word; "Lipski" which we know from Abberline as being a derogatory slang word used against Jews based off of Israel Lipski, a Jew who was executed the year or so prior for poisoning.

Katherine Eddows was killed next in Mitre Square and where was she possibly last seen? Standing in Church Passage talking to a man. And of course it was called Church Passage because it was the alley or passage leading into the square right next to the Great Synagogue of London. Also inside of Mitre Square there was also a coffee shop owned and operated by Jews.

Goulston St. Graffito... Obviously a Jewish (Juwe'ish) connection. Not to mention the location, Goulston St. = about 90% of its residents were Jewish. The Wentworth Dwellings, also a majority of the residents were Jews as well. And can't forget the bathhouse that was a few buildings down who's patrons were a little over 60% Jewish.

In my mind its very clear that JTR wanted everyone to THINK he was Jewish. And I know a lot of discussions have went on about this subject and how Whitechapel was filled with recent arrivals of Eastern European Jews that just about anywhere JTR would have went he would have ran into a Jewish shop or a Synagogue or residents but thats just simply not true. There was A LOT of Eastern European Jews taking up residence in the East End at that time but it was mainly (not always) but mainly in certain neighborhoods and in large clusters generally close to one another. Now obviously thats not always the case and like in everything else, there were exceptions to that rule. But generally speaking this was the case.
And for arguments sake, lets say that this was true. That 90% of Whitechapel was occupied by Jews, it still wouldn't account for the timing. After the well publicized accounts of the attacks on random Jews on Hanbury St. in the newspapers following the murder of Annie Chapman, the very next murder takes place just outside of a Jewish Socialist Club which just so happens to be having a meeting with speakers discussing why all Jews should be Socialists. And during the attack on the woman the attacker speaks one word, which just so happens to be a derogatory slander against the Jews "Lipski"... Followed by the next attack in less than an hour which occurs at one of the biggest gathering points for Jews on the East Side of London, The Great Synagogue of London. It was almost like JTR made a Bee Line to go directly there for his next attack. Followed again by Goulston St. Coincidence? I don't buy it.

And then theres Mary Kelly. Whats the Jewish connection there? None, right? Unless you count George Hutchinson's absolute ridiculous account of seeing the Stereotypical evil rich Jew looking for poor, innocent gentiles. Which I also don't buy for a second. I feel like George thought the public was looking in the "wrong" direction again, and was looking for a man with a "carroty" mustache and he needed to come out and put them back on the "right" track. So thats what he did, he came out and gave his story. And it was just that, a story. Which IMO, should have been fairly simple to see through, even if you don't buy that Hutch might have had something to do with the murders.


Alice McKenzie, discovered dead but only just, down in Castle Alley. Whoever killed her looks to have been interrupted and must have been close it was thought. The PC blows his whistle and immediately the alley is sealed from both ends. Yet somehow her killer still ends up slipping away. And Guess who just happens to lives close by? And by close meaning a stones throw close? George Hutchinson, who resided in the Victoria Home which was on the corner of Wentworth and Commercial St. literally just up the alley from the murder. Coincidentally also just so happens to be right around the corner from Goulston St.. Which some at the time had wondered if JTR actually came back to Wentworth Dwellings to place the cloth and write on the wall since the officer at the time was adamant that it wasn't there 30 minutes prior when he previously walked past....

Does this all point to Hutch undoubtedly being JTR? No, obviously not. Theres no "real" evidence what so ever that points to that (yet). On the other hand: Circumstantial evidence? I would have to say thats a big yes. Some real evidence wouldn't hurt, to either count him out for good or to bump him up a few spots on the suspect list to possibly be as "good" a suspect as Francis Tumblety...

I don't believe George Hutchinson had he been the Ripper, would have gone to the police after they had then a witness against him, Israel Schwarz and his sighting was already in the newspaper.


The Baron