Favoured Suspects

[Patrick S]

Not much fun, but like Donald Rumbelow I think JtR's name may have slipped through the cracks of time and we may never know.
But if I have to pick someone from the known suspects, I think Levy. I think he could have been the Butchers Row suspect. But it's nothing more than a guess.

This about sums up my thoughts. I'm almost certain we'll never know who Jack the Ripper was, IF there was even such an animal (i.e. someone who murdered - at least - Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly), and what became of him. Another poster mentioned being influenced by books, authors, etc. I find that applies to me, as well. It's a species of 'suspension of disbelief', I imagine. I allow myself to become invested in the narrative. I buy in, only be brought back to reality by further research, conflicting "facts", and reality.

I remember reading an article in a tabloid when I was around twelve years old. It proclaimed 'case closed', all that. They proclaimed that Druitt was Jack. And that's what I believed until I read Sugden some years later and began my immersion in earnest.

Over the years I've been swayed to believe in Druitt (as mentioned), Maybrick (embarrassingly), Tumblety (it didn't last), Hyam Hyams (I thought we had a real chance), Kosminski (but don't we all?), and Cross/Lechmere (a nasty break-up, that one).

I found Sickert and all the other "celebrity suspects" uninteresting and more for profit, if I'm honest.

Now, I'm alone. Jaded. Hardened. Led down the garden path one too many times. But, I'll find love again......I know it's out there......wait.....what the hell was I talking about?

[Mister Whitechapel]

I too think the Whitechapel Killer was an unknown person or persons which, - unless fantastical new official papers come to light which names individuals we thought lost or impossible to identify - will forever remain shrouded in shadow.

That being said, I secretly (until now) favour James Maybrick as the Ripper. Not because of the evidence presented per se, but because of the whole poetic justice of how the Ripper's "Autumn of Terror" came to an end.

Now, I also understand that it sounds a bit morbid wishing that a likely innocent man was this notorious killer, but I just like the whole narrative the "Diary" gives for motive, methodology, and ultimate conclusion.

Yours,
Mister Whitechapel

[Mike M]

Cutbush for me. Seriously odd bloke. The fact Macnaughten felt the need to pen his memo to counter the allegations in the Sun adds weight to the argument for me.

[Ben]

Hi C4,

Hutch did have a valid reason for being there.

Well no, not really.

Being surprised at seeing a well-dressed man in Kelly's company was not a particularly "valid reason" for loitering outside Miller's Court for 45 minutes "to see if they came out"; in fact, it's not a "reason" at all.

And something I read about Anderson (I think) has stayed in my mind. It was that he made a decision after "consulting with his friends". Is it so inconceivable that a working class man would do this? That Hutch wanted to be sure about what he should do?

There's nothing inherently problematic about witnesses "consulting with friends" before deciding to take action. The problem here is that Hutchinson's decision to contact the police on the advice of an alleged "fellow lodger" just happened to coincide with the end of the inquest, where Sarah Lewis had recounted her story involving a man standing alone outside the court not long before the cry of "murder" heard by witnesses. The inevitable inference is that Hutchinson only took action because he was the man seen by Lewis, and feared the consequences of being identified as such before he had an opportunity to offer a self-legitimising excuse for his presence there.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

William Bury, for the reasons you would give, i.e. victim mutilated, chalk writing.

Francis Thompson. Spent six years as a medical student-Dr Phillips seemed to think JtR was a medical expert, which would completely rule out the vast majority of suspects.

Hated women. Was probably living at the Provedence Row night shelter at the time Kelly was murdered, which was about 100 yards from Dorset Street.

Wrote poetry about mutilating women. Soon after the murders wrote about killing female prostitutes with knives.

Fits the profile of this type of killer extremely well, i.e. was a multiple arsonist and had only one relationship with a woman, a prostitute who left him just before the Whitechapel murders began- June 1888. Of course, this could have acted as a catalyst for the subsequent murders.

Hi JohnG
since were bickering on the other thread- I thought Id chime in here and give you a solid on FT. LOL!

I favored him a lot when I was first got into it-but he had fallen a bit IMHO.

however, you and others have been posting some interesting info about him and hes now raised back up a bit for me. I find the fact that he lived so close to Kelly very interesting-I didn't know that. one of the reasons He dropped is when I realized there was nothing that ties him directly to the case-and him living so close to Kelly helps that. Lots of circumstantial evidence on him, that's for sure but circumstantial evidence is still evidence.

[John G]

Hi JohnG
since were bickering on the other thread- I thought Id chime in here and give you a solid on FT. LOL!

I favored him a lot when I was first got into it-but he had fallen a bit IMHO.

however, you and others have been posting some interesting info about him and hes now raised back up a bit for me. I find the fact that he lived so close to Kelly very interesting-I didn't know that. one of the reasons He dropped is when I realized there was nothing that ties him directly to the case-and him living so close to Kelly helps that. Lots of circumstantial evidence on him, that's for sure but circumstantial evidence is still evidence.

Hello Abby,

Thanks, pleased to see you taking an interest in Thompson as a candidate. Yes, I agree that the evidence is circumstantial, however, I would say that about all of the candidates. Well, okay, it might be said Kosminski was positively identified, but I would question the reliability of the identification as I'm sure would most people.

It was also interesting to read Paul Begg's review of Richard's book, which was generally positive. In fact, Paul said that, after reading the book, he'd purchased a couple of biographies and his complete works, as well as the fact that he was going to seriously update his A-Z entry.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

Thanks, pleased to see you taking an interest in Thompson as a candidate. Yes, I agree that the evidence is circumstantial, however, I would say that about all of the candidates. Well, okay, it might be said Kosminski was positively identified, but I would question the reliability of the identification as I'm sure would most people.

It was also interesting to read Paul Begg's review of Richard's book, which was generally positive. In fact, Paul said that, after reading the book, he'd purchased a couple of biographies and his complete works, as well as the fact that he was going to seriously update his A-Z entry.

is Richards book on FT?

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

Thanks, pleased to see you taking an interest in Thompson as a candidate. Yes, I agree that the evidence is circumstantial, however, I would say that about all of the candidates. Well, okay, it might be said Kosminski was positively identified, but I would question the reliability of the identification as I'm sure would most people.

It was also interesting to read Paul Begg's review of Richard's book, which was generally positive. In fact, Paul said that, after reading the book, he'd purchased a couple of biographies and his complete works, as well as the fact that he was going to seriously update his A-Z entry.

hey, FT didn't have red hair and a blotchy face did he? ; )

[drstrange169]

How are you thinking after reading it has he moved up or down?

Still reading at the moment, half hour instalments on the train to work.

[GUT]

Still reading at the moment, half hour instalments on the train to work.

Can't wait for mine to arrive.

[curious4]

Hi C4,



Well no, not really.

Being surprised at seeing a well-dressed man in Kelly's company was not a particularly "valid reason" for loitering outside Miller's Court for 45 minutes "to see if they came out"; in fact, it's not a "reason" at all.



There's nothing inherently problematic about witnesses "consulting with friends" before deciding to take action. The problem here is that Hutchinson's decision to contact the police on the advice of an alleged "fellow lodger" just happened to coincide with the end of the inquest, where Sarah Lewis had recounted her story involving a man standing alone outside the court not long before the cry of "murder" heard by witnesses. The inevitable inference is that Hutchinson only took action because he was the man seen by Lewis, and feared the consequences of being identified as such before he had an opportunity to offer a self-legitimising excuse for his presence there.

All the best,
Ben

Hello Ben

You misunderstood me. Hutch was just back from an unsuccessful trip to find work and without money and presumably also without a late ticket for his lodgings, moot point really, as he didn't have the money either. I think he was hoping that Mary would give him shelter for the night when her client left, possibly promising money at a later date. And I do believe he was concerned for her welfare, seeing her with someone so obviously out of place. As for the timing of his statement, I don't think he would have had to worry too much about Lewis if guilty. She saw "a man", didn't identify him as Hutchinson and apparently no-one else noticed him. By coming forward he put himself in the frame.

Everything we come up with today must have occurred to the police at the time and yet he was believed.

Best wishes
C4

PS My suspects: Lord Posh or possibly John Richardson

[Wickerman]

P.S. Not an invitation to start another monster Hutchinson debate, as this thread relates to all suspects and persons of interest.

Hi Ben.
Then perhaps you could try resist downplaying other peoples "Favoured" suspects and offer yours into the frame instead.

[Ben]

Hi C4

"Hutch was just back from an unsuccessful trip to find work and without money and presumably also without a late ticket for his lodgings, moot point really, as he didn't have the money either."

Where is the evidence that he took the trip to "find work", successfully or otherwise? And if he had neither money nor a "late ticket", why did he walk 13 miles in the small hours of cold, miserable morning to a lodging house that he knew full well would deny him entry?

"I think he was hoping that Mary would give him shelter for the night when her client left, possibly promising money at a later date."

So why no mention of this seemingly innocent explanation in his statement? And why did he completely abandon that plan at 3.00am, preferring "walking about all night" to popping back every ten minutes or so to check if Kelly was alone?

"And I do believe he was concerned for her welfare."

No.

Hutchinson's own statement informs us that he supposedly had "no suspicion" that Astrakhan man might be the murderer, and if he was "concerned for her welfare", how would he have assuaged that concern by standing on the other side of the street, rendering himself utterly useless in the event of the client getting slashy?

"As for the timing of his statement, I don't think he would have had to worry too much about Lewis if guilty. She saw "a man", didn't identify him as Hutchinson and apparently no-one else noticed him."

Hutchinson didn't know any of that, though.

What he might have discovered, had he read the papers covering the Eddowes inquest, was that Lawende's full description had been deliberately withheld at the behest of the City solicitor; thereby inviting the possibility of Lewis's sighting receiving similar treatment. He would have also have been mindful of the reality - oddly lost on a few regulars to Hutchinson discussions - that a failure on Lewis's part to describe a person adequately does not render her incapable of recognising that person again.

"By coming forward he put himself in the frame"

Yes, as known serial killers have done over the decades since 1888.

"Everything we come up with today must have occurred to the police at the time and yet he was believed."

That would be a dangerous assumption, considering the vast amount of knowledge we have at our disposal on the subject of serial crime, as against the detectives of 1888, who had none.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Then perhaps you could try resist downplaying other peoples "Favoured" suspects and offer yours into the frame instead.

Which suspect(s) have I downplayed?

It was C4 who "downplayed" one of Abby's preferred candidates, and I disagreed with the reasoning behind that downplayal (new word), although I now suspect that her own choice of suspect - "Lord Posh" - might have something to do with it.

[curious4]

Hi C4



Where is the evidence that he took the trip to "find work", successfully or otherwise? And if he had neither money nor a "late ticket", why did he walk 13 miles in the small hours of cold, miserable morning to a lodging house that he knew full well would deny him entry?



So why no mention of this seemingly innocent explanation in his statement? And why did he completely abandon that plan at 3.00am, preferring "walking about all night" to popping back every ten minutes or so to check if Kelly was alone?


No.

Hutchinson's own statement informs us that he supposedly had "no suspicion" that Astrakhan man might be the murderer, and if he was "concerned for her welfare", how would he have assuaged that concern by standing on the other side of the street, rendering himself utterly useless in the event of the client getting slashy?


Hutchinson didn't know any of that, though.

What he might have discovered, had he read the papers covering the Eddowes inquest, was that Lawende's full description had been deliberately withheld at the behest of the City solicitor; thereby inviting the possibility of Lewis's sighting receiving similar treatment. He would have also have been mindful of the reality - oddly lost on a few regulars to Hutchinson discussions - that a failure on Lewis's part to describe a person adequately does not render her incapable of recognising that person again.



Yes, as known serial killers have done over the decades since 1888.



That would be a dangerous assumption, considering the vast amount of knowledge we have at our disposal on the subject of serial crime, as against the detectives of 1888, who had none.

All the best,
Ben

Hello Ben

I will try to answer your points one by one.

You don't think the police would have checked Hutchinson's statement then? I do. And, after not finding the work he had hoped for, what else was there left for him to do but return to London where he lived and hope to find some work there. Thirteen miles was no distance to walk for a Victorian - they were great walkers.

I stand by what I said about hoping to get shelter with Mary, although it is speculation. She was known to be a kind-hearted woman. We don't know that he didn't mention this to the police, not having all the information available at the time, but I believe the old East End rule of telling the police no more than you had to would apply here.

As you say, it was a cold, miserable morning, and having heard nothing to think Kelly was in trouble, walking the streets would have been a way to keep warm for the rest of the night, sleeping in a doorway not being an option as it was against the law to sleep outside at night.

Astrachan man looked out of place, but having heard or seen nothing else suspicious I don't think Hutch would seriously suspect him of being the Ripper - he didn't exactly look the part - people were expecting a raving lunatic. Having waited for a while and heard nothing he would not suspect anything was wrong.

Umm... If Hutchinson didn't know about Lewis' statement, your argument that he only came forward because of it falls rather flat.

Serial killers being involved in the investigations, yes, but I don't believe many have put themselves in the frame, by which I mean putting themselves at risk of becoming a suspect.

I do have to take you up on the implication that we know better than the police who were there on the spot at the time. These were not stupid men and in many ways worked as police do these days - knocking doors and local knowledge. Not a great fan of profiling myself, you hear about successes but nothing about failures. No killer is exactly like another and despite our "vast amount of knowledge" the Yorkshire Ripper was only caught by chance. I believe we make a grave mistake when we happily assume that the police got it wrong because it doesn't fit into our own theories.

I do apologise if I have seemed to downplay anyone's suspect. I disagreed and gave my reasons, which I thought was the norm on this site.

Best wishes
C4