Favoured Suspects

[barnflatwyngarde]

As I have stated elsewhere on these boards, I do not believe that Mary Jane Kelly left her room after her assignation with "blotchy".
She was drunk, it was raining and she finally had a client.
Why would she venture out again?

She was behind on her rent, but she had been behind with her rent on several occasions and showed no great desire to seriously try and reduce these arrears.
So why should it be any different this time?

The police initially believed Hutchinson and his tale of "astrakhan man", but this changed and it is clear that his evidence was dismissed.

As Abby has already said, broad shouldered "blotchy" was probably a local non-entity, who took the privacy of Millers Court to act out his extreme fantasies.

[curious4]

As I have stated elsewhere on these boards, I do not believe that Mary Jane Kelly left her room after her assignation with "blotchy".
She was drunk, it was raining and she finally had a client.
Why would she venture out again?

She was behind on her rent, but she had been behind with her rent on several occasions and showed no great desire to seriously try and reduce these arrears.
So why should it be any different this time?

The police initially believed Hutchinson and his tale of "astrakhan man", but this changed and it is clear that his evidence was dismissed.

As Abby has already said, broad shouldered "blotchy" was probably a local non-entity, who took the privacy of Millers Court to act out his extreme fantasies.

Hello Barnflatwyngard

Do you have a reference for the police subsequently disbelieving Hutchinson?

Best wishes
C4

[barnflatwyngarde]

Hello Barnflatwyngard

Do you have a reference for the police subsequently disbelieving Hutchinson?

Best wishes
C4

Hi Curious, I attach below an earlier post i made re Hutchinson.

Abberline did initially gave some credence to Hutchinson's statement.

However what strikes me as strange is that after giving an astonishingly detailed description of the possible murderer, Hutchinson simply vanishes from the case, and presumably from any police interest in his description and ergo his version of events.

In the 2 interviews Abberline gave to The Pall Mall Gazette in March 1903, he seems to be leaning towards Klosowski/Chapman as the possible murderer.
It is telling that he makes no reference to Hutchinson.

It is also noticeable that Abberline does not say that he bases his suspicions of Klosowski/Chapman on the fact that he matches the description given by Hutchinson.

I also remember reading a press report that Hutchinson was being chaperoned around town by 2 police officers as he tried to spot the individual he claims he saw with Kelly.

I also recall an article in an American (I think) newspaper that said that police were now discounting Hutchinson's story on the basis that he was using it to cadge a few days of the high life at the expense of the police.
I apologise for not being able to give you firm references for this point.

[curious4]

Hi Curious, I attach below an earlier post i made re Hutchinson.

Abberline did initially gave some credence to Hutchinson's statement.

However what strikes me as strange is that after giving an astonishingly detailed description of the possible murderer, Hutchinson simply vanishes from the case, and presumably from any police interest in his description and ergo his version of events.

In the 2 interviews Abberline gave to The Pall Mall Gazette in March 1903, he seems to be leaning towards Klosowski/Chapman as the possible murderer.
It is telling that he makes no reference to Hutchinson.

It is also noticeable that Abberline does not say that he bases his suspicions of Klosowski/Chapman on the fact that he matches the description given by Hutchinson.

I also remember reading a press report that Hutchinson was being chaperoned around town by 2 police officers as he tried to spot the individual he claims he saw with Kelly.

I also recall an article in an American (I think) newspaper that said that police were now discounting Hutchinson's story on the basis that he was using it to cadge a few days of the high life at the expense of the police.
I apologise for not being able to give you firm references for this point.

Hello Barnflatwyngard

Thank you ��. I know that at some point they gave up looking for Hutch's man, but that doesn't quite mean they stopped believing him.

In 1903 things may have looked different. If there was a cover-up this would explain it. And cover ups do happen. For one example see the Kray brothers and Lord Boothby. And other scandals are being tidied up. We now read that Christine Keeler was Profumo's lover, not a call girl.

Cover-up is just one theory, I do have others but will not bore you with them.

Best wishes
C4

[Ben]

Hi C4,

I'll ask again: where is the evidence that Hutchinson's alleged trip to Romford was an unsuccessful mission to secure work? We can speculate that it might have been if he was telling the truth, but there is absolutely nothing on paper to suggest it was.

I've noticed several other "factoids" creeping in here; "she was known to be a kind-hearted woman" (kinder than the average women in Kelly's circumstances, whatever that is?); "people were expecting a raving lunatic" (not the people who were impressed by Phillips' evidence that the perpetrator had surgical skill); the idea that there was some sort of "old East End rule" that prohibited its denizens from telling the police "more than you had to"; the idea that working class people were (are?) more likely than middle or upper class people to approach the police after "consulting with friends"....none of which has any evidential basis.

No, I am not remotely suggesting that the police didn't "check" his account; I'm saying that without the aid of CCTV or a crystal ball, their "checking" powers were severely limited. Also, Abberline submitted his report on his interrogation of Hutchinson - in which he signalled his initial approval - before the results of any "checking" could possibly have been established.

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.

At 2.00am, straight away?

You think that after failing to find work in Romford, he walked 13 miles in the cold and rain in the hope that he would find some in the very place he departed from, and would be good to go immediately?

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.

So the plan was to walk all the way back from Romford with the full intention of doing yet more walking - for what was left of the night - when he arrived "home". Talk to anyone who has ever been homeless, and they will quickly repudiate the idea that walking about exposed to the cold and wet will keep you "warm". If Hutchinson was the irregularly employed casual dosser he claimed to be, he would have put every effort into rectifying his homeless predicament as soon as possible, and that would reasonably have involved escaping from the elements and seeking shelter in a secluded doorway somewhere - the legality of it be damned.

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.

Yes, but your previous suggestion was that he was "concerned for her welfare"; what was he achieving by plonking himself on the other side of the street? How would he have been acting on that "concern"? Was he hoping to be a useful ear-witness in the event that Kelly was murdered?

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

Ummm...that's not what I said.

I wrote that Hutchinson may have registered the fact that Lewis was due to appear as a witness, and assumed the worst.

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.

Then I would strongly encourage you to read more extensively on the subject, and you'll find some. Killers "putting themselves in the frame" is not remotely uncommon, and yes, in many cases they do "become suspects" as a result. If this behaviour was as rare as you make out, the authorities would not have successfully predict that certain offenders would do precisely that. Considering that you favour an aristocratic ripper, I'm not all surprised that you reject "profiling"; however, this has nothing to with "profiling" and everything to do with hard facts garnered from other serial cases.

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.

Except I didn't imply any such thing.

I stated quite clearly that we know considerably more than the 1888 police did on the subject of serial murder; that's no reflection on their investigative abilities, and certainly doesn't make them stupid. They just happened to have belonged to a comparatively unenlightened era on that particular subject.

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.

Well, unless the ripper was Kosminki, Druitt and Klosowski (amongst others), I will continue to assume the police "got it wrong" on certain issues, owing to their fallibility...and "happily" at that.

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

I thought the "norm" was to debate suspect theories on their own forum, whereas my understanding was that this thread was intended for participants to list their "favourites", but I may have misunderstood the arrangement.

Regards,
Ben

[curious4]

Hi C4,

I'll ask again: where is the evidence that Hutchinson's alleged trip to Romford was an unsuccessful mission to secure work? We can speculate that it might have been if he was telling the truth, but there is absolutely nothing on paper to suggest it was.

I've noticed several other "factoids" creeping in here; "she was known to be a kind-hearted woman" (kinder than the average women in Kelly's circumstances, whatever that is?); "people were expecting a raving lunatic" (not the people who were impressed by Phillips' evidence that the perpetrator had surgical skill); the idea that there was some sort of "old East End rule" that prohibited its denizens from telling the police "more than you had to"; the idea that working class people were (are?) more likely than middle or upper class people to approach the police after "consulting with friends"....none of which has any evidential basis.

No, I am not remotely suggesting that the police didn't "check" his account; I'm saying that without the aid of CCTV or a crystal ball, their "checking" powers were severely limited. Also, Abberline submitted his report on his interrogation of Hutchinson - in which he signalled his initial approval - before the results of any "checking" could possibly have been established.



At 2.00am, straight away?

You think that after failing to find work in Romford, he walked 13 miles in the cold and rain in the hope that he would find some in the very place he departed from, and would be good to go immediately?


So the plan was to walk all the way back from Romford with the full intention of doing yet more walking - for what was left of the night - when he arrived "home". Talk to anyone who has ever been homeless, and they will quickly repudiate the idea that walking about exposed to the cold and wet will keep you "warm". If Hutchinson was the irregularly employed casual dosser he claimed to be, he would have put every effort into rectifying his homeless predicament as soon as possible, and that would reasonably have involved escaping from the elements and seeking shelter in a secluded doorway somewhere - the legality of it be damned.



Yes, but your previous suggestion was that he was "concerned for her welfare"; what was he achieving by plonking himself on the other side of the street? How would he have been acting on that "concern"? Was he hoping to be a useful ear-witness in the event that Kelly was murdered?



Ummm...that's not what I said.

I wrote that Hutchinson may have registered the fact that Lewis was due to appear as a witness, and assumed the worst.



Then I would strongly encourage you to read more extensively on the subject, and you'll find some. Killers "putting themselves in the frame" is not remotely uncommon, and yes, in many cases they do "become suspects" as a result. If this behaviour was as rare as you make out, the authorities would not have successfully predict that certain offenders would do precisely that. Considering that you favour an aristocratic ripper, I'm not all surprised that you reject "profiling"; however, this has nothing to with "profiling" and everything to do with hard facts garnered from other serial cases.



Except I didn't imply any such thing.

I stated quite clearly that we know considerably more than the 1888 police did on the subject of serial murder; that's no reflection on their investigative abilities, and certainly doesn't make them stupid. They just happened to have belonged to a comparatively unenlightened era on that particular subject.



Well, unless the ripper was Kosminki, Druitt and Klosowski (amongst others), I will continue to assume the police "got it wrong" on certain issues, owing to their fallibility...and "happily" at that.



I thought the "norm" was to debate suspect theories on their own forum, whereas my understanding was that this thread was intended for participants to list their "favourites", but I may have misunderstood the arrangement.

Regards,
Ben

Hello Ben

The police accepted Hutchinson' s story, no doubt after checking with someone who had seen him there. A telegram to the nearest police station in Romford would do this, a local officer would be able to check this.

Kelly would allow prostitutes to stay in her room - something her lover could not accept. Kindness.
If casual work was available at the markets he would need to be there early, not 2 am but probably from 4 onwards.
As for your other objections, neither you or I can be sure that even with modern techniques the police would have been more succesful.
This has turned into a Hutchinson thread, so unless you want to go through all the arguments pro and con Hutchinson on a new thread i will draw a line under this. Not sure I want to do this though, it has already been chewed over many times.

Best wishes
C4

[Abby Normal]

Hi Curious, I attach below an earlier post i made re Hutchinson.

Abberline did initially gave some credence to Hutchinson's statement.

However what strikes me as strange is that after giving an astonishingly detailed description of the possible murderer, Hutchinson simply vanishes from the case, and presumably from any police interest in his description and ergo his version of events.

In the 2 interviews Abberline gave to The Pall Mall Gazette in March 1903, he seems to be leaning towards Klosowski/Chapman as the possible murderer.
It is telling that he makes no reference to Hutchinson.

It is also noticeable that Abberline does not say that he bases his suspicions of Klosowski/Chapman on the fact that he matches the description given by Hutchinson.

I also remember reading a press report that Hutchinson was being chaperoned around town by 2 police officers as he tried to spot the individual he claims he saw with Kelly.

I also recall an article in an American (I think) newspaper that said that police were now discounting Hutchinson's story on the basis that he was using it to cadge a few days of the high life at the expense of the police.
I apologise for not being able to give you firm references for this point.

absolutely this.

Hutch should have been by far the most important witness in this case. He claims to have gotten a great and detailed description of the man, heard him speak, said he thought he saw him before/again, thinks he lives in the area and unhesitantly says he would recognize him. On top of this he knew mary Kelly and where she lived. he went out with cops looking for the man.

and yet this best witness drops like a stone from the investigation, apparently isn't even the witness used in the Koz ID, and Abberline when giving his thoughts on his suspect chapman, never mentions Hutch again??

[gnote]

absolutely this.

Hutch should have been by far the most important witness in this case. He claims to have gotten a great and detailed description of the man, heard him speak, said he thought he saw him before/again, thinks he lives in the area and unhesitantly says he would recognize him. On top of this he knew mary Kelly and where she lived. he went out with cops looking for the man.

and yet this best witness drops like a stone from the investigation, apparently isn't even the witness used in the Koz ID, and Abberline when giving his thoughts on his suspect chapman, never mentions Hutch again??

Possibly the police initially believed his story but then later started to feel he was another Pearly Poll.

[MsWeatherwax]

One of the many problems with witness statements in this case is that we are talking about a group of people who are extremely poor, and either destitute or one minor personal crisis away from destitution. Who could blame someone in that situation for saying that they'd seen a murder victim just before she died, or that they'd seen a suspicious character loitering near the place that she was found? If your story gets you a couple of drinks or a few pennies or whatever little bonus it might hold, then to these people it was probably worth telling.

[Abby Normal]

Possibly the police initially believed his story but then later started to feel he was another Pearly Poll.

exactly

[Pcdunn]

Favorite suspects? Hmmm...

Who are peoples favoured suspects and why?

I always liked Druitt, but then I seem rather traditional, having started reading books in the 1980s and '90s. He's on the short list of the police authorities (along with Kos,of course), and they should be the ones to know more about the deaths.

Tumblety is a fascinating character, and the American papers loved writing about him, good or bad. he had plenty of problems and personality flaws, but I'm not sure he was a murdering type.

James Kelly's story is so bizarre, you've got to wonder if there is something to it. Why confess to all of these murders if he was innocent? (Besides the being crazy explanation, of course, which does weigh against his story...)

The Danish man named "Frank" who seems likely to be the real killer of Carrie "Old Shakespeare" Brown, may be worth following in the U.S. (if he didn't end up in South America), and I am trying to investigate the 1890s murders of prostitutes in Denver, CO. One account of a witness seeing someone put bloodied clothing into an outhouse is interesting, but I need to see if it is reported more than once.

[Mayerling]

To me the leading fascinating figures are Druitt, D'Onston Stephenson, and Doc Tumblety. It's not a matter of whether or not they are the Ripper - their personalities intrigue me. And (in Montie's case) his demons. Aside from them, being a criminal historian, it is those killers like Chapman, Cream, Deeming, Bury, and Mary Pearcey who attract my attention -for their own crimes though).

Jeff

[GUT]

To me the leading fascinating figures are Druitt, D'Onston Stephenson, and Doc Tumblety. It's not a matter of whether or not they are the Ripper - their personalities intrigue me. And (in Montie's case) his demons. Aside from them, being a criminal historian, it is those killers like Chapman, Cream, Deeming, Bury, and Mary Pearcey who attract my attention -for their own crimes though).

Jeff

I must agree, I am fascinated by Druitt (my family knew his, certainly in Australia and with near certainty in England) and I was told when I was just a Nipper that people in our family knew "who dun it", so that fascination is probably understandable.

I find Deeming almost irresistible as a study in being a right Royal B.

And Doc, a real character.

We're any of them Jack? I doubt it, but at least two of them are, in my opinion as good a suspect as most thrown around here.

[wigngown]

I've always held the belief that Hutchinson gave a detailed description for no other reason than to remove himself from suspicion. Hutchinson was a fantasist, but not a murderer.

[Ben]

The police accepted Hutchinson' s story, no doubt after checking with someone who had seen him there. A telegram to the nearest police station in Romford would do this, a local officer would be able to check this.

Very unlikely, C4.

I can't imagine the police would have spent money and resources trying to confirm one minor aspect of his story. Let's assume they sent the following telegram:

"Send officer Joe Bloggs & Sons High St Romford STOP check if Geo Hutchinson sought work there Thurs 8th inst STOP"

Lets further assume they miraculously received confirmation from Romford in time for Abberline to write his report on Hutchinson. What exactly would this achieved in terms of verifying his actual story, which centred around events not in Romford but in Spitalfields in the early morning of the 9th? Absolutely nothing.

If "casual work was available at the markets" from 4.00am onwards, it would tend to make a nonsense of his decision to visit Romford (where there were also markets) at all, let alone return from it in the small hours. He told the press that he "walked about all night" after abandoning his Dorset Street vigil; he didn't say anything about looking for work at the markets.

But you're right, it's getting rather Hutch-heavy over here, so I agree it's probably best to draw a veil over this topic for now.

All the best,
Ben