Hi everyone,
In recent threads I've noticed an odd trend: the dismissal of George Hutchinson's identification of what has long been regarded by many students of the Autumn of Terror as the closest description on record of the Whitechapel Fiend (if that is indeed who he saw).
Simply put, why are so many only too eager to relegate Hutchinson's testimony to the realm of historical incorrectness and falsity? Afterall, there is a great deal to be said to argue in favor of the laborourer's description. George Hutchinson stated that he loitered about Dorset Street after Mary Jane disapeared and this is corroborated by Sarah Lewis (a neighbor) who stated she saw a man staring intently up Dorset Street around 2am. Inspector Abberline interviewed Hutchinson and came away from the interview with the opinion that the laborourer's statement was not a falsehood, deeming it 'important'. Surely if such a decorated, intelligent and experienced senior officer was of this opinion- the same senior officer who dismissed Mathew Packer's story- then we, too, should not be so eager to dismiss it.
Further, while there are indeed slight variations in the description given by GH of the man seen with Kelly when one compares the Home Office report and the report in the Star, the number of consistencies commands our attention- over forty. One could argue that GH's statement is too detailed but this supposition rests on the belief that no one is observant. Indeed many are not but George Hutchinson may well have been. This rings especially true when we consider the fact that he is believed to have harbored romantic feelings for Kelly and would subsequently have paid close attention to any man seen with Mary Jane- particularly one so lavishly clad.
And finally, it may be a stretch to add this but Sarah Rooney (some sources say Roney) was recorded as being approached by a man of near identical dress on the following morning; three unnamed girls reported a similar incident on the night of the murder; and, on the wednesday prior to Mary Jane's death, several sources reported a well-dressed man skulking around the cul-de-sac that is Dorset Street. It would be too grand a leap to suggest this was the same man in each case however it does demonstrate that the idea of the 'toff' Ripper described by Hutchinson wandering into the East end is by no means pie-in-the-sky.
Now I dont want to antagonize anyone (God knows I see enough in-fighting on the Everton websites lol) but I feel the dismissal of Hutchinson by many students has a subversive undertow. By ignoring GH they can better tend to their own pet theories- the Ripper was a fisherman, the Ripper was an uneductaed Eastender. George Hutchinson's description of Jack the Ripper (if that is who he saw) is the description of the iconic Ripper; the toff, the snob, the mythic Jack and this, in the minds of many a Whitechapel student is no longer welcome.
___________________________________
It was doctor Gull and you know it was!!!
In recent threads I've noticed an odd trend: the dismissal of George Hutchinson's identification of what has long been regarded by many students of the Autumn of Terror as the closest description on record of the Whitechapel Fiend (if that is indeed who he saw).
Simply put, why are so many only too eager to relegate Hutchinson's testimony to the realm of historical incorrectness and falsity? Afterall, there is a great deal to be said to argue in favor of the laborourer's description. George Hutchinson stated that he loitered about Dorset Street after Mary Jane disapeared and this is corroborated by Sarah Lewis (a neighbor) who stated she saw a man staring intently up Dorset Street around 2am. Inspector Abberline interviewed Hutchinson and came away from the interview with the opinion that the laborourer's statement was not a falsehood, deeming it 'important'. Surely if such a decorated, intelligent and experienced senior officer was of this opinion- the same senior officer who dismissed Mathew Packer's story- then we, too, should not be so eager to dismiss it.
Further, while there are indeed slight variations in the description given by GH of the man seen with Kelly when one compares the Home Office report and the report in the Star, the number of consistencies commands our attention- over forty. One could argue that GH's statement is too detailed but this supposition rests on the belief that no one is observant. Indeed many are not but George Hutchinson may well have been. This rings especially true when we consider the fact that he is believed to have harbored romantic feelings for Kelly and would subsequently have paid close attention to any man seen with Mary Jane- particularly one so lavishly clad.
And finally, it may be a stretch to add this but Sarah Rooney (some sources say Roney) was recorded as being approached by a man of near identical dress on the following morning; three unnamed girls reported a similar incident on the night of the murder; and, on the wednesday prior to Mary Jane's death, several sources reported a well-dressed man skulking around the cul-de-sac that is Dorset Street. It would be too grand a leap to suggest this was the same man in each case however it does demonstrate that the idea of the 'toff' Ripper described by Hutchinson wandering into the East end is by no means pie-in-the-sky.
Now I dont want to antagonize anyone (God knows I see enough in-fighting on the Everton websites lol) but I feel the dismissal of Hutchinson by many students has a subversive undertow. By ignoring GH they can better tend to their own pet theories- the Ripper was a fisherman, the Ripper was an uneductaed Eastender. George Hutchinson's description of Jack the Ripper (if that is who he saw) is the description of the iconic Ripper; the toff, the snob, the mythic Jack and this, in the minds of many a Whitechapel student is no longer welcome.
___________________________________
It was doctor Gull and you know it was!!!
Comment