Jack The Ripper solved?

[Fisherman]

Tom_Wescott: I consider Hutch much more suspicious than Cross.

Because he was found alone, standing by one of the victims?

Because he was actually proven to have used a faulty name?

Because he had a working route that took him past most murder sites?

Because he had earlier connections to the area where Stride and Eddowes were killed?

Because his family was in the cat´s meat business?

Because he seemingly lied his way past the police?

Or is it something else? Just mildly curious why a fellow like you choose to look away from all these indicators in favour of ... exactly what?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

The most forced detail in Hutch's testimony, to my mind, isn't the description of the man, it's the addition of the red handkerchief. That's in the story for only one of two reasons:

1) It really happened.

2) Hutch knew for a fact there was a red handkerchief in Kelly's pocket, knew police would find it, and would believe both his story AND that man befitting the handkerchief had been with Kelly.

In short, IF Hutch made up his story, he did not make up a detail such as the handkerchief without knowledge of its existence. So, how did he know it existed and where did Kelly get it from?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom
Very interesting point. I had always assumed that hutch used it in his story because the last man seen with the last murder victim was described as wearing one and he just added it to his amalgamation of detail about his uber villain A-man---you know, knife sized parcel, curled up mutache, jewish appearance, surly looking stare.

It also seems odd that someone giving a description of the event would remember the color of a hankercheif. "ah yes, he gave her a red hankercheif, i distinctly remember it was a red one. yes a red one. Im sure of it now. a very red hankerchif it was that he gave her." i smell the Bs from 125 years later.

Of course the other idea that he knew she had it is interesting. Perhaps he had given it to her in lew of money that night and used it to bolster his A-man story or perhaps if he was the killer he left it in her room and used it also to shift its ownership away from him.

However, my opinion is that he probably never saw her that night and the red hankercheif inclusion was just an addition to Hutch's build-a-monster kit.

so i guess my most likely scenario is your least likely scenario but any are possible.

but when i look at the whole hutch scenario and add in his further claims of "i think he lives in the area, i think i saw him again, i was out looking for him,etc." it seems to me these are just to persuade police to use him to help find the man and perhaps earn a little cash and notoriety.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
The in Lew of money idea is quite likely, but not for sex,most likely for a place to doss out until the Victoria home opened at 6am.
Silk handkerchiefs were quite a commodity in 1888, and he may have pawned it with Kelly, until he could buy it back for a fixed sum, lets' not forget his statement to the police'' I spent my money going down to Romford .
So now we have to explain the panic on his part?
Regards Richard.

[Abby Normal]

Yes, and that´s borne out by the fact that Dew stated that he would not reflect upon Hutchinson´s honesty, just as it is fortified by the fact that the papers reported on how the Hutchinson trail was followed up on even after his story had been revealed to be of less interest than what was originally the case.

The police never said a word about any dishonesty on behalf of Hutchinson. Not one single word. The term attention seeker was never offered by the police on behalf of Hutch. All the descriptions we have of him, courtesy of the police, are either favourable or neutral descriptions. Not one single phrase is negative.

His story did not pan out, we can see that. But such a thing can owe to a number of reasons, attention seeking being only one of them. An honest mistake is another viable explanation, and - oddly - an explanation that sits a lot better with Dew´s comments and the articles revealing that the police followed up on the Hutchinson lead after they had realized that it was not all it seemed to be.

The attention seeker suggestion does not fit with these known facts. So if we want to favour it, we must quite simply look away from the facts, and settle for claiming conjecture as being - the way you consistently do - "almost certainly" true.
And then you can move on to raving on about how people like me really ought not annoy you, and claim that you certainly try to avoid Hutchinson discussions, in the same breath assuring us that you will argue your case til the cows come home just the same.

It holds up very poorly, and the sooner you realise that, the better.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish
But why would Dew even feel the need to say that he would not reflect on hutch's honesty? If the subject of honesty had never come up-why bring it up now?I think it is because that at sometime the question of Hutch's honesty did come up with the police, which would explain why Dew felt the need to bring it up and say it like he did.

[Tecs]

Dear all,

Hey this is really weird, I'm having an almost Damascene moment.

I've always thought that Hutch was a straightforward, honest bloke. I was impressed that Abberline sat with him, looked him in the eye and decided that he was telling the truth. Also, that he voluntarily put himself in the frame when he didn't have to.

But now I'm thinking, "Hold on.." A series of murders take place, then Hutch is spotted outside the murder site and they suddenly stop. He gives a statement to the Police which has some possible discrepancies and then that murder appears to be the last one. Could there be something there?

But on the other hand,

1. Presumably the Police checked his alibi and found it to be okay.

2. I'm still not keen on grabbing anybody who appears in the story and turning them into a potential Ripper.

3. As there is some reason to believe Mary wasn't even part of the series, even if he did kill Mary, that doesn't mean he was Jack the Ripper does it?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!

regards,

in lieu of all this I'm off to bed!

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tecs. There's no reason to believe Mary isn't part of the series any more than there is any of the other women.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

For the record, of the three 'convictions' I listed in my previous post, I consider the first one to be the least likely. Sorry, Wick. It was a great idea and you've presented it with vigor, but for the life of me I can't see how you managed to convince yourself by it.

Tom, finding a consensus is not the issue.
Please feel free to itemize all the evidence that indicates someone else.

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom, finding a consensus is not the issue.
Please feel free to itemize all the evidence that indicates someone else.

I've reconsidered and think yours is the most likely of the three.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

It's a shame Hutch wasn't described as having an American accent, since there was an American madman on the loose named George Hutchinson who studied animal anatomy while in a mental hospital and then escaped.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

You may as well propose that as a theory Tom, it can't be worse than all the other modern speculations.

I'll stick with the Abberline version.

[Tom_Wescott]

You may as well propose that as a theory Tom, it can't be worse than all the other modern speculations.

I'll stick with the Abberline version.

No thanks. I've got much better than that to work with.

So what's up with Isaacs? Do you think he killed anybody?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

So what's up with Isaacs? Do you think he killed anybody?

Isaacs was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, he didn't kill anybody.

[Tom_Wescott]

Isaacs was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, he didn't kill anybody.

Then who was the Ripper?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Beowulf]

I see the Title of this column, "Jack the Ripper, solved". I come here immediately!

Last post I see says, "Then who was the Ripper?"

Sorta struck me as funny, ya know

[Ben]

Then again, repetition is called for...

No, Fisherman.

Repetition is not called for.

And nor will it avail you here as a debating technique against me. If you repeat, I will counter-repeat, and since my capacity for endless, boring repetition is greater than yours, I'd seriously question the wisdom of picking the fights of yesteryear with me now. There is not a single Hutchinson debate that you've started which I haven't finished, so what makes you think this one will be any different?

Now, why you would take the time and effort to post this

There was no time and effort expended in posting that, Fisherman. I simply know where to find stuff when people pick Hutchinson fights with me out of nowhere.

You say that Hutchinson himself was discredited and looked upon as a timewaster or attention-seeker by the police. But you have no evidence to back that up. I say that HIS STORY was what was discredited - and that such a thing need not reflect poorly on the man himself.

And I say that is quite clearly not the case. You can't dislocate a discredited account from its author like that. It makes no sense. It's like saying Jack the Ripper is innocent but his knife is guilty. Besides which, we know the reason for Hutchinson's discrediting - it was inextricably linked to the issue of his honesty and credibility, or rather his perceived lack thereof. That much is abundantly clear from the Echo report. If he was treated as a poor, date-confusing ninny, the article would have said so, and Astrakhan would have remained a viable suspect, but neither of those things happened.

Of course, you tediously and totally predictably bring up the fact that I have pointed out that there are mistakes in Dew´s book.

You went further than that, actually.

You told me not to listen to Dew's book because he was "a bit of a freshman" who "got lots of things terribly wrong" and whose book was "riddled with mistakes".

And I heeded that sage advice.

But then just a week or two later, Dew was the good guy again and the cornerstone of your brand new (to you) theory.

They instead clearly indicated that it needed to be awared a REDUCED interest, instead of no interest at all

Indeed, but that's because the police only suspected Hutchinson's account of being bogus. They couldn't prove it so.

But next time over, you really need to find one single example of somebody, press or police, telling us that Hutchinson was regarded as an unreliable man.

I've proven conclusively that the police came to doubt Hutchinson's credibility and divulged as much to trusted members of the press, and I'm prepared to repeat this for as long as the erroneous claims to the contrary keep coming. We'll just have to see who prioritizes battling Ben at any cost over keeping on topic and not pissing off and alienating the majority of Casebookers, I guess.

Just try to appreciate, at least, that the number of people who believe Hutchinson was a liar and publicity-seeker utterly dwarf the number of people who share your "honestly mistaken" hypothesis.

And no, there is nothing suspicious about Cross discovering the body. It was inevitable that Nichols would be found by an early worker, and Cross happened to be one of those, rendering his behaviour entirely unsuspicious. He used his stepfather's name, which only the Cross supporters find suspicious. Having a work route that took him past the murder district is only suspicious if we had any reason to think Jack killed on his way to work, or if we had known examples of serial killers dispatching and dumping victims en route to work. But alas we don't, in either case. A connection to the cat's meat business is also deeply tenuous, and not a prerequisite if Jack had very little anatomical knowledge (hey, who fancies having that debate again?!) And "lied past the police"? Again, only those who have pre-decided Cross's guilt are convinced he did lie to the police.