Jack The Ripper solved?

[caz]

Hi All,

It's not very likely that a red hanky was found in Kelly's room. Think about it. Hutch shows up three days later and claims his 'last man in' gave Kelly a red hanky of all things - and Abberline and co end up letting him and his account go, concluding he was just another clown who wanted a piece of the action? I don't think so. Hutch and that red hanky would have been wrung out thoroughly, to get to the bottom of how he knew she had been given one, if they had decided that his suspect either didn't exist, or wasn't in the room when Hutch said he was.

No, if that red hanky existed, it could have been given to Kelly just as Hutch claimed and then retrieved at some point, be the man customer or killer. Otherwise it was a red herring introduced by Hutch to add even more colour to his story. That wouldn't necessarily make the bones of the story untrue, nor would it make Hutch himself look particularly suspicious. It would have rung alarm bells, however, if there had been such an item in the room. His knowledge of it would have required an explanation one way or another.

Love,

Caz
X

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
All sketches involving Mary Kelly have her in jacket/coat and hat/bonnet , which is precisely what Prater saw her in at 9,pm 8th .
Yet Mrs Cox describes her differently at 1145 pm when seeing him with Blotchy.
One wonders as the description of A man is shown to be accurate in at least one sketch , one asks would the description of Mary Kelly, seen with him apparently in Commercial street, be a true reflection of the clothing she was wearing?
Did the artist draw from Hutchinson's visual reflections..
If so, it would surely leave Mrs Cox'x version in some doubt, as we have again different clothing seen , but interestingly the same as Prater's version.
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

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

Oh, I dunno Jon. That photofit at the bottom there looks just like him...

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=20113

[Lechmere]

Ben
I only just noticed your post 98, in which you dismiss the data collected by Booth’s team for the area, and dismiss Abberline’s opinions and the opinions of other contemporary sources. I suppose this goes alongside your refusal to take on board the rules and restrictions governing entrance to the Victoria Home in pursuit of your suspect.

But want I wanted to address was this:
I suggested that the image put up by Stewart Evans (post 55) was based on Hutchinson’s A-man and that the man lurking at the bottom of the court was probably representative of Hutchinson. I actually suggested it was probably an impressionistic image and was a composite of several statements. You replied...

Almost certainly not.
Firstly, Hutchinson's statement had been discredited several days prior to the publication of the Penny Illustrated Paper image in question, and secondly, the individual depicted bears no resemblance to the Astrakhan man as described by Hutchinson. No Astrakhan collar or cuffs, no black parcel, and completely the wrong type of hat.

And suggested the image was purely based on Mrs Paumier's account.

I would suggest in the image there is a hint perhaps of an edge to the collar.
While not having a parcel he has a bag.
Mrs Paumier didn’t see her man in Miller’s Court or even Dorset Street, but on the corner of Sandy’s Row and Widegate Street which is several hundred yards away.

But more importantly you say that Hutchinson’s statement was discredited several days before publication of the Penny Illustrated article (17th November 1888) as if to imply that this ‘discrediting’ was universally known about or accepted by the gentlemen of the press...

Hutchinson’s account was covered in the East London Advertiser of 17th November 1888. This is not an isolated report.
The Illustrated Police News included their famous depiction of the Hutchinson sighting on their cover of 24th November 1888. At the bottom right are ‘Before’ and ‘After’ sketches.

‘Before’ is the A-man going into Kelly’s lodgings. ‘After’ shows her desecrated body on the bed.
The Illustrated Police News used their Hutchinson inspired A-an image as a comparison to Deeming on 16th April 1892.

This image of Hutchinson, Kelly and the A-man was include in ‘Famous Crimes Past and Present’ by Harold Furniss from 1904.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Fisherman sums it up perfectly.
''The interesting thing about Hutchinson is that he was interviewed by the police and the press, and he was interrogated, his story was shown to be much lesser value that was originally thought, and then not a living soul commented on, or criticized him, until modern Ripperologists took a shot at him''.
My view entirely.
The word 'interrogated' was used to describe Hutchinson's interview, and it is safe to assume that he was grilled .
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Regarding Hutchinson's alibi, it is unlikely that he was ever asked for one as he was apparently never grilled as a suspect.
Ben

Come on, Ben - you know as well as I do that Abberline stated that he himself had interrogated the man. And much as that does not necessarily mean that he was regarded as a suspect, it certainly means that he WAS grilled. And that grilling will have encompassed all possibilities included, so Abberline may very well briefly have cast Hutch in the suspect´s role too, for all we know. So nothing is apparent here - at least not to discerning researchers.
What SHOULD be apparent, though, is that a process that makes itself worthy of the term interrogation will have involved some serious questioning, and - just like the papers reported - Hutch withstood this remarkably well, and chiseled out a role as a truthful man in Abberline´s mind.
If he had - later in the process - been revealed as a liar, then a man like Walter Dew, Britain´s foremost detective and in the know of arguably more criminal matters than any other person of his age, plus very probably rubbing shoulders with the top men at the Met, would quite probably have known this. That being the case, he would not paint a picture of a very honest man, beyond reproach, in his memoirs.

The interesting thing about Hutchinson is that he was interviewed by the press and the police, he was interrogated, his story was shown to be of much lesser value than what was originally thought - and then not a living soul commented on or criticized him until modern Ripperologists (who never met the man and who never knew how he was assessed back then and why) took a shot at him.

If he had been a villainous liar and exposed as such by the police, and if that police had the knowledge that he was certainly in place in Miller´s court that night, what do we have?
A baldfaced liar and a crook outside a Ripper victims room, that´s what we have. A morally unreliable man. A man that skilfully hid all that from the detective top dog throughout a serious interrogation, to top things off.

And the police would not have followed up on him, when they found out that they had been conned? They would just leave him be? And Britains most well-known detective would celebrate his memory in his memoirs?

You know, somehow I find this thinking a tad frivolous.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
What it all boils down too is ..If George H was telling porkies, then Kelly either met her death from Cox's man, an intruder, George Hutchinson, or from someone she met after Maxwell's sighting, or from someone who was in her room when she returned.
There is no other alternative.
If G H was telling the absolute truth, then the alternatives are.
Mr A was the killer
G H was the killer, moving in after the man left.
An intruder, when nobody was in the room except Mary
Or the morning alternatives.
There are other possibilities .
Mrs Cox was lying about encountering Blotchy.
Did she see Kelly at all ? [around midnight].
Was Hutchinson the only person that Kelly saw that morning, either on the streets , or at her door, or in her room.
We are left with any of the above scenarios, or a a mixture, to fathom over.
Something happened that night/morning for Mary to have met her death, and the only puzzle is What...?
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

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?

There is only one debate, Ben - and it´s sadly still unfinished. It should have been finished years ago, though.

I simply know where to find stuff when people pick Hutchinson fights with me out of nowhere.

Well, that would depend - you still have not managed to find any example of the police telling us that Hutchinson was a time-waster or a liar. Nor will you do so in the future. Meaning that I remain on terra firma when saying that what little there is, in terms of assessments of Hutchinson´s honesty, both from the time before and the time after his story was graded down importancewise, is all in favour of him being an honest man.

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.

That´s interesting. I cannot "dislocate" a discredited account from it´s author?

When did I "dislocate" it, Ben? I am very certain that the account is tied to George Hutchinson. It always has been and it always will be.
Ah - wait a minute! Now I see what you mean: I cannot state that an honest man can produce an account that later on suffers a diminished importance, is that it? An account that is discredited automatically carries with it a discrediting of the author, is that what you mean?

Then why don´t you say so? Did you think the "dislocating" thing would do the trick?

Anyways, it is not rocket science to realize that when somebody tells a story in good faith, only to later have it discovered that this somebody was mistaken, then only one of the two items, author and story, will be discredited. And that item is the story.

I feel pretty certain that you yourself have gotten the day wrong at some remove in time, misinforming somebody. Correct me if I´m wrong. And I bet that somebody has you down as an attentionseeker and a liar nowadays. I mean, we cannot dislocate such a thing from you, can we?

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 ...

But if he was perceived as a liar, the article would NOT say so, and Dew would cover up for him fifty years later. And not a single policeman would disclose it in their memoirs, and not a single paper would bring it up, the way Violenia was thrown to the wolves. It would be - how do you say? - dislocated from the story.

But for Dew, that is.

But we can´t trust him, since I´ve said that he got things wrong.

And if I´ve said so, it´s bound to be correct, since you think I am always correct, right?

...and Astrakhan would have remained a viable suspect, but neither of those things happened.

Eh - please tell me how Astrakhan man would have stayed a suspect if the police found out that Hutch was out on the days?

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

And they would still follow up on it, since they only suspected it to be wrong, but could not be sure?

I've proven conclusively ...

No you have not. Proof is not easily come by. You have proven yourself asinine, that´s all.

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.

What end would that serve? Why would I be interested in numbers like that? That´s your way of doing things, not mine. I rely on my own convictions, and when they fit the evidence better, it becomes a matter of flies and ****.

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.

Nobody says that it is the finding of the body that is suspicious. Other parameters are, though.

He used his stepfather's name, which only the Cross supporters find suspicious.

Flies and **** again? How do you know all this? How do you know how many people find it unsuspicious that he changed his name ON THAT OCCASION AND THAT OCCASION ONLY, as far as we can tell?

Answer: You don´t.

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 ...

Yes. True. And the reason we have to think this lies in the fact that the victims were killed at the times he went to work. Wow- ROCKET science!!!

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?!)

Yeah. So finding out that Kosminski was tied to the butcher business or that Druitt worked extra as a surgeon would not be looked upon with any interest at all? Try Cinderella next time!
Besides, even if he did not need any surgical or butchering knowledge at all, it still stands that being exposed to it could have been what sparked the interest from the outset. "I wonder, if a donkey looks like that on the inside - would a woman be the same?", sort of.
Surely you can follow that train of thought? Yes?
And, not that these experts can challenge you, but nevertheless, contemporary and modern theorists alike have stated that they DO believe the killer must have had this knowledge.

So it´s still under debate. Unless you have proven your point about this conclusively too already? You seem to have presented other proof before, while the rest of us looked away, so I guess you may have decided this one too.

or that TumAnd "lied past the police"? Again, only those who have pre-decided Cross's guilt are convinced he did lie to the police.

Wow - a grain of truth, at last! Yes, only those who have predecided Lechmere as guilty are convinced he lied about this. Which is why I say that I very strongly suspect that he did, but I admit that it is not proven.

That´s how I do it - I would never say that I´ve proven something that I have not proven. That would be a detestable, unworthy lie, so I avoid it.

All the best, Ben!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hello Tecs, and welcome.

Regarding Hutchinson's alibi, it is unlikely that he was ever asked for one as he was apparently never grilled as a suspect. However, it may be significant that he had an essentially non-existent alibi for the generally accepted time of the murder - after 3.00 but before 4.00. He was, according to his press account, "walking about" the streets at that time, which could be neither verified nor contradicted. He had, in essence, a potentially convenient NON-alibi for Kelly's murder, despite apparently having loitered outside her home (and watched it) shortly before that murder happened.

All the best,
Ben

[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.

[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

[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

[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]

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]

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.