Jack The Ripper solved?

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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!

[Abby Normal]

Yes, and thatīs borne out by the fact that Dew stated that he would not reflect upon Hutchinsonīs 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 Dewīs 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.

[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]

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.

[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 catīs 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

[Fisherman]

Well, Ben, I think you are right when you say that much of this stuff is repetition.
Then again, repetition is called for when somebody persists to conjure up things that were never in existance.

But why donīt I show you exactly what I mean by using your very own quotations and highlightings!

Hereīs the exact passage, quoted from your own post:

"Hutchinson was discredited very shortly after his first appearance at Commercial Street police station – a few days, tops – and the reason for this is very simple: the police ultimately doubted his credibility. This is proven by a known communication that existed between the police and the Echo newspaper, which puts the matter beyond rational doubt.

“From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before? As many as fifty-three persons have, in all, made statements as to "suspicious men," each of whom was thought to be Mary Janet Kelly's assassin. The most remarkable thing in regard to the latest statement is, that no one else can be found to say that a man of that description given was seen with the deceased, while, of course, there is the direct testimony of the witnesses at the inquest, that the person seen with the deceased at midnight was of quite a different appearance.”

This newspaper, which made direct enquiries at Commercial Street police station, also reported the very next day that Hutchinson's evidence had been:

"considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest in a more offical manner"

Now, why you would take the time and effort to post this if your wish was to counter what I posted, is something that is rather dificult to understand. For the last decade or so, on these boards, I have never stated that a reduced importance was NOT attached to Hutchinsons statement, courtesy of investigations made. Have I?
On, the contrary, I have always said that this was the exact case: they investigated the matter, and then they decided that a recuced importance needed to be awarded his story.

We agree, therefore, on this bit. What we donīt agree on, is what caused the reduced importance.
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.
Interestingly, this is EXACTLY what Dew coroborates by saying the exact same thing - he would NOT reflect poorly on Hutchinson. Of course, you tediously and totally predictably bring up the fact that I have pointed out that there are mistakes in Dewīs book. That, however, does not make ME the better and more reliable source on matters 1888, does it? Nope, Dew was there, and he is therefore a better source than I am - and a very much better source than you.
Those of us who are open to nuances will also realize that the paper you quote never said that Hutchinsons story was dismissed as being wrong. They instead clearly indicated that it needed to be awared a REDUCED interest, instead of no interest at all - the latter of course being the case with false stories.

So itīs all there, once we can read it from a non-Hutchinsonological angle. But that you canīt, not for the life of you. So you try to trumph Dew (major joke!) with what little and faulty knowledge you have, and you disregard the crystal clear pointer the paper makes about parts of the value of Hutchinsons story still being there.

And how does that work for you? Not very well, Iīm afraid.

So keep on quoting, Ben, by all means. 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. Or a liar. Or an attention-seeker. So far, you are the only source for these rather remarkable accusations against a man about whom not a contemporary source had anything negative to say.

All the best, and good luck with your quest,
Fisherman

[Ben]

I'm surprised Hutch isn't assessed from other perspectives and not just Ripper/Not Ripper.

Me too, Tom.

Which is why I was genuinely interested and persuaded by your thoughts on the handkerchief, and was enjoying discussing something entirely new to me until Fisherman and Jon turned up and, in my view, spoilt it. Their arrival signaled the burial of new ideas and the descent into yet another generic, repetitive "Did Hutchinson lie?" thread, which I then feel obliged to respond to with an equal amount of repetition. I can see how that might alienate people, so apologies for that.

As you made it perfectly clear that you were exploring a a particular scenario that might have occurred IF Hutchinson lied, there shouldn't be any need for others to start a "liar or not" fight.

All the best,
Ben

[Tom_Wescott]

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.

As for the other two, I consider Hutch much more suspicious than Cross, but I don't feel it any more likely that Hutch was a lone serial killer than Cross was. But he's far more likely to be associated either with the murderer or someone close to the murderer than Cross. In other words, I don't look at the evidence as black/white, or Ripper/Not Ripper. I'm surprised Hutch isn't assessed from other perspectives and not just Ripper/Not Ripper.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Ben,

I largely agree with the points you've made, but I must say it's difficult for the rest of us to enjoy a discussion on Kelly or Hutch when the primary posters are:

1) Someone convinced that Astrakhan Man was Isaacs.
2) Someone convinced the Ripper was Charles Cross.
3) Someone convinced the Ripper was Hutchinson.

All discussions are fueled from these perspectives and will naturally result in much disagreement. This creates a lose/lose situation for the rest of us, because anything we post is bound to offend one of the three parties, leaving us to explain ourselves and/or defend a statement that we really don't see a necessity to defend.

But I'm not casting stones. I imagine it's no walk in the park for someone to post in a Stride thread when I'm active. Just pointing out why I'm so seldom looking at Kelly/Hutch threads. They're just accessible for 90% of us.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ben]

Ah, but here things get tedious.

The moment a brand new avenue of interest is explored – in this case in the form of Tom’s interesting thoughts on the handkerchief – the thread becomes instantly polluted with the arrival of the usual suspects repeating the same old nonsense and the same personal attacks. Oh well, a rousing and repetitive Hutchinson debate we find ourselves in then. You’ll forgive me if I end up copy and pasting chunks from previous debates. I’m afraid I don’t have the time to deal with all this nonsense again using different words, especially when the last ones worked perfectly well.

Hutchinson was discredited very shortly after his first appearance at Commercial Street police station – a few days, tops – and the reason for this is very simple: the police ultimately doubted his credibility. This is proven by a known communication that existed between the police and the Echo newspaper, which puts the matter beyond rational doubt.

“From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before? As many as fifty-three persons have, in all, made statements as to "suspicious men," each of whom was thought to be Mary Janet Kelly's assassin. The most remarkable thing in regard to the latest statement is, that no one else can be found to say that a man of that description given was seen with the deceased, while, of course, there is the direct testimony of the witnesses at the inquest, that the person seen with the deceased at midnight was of quite a different appearance.”

This newspaper, which made direct enquiries at Commercial Street police station, also reported the very next day that Hutchinson's evidence had been:

"considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest in a more offical manner"

Should the usuals respond with “Oh, but this is only a press report”, or otherwise claim that the Echo journalists were lying about their communication with the police, I look forward explaining in detail, for the trillionth time, why this was not the case. Alternatively, they can avoid wasting their own time by boning up a bit more on the evidence, as well as reading through some of the 11,000 posts in the Hutchinson forum. A keyword search for Echo will assist matters, I’m sure. These are clear and unambiguous reports. They tell us that Hutchinson's statement had been "discounted", and they tell us why the AUTHORITIES discounted it. Contrary to Jon's utterly false claim, they were not "speculating". They didn't need to. They didn't "assume" that "something was amiss with the witness". They were informed by the police that something was.

This perfectly explains his swift disappearance from the press, as well as his conspicuous absence from any senior police interview, report or memoir that surfaced in the years after the murders. This means we can dispense with any of the other far-fetched explanations occasionally touted for his sudden disappearance from the record.

The Dew Spew, for instance – which argues for Hutchinson being “honestly mistaken” - was wholly contradicted by the known, proven reason for his discrediting (i.e. doubts about his credibility and late, post-inquest presentation of his evidence). Moreover, it was purely Dew’s own speculations, written in 1938, and definitely not based on official police opinion at the time. These speculations have been known about for many decades since the publication of “I Caught Crippen”, and yet no-one sought to revive his stance on Hutchinson as the likely one until Fisherman piped up in an article a few years ago, and evidently convinced himself he was presenting something brand new! Ironically, he wrote the article just a month or two after cautioning me not to listen to Dew whose book, he told me, got things “terribly wrong”, and was “riddled with mistakes”.

Then there is the marginally less bad but still wrong theory that Hutchinson’s evidence got a “back seat” because the police preferred other witnesses, like Caroline Maxwell. Besides being provably wrong, there is no logic whatsoever in completely dismissing one witness in favour of another. Even if they did like Maxwell better and went, accordingly, with a time of death later in the morning, it hardly exonerates Astrakhan from suspicion – that is, if they still thought Astrakhan was real (and apparently they didn’t). We can also dispense with the oft-repeated and very sill idea that the police dismissed any evidence that did not accord with Bond’s suggested time of death. According to at least one report, it was the opinion of the police that the evidence from the inquest was sufficient to infer a later time of death than that proffered by Dr. Bond. In other words, they didn’t go with Bond’s suggested time of death, which, contrary to Jon’s erroneous claim, was not supported by Phillips either.

And no, there is absolutely no evidence at all that the police were still hunting Astrakhan man a week after Hutchinson gave his statement.

Finally, if we’re really stuck in the dark ages of “ripperology”, we can do a Wickerman and claim that Abberline’s initial “opinion that his statement is true”, offered before any investigation of Hutchinson’s claims could realistically have occurred, represents the final word on the matter. This involves sticking one's head in the sand and ignoring everything that happened afterwards, as well as perpetuating the fallacy that one is always capable of judging from body language whether someone is lying or not. David Canter pisses on that bonfire, thankfully. In a recent documentary entitled “Crocodile Tears”, which explored cases of killers “helping the investigation” by going on organized search parties with police and giving tearful interviews to camera, Canter said it was nonsense to argue that body language and presentation can tell a liar from a honest person. The best way to ascertain this, he argues, is by listening to what they actually say – the content rather than the presentation, in other words. Since we have this at our disposal, we’re at no disadvantage when compared to Abberline.

“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.”

I’m not sure who nicked the jam out of your doughnut, Fisherman, but you ought you chill out a bit. I never said a bad word to you on this thread (or any word at all for that matter!), and already you accuse me of “raving on” at you. You’re a fine one to chastise me for “arguing my case til the cows come home”. Have you not noticed the criticism you’ve received – extensive and frequent criticism - for trying to turn every thread into a Cross-the-ripper discussion?

Yes, I do try to avoid Hutchinson discussions – at least those that are repetitive and cover age-old ground, but they happen anyway. I had only to breathe a word about top-hats (before encouraging a swift return to topic) and we’re suddenly in a full-blown Hutchinson/discredited debate that’ll probably continue for a many more pages. I predicted that, 100%. There are two possible reasons for this, (a) I’m so gorgeously provocative and interesting and people like following me around, or (b) there is plenty of mileage left in Hutchinson as a person of interest. I’ve never started a Hutchinson thread in my life, but if I were to do so, I’d generate a huge amount of posts. Whereas if you tried the same thing with Cross, you’d get none of that, except perhaps another plea to stop. I'm sure that's no reflection on you, either.

[Ben]

- To start with, you already know that the descriptions of these two men differ. Whereas it is in Hutchinson's interests to make sure they are the same.
Also the man Hutchinson saw came from a different direction.
It is quite apparent that Hutchinson is describing a different man.

I appreciate that the above was addressed to Tom, but I just have to wonder what on earth you're on about here. Tom correctly observed that there were other "well-dressed" men alleged to have been seen out and about on the night of the Kelly murder, and that Hutchinson might have got his inspiration from one of these stories. I agreed, and pointed out one such account (a patently bogus one) of a "respectably dressed" man seen with Kelly, which was suspiciously similar to Hutchinson's narrative.

No further detail was provided on the "respectably dressed" man's appearance, so we simply can't know if it "differed" from Astrakhan's, and nor can we say in which "direction" the first man was originally headed.

This would be visible as the stranger walked towards Hutchinson as he passed under the lamp.

No, it wouldn't.

It would be completely concealed by two overcoats. If you think it was the fashion to wear hankies in topcoat pockets, you'll need to research Victorian men's fashion properly and thus be disabused of that idea.

And no, Jon...

Joseph Isaacs is not just a shockingly bad candidate for Astrakhan man, he's literally impossible.

He was in prison at the time of the murder, giving him an alibi.

He was a homeless thief at the time, making it next to impossible that he could have procured even faux accessories and Astrakhan clothing.

The police released him as absolved of all suspicion, which they would not have done if they thought he was Astrakhan man. The latter couldn't possibly provide an alibi given his alleged presence in the room at 3.00am, and so couldn't possibly be absolved of all suspicion, and yet Isaacs was. Please just think about it...

No evidence that he wore a moustache (big whoop if he did, so did most men).

No evidence that he wore an Astrakhan coat.

Speculating that he may have been untruthful is only natural, we can never be as sure as Abberline. Though equally, we are not able to cast judgement on Hutchinson based on our assumption that he may have lied about something. First such accusations need to be established.

So we have to prove our speculations correct before we can speculate?

Like Fagin, I think you'd better think it out again...