Jack The Ripper solved?

[Wickerman]

Hi Caz
I agree. I just have trouble beleiving one would be out and about at that TIME in the district.

Why wouldn't a local resident, part-time confidence trickster, and small-time thief be out and about at that time?
Whitechapel High St. was busy all night long, otherwise those kerb-side stall holders would be wasting their time.

[pinkmoon]

I think it's all a matter of degrees. Ben is arguing against the likelihood of the upper classes mingling with the great unwashed of Whitechapel on the meanest streets in the wee small hours, and therefore against the likelihood of the ripper coming from the upper classes to ply his gory trade there, dressed up to the nines.

But the thing is, I don't think anyone would seriously argue with that. What most people seem to be pointing out is the fact that Whitechapel was most certainly not out of bounds to all sorts of educated, reasonably well off, respectably dressed, middle class professionals and businessmen, some in the habit of wearing top hats, all more than capable of dressing down if they didn't want to attract negative attention.

The artist, actor and illustrator Weedon Grossmith wasn't an upper class toff exactly, but he was 'posh' and upper middle class, took great pride in his appearance, frequented the West End clubs and so on, yet he and his wife, and their upper middle class friends and associates, were happy to put on plays at the Pavilion Theatre, close to Buck's Row, and even Sir Henry Irving attended a first night there in the 1890s.

To read many of Ben's posts, you'd think anyone fool enough to do this would be lucky to emerge alive from the experience.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi caz,my dad was born in Shoreditch 50 years after the ripper murders and he has always stated that he and his family and friends would avoid going into whitechapel at all costs.What we have to remember what ever class our killer was from he was armed with a knife and quite prepared to use it.

[Lechmere]

An area can change a lot in 50 years - Brixton as middle class in the early 1950s.
I doubt that top hats were that rare.

[Wickerman]

Hello Caz.

I think it's all a matter of degrees. Ben is arguing against the likelihood of the upper classes mingling with the great unwashed of Whitechapel on the meanest streets in the wee small hours, and therefore against the likelihood of the ripper coming from the upper classes to ply his gory trade there, dressed up to the nines.

But the thing is, I don't think anyone would seriously argue with that.

No-one should, except perhaps those who still cling to some version of a Royal Conspiracy.

What most people seem to be pointing out is the fact that Whitechapel was most certainly not out of bounds to all sorts of educated, reasonably well off, respectably dressed, middle class professionals and businessmen, some in the habit of wearing top hats, all more than capable of dressing down if they didn't want to attract negative attention.

Even after contemporary sources, quotes, personal experiences, and the like have been provided, Ben just refuses to accept the fact. Though his intent is plain to see, Ben continues to try stamp out any mention of a suspect of respectable appearance for fear the man seen by Hutchinson is given, in Ben's view, undue credit.
The reality is considerably different.

[Wickerman]

Hi caz,my dad was born in Shoreditch 50 years after the ripper murders and he has always stated that he and his family and friends would avoid going into whitechapel at all costs.

And most hard working, peace loving working class people who want no trouble said the same thing, but this issue is not concerning the families of the area, it concerns the number of men who wore the top hat while walking through the area. Though what this actually has to do with the real killer is the stuff of fiction.

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

I chimed in originally because there seemed to be a suggestion that the odd top hat on the streets of the 1888 East End somehow justifies the iconic image of Jack the Ripper as a "toff" in a top hat and cape, as featured on far too many paperbacks and DVD cases. I'm simply pointing out that it does nothing of the sort; that (a) there are no reliable descriptions from police witnesses that remotely implicate a man of that appearance, and (b) the number of well-dressed top-hatted man in the East End were utterly dwarfed in terms of numbers by the vast majority group, which consisted of men in ordinary work clothes. I don't see the problem with simply acknowledging that a top-hatted "toff", despite being recognized by serious researchers as total nonsense, is a more "interesting" solution to the Jack the Ripper mystery and is probably more visually striking to stick on the front covers of books to aid in sales etc.

As I've already mentioned, the Pavilion Theatre was not the exclusive reserve of Hooray Henrys swanning in from the West End. It catered primarily for local east-enders, with specific attention paid to the theatrical tastes of the very largely represented (and otherwise persecuted) Jewish community.

A flashy East End type would have had no trouble togging himself up from the ol' clo' stalls in the Jews' Market (as Petticoat Lane was also known), and adding cheap but gaudy accessories.

He could have done, yes, but why would he?

Was his inner compulsion to dress as flashily as possible really so strong that he thought it worth the huge risks attached to doing so at that time and place, when there was practically nobody around to appreciate or marvel at his sartorial splendour?

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Even after contemporary sources, quotes, personal experiences, and the like have been provided, Ben just refuses to accept the fact. Though his intent is plain to see, Ben continues to try stamp out any mention of a suspect of respectable appearance for fear the man seen by Hutchinson is given, in Ben's view, undue credit.

Fear? Well, sometimes people do scare me with the extent of their nonsense, yes, but being misrepresented is just annoying, really, rather than terrifying. I've neither said nor thought that respectably-dressed or middle class people never ventured into Whitechapel. I've said it's exceptionally unlikely that they'd saunter the streets in expensive-looking clothes and accessories during the small hours. I've also observed that the occasional top hat in Whitechapel is not an excuse for depicting the ripper as having worn one.

[Tom_Wescott]

A well-dressed man was spotted around Millers Court prior to Hutchinson coming forward. That's in the papers. This could have been what informed Hutch's story. You don't go forward with a fake story without at least trying to make it appear legitimate. And how do you do that? You read the papers.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ben]

Absolutely, Tom.

There was a great deal of press nonsense that circulated around the 10th November, which Hutchinson could have "borrowed" from, most notably this from the Daily News:

There are conflicting statements as to when the woman was last seen alive, but that upon which most reliance appears to be placed is that of a young woman, an associate of the deceased, who states that at about half past 10 o'clock on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset street. Kelly informed her that she had no money, and it was then she said that if she could not get any she would never go out any more, but would do away with herself. Soon after they parted, and a man who is described as respectably dressed came up and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money. The man accompanied the woman to her lodgings, which are on the second floor, the little boy being sent to a neighbour's house.

In addition to the striking similarity with Hutchinson's account (which he gave two days later), it is potentially significant that "murdered woman Kelly" is a verbatim quote from Hutchinson.

All the best,
Ben

[Tom_Wescott]

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

[Ben]

Hi Tom,

My initial thought about the red handkerchief detail was that Hutchinson was attempting to establish a false connection with Lawende's red neckerchief man from Church Passage, and thus lend gravitas to his own "red" herring, but your option 2) makes considerable sense and interests me a lot. It could well have been that Hutchinson knew that a red rag would be found in the room (his own?), and conjured up an "innocent" explanation that accounted for its presence there.

All the best,
Ben

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom,

My initial thought about the red handkerchief detail was that Hutchinson was attempting to establish a false connection with Lawende's red neckerchief man from Church Passage, and thus lend gravitas to his own "red" herring, but your option 2) makes considerable sense and interests me a lot. It could well have been that Hutchinson knew that a red rag would be found in the room (his own?), and conjured up an "innocent" explanation that accounted for its presence there.

All the best,
Ben

IF Hutch was telling a lie, the red handkerchief must have been in Kelly's possession. Or at least Hutch thought it was. If he wanted his suspect to look like Lawende's, he would have described him as such. He wouldn't turn a scarf or neckerchief into a handkerchief.

While I'm not nearly as convinced as you are that Hutch was lying, I most definitely entertain that possibility. If he was lying, there can only be so many motives to do so:

1) He was attempting to protect himself because he feared he'd be identified, although his presence in Millers Court was innocent.

2) Ditto, except his presence wasn't innocent. He was the killer.

3) Ditto, except he was the accomplice.

4) He was paid or compelled to offer his story to protect someone else who was the killer.

5) He was an attention/money seeker.

Personally, I'm inclined to strike number 5 from the list immediately. Only an absolute fool would potentially implicate themselves in the off chance they might make a little scratch. It's not like people of Hutch's class had a lot of faith in authority.

#1 has also never made a lot of sense to me, although it's the one most often suggested. If his fear was being identified as the man hanging out in Miller's Court, then why the hell would he present himself as that man and offer a fake story?

No, it's either 2, 3, 4, or the whole story was true.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ben]

It's very difficult to find fault with your above logic, Tom, and for the reasons you mention I'm just as surprised as you are that options #1 and #5 are as popular - or, perhaps more accurately, not unpopular - as they seem to be as suggested explanations for Hutchinson's behaviour. The other three do indeed work more convincingly, although I'd argue that the least likely explanation of all is that he told the squeaky-clean truth.

Interestingly, though unsurprisingly (and, in my view, wrongly), the police ultimately favoured option #5.

Cheers,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Interestingly, though unsurprisingly (and, in my view, wrongly), the police ultimately favoured option #5.

Cheers,
Ben

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

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
Some great recent posts.
The only reasons Hutchinson would incorporate the handkerchief into his tale, would be an attempt to spice up his story , and make it more convincing, or to give a good reason for that item to be found in Kelly's room.
I used to believe that the Handkerchief belonged to Hutchinson, and Mr A was a invention of himself, and that scenario still is possible.
If G H owned a distinctive red handkerchief, and was a dapper sort, that used to always display one, and he left it in Kelly's room, he may have become paranoid that it could lead to someone putting two and two together, especially if he was known to have been a friend of the dead woman, and had no alibi for the night in question.
He may have been seen with Kelly that morning, and again became paranoid that the Handkerchief might lead to questions being asked , and his missing hankie might become relevant, and lead to him becoming a suspect.
All this is pure speculation[ what's new?]
We know that Topping [ if G H] was the type that may have been that Dapper Dan type, his love of music halls, and his dress attire , which included a cane, may give a suggestion that a silk handkerchief would not have been alien to his personality .
But we are left with the obvious question.
If Hutchinson was in Mary's room around 2,30am , was it in a capacity to doss down until his lodging became available , or was it in for murderous reasons.?
I would suggest it was the former.
The whole crux of the matter is If Hutchinson lied to the police because of being afraid, because he could hardly admit to being in room 13 until around 6am, when medical reports suggest MJK was dead, then it would suggest quite firmly that Mary Kelly met her end much later, and that the morning sightings are believable ..
We obviously must not lose sight of the possibility that Mr A did exist , and our George was ''Honest George''.
Regards Richard.