Jack The Ripper solved?

[Ben]

It's truly astonishing that a very brief mention of the misplaced iconic image of Jack in a top hat and cape should have given rise to a lengthy repetitive Hutchinson debate, with Isaacs and chums making an unwarranted appearance...

Hi Caz,

I very much doubt Hutch would have mentioned a red hanky at all if he was the killer and A Man didn't exist. He'd have known if he'd left a red hanky of his own at the scene or not.

No, not necessarily. He might have misplaced it temporarily and wrongly assumed he'd left it in the room, thus accounting for his need to vindicate its presence there when found. It would hardly have been a comfort to him that "nobody was asking about it". The fact it wasn't published in the press that a red handkerchief was found - and its owner accordingly sought - wouldn't have provided any measure of security to the killer if he owned it and thought he left it there, unless he was silly and deluded enough to believe that no mention in the press meant no interest at all on the part of the police. So yes, there is a compelling and logical argument for Hutchinson incorporating the hanky detail into his story if he was the killer and believed he'd left it by accident in the room.

And if he didn't leave one at the scene, why claim Kelly was given something, knowing the police wouldn't find it? It would only serve to cast doubt on his account.

Why?

An absent hanky need only indicate - for Hutchinson-believers - that Astrakhan man reclaimed it before he left.

or a witness flowering things up - as witnesses often tend to do.

There's "flowering things up" and there's inventing entire episodes involving objects that never existed. I don't know of too many examples of mere exaggerating witnesses doing the latter.

If your argument is that nobody dressed like A Man would have been seen dead near Miller's Court, it would be like Hutch describing a woolly mammoth offering Kelly a red hanky, knowing Lawende had described a Jack Russell terrier sporting a red collar.

No, it wouldn't be much like that at all.

It would be far more like Hutchinson, being conscious of the need to make his fictional diversionary suspect very striking (in order to justify his fascination with the couple, and his subsequent loitering behaviour), was also aware that previous witnesses described a man of a very different appearance (and if Hutchinson himself was the killer, they were obviously describing him). In both scenarios - killer or mere attention-seeker - there was an obvious incentive to establish some sort of common ground that united his bogus, ostentatiously dressed individual with the genuine sightings of the ordinarily-dressed presumed ripper. The red rag would have done the trick in that regard.

If nobody was asking about it, why mention it and make it imperative that they believe in his A Man, or face some very awkward questions?

Again, he was in absolutely no position to know whether or not the police were asking about it. If Hutchinson was guilty, it was already "imperative" in his mind that they believe his account. A bogus explanation of how the hanky made it into the room (if he mistakenly believed he'd left it there) would only have increased the likelihood of the police believing it.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Was Packer "automatically a principle suspect" in Stride's case?

Was Packer the last man to see Stride alive?

Was Violenia "automatically a principle suspect" in Chapman's cases.

Poor choice Ben, Violenia fingered Pizer, not some unknown male that they couldn't find.

If you are going to look for comparison's please try to be thorough.

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

I really wouldn't bother with the Isaacs stuff if I were you. He was in prison at the time, and for this reason and others mentioned, he couldn't possibly have been Astrakhan man.

that the prisoner's appearance answered the description as published - ie down to the coat trimmed with astrakhan. It's a meaningless observation otherwise.

Hutchinson's discredited suspect had other physical attributes besides an Astrakhan coat. He was described as being an early 30s Jew (or someone with a Jewish appearance) with a surly countenance and a moustache. Isaacs could have matched any or all of these criteria without actually owning, or even being seen in, an Astrakhan coat. It was simply the stand-out feature from Hutchinson's description that the press latched onto. We do much the same today, which is why we all call him "Astrakhan Man" or "Mr. Astrakhan" for ease of immediate recognition. Many bad suspects have been alleged to resemble "Astrakhan man", but not because any one of them were seen or photographed in such a coat.

He was a thief. Why would he not have begged, borrowed or stolen the means to rig himself out with a cheap, second-hand astrakhan collar to attach to his second-hand coat - if he could not stretch to a ready trimmed coat?

I'd be fascinated to know who went around detaching Astrakhan collars and cuffs from coats to sell on the cheap at Petticoat Market. Doesn't sound fabulously likely to me. Collars and cuffs of the Astrakhan variety tended to adhere pretty obstinately to their original coats, and they were extremely expensive, even if procured second-hand, which was difficult. A homeless thief dressing himself up convincingly a man of means was therefore not quite the doddle that some people seem to imagine it to be, and if we're to credit Hutchinson with at least some degree of local street-savviness, it'd doubtful he'd have fallen for such an obvious pretense at wealth.

But that's twisting Jon's quote to make it say what you need it to say.

They're not Jon's words to twist.

They originated from the press, but no matter.

Just see my opening paragraph. It has been observed in the past that Klosowski resembled "Astrakhan" - with some people citing the same dark hair and moustache, foreign appearance and shortish stature, but not any evidence that they wore the same coat, because there isn't any. However, that does not prevent them from using "Astrakhan" for quick and easy reference, just as the press did in 1888.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere,

The very fact that the Echo story (about Hutchinson being discounted very early on) was far from being universally accepted by the press should tell us that this account should be treated with caution.

It was far from being universally known about that Hutchinson was discredited. That's the only difference. Not all newspapers shared the same "privileges" that the Echo apparently enjoyed in terms of access to accurate information direct from police sources.

it means that the A-man was not so out of place as you suggest

I'm talking about the alleged presence of opulently-dressed people walking the worst streets in London in the small hours. I don't care what they did or how they dressed at home. They were irrefutably and catastrophically out of place there and at that time. I think you probably have misunderstood Booth's map if you think it indicates an "affluent" Whitechapel. Don't be fooled by all that red lining Whitechapel High Street - it referred to people like Mrs Ringer of the Britannia, not exactly a Lady in Waiting.

Hi Jon,

Packer and Violenia were both discredited despite claiming to have witnessed events at a time critical to a ripper-attributed murder, which means they compare beautifully to Hutchinson, who received similar treatment from the police.

And finally, Fisherman:

Well, that didn´t do you any favours, did it, Ben?

I'm really not looking for any "favours", and I'm quite sure that everyone else is skimming and yawning their way through our posts, well aware that it consists of the "same stuff" they've seen countless times before. But repetition breeds counter repetition, why is why starting an argy-bargy Hutchinson altercation with me is such a bad idea.

But yes, please feel free to have a jolly good chuckle over an error I made in haste. You'll be shocked to hear that I already knew that "cats meat" was made for cats, rather than of them, and that the moggies could expect bologneighs. It was late, and I was wading - probably rather crossly and impatiently - through nonsense.

Actually, I find the prioritizing of the last word over the better one kind of cute - my kids were into that a lot when they were small.

Can't imagine who they might have picked that up from!

[Fisherman]

please feel free to have a jolly good chuckle over an error I made in haste. You'll be shocked to hear that I already knew that "cats meat" was made for cats, rather than of them, and that the moggies could expect bologneighs. It was late, and I was wading - probably rather crossly and impatiently - through nonsense.

Of course you knew, Ben. You know so very much about things - much more than other posters.

You can even prove things other posters can´t prove. That alone says it all!

So of course you knew about the cat´s meat too. Of course!

Fisherman
keeping the faith

[Lechmere]

Ben knows that the Echo was privy to special police info that was kept from the rest of the press - but shared with the Penny Illustrated apparently - but he doesn't know that Booth produced two maps and the one without the Red lines also had a table with percentages in poverty per district.
Again if the A-man was catastrophically out of place I would have expected Abberline to have sussed it out immediately. Perhaps Abberline was cross and impatient after spending a day wading through nausiating nonsense at the inquest?

[Fisherman]

I think the suggestion goes more along the lines that Abberline was so overjoyed by the possibility to finally get a break that he forgot everyting else for some hours. Then he interrogated Hutchinson, but he was still feeling this schock of adrenalin that incapacitated him in his duties. Which is why he forgot that it was so dark that Hutchinson must have lied, and which is why he did not realize that astrakhan-collared coats were only on the East End streets between 8 am and 5 pm in November.

So he probably was not cross and impatient at all - it was the other way around. He laughed and danced and forgot about all the annoying little things and duties connected to his work.

Having settled down afterwards and having given things some deep thought, he suddenly realized that he was all wrong about Hutchinson. It had been obvious all the time that the man had been a liar, but he had been to relieved and overjoyed to see that.

That´s how it went down.

Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
What this all boils down to is who one believes George Hutchinson was, if one has no face to the name, one can portray him as almost anything, as there is no knowledge of personality, or morals.
I happen to be one of the few posters that are very much in The Topping camp, the reason being is I believe the tale told by Reg Hutchinson, and that is backed up Reg's youngest brother.
If I had not heard the radio broadcast in the 1970's, and had read the passage in The Ripper and the Royal's for the first time[like everyone but me] I would most likely be very unlikely to accept it at face value.
But I would say that everyone on Casebook, would have a more sympathetic opinion, if they had prior knowledge of this tale many years previous to the book.
It surely puts pay to anyone who suggests. that it was invented to give a boost to the sales of that publication.
Sorry to be so repetitive but when ever the subject crops up, I find myself trying to convert the masses of Ripper land.
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

Of course you knew, Ben. You know so very much about things - much more than other posters.

You can even prove things other posters can´t prove. That alone says it all!

So of course you knew about the cat´s meat too. Of course!

Fisherman
keeping the faith

Nonsense Fisherman.

I know much more than Ben.

Besides, how do we know we're not talking about the legendary cannabilistic cats of Stepney? Ah! You hadn't thought of that, had you?

[Fisherman]

Nonsense Fisherman.

I know much more than Ben.

Besides, how do we know we're not talking about the legendary cannabilistic cats of Stepney? Ah! You hadn't thought of that, had you?

Really? More than Ben?
Can there be such a thing as extended omnipotence? Wouldn´t that border on what some people call religion?

As for the cannibalistic cats of Stepney, I am not familiar with them. I do know, however, that many mammals can become cannibalistic when under pressure, cats being one such example. And human beings are much the same! I´ll give you two examples:

1. That plane crash in the Andes, when a Chilean football team started munching away on their dead comrades.

2. You, gnawing away at Ben, as per the above - and he isn´t even dead yet!

Actually, there was once another cannibal called Fish, believe it or not. But don´t have him mistaken for me - I´m the nice guy around here.

Fisherman

[Sally]

As for the cannibalistic cats of Stepney, I am not familiar with them.

Not familiar with the Cannibalistic Cats of Stepney? A pity. I’m sure that they knew more about the Whitechapel Horror than anybody at the time realised. Teeth and claws, you know?

I do know, however, that many mammals can become cannibalistic when under pressure, cats being one such example. And human beings are much the same!

Yes, you know,I’ve noticed that myself. Let’s take Hutchinson, for example – since you seem ever happy to bring him up all over the place – I’ve noticed how there are some posters who, on seeing any mention at all of Hutchinson on the boards (and even without such mention on occasion) immediately leap in, all guns blazing!

Perhaps they are themselves under pressure, and this explains it?

As for gnawing… well, I have biscuits, so I don’t really feel the need. I worry about you though.

Actually, there was once another cannibal called Fish, believe it or not. But don´t have him mistaken for me - I´m the nice guy around here.

Whatever you say, Fish.

[Fisherman]

Let’s take Hutchinson, for example – since you seem ever happy to bring him up all over the place – I’ve noticed how there are some posters who, on seeing any mention at all of Hutchinson on the boards (and even without such mention on occasion) immediately leap in, all guns blazing!

Perhaps they are themselves under pressure, and this explains it?

Since you speak of posters - plural - I cannot really myself voice everybody´s opinions. I can only speak for myself, and I am under no pressure at all.

I just dislike having lofty conjecture passed off as "near certainties", that´s all. That´s why I repeatedly remark on that when it crops up. I don´t want other/new posters to be elft with an unchallenged impression of something that I believe to be rather preposterously wrong.

So, Sally, maybe you should turn your TLC to other posters, who are not at ease the way I am?

Fisherman

[Monty]

Since you speak of posters - plural - I cannot really myself voice everybody´s opinions. I can only speak for myself, and I am under no pressure at all.

I just dislike having lofty conjecture passed off as "near certainties", that´s all. That´s why I repeatedly remark on that when it crops up. I don´t want other/new posters to be elft with an unchallenged impression of something that I believe to be rather preposterously wrong.

So, Sally, maybe you should turn your TLC to other posters, who are not at ease the way I am?

Fisherman

The irony

Monty

[Sally]

Indeed.

[Fisherman]

TWO words, Monty? My, we are chatty today, are we not?

Anyways, I try to a be a bit more discerning than our friend Ben (which is not all that hard). Plus I have the far better contender, so there´s a lot more learoom for confidence on my behalf.

Fisherman