The "Suspects": Current Opinion

[GUT]

1892, wasn't it? So, ballpark.

G'day Harry

Well Macnaghten wrote his memo in 94 nd that was put on the file and arose it appears in response to questions re Cutbush being the ripper it seems pretty clear the case was still open at that stage.

I'm almost certain that you will find that the case was never "Officially Closed" but after 50 or more years no one had any official interest for obvious reasons.

[Sally]

Three years prior to this Mary Kelly was possibly living in Pennington St. Breezers Hill.
There's a connection between Kelly's Landlord and Romford, I think he had stables there or something like that.
So here we have Hutchinson claiming to be a Groom, and with connection in Romford, and he knew Kelly when she was living as a prostitute under the roof of a man who had business interests in Romford.

Maywood was from Romford and lived in the area most of his life, aside from those few years in the 1880's when he lived in East London. He was a horse keeper and dealer and a criminal, involved in cases of petty violence, fraud and deception. Maywood continued to have East End connections and to bank in Whitechapel throughout his life.

I agree that it is interesting that Hutchinson was allegedly a groom who had known Kelly for 3 years - and who also that he had walked from Romford. If there was a connection with Maywood, I wouldn't rule out Hutchinson as a bit of a dodgy geezer. I'm not sure it would help to cast him in an innocent Mr Upright light.

Then again, walking from Romford wasn't particularly uncommon - Hutchinson may have done it [if he did it] for any number of reasons.

[Harry D]

"We had good reason to suspect a man who worked in Butchers’ Row, Aldgate. We watched him carefully. There was no doubt that this man was insane, and after a time his friends thought it advisable to have him removed to a private asylum. After he was removed, there were no more Ripper atrocities."

Jacob Levy was a butcher from the Aldgate district.

[sepiae]

I'm wondering, just how much time do you think was available for Hutch to gather this information, and from whom?...

Have you read Neal Shelden's research on Mary Kelly? ... But, that was three years ago, we have no reason to suspect Hutchinson knew where she was living in Nov. 1888. He might have, but we just don't know.

What shape was this 'package'?
Oblong, rectangular, round or flat?
Was it a book, a weapon, a musical instrument?

What do you want it to be?

Hi Wickerman,

slowly walking up the pencil's tip from two sides...

available time between inquest's end and H. statement:
that is an excellent point, and you're quite right, time would have been tight. Just how tight exactly depends on when the inquest ended. I wouldn't guess 5pm because, as you said, it's not mentioned anywhere - at least nowhere I'm aware of.
So yes, your point is a good one, but I wouldn't discount information gathered after it as motivation on these grounds. Without wanting to contrive - it is hard not to to some extent when speculating - but a shorter time in which to decide can lead to lesser thought-out decisions; my point about not necessarily expecting the smartest, most logical explanations. That's not to say that if one has something to hide or wants to alter a story it must mean 'he's the killer', not at all.
But I wouldn't demand hours between possibly learning something that might have made him nervous and walking into the station.
The point remains a very good one, though.

Shelden/might have or not known where she lived:
No, I haven't yet! I'm more behind than most of you guys. I certainly want to and will, as so little is known about her, most I got is from Chris Scott.
Might have or might not have known where exactly she lived - yes, fair enough. One can read 'knowing her for 3 years' in different ways. How often we claim to 'know' someone and mean we're on nodding a greeting-level. When saying he gave her money occasionally I would interpret this as not only referring to times long past. It is a little presumptuous, yes, but they did live in more or less the same 'hood', and if they really knew each other for 3 years...
Mainly his description of the man doesn't go with him believing it could have been the guy's place. These 2 points together. But yes, it's all a 'could'.

package:
It doesn't matter what I want it to be I want it to be a fish.
The point is, you're not describing such a person and take care in mentioning the thing in his hand without expecting, in these days, with the murders and the last murder in particular, the victim being the person you say you've seen with the bearer of the thing before her murder, you don't do that without expecting the people to hear that and think, 'uhm, blimey, what could that have been?' He had a small parcel in his hand with a kind of strap around it. As I said, no reason i the world to believe the killer would carry his knife that way - it was obviously a fish - but this is not how public thinking in such a situation works, neither now nor, I'm certain, back then. Pure context. Murder/knife - witness/suspicious man - suspicious man/small parcel: what is your bet what the public thought? they thought 'knife'. The point being here, and I know, I'm doing a 'in his shoes' which I previously criticized, but just for the sake of it:
if I'd want the suspicious man to appear as a good candidate for the killer
- regardless of whether I believe he was OR whether I invented him -
I'd have him carry something. An object to include. Me personally, I'd give him a bag, because it allows more balance, is more subtle, but this guy carried a small parcel in one hand.
That's just a little personal game, dismiss is, the point is that within this context is is Highly Likely that the public will have given it shape - whether it existed or not.

I think we're really getting closer to the pencil's tip; increasing agreement on my behalf within my objections

[DRoy]

Jon,

I think you bring up a good point about the end of the inquest and Hutch coming forward.

I'm not sure if you mentioned it elsewhere or if I missed it somewhere but wouldn't Hutch and most citizens expect the inquest to be as long as the others had been? If so and if guilty, Hutch would have had to know what was said in inquest plus that the inquest closed much earlier than the others.

In the alternative if he was innocent, he may have assumed it wasn't too late to come forward since the inquest most likely would take additional days/weeks. Being innocent, he may have assumed he'd be a witness at the inquest which would surely make him look less guilty.

Cheers
DRoy

[Lechmere]

Harry
No one accepted, Abberline nor Badham, that Hutchinson was the man seen by Lewis until the connection was invented quite recently.

DRoy
It is quite right to suggest that Hutchinson would plausibly have assumed that the inquest would not be over and done with in a day. He may well have presented himself at the police station before the sitting concluded. He may have meant to give evidence but was unintentionally too late.
The witnesses who testified at the inquest would not have been released until the verdict. So Lewis would not have left until the end of the proceedings. So if guilty Hutchinson was in the crowd outside Shoreditch Town Hall he would have had to have seen and recognised Lewis, got into a panic, and hot-footed it to Commercial Street Police Station with his rehearsed story.
Quite a performance.

[DRoy]

It is quite right to suggest that Hutchinson would plausibly have assumed that the inquest would not be over and done with in a day. He may well have presented himself at the police station before the sitting concluded. He may have meant to give evidence but was unintentionally too late.
The witnesses who testified at the inquest would not have been released until the verdict. So Lewis would not have left until the end of the proceedings. So if guilty Hutchinson was in the crowd outside Shoreditch Town Hall he would have had to have seen and recognised Lewis, got into a panic, and hot-footed it to Commercial Street Police Station with his rehearsed story.
Quite a performance.

I know the times could be off so maybe it wasn't that difficult to do but I would suggest still an unlikely scenario.

Did we just agree on something? There's a first for everything!

Cheers
DRoy

[Wickerman]

... I wouldn't rule out Hutchinson as a bit of a dodgy geezer. I'm not sure it would help to cast him in an innocent Mr Upright light.

I am not concerned how dodgy he was, the question is, "Was he involved in this or not?"

McCarthy was dodgy, does that make him a suspect?
Morris Lewis was another suspicious character, Diemschitz another, this was the East End; lying, cheating, stealing, came second nature to some, perhaps to many.
Perhaps it would help to avoid labels like "Mr Upright" or "Squeaky Clean", neither are helpful.

[Wickerman]

Jon,

I think you bring up a good point about the end of the inquest and Hutch coming forward.

I'm not sure if you mentioned it elsewhere or if I missed it somewhere but wouldn't Hutch and most citizens expect the inquest to be as long as the others had been? If so and if guilty, Hutch would have had to know what was said in inquest plus that the inquest closed much earlier than the others.

DRoy.
If he was guilty (of what?), then the most obvious response is to disappear.

Failing that, he could try to get in to the Inquest, but as the room was full with press & witnesses, then as one of the few members of the public he runs the risk of being identified by Abberline when he comes forward later with his story.
That makes no sense.

If he waits outside he must try to get "what Sarah saw" from someone, without being seen by Sarah Lewis. Obviously he can't talk to her direct. So he may make a nuisance of himself asking questions.
If he did find out what Sarah saw, then he would know she could not identify the man again, her description was too vague - he can walk away.
If he didn't find out what she saw, why come forward and run the risk of being arrested? - best thing is to walk away.
So neither solution provides an answer to why he came forward - assuming he was guilty of something.

In the alternative if he was innocent, he may have assumed it wasn't too late to come forward since the inquest most likely would take additional days/weeks. Being innocent, he may have assumed he'd be a witness at the inquest which would surely make him look less guilty.

Quite so, but what stopped him coming forward over the weekend?

Witnesses not coming forward is a common problem today, it does not suggest complicity, or suspicion.
The suggestion here is that it is suspicious, this is a false premiss.

Witnesses often do not come forward for days, in some cases weeks, then others, not at all. The police must unearth them in the process of their investigation. These witnesses are often ambivalent or not sure they saw anything of value.

[harry]

Lechmere,
If Aberline accepted Hutchinson's and Lewis's information,then who else but Hutchinson could Aberline accept as being the person Lewis saw about 2.30,standing outside Crossinghams.There was no one else to consider.

It would not be unreasonable to wait until after the inquest for Hutchinson to come forward with a prepared story,but only then was it clear that Lewis was the only witness that might present a problem of identification.The overwhelming majority of murderers have a prepared story,some of admittance,others of denial,most having time enough to think clearly,and all,Iwould venture to say.believe there is a chance of becoming involved in enquiries.

[Fisherman]

harry:

If Aberline accepted Hutchinson's and Lewis's information,then who else but Hutchinson could Aberline accept as being the person Lewis saw about 2.30,standing outside Crossinghams.There was no one else to consider.

From all the sources we have at hand, the only spot Hutchinson ever places himself in is at the corner of the court - on the pavement right across Crossinghamīs. If he stated the exact same when speaking to Abberline, then he could not have been the loiterer in the first place.

You seem to think that Abberline believed Hutchinson because the latter confirmed what Lewis had said. But I think we must allow for the possibility that Abberline actually thought that Hutchinsons story pointed out that Lewis had been wrong. The loiterer does not appear in Hutchinsons story, the other people Lewis spoke about do not appear in Hutchinsons story, and - more pertinently - Lewis herself does not appear in Hutchinsons story. And still, Abberline believed in Hutchinson.
Consequentially, he would NOT have believed in Lewis at the stage when the groom surfaced.

Once Hutchinsons story became the focus of a diminished interest, Abberline may well have started to reconsider Lewis, but we donīt know this, since we canīt tell what part or parts in the Hutchinson story it was that did not pan out.

The best,
Fisherman

[sepiae]

Something unusual on the forum....?

Hello once more, everyone.

I wonder how often the following happens here on the message boards.

Ok, I still think George Hutchinson should not vanish from the list of suspects. A suspect meaning someone who could have committed the crime, someone who is looked at in order to find out more, all in the context of open questions and reasons for doubt, whether these doubts turn out in the end as confirmed or not - very different from 'thinking he did it.'
I still haven't got some of these question answered to satisfaction.

Having said this -

one of my arguments was that while I can answer many of these questions with perfectly mundane [in this case =powerful] possibilities, I end up with realizing that I needed a few answers too many.
However, this works the other way round as well.

There was altogether a higher number of convincing arguments coming from those I debated. In principle for each of my objection there's a higher number of explanations that don't include guilt, not even suggested guilt - where compared with other suspects.
If we were able to use a time machine many people would probably be surprised, especially to see Hutch [most would, at their heart, not really want to know...?]
But as it is he's shrunken as a suspect for me.
I'd feel dubious if my reasoning would be applied in a court of law [!]

This is not back-tracking. Much of what has been said is just too convincing.
--- sorry, Ben ----

...

...

...

[... but not convincing
enough to remove him entirely from
my thoughts...

[Sally]

Jon,

I am not concerned how dodgy he was, the question is, "Was he involved in this or not?"

You're not concerned with how dodgy he was? Splendid - perhaps we're making some progress at last. Most people who have commented at all on Hutchinson have had doubts concerning his integrity - and for good reason. It is only a small number who argue otherwise, however it may be that they tend to shout the loudest.

But on to your question...

McCarthy was dodgy, does that make him a suspect?
Morris Lewis was another suspicious character, Diemschitz another, this was the East End; lying, cheating, stealing, came second nature to some, perhaps to many.

Absolutely. It was an environment in which survival often meant that very dodginess. Does it make Hutchinson a suspect? No, not in itself. There are several other points which could, though. The arguments for suspicion against him are reasonable.

He's a suspect, there it is. You may not think that he's a good one, but objectively, he's a suspect. His dubious behaviour can be accounted for in that way. His behaviour can also be accounted for in other ways, too. As much as he might have been a killer, he might have been an attention seeker, or something altogether different.

The reality is that we will almost certainly never know the truth. The arguments will surely continue, one way or another - yet however vehemently those arguments are made, it is unlikely that they will take us forward unless we learn something new which alters the knowledge that we have.

Perhaps it would help to avoid labels like "Mr Upright" or "Squeaky Clean", neither are helpful.

Yes, and perhaps it would be helpful to avoid arguments which depict Hutchinson as Honest George the good citizen. Frankly, some of them have been utterly ludicrous.

[Wickerman]

Jon,
You're not concerned with how dodgy he was? Splendid - perhaps we're making some progress at last.

That suggests to me you have missed a few posts.

Most people who have commented at all on Hutchinson have had doubts concerning his integrity - and for good reason.

Considering his integrity was not in question 126 years ago, the more relevant question should be, 'how viable are these modern accusations, and what are they based on?'.

Absolutely. It was an environment in which survival often meant that very dodginess. Does it make Hutchinson a suspect? No, not in itself.

Ah, so you do see what my position is.

There are several other points which could, though. The arguments for suspicion against him are reasonable.

The reasonable approach is to acknowledge more than one explanation for any of your 'points', especially as you have no firm answers to your questions, but I don't see much "reason" being employed here.

He's a suspect, there it is. You may not think that he's a good one, but objectively, he's a suspect.

No Sally, he is an "alleged suspect", only alleged by a handful of modern theorists, based on nothing more than a list of unanswered questions.
Questions that are unanswered in our time, but were not unanswered in 1888.
And yet, the decision made in 1888 was that he was truthful.

Your grievance is that you/we don't know what those answers were.
Is that sufficient reason to call him a liar, to call him culpable?

His dubious behaviour can be accounted for in that way.

Loitering?, but was this loitering connected with the murder, or did he have other plans?

His behaviour can also be accounted for in other ways, too. As much as he might have been a killer, he might have been an attention seeker, or something altogether different.

"Might" being the operative word, nothing more.

I would think an "attention seeker" would have made the most of his interrogation "experience" and told the press all about it, funny, he said nothing about that.
Barnett managed to tell the press of his experience, and he wasn't seeking attention.
Hutchinson missed the boat there, that is, IF he was seeking attention.