The "Suspects": Current Opinion

[tji]

Hi Observer

Precisely. As you imply Jacob Levy was well known in the area, and Lawende and Harris, being friendly with Joe Levy, in all probability, knew Jacob Levy;

It is something that we have no way of knowing, I would love to answer not necessarily and have a valid reason for it but, I, unfortunately don't have all the answers, otherwise the case would be closed and I would be a millionaire ;0)

and yet, Lawende gave a decent enough description of the man talking to Eddowes on the night of her murder, but stated he would not know him again. Harris didn't see anything, as you imply.

And Joseph also differed from the other two, so we have 3 men, same time and 3 different accounts......it seems to be a never ending circle when it comes to witness and police accounts unfortunately.

We are led to believe by Harry that Joe Levy recognised Jacob Levy, but decided not to implicate him. If Lawende knew Jacob Levy, was he also in on the ruse not to implicate him as the man seen talking to Eddowes? Likewise Harris? The alternative of course was that Jacob Levy was unknown to both Lawende and Harris.

Again, not sure. Is it unlikely that Joseph Lawende didn't know Jacob was Joseph's cousin, possibly, is it inconceivable - no. We don't know how close the cousin's were.

Tracy

[Harry D]

Some people don't seem to be that receptive to the idea that the Ripper was a mad butcher. I suppose it doesn't really sit well with the romantics, who prefer to believe that the murderer was this cool and collected evil genius who was able to slip in and out the shadows at a moment's notice. Fact of the matter is that Whitechapel was the perfect milieu for Jacob Levy to commit these murders and get away with it. Whitechapel was a hotbed of vice and corruption, populated by all kinds of shady types and a vast number of immigrants, in particular, the Jewish community, who were known to keep themselves to themselves and were recalcitrant with the local authorities. It's debatable as to whether anyone actually knew that Jacob WAS the Ripper, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he hadn't aroused some form of suspicion from those around him. But would they act on these suspicions and give up Levy to gentile justice? Not at all likely. Why do people think it would've been hard for someone like Levy to have hidden his insanity in this sort of environment? Especially when all he was doing was approaching desperate, backalley prostitutes after some quick business. It doesn't exactly take a mastermind or someone in complete control of their faculties to carry out such a crime.

[Ben]

You cannot first say that you think Hutchinson may have done it, and then wish people a good weekend

How does the possibility of Hutchinson having "done it" interfere with the enjoyment of your weekend? That's weird. Unless, of course, you've invested too much emotionally in Jack the Ripper message board debates.

Hi Jon,

Sweet of you to illustrate my point, which was that if innocent, lovely Hutchinson read the papers in the aftermath of Kelly's murder, there was no possibility of him missing the reports of an early morning time of death and only managing to read the rumours of a late morning murder.

Here's more:

"This much, however, has been found...that the murderer and his victim entered the place in the small hours of Friday morning - between one and two o'clock as near as can be gathered." - East London Observer, 10th November.

"CRY OF "MURDER!" HEARD AT 3.30. Our representative has interviewed a woman named Kennedy, who was on the night of the murder staying with her parents at a house situate in the court immediately opposite the room in which the body of Mary Kelly was found. This woman's statement, if true - and there is very little reason for doubting its veracity - establishes the time at which the murderer commenced his operation upon his victim". - The Echo, 10th November.

"Yesterday morning it was discovered that another horrible murder had been committed at Whitechapel. The victim has been identified as Mary Jane Kelly, 26 years of age, who lived for some time with a man named Barnet, otherwise Danny. According to an account on which reliance has been placed, Kelly was seen late on Thursday night with a respectably dressed man." - Daily News, 10th November.

“This woman's statement, if true - and there is very little reason for doubting its veracity - establishes the time at which the murder was committed...

...This description of the man suspected of the murder tallies exactly with that in the possession of the police, and there is very little doubt that the murderer entered Kelly's house late on Thursday night or early on Friday morning.” - St. James' Gazette, 10th November.

Your suggestion that Hutchinson managed to miss all this coverage (but somehow did read about Maxwell and Maurice Lewis) is completely unsustainable, and yet it has formed the basis for your even less sustainable conclusion that Hutchinson deliberately withheld his evidence on the assumption that his experience was not relevant to her time of death.

And Bob's personal theory about Hutchinson was?

...based on his communication with those serving and retired policemen.

Obviously.

But, if you can find "plenty" that stayed open, contrary to regulations, you won't have any problem naming them

Cooney's lodging house on Thrawl Street for one.

According to its deputy, Frederick Wilkinson, it "generally closed at 2:30 or 3" - giving Hutchinson a whole hour to secure lodgings there before closing time.

If you can produce a scrap of evidence for any "regulation" that involved closing down an entire building and denying entry to lodgers after a certain time (with the exception of the Victoria Home), you'll have no problem providing that.

[Wickerman]

Your suggestion that Hutchinson managed to miss all this coverage (but somehow did read about Maxwell and Maurice Lewis) is completely unsustainable, ....

My "suggestion" was quite clear, so lets not try change it.
I quote:
"What we today do not realize is that no-one over that weekend knew what time the murder took place."

The public, including Hutchinson, would not know from the wide estimates published in the press, which you so kindly, but unwittingly confirmed, precisely 'when' (at what time) Mary Kelly was truly murdered.

Even on the morning of the 12th, the day of the Inquest they were no wiser:

Daily News.
"...state that she came out of her house at eight o'clock on Friday morning for provisions; and, furthermore, that they were drinking with her in a local tavern at ten o'clock on the same morning as her mutilated body was found at eleven."
...."and there is very little doubt that the murderer entered Kelly's house late on Thursday night or early on Friday morning."

Daily Telegraph.
" that she saw and spoke to her at half-past eight on the morning of the murder, but this is at variance with the medical opinion, which is that death must have taken place at least two or three hours earlier."

Morning Advertiser.
"...the conclusion that she had been murdered some hours before the discovery of the body. This conclusion, however, conflicts with statements made by people in the neighbourhood. It is asserted that the deceased was seen alive as late as eight o'clock on Friday morning."
..."and between half-past three and a quarter to four she heard a cry of "Murder!" "
"...state that the woman must have been dead some hours before she was discovered. It is also stated that at about three o'clock on Friday morning a cry of "Murder!" was heard by a woman who lives in the court,.."

Times.
"Great difference of opinion exists as to the exact time, or about the time, the murder of Mary Jane Kelly took place."
..."she saw Mary Jane Kelly standing at the entrance to Miller's-court at half-past 8 on Friday morning"
"Another young woman, whose name is known, has also informed the police that she is positive she saw Kelly between half-past 8 and a quarter to 9 on Friday morning."
"...the opinion of Dr. George Bagster Phillips, the divisional surgeon of the H Division, that when he was called to the deceased (at a quarter to 11) she had been dead some five or six hours."
"It is the opinion of Mr. M'Carthy [McCarthy], the landlord of 26, Dorset-street, that the woman was murdered at a much earlier hour than 8 o'clock,"

The press coverage was all over the place, no-one had a clue.
All you are doing my friend, is confirming this fact.
It is therefore well established that a witness seeing her at 2:30 am had no cause for concern that he was the last person to see her alive.
It is apparent in the press that clearly he was not.

...based on his communication with those serving and retired policemen.

I suppose his personal theory about Hutchinson's guilt had nothing to do with his choice of "opinion".
Do you think he might have asked Stewart?

Cooney's lodging house on Thrawl Street for one.

According to its deputy, Frederick Wilkinson, it "generally closed at 2:30 or 3" - giving Hutchinson a whole hour to secure lodgings there before closing time.

He didn't say that other Lodging-Houses were closed, only that his "usual place" was closed. We don't know what his "usual place" was.

So Cooney's was closed when Hutchinson left the court then? - I thought so.
And why did he say he "walked about"?, - because the place where he "usually slept" (unnamed), "was closed"!

Even back in Mayhew's time the Common Lodging House closed over night, it was normal practice. Though their hours of closing were considerably longer, from I think 11:00pm until 5:00am. Anyone still in the kitchen/common room was either ushered up to bed or kicked out.
And yes, Wilkiinson confirms this requirement, and of course you already knew about the general rule:
" There are establishments which comply with every requisition of the police, where the beds are made regularly at a certain hour, and the kitchen closed from two a.m. to four a.m.,..."
Daily Telegraph, Sept 21.

I see you gave up on your previous assertion:
"there were plenty of lodging houses open throughout the night"

Very wise!

Where ever he "usually slept" we are not told, but which ever establishment it was, it was closed.

[Ben]

I don't believe Levy was the killer, but of all the arguments used to try to dismiss him, "Levy was a butcher, whereas the ripper was a surgeon" is about the crappest I've read.

[Ben]

This bloke wants another Hutchinson debate, look.

No matter the time, no matter the appropriateness of the thread, and despite the fact that this thread was intended merely as a place for setting down our personal suspect preferences, as opposed to repetitively debating them.

Hypnotic though, isn't he?

You are wasting your own time reproducing those press articles because they don't assist your argument in any way, shape or form. It doesn't matter in the slightest that the press reported different times of death for Kelly, nor does it matter in the slightest if they were "all over the place". Your argument; your very, very bad argument, remember, was that Hutchinson deliberately withheld his evidence because he assumed his encounter occurred much earlier than Kelly's time of death. For this to have been his mindset, however, he must have been convinced that Kelly was murdered later in the morning, and this meant that one of the following heinously implausible things must have happened:

1) He read the "all over the place" accounts in the press and decided that despite the early morning time of death being the most extensively covered, the late morning version must be correct. Or:

2) He somehow missed the reports of an earlier time of death, and only read about Maxwell.

Either you haven't thought through the impossible implications of your suggestion, or you're quite happy promoting impossible suggestions.

To make matters even worse (if that's even achievable), there is no rationale behind deliberately withholding your sighting of a stranger with the victim just because you've convinced yourself that you weren't the last person to see that victim alive.

I suppose his personal theory about Hutchinson's guilt had nothing to do with his choice of "opinion".

It's not his "opinion".

It's what he was told by several serving and retired policemen, and it influenced his views. Why wouldn't it? Would it be more laudable if he sought the advice of a policeman and then rejected that advice when didn't accord with his pre-decided opinion? Oh wait, I'm asking the wrong person here, because that's precisely what you did.

He didn't say that other Lodging-Houses were closed, only that his "usual place" was closed.

And?

What was physically preventing him from approaching the lodging houses that weren't closed? What's the latest suggestion - that after 13 miles of walking in the cold and wet, he was such a creature of habit that he'd prefer to do more walking for the rest of the night than endure a different lodging house?

So Cooney's was closed when Hutchinson left the court then? - I thought so.

Yes, but it wasn't closed during the hour that Hutchinson allegedly spent faffing about Astra-stalking. Cooney's was a well-known lodging house, and it is inconceivable that Hutchinson was unfamiliar with its closing time.

Even back in Mayhew's time the Common Lodging House closed over night, it was normal practice. Though their hours of closing were considerably longer, from I think 11:00pm until 5:00am.

Got any evidence for this? What you allege to be "normal practice" doesn't bear any relation to what we know to be true in 1888 Whitechapel and Spitalfields.

Why do you keep mentioning the cleaning of the kitchen, as though it had any relevance? That's just the kitchen, Jon. Not the bedrooms, not the entire building - JUST the kitchen. Any lodger with the late-night munchies who fancied a spot of donkey bollocks on toast (or whatever they ate) at that time would have been disappointed. If he had a pre-paid ticket and wanted to go to bed, however, no problem at all.

Where ever he "usually slept" we are not told, but which ever establishment it was, it was closed.

Says Hutchinson.

Great. I'm convinced.

[Wickerman]

This bloke wants another Hutchinson debate, look.

No matter the time, no matter the appropriateness of the thread, and despite the fact that this thread was intended merely as a place for setting down our personal suspect preferences, as opposed to repetitively debating them.

Then why did you jump in with both feet - post 162?
Isn't Sepiae allowed to raise some questions about Hutchinson without your approval?
I don't mind you joining in, but only when you're beaten down do you start crying about "another Hutchinson debate".
You're the one responsible for this being another Hutchinson debate.

It's not as if you bring anything new to the table, it's just Ben Holme on Replay again... [hit the fast-forward]

[delete irrelevant babble]

What was physically preventing him from approaching the lodging houses that weren't closed?

Preference?
Even a lowly dosser was allowed a choice.
He has only 60 minutes to walk about until they open again at 4:00 am.

Yes, but it wasn't closed during the hour that Hutchinson allegedly spent faffing about Astra-stalking. Cooney's was a well-known lodging house, and it is inconceivable that Hutchinson was unfamiliar with its closing time.

Why he chose to wait for his "usual place" to open, I suppose, was his business. Why shouldn't he be allowed to choose?

Got any evidence for this? What you allege to be "normal practice"

Yes, Mayhew.

doesn't bear any relation to what we know to be true in 1888 Whitechapel and Spitalfields.

Explain.

Why do you keep mentioning the cleaning of the kitchen, as though it had any relevance? That's just the kitchen, Jon.

It's the word "Kitchen" thats throwing you off.

The Common Lodging House was essentially divided in two.
All the upstairs rooms were for cots, cabins, beds.
The downstairs room(s) was the common area where the lodgers sat, talked, ate, cooked, lounged, gambled, and generally associated with each other.
This is only "called" the kitchen, it wasn't a kitchen by itself - there were no ovens. It was a common area with benches and a great fireplace for cooking, it was this "common area" that was closed for a short time over night.

As Mayhew put it, you were either off to bed, or out the door.

[Ben]

Isn't Sepiae allowed to raise some questions about Hutchinson without your approval?

I thought Sepiae's points were excellent, and I thoroughly agreed with his rationale in proposing Hutchinson as one of the stronger suspects. But you always take any support of his candidacy as your cue to jump in and try to stamp out those inconvenient (for your theory) flames. I'm afraid I can't let that happen, Jon, especially when you're advancing the same dubious claims that were thoroughly contested last time. You accuse me of bringing nothing "new to the table", and yet you're wheeling out the proven-impossible Daily News business again on another thread.

He has only 60 minutes to walk about until they open again at 4:00 am.

Hutchinson - who you believe, remember? - told the press that he walked about all night. "All night" has never meant "one hour of the night"...ever. Evidently therefore, he meant that he went to his "usual" lodgings and gained access there at a much later hour of the morning, i.e. the morning-morning, as opposed to bed-time.

Why he chose to wait for his "usual place" to open, I suppose, was his business. Why shouldn't he be allowed to choose?

He was allowed to choose. But no sane individual would choose a night walking about in miserable outdoor conditions over a bed in an un"usual" lodging house. The occasional bed bug versus pneumonia - hmmm, tricky one.

The downstairs room(s) was the common area where the lodgers sat, talked, ate, cooked, lounged, gambled, and generally associated with each other

It depends on the establishment.

In the Victoria Home, for instance, the common/gambling room was on the ground floor, with the kitchen and dining room in the basement area, and the bedrooms on the upper floors. Nowhere is it so much as hinted at that the closure of the kitchens for cleaning purposes meant the closure of the entire building, even to those able and willing to pay for a bed.

[Wickerman]

... But you always take any support of his candidacy as your cue to jump in and try to stamp out those inconvenient (for your theory) flames.

Oh...the irony!

Hutchinson - who you believe, remember? - told the press that he walked about all night.

The significant word is "press", all he told Badham was that he walked away.

The occasional bed bug versus pneumonia - hmmm, tricky one.

Oh, exaggeration again, one wonders if Mary Cox was risking pneumonia, but she repeatedly ventured out ..carry on regardless!
I guess the weather can't have been that bad.

In the Victoria Home, for instance, the common/gambling room was on the ground floor,...

A purpose built (modified) facility - one of a kind.
Not a hundred year old terrace conversion as the average run-of-the-mill Common Lodging House was.
Deal with the realities young fella.

And, the V.H. is the only one that we know of that didn't close.
No doubt in part due to its 'purpose built' design.

[sepiae]

You cannot first say that you think Hutchinson may have done it, and then wish people a good weekend ...

The best,
Fisherman

I hope you had one anyway

[sepiae]

How refreshing it is to finally meet someone who is still asking questions
There are no end of Hutchinson threads to keep you enthralled in your pursuit.

Just to lightly touch upon your pointers:

- reason/s for late statement

This is something you can enlighten yourself with. If you look through the Press Reports, here on Casebook, you will see that the press over that weekend following the murder (Sat. 10th Nov.) really had no clue as to when the murder took place. Therefore, if Hutchinson was even reading the papers he would be no wiser than the press.

The St. James Gazette for example published the cry of "murder" between 3:30 - 3:45 Friday morning. Yet the Times reports that Kelly was still alive at 10:00 am Friday morning. Other press opinions only repeated the confusion by offering a variety of times inbetween.
What we today do not realize is that no-one over that weekend knew what time the murder took place.

Hutchinson saw Mary between 2:00 and 2:30 am, if she was still alive at 10 o'clock Friday morning, then what value would his statement have been?
To put this in context, Eddowes was murdered about 1:30-40 am, do you see the urgency of someone coming forward who saw Eddowes at 6:00 pm the night before?
What could a sighting at 6:00 pm on Saturday night possibly have to do with her murder at 1:30 am Sunday morning?


- reasons for not seeing/avoiding to mention Lewis

The 19th century was a period when women were always in the background.
If a witness says there was no-one in the street, we cannot know if he means no-one at all, or no men in the street.
Women were always passing up and down for one reason or another, as women were rarely the object of suspicion their presence was not of significance.


- issues with his description of 'Astracan'

The description is not unique, indeed Stewart Evans (Ret. PC) has told us he has taken hundreds of statements and Hutchinson's was nothing special.
Add the fact that Peter Sutcliffe wrote 34 pages of detailed confession, all from memory, and Hutchinson's half-page statement pales into insignificance.

What might have contributed to the detailed depth of Astrachan's description is Sgt. Badham's experience with the Suspect Description Form.
This form takes the witness from head to toe in a very detailed step by step procedure; hair; eyes; beard; moustache; etc.
A experienced officer can get you to answer something on every line, the result will be a very detailed description. How much of it was accurate, guesswork?, we cannot know.

- reasons for long wait [& subsequent end of wait] before Miller's Ct.

Agreed, Hutchinson may have had intentions that night which he did not admit to the police.
Also the fact he appears to have told Mary he had no money, yet when the lodging house opened in the morning, he managed to gain entrance, presumably by paying the usual fee.
I suspect he was not willing to give his last few pennies to Mary, he had given her money before and possibly, never got it back.

Hi Wickerman,

thanks for replying

Yes, questions indeed, and open to me, and still, even after your reply. 'Favourite suspect' means for me he's still asking me for attention, not conviction on my behalf

Late Statement; the press being confused doesn't really have anything to do with this, has it. It has been argued that the contents of an inquiry spread quite quickly afterwards, so the question is rather did he learn about a witness seeing a man at the time when he was there. Which in itself means not that much either, it's a good reason to come forward [although it'd be smarter to state this for a reason].
I could even think of a far more mundane reason: H. not wanting, like many, anything to do with the police [not because he was the perp], but perhaps, combining the notion he might have heard about the Lewis testimony. In itself, not much to get one suspicious. It's the questions together. Someone gets killed whom I've seen the night before. I've spent quite a while watching the vicinity where she lived. I've been seen. I'd be quick talking to the cops.
Evans' speculated that he might have been away for job hunt. Could be. Lots could be. We have speculations [incl. mine], not answers.
10 o'clock still being alive: one would have to believe it first. If he heard this bit, he might have heard Lewis' bit. Which of the two might get him to come forward?

Reasons for not mentioning Lewis: I can buy that. I'd really like to know how much human movement there was at that time in that area, but particularly in Dorset St. Lewis had entered Miller's Court, though. So, also how many people came and went. If he'd watched it for this long he at least knew for sure he'd been seen.

Astracan issues: in fact Evan's thought too much was missing, that the interview wasn't conducted as thorough as it concerns getting the info out of the witness as one should wish.
It is perfectly possible that 'Astracan' was of such appearance as stated, and that H. had a good memory; I don't have an issue with the capacity for detail. I have a little nagging one with the figure that emerges from the description. But again, perfectly possible.

Reason for long wait: I'd add more - wasn't it Evans as well who suggested that one could imagine H. might have been thinking of mugging the man? That would indeed be a convincing reason for waiting for 45 min. Otherwise, I'd like to know H.'s answers to Abberline in the follow-up interview.
What made you suspicious of the man, other than him not liking you looking at him? After all, you know this trade. What made you follow them? What made you wait for 45 min.? What good did you think this observing would do?
They didn't come out again? Surprise. What made you go away in the end, as nothing had changed?
With no place to sleep H. had perhaps simply nothing better to do - a very unsatisfying answer, but in reality we do not follow the most precise logic in situations that aren't pressing.
I can think of a hundred [ok, exaggerated] mundane answers to all these questions. Thing is, I'd have to to begin with. On a couple of issues, not one or two. And it's mostly those 45 min. that bug me - once more speculating, if he was the perp and if he'd heard about a witness statement that places him, he might want to cover a range and give an explanation. I find the explanation highly unsatisfying. Not mentioning anybody else I find slightly odd, even if there was coming and going - speculating again: 'i don't mention her because i want you to forget her, i want you to just think of me as a witness, not one who's been witnessed.'
It's all this together which just makes me think the gentleman deserves attention, which is hard as we know virtually nothing about him.

Please tell me off, spank me, whatever, if my replies are getting too long

[sepiae]

p.s.

I have a huge respect for Stewart Evans. A few things he wrote do not entirely convince me, however. He wrote for instance:

'The fact that he was standing in the open outside a common lodging house for so long militates against the proposal that he was the killer. If he was the murderer it was a decidedly risky, if not stupid, thing to do. Also, Kelly's murder undoubtedly occurred after Hutchinson's watch, and he would hardly have risked committing murder knowing he had been seen.'

This sounds plausible at first read. I'd object to the certainty. We know about the 45 min. from Hutchinson himself. No other confirmation about this rather long wait. - Those 45 min. really confuse me. As in the cold old movie-line 'I'm confused, Mr. Hutchinson...' -
knowing he'd been seen: if he'd known. If he'd only learned about it after the inquest but w/o the exact time, covering a longer time-range might have appeared as an option [the logic is a little twisted, perhaps, but I can kind of follow it].
Waiting and observing the premise before entering in itself is what I'd actually expect from the killer, as opposed to 'storming in.' If [pls remember, it's speculating, not being convinced that H. is our man] H. observed the place in order to make sure he won't be noticed it'd be irony that this got him noticed.
Objection: with at least Sarah Lewis entering the premise he'd have known that he was seen.
Reply to that: yes, so wait a little longer, because in the end the perp really wanted to do what he was about to do; having been seen might not amount to much in the end. - Not a very good explanation, but it's not always the really good ones that are the right one in the end.
In general, I don't think that one should take the perp's perfectly logical, most appropriate and smartest approach for granted.

Objections, not certainties here.

[Ben]

Hi Sepiae,

Welcome to Casebook!

You make some very good points, particularly with regard to Hutchinson's possible mindset over the Lewis sighting.

Not mentioning anybody else I find slightly odd, even if there was coming and going - speculating again: 'i don't mention her because i want you to forget her, i want you to just think of me as a witness, not one who's been witnessed.

Indeed, this is my take on it.

By deliberating omitting any mention of Lewis, he may have sought to ensure that he didn't make it overly obvious that it was her sighting of him that forced his hand.

I also share the view that there was nothing especially imprudent about allowing himself to be seen in the streets, albeit in a dark location and wearing a wide-brimmed hat. Other serial killers were similarly "exposed" when targetting victims in their homes - Ted Bundy, Dennis Rader and Robert Napper spring to mind. He had already allowed himself to be seen, in all likelihood, talking to Kate Eddowes by three men outside a club, which entailed far more obvious "risk".

Hi Jon,

The significant word is "press", all he told Badham was that he walked away.

Why "significant"? Is your new position that anything that appeared in the press version is to be rejected, or at the very least, not to be trusted? I guess that's the "Sunday policeman" and Petticoat Lane sighting out of the equation then. Good move.

Oh, exaggeration again, one wonders if Mary Cox was risking pneumonia, but she repeatedly ventured out ..carry on regardless!
I guess the weather can't have been that bad.

And since Titanic's victims were swimming in the North Atlantic, the water can't have been that cold? Terrible argument, Jon. Mary Cox was upset, by her own admission, because she owed money. This played on her mind and forced her, despite the poor weather conditions, to venture out in search of clients. Hutchinson had no such pressing concerns, and yet you claim that he spurned the option of a bed, and chose instead to wander those streets "all night".

A purpose built (modified) facility - one of a kind.
Not a hundred year old terrace conversion as the average run-of-the-mill Common Lodging House was.
Deal with the realities young fella

The reality is that contrary to you assertion, the Victoria Home was not "purpose built", but rather a large warehouse that was converted into a lodging house.

[sepiae]

Hi Sepiae,

Welcome to Casebook!

You make some very good points, particularly with regard to Hutchinson's possible mindset over the Lewis sighting.



Indeed, this is my take on it.

By deliberating omitting any mention of Lewis, he may have sought to ensure that he didn't make it overly obvious that it was her sighting of him that forced his hand.

I also share the view that there was nothing especially imprudent about allowing himself to be seen in the streets, albeit in a dark location and wearing a wide-brimmed hat. Other serial killers were similarly "exposed" when targetting victims in their homes - Ted Bundy, Dennis Rader and Robert Napper spring to mind. He had already allowed himself to be seen, in all likelihood, talking to Kate Eddowes by three men outside a club, which entailed far more obvious "risk".

Hi Ben,

and thank you

reg. omitting Lewis, this is pretty much my sentiment. I do think, though, that it'd have something more instinctive to it rather than purely calculative.

It's always this thing with 'putting oneself in someone else's shoes', which is also the starting point for me; never mind the darn shoes, it'll still be myself, as in '[I]I[I] would have done this if I had been there...' - the more important approach is the more difficult one: forget those shoes and try on the [I]skin[I]. So it's all very well for me to say, 'hm, this or that doesn't make sense to ME.'
But if I' am to speculate about an idea, it'd be more convincing to me if there's something like an urgent tendency to avoid mentioning Lewis, or anyone else - hence the suggested 'monologue' above. Because in the end, it'd be smarter to come right out with it.
'Officer, I've heard that someone had been see in the vicinity, that someone might be me, I was there, and here is why.'

Got to leave now, have a great day, everyone else, too.

[Wickerman]

Hi Sepiae

Please tell me off, spank me, whatever, if my replies are getting too long

An open minded discussion of Hutchinson is a rare commodity, like a breath of fresh air.

Late Statement; the press being confused doesn't really have anything to do with this, has it.

Given that the public were eager for every morsel of information on the murder, then what they learned came from the press. And as the press are demonstrably unclear as to the actual time of death then I think it is a significant factor. No-one said it clearer than the Times:
"Great difference of opinion exists as to the exact time, or about the time, the murder of Mary Jane Kelly took place."

If I had denied an old friend a few pennies, and this had indirectly led to, or contributed to, her death, and a savage death, then wouldn't you feel recrimination?, I know I would.
I might find it more comforting to accept a later death just for my own peace of mind, rather than an early death which puts a portion of the blame directly on my conscience

It has been argued that the contents of an inquiry spread quite quickly afterwards, so the question is rather did he learn about a witness seeing a man at the time when he was there.

But, what did Sarah see?, a man in dark clothes wearing a wideawake hat?
How many hundreds of men across the East End wore wideawake hats?
No mention of height, beard, moustache, age, nothing that 'could' be used to identify a person.
There was simply nothing of value in what Sarah saw, so even if Hutch had learned what Sarah said, he had nothing to fear.

I could even think of a far more mundane reason: H. not wanting, like many, anything to do with the police...

And that is quite possible, Hutch may well have had previous confrontations with police, so not anxious to get involved this time.
Likewise, he may have had designs on Astrachan himself, mugging him for instance, I doubt it but these are possibilities that need to be aired.

Evans' speculated that he might have been away for job hunt. Could be. Lots could be. We have speculations [incl. mine], not answers.

Exactly, all we have are speculations. One of the disasters about Hutchinson as a suspect is that 'some' have decided to adopt their own answers in order to present Hutchinson in a negative light.
In effect creating a suspect 'by design'.

Astracan issues: in fact Evan's thought too much was missing, that the interview wasn't conducted as thorough as it concerns getting the info out of the witness as one should wish.

This is something that we recently explored, that the statement given to Badham was not sufficient for trial purposes, meaning Badham doesn't appear to have asked some very important questions. This of course would be Abberline's responsibility, and his interrogation paperwork has not survived.

It is perfectly possible that 'Astracan' was of such appearance as stated, and that H. had a good memory; I don't have an issue with the capacity for detail.

Correct, Stewart Evans said as much on a past Hutchinson thread

And it's mostly those 45 min. that bug me - once more speculating, if he was the perp and if he'd heard about a witness statement that places him, he might want to cover a range and give an explanation.

Right, but if his "45 minutes" was guesswork, then it may have been 35, or 25?
Hutchinson didn't have a watch, and the times he gave to police were all "about" (about 2 am, about 3 minutes, about 45 minutes).
The only time we get anything more precise is when the Central News interviewed him, and once the press get involved we are completely at their mercy as far as accuracy goes.
Hutchinson made no mention to Badham about his "usual place" being closed, or walking about all night, so what did he do, and what time did he do it?

It's all this together which just makes me think the gentleman deserves attention, which is hard as we know virtually nothing about him.

If we could only find a suitable George Hutchinson in the Census records, it would be a start.