The "Suspects": Current Opinion

[Lechmere]

One has been found and he was claimed by his family.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

You say it's a "breath of fresh air" to have "open-minded" discourse over Hutchinson, but I have to wonder; to what extent do you feel that you've been "open-minded" in your approach to Hutchinson discussions? I only ask because whenever you participate in them - which is very, very regularly - you always seem to do so from the perspective of a fierce and zealous defender of Hutchinson's truthfulness and accuracy, and never once do you concede any point to anyone with an alternative viewpoint on the subject. Are you sure you don't mean that you like it when other people have "open minds", as long as you yourself can continue to be as close-minded and entrenched as you've always been? Because that's the subtext I'm strongly picking up on from you here - just saying.

I'm a little unclear regarding the specifics of your Brand New Idea for Hutchinson's three-day inertia and non-divulgence of his evidence. So Hutchinson has access to these "all over the place" newspaper reports that "don't have a clue" about Kelly's actual time of death, but despite the majority of reports alluding to an early morning time of death in common with all other ripper murders, he decides to champion as accurate the rumours of a later time of death originated by Maxwell and chums in order to make himself feel less bad about not giving Kelly any money.

(If he'd only surrendered his money for his bed that night, Kelly would never have continued on down Commercial Street and into the arms of horrible Astrakhan Man with his upturned nasty moustache ends).

So Hutchinson, guilty over the above, convinces himself that the minority-circulated "later morning" accounts must be correct, and thus salves his conscience; just not quite enough to motivate him into, y'know, alerting the authorities about what he had seen that night. "I will make amends!" says Hutchinson.....by cogitating for three days, and allowing the trail of a potential murderer to grow cold.

What a tortured, tortured soul.

It is important that you understand the difference between a sighting a description. It is quite possible for a witness to get a brief look at a person, give a crap/vague description of that person, and yet still possess the powers to recognise that person again. It is this reality that Hutchinson had to fear from Sarah Lewis's evidence, assuming he was conversant with the above, fairly obvious description. Put very simply - nondescript people are capable of being recognised again.

I remain interested in these sudden doubts you appear to be expressing over the accuracy of Hutchinson's press interview. You were previously quite happy to use this as a crucial linchpin for some of your more "interesting" Hutchinson theories - the Petticoat Lane sighting, his recording of the time from St. Mary's Church, the "fuller" description. Are you now suggesting that these events never happened, and may have been a press invention?

[Ben]

It is important that you understand the difference between a sighting a description.

A sighting AND a description...I meant.

It is this reality that Hutchinson had to fear from Sarah Lewis's evidence, assuming he was conversant with the above, fairly obvious description.

"Distinction"...I meant.

[sepiae]

...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...
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...

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.

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.

In effect creating a suspect 'by design'.

Right, but if his "45 minutes" was guesswork, then it may have been 35, or 25?...

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

Hi Wickerman,
late response as I had to leave yesterday.

press: actually for this reason I don't think it's the decisive factor. I might be wrong now, but I think the actual release of the inquest in the press came after? Which means that of course one cannot take this for a possible source of information for Hutchinson. More likely would be the mouth to mouth way.
Which also includes an aspect as related to -

but what did Sarah see?: it doesn't really matter how detailed or not she was. what you describe - you and me, we know that. What did H. know? He learned - speculating, of course, for he could have decided to come forward for other reasons, without having learned of the inquest's contents, I accept that - that a man had been observed around the time when he'd been there, doing what he did. If he did learn that he sure would have thought, 'must mean me.' Whether he thought he had something to fear or not [and all that would result from any revelation we, well, don't have], that really depends on what only he knew. A lot would be answered if we could positively know whether the reason for his statement was that he'd learned of the Lewis testimony or not. If it was it'd raise my eyebrow that he didn't say 'I've heard a man had been spotted doing this and that. I believe it's I who'd been seen. I was there, and here is why.'
Then again, maybe he did say it, to Abberline, perhaps even to Badham, who failed to note it down.

Importantly, I'd like to know exactly how populated Dorset St. was that night. It wasn't too late/early, not for the area, for people being still out and about, but then again it was rainy. So if people had been a little more abundant then you're perfectly right and period, as he'd known that he'd been seen waiting for a long time even without looking at anyone else. This indeed would strengthen his position.

mugging: indeed, this idea had been proposed - wasn't it Evans again? And yes, that would be a perfectly satisfying explanation. One which he could hardly give to the police, ofc.

45 min: yes, guesswork, but I'm not too troubled by wondering whether it were 45, 40, 30, 20, especially in the rain [though I've done weirder things in relation to weather]. It's just this: I'm suspicious of the guy [for what precise reason ever, e.g. appearance, avoiding his eyes, thinking of the murders, though Mary comes after the dreadful trade after all], so I'm suspicious, I follow them, then I wait [for what? That they re-emerge?], I wait for long, nothing happens, I leave. I'm not clear about his motivation there. If one is suspicious, what good does mere waiting do? I'd ask him about that, and I suspect he's been asked. His answers must have been convincing, but not knowing them it's not enough today. It requires nothing higher than average intelligence to be a good liar if motivation is there. And it can fool even a genius.
Another possibility is that his wait was far shorter and he only lengthened it because he wasn't sure when exactly he'd been seen.
But I think more vital is the time between this incident and the actual time of death. Thus the questions I have concerning H.'s long wait are something 'outside'; I'd love to have them cleared up regardless. I'd be happy to discount Hutchinson. Which leads to -

creating a suspect by design: I believe you understand that this is not what I want, but yes, that'd be wrongwrongwrong. Somewhere above someone said jokingly that I cannot say I believe Hutchinson did it and wish everyone a good afternoon. I sympathize with the man, but the notion is wrong:
I do not believe Hutchinson did it. I consider him worth remaining on the suspect list, and there's more for me to keep him than with most others.
My suspect folders are as following:

1) possible
2) interesting
3) unlikely
4) ruled out
5) ridiculous

for those that I have categorized. Those lodging at 5 Ridiculous St. apparently feel very much at home, they never leave, not even popping out for lunch.
There's more fluctuation between the others.
Question: who was the Ripper?
Sepiae: I don't know.
Q.: Ok, who do you think it was?
S.: I don't know.
Q.: Gee, who is most likely?
S.: I don't have sufficient data to answer this.
Q.: [sigh] Do you have any preferences.
S.: Oh, sure, yes, I have remaining questions about some that put them into an odd light for me.

suitable H. in the census: oh yes, so very much! But if Chris Scott didn't find anything, who will. We might also have to deal with G. Hutchinson being an alias, as aliases were so often used by so many, and since there's virtually nothing on the man...
As it is there's just too much I'm not satisfied with regarding him to dismiss him. I list all the questions I have and - easily - find a good, solid, mundane [they're the best] answer. And in the end I see I had to do this for quite a bunch of questions.
It doesn't convict him. Just justifies attention.

Btw., I don't subscribe to the idea he was Flemming - all that seems the keep the idea running is that they both shared the same work house for a time; not too big a coincidence. The physical descriptions of the 2 men, even where vague, differ too much.

If I was forced, gunpoint, to decide who I'd like best as a suspect I'd say the man named 'David Cohen', anyway.

[Wickerman]

Hello Ben.

Hi Jon,

You say it's a "breath of fresh air" to have "open-minded" discourse over Hutchinson, but I have to wonder; to what extent do you feel that you've been "open-minded" in your approach to Hutchinson discussions?

Fair question.
If you remember back when I first returned from a bit of a hiatus, I was told (emphasis on TOLD), that Hutchinson had been Discredited, and that it was proven that he had lied.
Right out of the starting gate then this was being pushed down my throat, and the same with anyone else who dared to question this interpretation.
It seemed to me the gloves were off from Day 1.
So I didn't see any invitation for an open-minded debate, it was more a matter of circling the wagons, defend the theory, thrash the naysayers.

So Hutchinson has access to these "all over the place" newspaper reports that "don't have a clue" about Kelly's actual time of death, but despite the majority of reports alluding to an early morning time of death...

Ok, let me just offer this observation.
What comes across in many of your posts is this need for "One-upmanship". I have no doubt you are sufficiently educated enough to be able to count accurately, and so are all the members who may read these exchanges. Yet despite the fact you only posted 4 or 5 examples, yet I posted double that, you choose to claim "the majority".
I only mention this because it is amusing, perhaps due to sibling rivalry in your formative years, then the rest of your adult life is spent in competition with the rest of humanity?
This is only an observation, and I acknowledge this trait could be an advantage in some fields, but suffice to say it makes me smile.

I remain interested in these sudden doubts you appear to be expressing over the accuracy of Hutchinson's press interview. You were previously quite happy to use this as a crucial linchpin for some of your more "interesting" Hutchinson theories - the Petticoat Lane sighting, his recording of the time from St. Mary's Church, the "fuller" description. Are you now suggesting that these events never happened, and may have been a press invention?

There is no 'sudden doubt', my concern with Hutchinson's press statement centers on those details which were not included in his police statement.
Not that I doubt they are true, I will only doubt the truth of these details if I have reason to. That said, they may not be accurate.
There is a difference between an invented scenario (something that never happened), and one that has been related inaccurately (it did happen, but not all the details are accurate).
I do not think anything in his press statement was invented, but I do allow for something not being recorded accurately. Press hype, etc.

[Wickerman]

A sighting AND a description...I meant.



"Distinction"...I meant.

It's ok Ben, I have moments like that too.
There's no need to rush, I'm not going anywhere....

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,
late response as I had to leave yesterday.

press: actually for this reason I don't think it's the decisive factor. I might be wrong now, but I think the actual release of the inquest in the press came after?

Hi Sepiae.
I'm not sure but, we might be talking at cross-purposes here.
I was talking about press opinions prior to the Inquest, whereas anything coming from Sarah Lewis came after the Inquest.
I don't believe there was sufficient time after the Inquest for Hutchinson to learn anything of significance to incorporate in his story. Other have suggested this, but...
If he has plans on coming forward to police with a trumped up story, then he runs the risk of drawing attention to himself chasing witnesses right out of the Inquest, then being presented to them later by the same police he was attempting to fool.
Sarah Lewis could easily be brought to I.D. Hutchinson as the man she saw, and then she tells Abberline that this was the same man pestering us after the Inquest (Busted!).
The whole idea is highly impractical to me.

Importantly, I'd like to know exactly how populated Dorset St. was that night. It wasn't too late/early, not for the area, for people being still out and about, but then again it was rainy. So if people had been a little more abundant then you're perfectly right and period, as he'd known that he'd been seen waiting for a long time even without looking at anyone else. This indeed would strengthen his position.

Scotland Yard made a door-to-door, house-by-house investigation over that weekend following the murder. Press accounts suggest the police interviewed 1200 tenants among all the Doss-houses in and around Dorset St.
We have no idea if any of them saw this same loiterer seen by Sarah L. but those statements were available to Abberline on Monday evening to help him assess Hutchinson's story.

mugging: indeed, this idea had been proposed - wasn't it Evans again? And yes, that would be a perfectly satisfying explanation. One which he could hardly give to the police, ofc.

Right, but also he may have thought to call on Mary after Astrachan left.
Alternately, we do not know if Hutchinson 'knew' whose room that was in Millers Court. He may have thought it was Astrachan's room and Mary would emerge later.
There are so many unknowns in this tale that we can't afford to throw all our eggs in one basket.

45 min: yes, guesswork, but I'm not too troubled by wondering whether it were 45, 40, 30, 20, especially in the rain [though I've done weirder things in relation to weather].

I mention it because I know when waiting for someone 10-15 minutes can "seem" like double that.
He didn't tell Badham what time it was when he left, he only estimated 45 minutes.
It appears the reporter questioned him on that specific point, but was the recollection accurate?

I do not believe Hutchinson did it. I consider him worth remaining on the suspect list, and there's more for me to keep him than with most others.

I agree, he can't be ruled out. My concern has always been (across infinite existing threads) that the arguments raised in order to cast doubt on him are mostly contrived.
Questions are raised by theorists, but where several possible answers are available, only the more incriminating solutions have been accepted by these same theorists.
The overall picture then is one of an evasive loiterer, who "must have" lied, and invented Astrachan, therefore "must" be culpable in some way or other.

suitable H. in the census: oh yes, so very much! But if Chris Scott didn't find anything, who will. We might also have to deal with G. Hutchinson being an alias, as aliases were so often used by so many,

Absolutely, and that has been suggested too.
I'm not sure if you are aware of the Hutchinson referred to as "Topping", Chris Scott hadn't ruled him out, but I can't remember all the specifics about the man. Only that he was a Plumber (I think), which some have accepted as "proof" it couldn't be the same Hutchinson who claimed to be a "Groom".
My own resume would include, 'Butchers Apprentice', Electrician (qualified), Engineering Specialist, and now I drive an 18 Wheeler Transport truck.

So anyone looking for the 'Butchers Apprentice' is going to find me behind the wheel of a Big-Rig - I guess they'll have the wrong guy then

If I was forced, gunpoint, to decide who I'd like best as a suspect I'd say the man named 'David Cohen', anyway.

Ah, I remember back in '98/99 having some extremely long debates about Cohen with Martin Fido here on Casebook.
I honestly do not think any of the named suspects are correct.

[sepiae]

...we might be talking at cross-purposes here.
I was talking about press opinions prior to the Inquest, whereas anything coming from Sarah Lewis came after the Inquest.
I don't believe there was sufficient time after the Inquest for Hutchinson to learn anything of significance to incorporate in his story. Other have suggested this, but...

If he has plans on coming forward to police with a trumped up story, then he runs the risk of drawing attention to himself chasing witnesses right out of the Inquest, then being presented to them later by the same police he was attempting to fool.

Sarah Lewis could easily be brought to I.D. Hutchinson as the man she saw, and then she tells Abberline that this was the same man pestering us after the Inquest (Busted!).

Alternately, we do not know if Hutchinson 'knew' whose room that was in Millers Court. He may have thought it was Astrachan's room and Mary would emerge later.

It appears the reporter questioned him on that specific point, but was the recollection accurate?

Questions are raised by theorists, but where several possible answers are available, only the more incriminating solutions have been accepted by these same theorists.
The overall picture then is one of an evasive loiterer, who "must have" lied, and invented Astrachan, therefore "must" be culpable in some way or other.

So anyone looking for the 'Butchers Apprentice' is going to find me behind the wheel of a Big-Rig - I guess they'll have the wrong guy then

Ah, I remember back in '98/99 having some extremely long debates about Cohen with Martin Fido here on Casebook.
I honestly do not think any of the named suspects are correct.

Hi Wickerman,

right into-plunge -

cross-talk/time after inquest:
yes we were, cross-talking. Naturally I meant after the inquest. I suggest as well, that he might have had time, who can tell in the end. It is important, ofc, as that part of the suspicion hangs on [or with] it. Whether he had opportunity to learn about it depends on how fast the news spread through the community. And that doesn't necessarily mean that he'd have to -

chase witnesses:
mouth to mouth can spread fast, especially when that is quite a commonly used means in between papers. I'm guessing now, but this community in that period would probably be one where this 'pre-news'-principle applied. This was claimed to have been the case less carefully by people I deem more informed [podcasts].
I also think that we're often a little quick with dismissing possibilities because they don't seem thought through well, are not the most appropriate or logical reaction we would choose, looking from the safety of the outside. Can't count the number of occasions when I made a somewhat stupid choice while having more time at hand and a better option waited that was actually similar in many details. For the Hutchinson jumped in after learning he'd been seen-theory that means, as I wrote in reply to Ben, I [me], I would go and say, 'I heard someone had been seen, was probably me, here's why I was there and what I was doing.' Regardless whether I'd been guilty of something or not. Not mentioning anyone else at all might mean nothing. Or it might imply the wish not to mention any other witness - 'look only at me. I am the witness.'
Yes, another contrived one But completely without speculations not much will come either.

Lewis busted-pester:
Unlikely that he knew from Lewis directly, no doubt. He didn't have to learn specifics, after all. All necessary to induce the need for reaction in him would have been the information that around this specific time a man had been observed doing what he did. It made it into the inquest. In fact, the less detail he knew about exactly how specific the statement was the more it would serve to make him nervous [all still as we are/I am considering this possibility].

which room in M.'s Court:
Actually, if H. wasn't totally spinning it when saying he knew Mary Kelly for 3 years, if he really gave her money occasionally [and actually quite a lot, forgot how many shillings, but he said shillings] - yes. We still don't know that for sure. But it'd be likely. Provided he told the truth. Plus, if he knew Mary for that long it's improbable that he didn't know about her trade [even though it wasn't the same as we'd think of today]; not feasible, not such a rather well-dressed and having stranger living there, nor that Mary's address wouldn't be known to H., at least vaguely, the area.

Accuracy of recollection:
Well, after having demonstrated the gift of quite a good observer, later recollection of H. wasn't all that good, details had changed. But that might not mean much. Not only might it have been recorded badly in writing, but mainly memory works that way. Badly, that is. having said this, if suspicion of Astracan was what made him observe these details in the 1st place, they are more likely to stick.
One more thing about Astracan: I think beside the overall image that feeds well into the imagination [meaning nothing, the guy could very well have been, and looking like H. said he did], it's perhaps the bundle he carried that makes me wonder. Again, can all be true, etc. And I can imagine the objection, people surely won't have thought that the Ripper carried his knife in such package, tied with a string, out in the open, in one hand, while having his arm around Kelly? Not if common sense is applied. And yet - right after the murder, with the memory of the other murders refreshed: size and shape of the thing, knife is exactly what people must have thought.
And that makes it odd, sorry sir, it does make that detail odd.

Despite all this -

only the more incriminating solution:
I hope I made clear, more in the posting before this, that I really try not to
I'd be more than happy to have Hutchinson cleared. One more innocent with his, possibly fake, name cleared. But, to paraphrase Groucho M., these are my question marks, and if you don't like them ... well, I have others.
Actually not many.

Cohen-debates with Martin Fido:
Jeej, that must have been great Envy.

Drive safely.
Slaughter even more safely

[Harry D]

If I was forced, gunpoint, to decide who I'd like best as a suspect I'd say the man named 'David Cohen', anyway.

I would like to know Martin Fido's take on Jacob Levy. Was this a name he ever encountered whilst researching the asylum records? Or was he only focused on the records for Colney Hatch?

Levy was sent to Stone asylum in August 1890 (after the canonical murders ended). Robert Anderson's wife said the suspect was sent to asylum "near Stone". Levy died at the asylum in July 1891, around the time the case was officially closed. If people are willing to accept that the police confused Kosminski with Cohen, then surely it's possible that a similar mix up happened with our friend Jacob Levy? Wish we could find a photograph of this guy so we can finally put a face to the Ripper.

[GUT]

G'day Harry D

I would like to know Martin Fido's take on Jacob Levy. Was this a name he ever encountered whilst researching the asylum records? Or was he only focused on the records for Colney Hatch?

Levy was sent to Stone asylum in August 1890 (after the canonical murders ended). Robert Anderson's wife said the suspect was sent to asylum "near Stone". Levy died at the asylum in July 1891, around the time the case was officially closed. If people are willing to accept that the police confused Kosminski with Cohen, then surely it's possible that a similar mix up happened with our friend Jacob Levy? Wish we could find a photograph of this guy so we can finally put a face to the Ripper.

I don't know where you got the information that the case was "Officially Closed" around July 1891, but I can tell you it wasn't.

[pinkmoon]

I don't know where you got the information that the case was "Officially Closed" around July 1891, but I can tell you it wasn't.

I think in the UK after 70 years a murder investigation is officially closed I might be wrong though.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

right into-plunge -

cross-talk/time after inquest:
yes we were, cross-talking. Naturally I meant after the inquest. I suggest as well, that he might have had time, who can tell in the end.

Hi Sepiae.
I'm wondering, just how much time do you think was available for Hutch to gather this information, and from whom?
The Inquest only started at 11 o'clock, the Jury was sworn in, then Abberline took them down to Millers Court to see the room, then the body, then back to the Courthouse. The proceedings began at Noon (12:00?).
12 witnesses gave evidence, and there was a short break. So when did the Inquest finish? Five o'clock maybe?
I have searched dozens of press articles to see if anyone recorded the time, but no-one seems to have done this.

Now, as for Hutchinson, the time written on his police statement will be the time they sat down to take his statement.
Prior to that he came into Commercial St. station, and no doubt told the desk Sergeant that he had something to say. He perhaps had to run through it briefly for them to determine he had something of value to report. So they sat down at 6:00 pm to take his statement.
When did he walk in to Commercial St.? - 5:30?

You can see the timing is tight, for him to wait for them exiting Shoreditch Courthouse, then determine what had been said that might implicate him then dash off to Commercial St. Stn.
Sound a bit Keystone Cop'ish to me, dashing about here and there, and for what? It's not like he had hours to think about this.
This is what I call a contrived theory.

which room in M.'s Court:
Actually, if H. wasn't totally spinning it when saying he knew Mary Kelly for 3 years, if he really gave her money occasionally [and actually quite a lot, forgot how many shillings, but he said shillings] - yes. We still don't know that for sure. But it'd be likely. Provided he told the truth. Plus, if he knew Mary for that long it's improbable that he didn't know about her trade [even though it wasn't the same as we'd think of today]; not feasible, not such a rather well-dressed and having stranger living there, nor that Mary's address wouldn't be known to H., at least vaguely, the area.

Have you read Neal Shelden's research on Mary Kelly?

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.

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.

And yet - right after the murder, with the memory of the other murders refreshed: size and shape of the thing, knife is exactly what people must have thought.

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?

[harry]

Hutchinson had plenty of time to think about an alibi.He may have reasoned as soon as Friday,that as an acquaintance of Kelly he might be approached by the police for information.His description,scant as it might seem,as given by Lewis,must have been near the mark for Aberline and Badham to accept he was the person outside Crossingham"s.Plus ,as Ben has stressed many times, there was a fear that Lewis might recognise him.The appearance of Lewis at the inquest was all he would need to motivate his coming forward, with a story already rehearsed.

[GUT]

I think in the UK after 70 years a murder investigation is officially closed I might be wrong though.

But July 1891 is only about 18 months after MJK, so it sure as ... wasn't closed then.

[Harry D]

I don't know where you got the information that the case was "Officially Closed" around July 1891, but I can tell you it wasn't.

1892, wasn't it? So, ballpark.