Hutchinsons statement....

[caz]

Hi Caz
for me if hutch never saw mary at all and made up the whole thing, then In all likelihood he went to her place looking for a place to crash, maybe a hook up. realized she was already in there with someone and waited around for that person to leave, who was probably Blotchy.

and his amount of attention to Aman IMHO was to convince the police he was a good witness.

That would work for me, Abby.

Nobody questions why Blotchy never came forward at all, yet some regard Hutch's tardy arrival at the nick with deep suspicion. If Hutch was the killer, it follows that Blotchy was innocent, but it was the latter who was the complete no-show. Yes, I know it all hinges on being seen by a witness actually entering that room, but still. I can perfectly well understand why Hutch was so backward in coming forward if he was hanging around that night for any length of time but had nothing to do with the murder. It was a difficult position to find himself in. Not too much less difficult than the position an innocent Blotchy must have found himself in.

No way do I think the ripper, be it Hutch or Blotchy or A.N.Other, would have put himself anywhere near Kelly or that room unless he had some sort of death wish. We know that neither Blotchy nor A.N.Other did so, therefore Hutch would have had to be unique among all other potential suspects in that respect - if he had been Jack.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

But then, if he did make up the whole thing for attention and/or financial reward, why did he need to go so 'completely OTT' with his interest in what the couple 'got up to' that he also had to claim he knew her well

Because how else would he have been able to explain his inordinate interest in Kelly? "I didn't know her that well/didn't know her at all, but I followed her and her man and spied on them for the best part of an hour" just wouldn't cut it.

which has always been like a red hankie to a bull, in terms of arousing police suspicions of involvement?

We know that, but perhaps we're less naïve.

More to the point, how would you explain his claim to a 45 minute vigil outside the crime scene

He wanted to paint himself as a really diligent witness but overshot the mark, having to invent a crazy "back-story" to account for his absurdly long vigil.

Furthermore, having read the papers, he had to place a suspicious bloke inside 13 Miller's Court at approx the time Lewis saw Kelly and her man on the street, and Hutch had to absent himself from the scene before the cry of "Murder!" was heard. The 45 minute vigil would fill that gap nicely.

[caz]

because he was there, whether he saw mary that night or not.

Sorry, Abby, but I was addressing Gareth, to see what he makes of the claimed 45 minutes if Hutch wasn't there.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

That would work for me, Abby.

Nobody questions why Blotchy never came forward at all, yet some regard Hutch's tardy arrival at the nick with deep suspicion. If Hutch was the killer, it follows that Blotchy was innocent, but it was the latter who was the complete no-show. Yes, I know it all hinges on being seen by a witness actually entering that room, but still. I can perfectly well understand why Hutch was so backward in coming forward if he was hanging around that night for any length of time but had nothing to do with the murder. It was a difficult position to find himself in. Not too much less difficult than the position an innocent Blotchy must have found himself in.

No way do I think the ripper, be it Hutch or Blotchy or A.N.Other, would have put himself anywhere near Kelly or that room unless he had some sort of death wish. We know that neither Blotchy nor A.N.Other did so, therefore Hutch would have had to be unique among all other potential suspects in that respect - if he had been Jack.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
yes of course. as you might know Ive got Blotchy and hutch suspects 1 and 1a on my list.

Il admit-Hutches coming forward is a check mark against his candidacy as a valid suspect, because, as you say-most killers don't do that, although it happens.

but its not enough to eliminate him as a suspect for me obviously, as hes got so many other red flags.

conversly, Blotchys not coming forward is a check mark for his validity as a suspect IMHO.

[Sam Flynn]

conversly, Blotchys not coming forward is a check mark for his validity as a suspect IMHO.

Absolutely.

[caz]

Because how else would he have been able to explain his inordinate interest in Kelly? "I didn't know her that well/didn't know her at all, but I followed her and her man and spied on them for the best part of an hour" just wouldn't cut it.

But Gareth, he didn't need to claim an 'inordinate interest' in Kelly to claim an 'inordinate interest' in the man with her, who allegedly appeared like a fish out of water in those parts. He didn't need to claim that he spied on them for the best part of an hour either if none of it ever happened. To make the story sing for its supper he need only have claimed to be a nosey bugger who almost bumped into the couple getting friendly and decided to watch, then follow, as dirt-poor woman led unusually well-clad man into Miller's Court, finally seeing both disappearing into the very room which he subsequently learned had been turned into a veritable slaughterhouse.

He wanted to paint himself as a really diligent witness but overshot the mark, having to invent a crazy "back-story" to account for his absurdly long vigil.

But how does that work with his claim that he didn't believe the man posed any risk to Kelly? And what part of this 'crazy "back-story"' accounts for him hanging around for 45 minutes? He said nothing about wanting to see if his friend was okay, his own lame explanation being that he just wanted yet another gawp at the man because he seemed a step up from Kelly's usual clients. It's a pile of toss, isn't it, if he got such a good look at the start?

Furthermore, having read the papers, he had to place a suspicious bloke inside 13 Miller's Court at approx the time Lewis saw Kelly and her man on the street, and Hutch had to absent himself from the scene before the cry of "Murder!" was heard. The 45 minute vigil would fill that gap nicely.

Why the need to fill the whole gap though? It's not as if he claimed to see or hear anything in all that time. Surely just a claim to see this 'suspicious bloke' (who didn't strike him as suspicious at the time) enter the murder room with the victim would have sufficed, without putting himself nearly so long at the scene. What did he stand to gain from that part of the story, if it wasn't true, apart from raised eyebrows for all the wrong reasons?

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

But Gareth, he didn't need to claim an 'inordinate interest' in Kelly to claim an 'inordinate interest' in the man with her, who allegedly appeared like a fish out of water in those parts. He didn't need to claim that he spied on them for the best part of an hour either if none of it ever happened. To make the story sing for its supper he need only have claimed to be a nosey bugger who almost bumped into the couple getting friendly and decided to watch, then follow, as dirt-poor woman led unusually well-clad man into Miller's Court, finally seeing both disappearing into the very room which he subsequently learned had been turned into a veritable slaughterhouse.



But how does that work with his claim that he didn't believe the man posed any risk to Kelly? And what part of this 'crazy "back-story"' accounts for him hanging around for 45 minutes? He said nothing about wanting to see if his friend was okay, his own lame explanation being that he just wanted yet another gawp at the man because he seemed a step up from Kelly's usual clients. It's a pile of toss, isn't it, if he got such a good look at the start?



Why the need to fill the whole gap though? It's not as if he claimed to see or hear anything in all that time. Surely just a claim to see this 'suspicious bloke' (who didn't strike him as suspicious at the time) enter the murder room with the victim would have sufficed, without putting himself nearly so long at the scene. What did he stand to gain from that part of the story, if it wasn't true, apart from raised eyebrows for all the wrong reasons?

Love,

Caz
X

he needed to fill the gap because he probably was there the whole time, and wasn't sure if anyone else saw him and when.

[Sam Flynn]

But Gareth, he didn't need to claim an 'inordinate interest' in Kelly to claim an 'inordinate interest' in the man with her, who allegedly appeared like a fish out of water in those parts.

A very dry fish, at that. Hutchinson never once mentions the rain, but has plenty to say about spats, red gemstones, red hankies, turned-up moustaches, gold watch-chains, astrakhan collars, trews, shirts and ties, hats (turned down in middle), mysterious parcels with straps... and yer man doing his soft-shoe shuffle through Spitalfields in his bonny button boots.

The whole thing is ridiculous.

PS: I got the nugget about Hutch's not mentioning the rain from Stephen Senise's book. The "soft-shoe shuffle" reference is apposite in this context, too, but I won't give away too many spoilers. Get the book, folks! You won't be disappointed.

[Abby Normal]

A very dry fish, at that. Hutchinson never once mentions the rain, but has plenty to say about spats, red gemstones, red hankies, turned-up moustaches, gold watch-chains, astrakhan collars, trews, shirts and ties, hats (turned down in middle), mysterious parcels with straps... and yer man doing his soft-shoe shuffle through Spitalfields in his bonny button boots.

The whole thing is ridiculous.

PS: I got the nugget about Hutch's not mentioning the rain from Stephen Senise's book. The "soft-shoe shuffle" reference is apposite in this context, too, but I won't give away too many spoilers. Get the book, folks! You won't be disappointed.

whats the title and whats it about?

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Abby

whats the title and whats it about?

It's called Jewbaiter, sub-titled "Jack the Ripper: New Evidence & Theory".

Edit: Missed the "what's it about" bit. JTR (obviously), but it extensively covers the antisemitism/xenophobia that surrounded, and perhaps fed, the Ripper phenomenon. As I'm particularly interested in the history of the Jews in the East End, I'm finding it a fascinating read.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby
It's called Jewbaiter, sub-titled "Jack the Ripper: New Evidence & Theory".

Edit: Missed the "what's it about" bit. JTR (obviously), but it extensively covers the antisemitism/xenophobia that surrounded, and perhaps fed, the Ripper phenomenon. As I'm particularly interested in the history of the Jews in the East End, I'm finding it a fascinating read.

ok thanks

[John G]

A very dry fish, at that. Hutchinson never once mentions the rain, but has plenty to say about spats, red gemstones, red hankies, turned-up moustaches, gold watch-chains, astrakhan collars, trews, shirts and ties, hats (turned down in middle), mysterious parcels with straps... and yer man doing his soft-shoe shuffle through Spitalfields in his bonny button boots.

The whole thing is ridiculous.

PS: I got the nugget about Hutch's not mentioning the rain from Stephen Senise's book. The "soft-shoe shuffle" reference is apposite in this context, too, but I won't give away too many spoilers. Get the book, folks! You won't be disappointed.

But we don't have a verbatim account of Hutchinson's evidence, merely a summary. He might have mentioned the rain, for all we know, but this fact was omitted as not being relevant to the suspect description.

[Sam Flynn]

But we don't have a verbatim account of Hutchinson's evidence, merely a summary. He might have mentioned the rain, for all we know, but this fact was omitted as not being relevant to the suspect description.

Given the sheer amount of detail Hutchinson apparently recalled, perhaps Badham ran out of paper before they got to the bit about the weather

[John G]

Given the sheer amount of detail Hutchinson apparently recalled, perhaps Badham ran out of paper before they got to the bit about the weather

Possibly!

[Joshua Rogan]

A very dry fish, at that. Hutchinson never once mentions the rain, but has plenty to say about spats, red gemstones, red hankies, turned-up moustaches, gold watch-chains, astrakhan collars, trews, shirts and ties, hats (turned down in middle), mysterious parcels with straps... and yer man doing his soft-shoe shuffle through Spitalfields in his bonny button boots.

The whole thing is ridiculous.

PS: I got the nugget about Hutch's not mentioning the rain from Stephen Senise's book. The "soft-shoe shuffle" reference is apposite in this context, too, but I won't give away too many spoilers. Get the book, folks! You won't be disappointed.

How many other witnesses mentioned the rain that night?