Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson?

[Fisherman]

Kelly bringing a complete stranger back to her room during the height of the Whitechapel murders requires an explanation. Especially given several of the murdered women would have been somewhat local. Even Eddowes gives me pause to think JtR knew them or at the very least knew the spot where he was going. Then there are the descriptions of him out there and awareness of a serial killer at large. I don't think I fully buy the idea that JtR was a completely opportunistic murderer.

For example, if he need not go indoors to strike with Kelly, then how come Kelly seems to be the official end of the series? Why is he not back to repeating Eddowes and Chapman elsewhere outdoors?

There is a way too much confidence shown by Eddowes and Kelly in their assailant. Eddowes went with him to that corner of Mitre Sq. Kelly brought him home.

Eddowes snatched walking through the square and Kelly's room intruded upon seems to have more explanatory power than them taking this person to these places at the height of the ripper scare.

Also, how could the ripper dress the same as the description doing the rounds and get away with it for Kelly?

The unfortunates were pretty cool about things, generally speaking. "It´s Jack or bust", sort of. Entertaining punters was their only means of surviving, and when it is, you do what you have to. Any prostitute anywhere knows that her next customer can be her killer, and they ply their trade regardless of that.
I think that a man of wealth would be hard to resist for a Whitechapel prostitute.

Kelly is the official end of the series, and you ask how come: because there were no other rippings out in the streets (or in prostitute´s lodgings) for some time afterwards, and once there was one (McKenzie), it was perceived that there was a de-escalation and that put most people off.

The killer was opportunistic in how he procured victims, but quite likely not in how he had the aim of killing before he did so.

Eddowes "snatched" would presuppose that the killer hid in Mitre Square, sensing that sooner or later a single woman would pass it at that time. I find that an unappealing suggestion.
As for Kelly, I think she was found out on the streets, just like the others.

[Fisherman]

Didn't Dew also put a beard on Blotchy?

We may find out when Gareth produces his list of howlers, Jon.

[Sam Flynn]

We may find out when Gareth produces his list of howlers, Jon.

I already have. The most egregious of which was calling a knackered army veteran a youth. Dew's memoirs are not to be trusted.

[MrBarnett]

Dew’s account of Emma Smith’s murder contains several errors.

[Fisherman]

I already have. The most egregious of which was calling a knackered army veteran a youth. Dew's memoirs are not to be trusted.

That´s a very short list, though, is it not? I mean, you have made a few errors too, have you not?

Are you to be trusted?

[Fisherman]

Dew’s account of Emma Smith’s murder contains several errors.

The overall impression is nevertheless that he got most things right, a decent enough achievement at his age and with so long time passed. To simply discard him as a source would be very wrong - even if what he says sometimes does not fit our own thoughts...

Anyway, I think that should do for now when it comes to Dew. The thread has another aim than to cheer/pooh-pooh him.

[MrBarnett]

Dew has Fanny Mortimer going out to her ‘gate’ to listen the the choir at the club. Methinks he may have never been to Berners Street. Certainly, when he provides the boundaries of the WM, he seems to exclude Berners Street.

He also tells us that the period after the Nichols murder was very difficult for him. He lost his appetite and couldn’t bear to look into a butchers shop on account of the dreadful sights he had seen.

[Batman]

Assuming for the sake of argument that Kelly knew her murderer, how could we possibly determine whether she knew him well or barely at all?

Simply because this was at the height of the Whitechapel murders and she was a potential target being one of the "unfortunates". The idea she wasn't aware of the risk of bringing strangers back doesn't fit. So she must have been aware. She must also have some idea of the descriptions out there.

Also, JtR himself is most certainly at high risk of being caught. Can he just stroll through Whitechapel unquestioned at night?

How do we know why he stopped?

We don't. I am just giving the official position somewhat. That he stopped after Kelly.

What evidence do we have that he was close to being caught? Do we have any evidence that the police focused on individuals that knew Kelly as possible suspects?

c.d.

Being close to getting caught is one reason why SK's stop. Barnett was interrogated. I presume they followed up on his story.

[Batman]

Barnett, Fleming...

And why is it necessary to go back to Tabram? Nichols would also fit your scenario - more so, because she was killed at a safer distance away, thus minimising the possibility of the killer's being identified.

The geoprofile also puts Tabram into the picture. I go with Sugden on her inclusion.

Barnett doesn't fit here. He is living with Kelly around April through to the start of November, nine days before her murder. Too close.

Joseph Fleming meets the criteria much better.

Why is there so little about him out there?

[Fisherman]

Dew has Fanny Mortimer going out to her ‘gate’ to listen the the choir at the club. Methinks he may have never been to Berners Street. Certainly, when he provides the boundaries of the WM, he seems to exclude Berners Street.

He also tells us that the period after the Nichols murder was very difficult for him. He lost his appetite and couldn’t bear to look into a butchers shop on account of the dreadful sights he had seen.

Do things like these amount to much, though? Gate or doorway, is it really pointing to misleading or lying on Dew´s behalf? And do we know that he could not have seen Nichols at some stage?

What is at stake here is his ability to correctly point out how the participants in the drama were looked upon by the police and the society on a whole. I fail to see why he should have gotten Hutchinson of all people wrong on that score.

But as we say out here, each to his own.

[MrBarnett]

The overall impression is nevertheless that he got most things right, a decent enough achievement at his age and with so long time passed. To simply discard him as a source would be very wrong - even if what he says sometimes does not fit our own thoughts...

Anyway, I think that should do for now when it comes to Dew. The thread has another aim than to cheer/pooh-pooh him.

Fish,

You have been hassling Gareth for a full list. There are many small errors in Dew’s account, and there’s no reason to exclude the possibility that there may be some in his account of the Hutchinson story.

Sources like Dew, Leeson, and that old spoofer Arthur Harding, are fascinating, but they should be viewed with a great deal of circumspection.


Gary

[MrBarnett]

Last post on Dew (from me). This is his retrospective copper’s hunch concerning the MJK witnesses:

And if Mrs. Maxwell was mistaken, is it not probable that George Hutchison erred also? This, without reflecting in any way on either witness, is my considered view. I believe that the man of the billycock hat and beard was the last person to enter Marie Kelly's room that night and was her killer. Always assuming that Mrs. Cox ever had seen her with a man.

[MrBarnett]

Am I right in thinking that by 1891 Toppy was living in a small and seemingly respectable lodging house in Warren Street and working as a plumber?

[Fisherman]

Fish,

You have been hassling Gareth for a full list. There are many small errors in Dew’s account, and there’s no reason to exclude the possibility that there may be some in his account of the Hutchinson story.

Sources like Dew, Leeson, and that old spoofer Arthur Harding, are fascinating, but they should be viewed with a great deal of circumspection.


Gary

I reacted to how Gareth spoke of "howlers" on Dews behalf, and I think it is an unfair assessment of his work. As such, it can never be excluded that there are errors in any account, and that goes for what Dew had to ay about Hutchinson too - but what he said is in line with what the papers and Abberline expressed, and it therefore becomes of interest since there are no other assessments of Hutchinson in biographies and such.

Circumspection - I´m all for it. Dumping - no.

[Fisherman]

Am I right in thinking that by 1891 Toppy was living in a small and seemingly respectable lodging house in Warren Street and working as a plumber?

Yes, you are.