A Different Take

[Ben]

Hi Tom,

Yes, but my concern is that Hutch's proximity seems to be the only reason he IS a suspect, and I feel it should work the other way.

There are indications that Hutchinson mointered the scene of a particularly brutal crime from a vantage point at a time crucial to Mary Jane Kelly's death, just as there is evidence that he lied about his motivations for doing so. Such an invidual would certainly be considered a greater priority to a modern investigative force than say, an indicidual with a reputed dislike of women but with no connection to any crime scene or even the East End. I'm not saying any of that makes Hutchinson the ripper, necessarily, but what we do know is of immediate significance to the murder investigation and obliges us to rate him pretty highly on the Suspiciometer in contrast to most other suspects.

The cops might have liked him initially, but it seems that he evidence was later discredited.

I doubt very much that his identity was satisfactorily established, since such conclusive "checking" was barely possible in those days.

I agree Tom, and Ill add that it would seem only modern researchers consider him as a potential suspect at all

Not strictly true, Mike, surprisingly enough. At least one newspaper offered the sugegstion, albeit in admittedly guarded terminology, that Hutchinson ought to have been quizzed as a suspect. Indeed, we don't know if he was or not. For what it's worth, I consider it far more likely that he came forward to deflect suspicion away from himself, rather than someone else.

All the best,
Ben

[Malcolm X]

it's strange that there was a month gap between Eddowes and Kelly, plus the Ripper style murders stopped after Kelly too... my guess is that the killer was spooked after Eddowes and waited for the police presence on the streets to die down before killing again.

a seaman? maybe, but he's in port a hell of a long time...trade was brisk and i expect the turn around time for merchant shipping was much faster.. more likely only in port for a week or so.... not sure

because what's going against HUTCH is, no more Ripper style murders in later years and yet he was still around..

it points towards somebody that left the East End or who died... or who downgraded to random knife attacks only (stabbings or similar) as per Zodiac

i think if this is 2 killers; then it's pretty damned weird and doesn't feel right...........bloody hell, we're mising so much here... could even be a killer that R D'Onston's theory suggests... but not him.

[Malcolm X]

But yes, I wonder sometimes if more than one man was involved.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

yes so do i, especially Stride

[Malcolm X]

Yes, but my concern is that Hutch's proximity seems to be the only reason he IS a suspect, and I feel it should work the other way. To take him serious as a suspect, there should be other indicators of guilt, such as a history of abusing women, or a contemporary pointing the finger of guilt at him, or something. And that's all lacking with Hutch. What we have instead are a bunch of cops who seem to like him.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

peter sutcliffe didn't have a history of abusing women either, even his wife had no idea either

The police didn't think there were two killers, they just felt SOMEONE in the killer's life might have suspicions. They were clear in that no pardon would be issued to someone who took active part in the murders.

But yes, I wonder sometimes if more than one man was involved.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Fair clarification...but Wideawake Man if a lookout, is an accomplice after the fact...as the Pardon was worded. In that he would assist the killer in making sure the coast was clear to stay in the room...or to leave the scene. With the inference that the killer was in that room at the time he was watching the court.......like Blotchy may have still been.

All the best Tom.

[Tom_Wescott]

I think if there were 2 killers involved in this murder....as the Pardon issued on the 10th seems to suggest that the police felt was possible in this case..

The police didn't think there were two killers, they just felt SOMEONE in the killer's life might have suspicions. They were clear in that no pardon would be issued to someone who took active part in the murders.

But yes, I wonder sometimes if more than one man was involved.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

And unfortunately, we know him only because he decided to go to the police one Monday evening, where he signed his statement "George Hutchinson".

Precisely. We only know him because he volunteered himself. His identity probably checked out with the police, so there's still a chance we'll know who he is for sure.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

"Yes, but my concern is that Hutch's proximity seems to be the only reason he IS a suspect, and I feel it should work the other way. "

I agree Tom, and Ill add that it would seem only modern researchers consider him as a potential suspect at all....even after his story is dismissed we have no record of them investigating him for Public Mischief let alone as a potential suspect seen that night...as his statement clearly demonstrates based on Sarah's testimony that he is likely assuming the place of her Wideawake Hat Man.

But why would he invite that assumption I wonder.

I think if there were 2 killers involved in this murder....as the Pardon issued on the 10th seems to suggest that the police felt was possible in this case....I see Hutch more as the man that directs the attention on himself...and I would think if he wasnt guilty in the crime but did play lookout....he has little to fear by doing that unless they catch the man he worked with. But since he inserts a man that cannot reasonably have been seen with Mary that night.....a fictional character, it makes me wonder if he was working with someone, wouldnt he be much different in description than Astrakan was?

He brings a toff into the mix when... if he was an accomplice, he was more likely watching out for another poor man. Maybe someone like a Blotchy.

Cheers Tom.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Sticking a hanky where it would poke out from an overcoat would have looked very eccentric in the LVP"

Ah, Ben! And our dear friend mr Astrakhan was not one to look eccentric, was h ... wait a minute..!

Have to hand it to you, Ben - you come up with the most unexpected answers some time!
Thanks for the well-wishes prior to my fishing tour, by the bye; it worked!

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Yes, but my concern is that Hutch's proximity seems to be the only reason he IS a suspect, and I feel it should work the other way. To take him serious as a suspect, there should be other indicators of guilt, such as a history of abusing women, or a contemporary pointing the finger of guilt at him, or something. And that's all lacking with Hutch. What we have instead are a bunch of cops who seem to like him.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,
of course you're right...but if Hutch had a "history of abusing women", etc, he wouldn't have come forward, I guess (whether he would have done so, perhaps, with an alias... )
And unfortunately, we know him only because he decided to go to the police one Monday evening, where he signed his statement "George Hutchinson".

Amitiés,
David

[Tom_Wescott]

not that many other suspects have evidence of proximity to (let alone interest in) a crime scene against them.

Yes, but my concern is that Hutch's proximity seems to be the only reason he IS a suspect, and I feel it should work the other way. To take him serious as a suspect, there should be other indicators of guilt, such as a history of abusing women, or a contemporary pointing the finger of guilt at him, or something. And that's all lacking with Hutch. What we have instead are a bunch of cops who seem to like him.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ben]

Hi Tom,

I agree that more biographical material would be welcomed. Just to clarify, though, the suspicions that have been levelled against Hutchinson have a good deal more to do with mere loitering, not that many other suspects have evidence of proximity to (let alone interest in) a crime scene against them. Some can't even be placed in London at the appropriate time.

All the best,
Ben

[Tom_Wescott]

but is this so...i'm not sure, but dont rule him out quite so easily

I would caution not to rule him IN too easily, either. His mere loitering has caused many believe to believe wholeheartedly he is the Ripper, and I'm not sure I get that. It would help immensely if we had more ironclad info about Hutch's life before and after November, 1888.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Malcolm X]

Hi Tom,



If the story was false as is believed...that would either make him a very dangerously disturbed individual, or someone with an agenda. Since he convinces what I assume must be an astute and professional man like Abberline....I think the "disturbed" angle may not be workable.

He creates a client seen with Mary after the evidence says she was already in her room...

Cheers Tom, all.

yes, it could be purely Anti- Semetic only.... but then again, Dutfields yard and ``the jews are the men`` looks exactly the same too

[Malcolm X]

Hi Ben,

I hear what you're saying, but in the end, all Prater witnessed and all Hutch admits to is him loitering around an open street near a pretty whore's house and a pub. Such spots had men loitering around them 24/7. I don't see how this man Prater saw simply standing about has such a strong chance of being Kelly's killer. On any other night, you'd see men loitering around the same spot.


Tom Wescott

no, he just so happens to be loitering about for far too long, outside of the room of the Ripper's next victim, with the timing perfect for a 4am break in ``oh muder`` .........THIS IS HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS

he left at 3am... when her light was finally out, or had been out for the previous 15 mins, we cant be sure when her light went out.. but oh my God, he looks like a classic stalker.

but is this so...i'm not sure, but dont rule him out quite so easily