Hutchinson and antisemitism ?? A possibility?

[Abberline2]

JtR displayed no violence (that we know of) towards live women.

(PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ANY OF THOSE STATEMENTS).

Other than slitting their throats ????

OK = I know that's not what you meant

[Abberline2]

You have to admit that Hutchinson's description of the A man is a bit iffy to say the least, almost too detailed to be true, the horse-shoe pin and the fact that he was himself connected in some way or other with the horse/horse owning fraternity does cast a real shadow of doubt as to his veracity, it certainly does seem that he may well have been describing someone he knew or had seen rather than anyone he saw with MJK. It was in the early hours, how could he possibly have seen a small red stone, if nothing else it would have been too dark to see the actual colour of the stone. I have a seal ring with a red stone and in dim light it looks black !

The reason Abberline was keen on Hutchinson's descrition was that Hutchinson claimed he would recognise the man again, I am sure it was this part of the statement, which seemed to offer a real chance of finally finding the killer, that grabbed Abberline and, of course, this is why he sent Hutchinson into the streets accompanied by police officers, hoping that Hutchinson would come up trumps. The fact that he failed to do so quickly led to Abberline's enthusiasm for Hutchinson to dwindle with some rapidity.

Hutchinson could have been the murderer of MJK, so if he did exist could A man and, though unlikely given the timing, so could Blotchy and, who knows, given the gaps there are in knowing exactly where MJK was the whole time (could she really have been singing the same song for an hour ?), any other man MJK hooked up with that night. There is no actual hard evidence for Hutchinson having been anti-semetic and one would have thought that the police would have discovered this very quickly if there had been. There is no evidence that Hitchinson killed anyone else or any reason to suspect him. The use of a groom's knife is an interesting supposition but the only JTR victim to have wounds that may have been infliced by the hook element of such a tool was Eddowes and even then its a may have, there is no conclusive proof. As with all suspects in the Ripper case, there are 'might have beens' and 'maybes' but no conclusive proof and I guess that will for ever be the case.

I have always felt it a little strange that anyone could believe that JTR ditched the piece of Eddowes' clothing under the juwes graffiti deliberately, the man was fleeing from the scene of (probably) his second murder that night, I can't see that after such a frenzied attack he was taking the time and the trouble to seek out a bit of incriminating graffiti and find it wholly impossible to believe that he stopped and took time out to write the graffiti himself. That the piece of clothing was found by the graffiti must surely be nothing more than sheer co-incidence.

On another point, I have often wondered who put the clothes belonging to Mrs Harvey on the fire in MJK's room. I figure it had to have been MJK herself. Her own clothes were found neatly piled in the room. MJK obviously wouldn't have burnt her own clothes and if it had been JTR who burned them why didn't he burn both lots of clothes ?

[The Good Michael]

I think all these people, from Blotchy to Cox, and from Hutch to Lewis were drunk to begin with. Trying to piece together some truth is nigh on impossible with souses and especially days after the fact. Hutch was in it for a buck, no doubt, but he may have seen a man, and he may have described him as he thought he may have looked after 30 hours of binge-drinking for all we know.

Mike

[Hunter]

Welcome to the boards Abberline2,

Good points.

I believe you hit the nail on the head concerning Hutch... everything implicating him in any way is strictly conjecture. As far as Hutch being discredited, I find it odd that a man was hauled into the police station on December 8, in regards to the Kelly murder because he fit Hutchinson's description.

As far as the Graffito goes, it would be one hell of a coincidence for Kate's apron to accidently be placed by incriminating graffito; like the amazing coincidence that two women are found murdered on the same night, in the same area, with their throats cut and be done by different killers - still possible, of course, in both cases, but likely?

[harry]

Personnely I would not put too much faith in Aberline's expressed belief in Hutchinson.Initially he may have done so,but there seems to be a complete lack of stated belief after the report of that evening.
As to Blotchy being a better bet than Hutchinson on account of being placed in Kelly's room,it seems at odds with a belief in Hutchinson's sighting of Kelly at 2AM on Commercial ST,in the company of another man,who also went to her room..You cannot have it both ways Fleetwood.

[Rubyretro]

As I said I don't believe Hutchinson killed Eddowes or Chapman

I think that the MO says that the same person killed Kelly, as had killed Eddowes & Stride.

As to why Hutchinson came forward this time after being seen by Lewis, but not after other sightings is pretty logical : none of the other witnesses had seen him for long enough nor clearly enough, and their descriptions offered to the police were full of mistakes.

In the case of Stride there are several conflicting descriptions of men seen with her shortly before the murder. In the case of Eddowes, Lawende got the age wrong. I think -given the gap between Eddowes & Kelly's killing, that it is very possible that 'Jack' left town or made himself scarce, until he saw
Lawende' 'sailor' description & realised that none of the witnesses of the
'double event' would be able to recognise him again, and the police weren't looking for him.

Lewis was different, because he knew that she'd seen him (he saw her after all), and she had seen him acting very suspiciously at the murder scene.

I'm sure that the temptation of getting into a victim's home, and for once,
really having the time to experiment on her body instead of being scared all the time of getting caught & having to rush things, over rode the dangers.
Anyway, maybe the adrenalin rush from risk taking was something he liked ?
Lewis could not predict what would happen.

I think that Hutchinson would certainly have been very interested in following the inquest, and particularly in the description that Lewis would offer, and the difference is that this time the description was correct and it was obvious that she could identify him if she passed him in the street.
It was obvious that he should come forward voluntarily before the description became general knowledge, as he knew it would look very bad indeed the longer he left it.

The next thing is, he probably met lots of people who knew him that evening
-he habitually lodged at the Victoria Home which was nearby. If he had told anyone that he had just walked back from Romford, where he didn't have work, and he was intending to lodge at the Victoria & only had the price of a bed left for the weekend & was intending to look for work Monday (somebody may have even given him some tips for a job on Monday, I'd expect that he'd ask everyone : I would if I had no money.)......why, it would look very very suspicious if he disappeared just after Kelly's murder and his description matched the 'suspect'. Even more so if he was identified and it was found
that he had also left hurriedly immediately after Stride and Eddowes..

Next thing would be -how could he have left ? He'd just waved goodbye to his sister and told her his intentions..he couldn't turn up again straight away
with his description in the papers as a possible JtR. He didn't have any money beyond the price of a bed (as far as we know), and he knew
how to find work in Whitechapel.

I think that after sweating with the problem for a bit , he decided to deflect suspicion by coming forward, offering a fictitious 'other man' as an alibi, and
confuse the police by giving a description a million miles from himself, but a jewish man to agree with public speculation and cause racial tension (a description based on a/some real people that he knew or had seen, in my opinion. Very interesting choice of description.)

I think that once he had been pictured in the papers, interviewed by the police and papers, accompanied around Whitehall by policeman, had regaled everyone in pubs, at the Victoria Home and on building sites with his tale, then he effectively made it totally impossible to ever operate as JtR again.

And that is why the Ripper murders ended with Kelly.

[Rubyretro]

You have to admit that Hutchinson's description of the A man is a bit iffy to say the least, almost too detailed to be true, the horse-shoe pin and the fact that he was himself connected in some way or other with the horse/horse owning fraternity does cast a real shadow of doubt as to his veracity, it certainly does seem that he may well have been describing someone he knew or had seen rather than anyone he saw with MJK. It was in the early hours, how could he possibly have seen a small red stone, if nothing else it would have been too dark to see the actual colour of the stone. I have a seal ring with a red stone and in dim light it looks black !

The reason Abberline was keen on Hutchinson's descrition was that Hutchinson claimed he would recognise the man again, I am sure it was this part of the statement, which seemed to offer a real chance of finally finding the killer, that grabbed Abberline and, of course, this is why he sent Hutchinson into the streets accompanied by police officers, hoping that Hutchinson would come up trumps. The fact that he failed to do so quickly led to Abberline's enthusiasm for Hutchinson to dwindle with some rapidity.

Hutchinson could have been the murderer of MJK, so if he did exist could A man and, though unlikely given the timing, so could Blotchy and, who knows, given the gaps there are in knowing exactly where MJK was the whole time (could she really have been singing the same song for an hour ?), any other man MJK hooked up with that night. There is no actual hard evidence for Hutchinson having been anti-semetic and one would have thought that the police would have discovered this very quickly if there had been. There is no evidence that Hitchinson killed anyone else or any reason to suspect him. The use of a groom's knife is an interesting supposition but the only JTR victim to have wounds that may have been infliced by the hook element of such a tool was Eddowes and even then its a may have, there is no conclusive proof. As with all suspects in the Ripper case, there are 'might have beens' and 'maybes' but no conclusive proof and I guess that will for ever be the case.

I have always felt it a little strange that anyone could believe that JTR ditched the piece of Eddowes' clothing under the juwes graffiti deliberately, the man was fleeing from the scene of (probably) his second murder that night, I can't see that after such a frenzied attack he was taking the time and the trouble to seek out a bit of incriminating graffiti and find it wholly impossible to believe that he stopped and took time out to write the graffiti himself. That the piece of clothing was found by the graffiti must surely be nothing more than sheer co-incidence.

On another point, I have often wondered who put the clothes belonging to Mrs Harvey on the fire in MJK's room. I figure it had to have been MJK herself. Her own clothes were found neatly piled in the room. MJK obviously wouldn't have burnt her own clothes and if it had been JTR who burned them why didn't he burn both lots of clothes ?

Abberline 2 -I think that quite alot of time elapsed between Eddowes being
killed and the bit of apron being found, although the streets are fairly close.
There must have been thousands of spots to leave the the apron in the back
alleys -even places where it is unlikely that it would ever be discovered (in a hole or drain).

Yet JtR chose a building where mainly jews were lodging, and this graffiti existed -after having killed two different women who had been soliciting in
proximity to jewish clubs.

Why did JtR take this bit of clothing ? It has been speculated that it was to carry away the organs, yet he didn't take any clothing in the other murders,
so one must presume that he had other means of carrying the organs.
Could it be that he took the apron piece expressly to leave in this spot because he knew that the graffiti was there, and he made sure that the policeman had finished his rounds & there were no witnesses around before he calmly placed it there, rather than throwing it through just any doorway in a panic ?

If he DID choose this location on purpose, then it was guaranteed to cause
more tension with the jewish population.

As to Hutchinson, if he made up Astrakhan, he chose not only to make him a jew at a time when the population was enflamed by the murders & looking at every jew with suspicion, but he chose to make him flashy, rich & ostentatious -that 'gold ' watchchain has shades of Shylock !
It sounds like those racist newspaper cartoon jews, in it's description.

I've always imagined that he burned the clothing because he had worn it to
protect his own clothing from all the blood (weren't there some shirts there ?-
he could have worn one, and tied the other on as an apron).
Maybe there was bloody hand prints all over them?
(I am not suggesting that he wore the hat, Adam !!).

As to the knife, I think that the hook would have come really in useful to hook out kidney's from the front...it would be awkward with a straight blade, in the dark, and he'd have to be fishing about with his hand. A hook would be quicker, easier & cleaner. I'm not sure at all that it's impossible to prove
because we have photos and measurements of the wounds. I have no idea how many companies were producing farrier's knives at that time (and there must have been a few, given the number of horses), but that must be possible to find out. I see that victorian farriers knives do come up for sale on e-bay, and I expect that you can find them in stud museums or auctions
or antique shops in that area where there were the most stud farms in the country. I expect that it's possible to measure the angle of the hook bit (they're all different, according to the make), and a pathologist (or rather several ) could pronounce.

[Adam Went]

Anybody who has ever walked through a large city can tell you just how thick the walls of some areas are with graffiti. Today, they use spray paint - in 1888, spray paint didn't exist, and so chalk was the next best option. I cannot fathom why some people continue to insist that things must have been so much different in London in 1888 to any other city in any other country at any other point in history - it wasn't. And I'm not referring to just the graffiti.

For one, it isn't specific to anything - it doesn't refer to any of the murders - infact, it doesn't even refer to any criminal activity at all! It's just "there", and IMO, has nothing to do with the apron and was not a message from JTR.

Cheers,
Adam.

[DVV]

As far as the Graffito goes, it would be one hell of a coincidence for Kate's apron to accidently be placed by incriminating graffito; like the amazing coincidence that two women are found murdered on the same night, in the same area, with their throats cut and be done by different killers - still possible, of course, in both cases, but likely?

Hi Hunter,

Very unlikely, indeed.

Amitiés,
David

[The Good Michael]

Anybody who has ever walked through a large city can tell you just how thick the walls of some areas are with graffiti.

In Seoul the walls are not thick with graffiti, neither in Tokyo, Beijing, Chicago, Frankfurt, Vienna, Addis, Fukuoka, Taipei. Minneapolis... no.

Some graffiti, sure. Thick? No. Too much coincidence with the apron. Way too much.

Mike

[Garry Wroe]

As far as Hutch being discredited, I find it odd that a man was hauled into the police station on December 8, in regards to the Kelly murder because he fit Hutchinson's description.

Interesting, too, Hunter, that Chapman, Abberline's preferred suspect, bore a more than passing resemblance to the man described by Hutchinson.

Garry Wroe.

[DVV]

Except for the age, Garry.
Quite a difference.
I believe Abberline's chapmania has more to do with medical knowledge and the supposed American murders.

Amitiés,
David

[harry]

Had Hutchinson not come forward,the obvious suspect would have been the man Cox says entered Kelly's room,in her,(kelly) company.When Cox first communicated this information to police is not known,but it became known at the inquest on the monday.Not much time could have been spent looking for Blotchy, and the introduction of Hutchinson's sighting would most certainly have swung police activities in that direction.So Blotchy,by Hutchinson's action,is given an alibi,as is Hutchinson.A Jew now becomes the focal point.
The question is,could this have been a ploy by Hutchinson to take suspicion deliberately in a new direction.There seems no reason whatsoever to come forward and help Blotchy,and put himself in the picture,unless he himself was Blotchy.Nothing much is known of Kelly's movements that night,but what is certain,is that if she were alive at 2AM,what happened before that time,would,to the authorities,seem of little importance,and a waste of time finding out.

[The Good Michael]

So Blotchy,by Hutchinson's action,is given an alibi,as is Hutchinson.A Jew now becomes the focal point.

It reminds me of BS man and pipeman possibly working in tandem in Berner Street. BS being Blotchy and Hutch being pipeman. One looking out for the other.

Mike

[Rubyretro]

Interesting, too, Hunter, that Chapman, Abberline's preferred suspect, bore a more than passing resemblance to the man described by Hutchinson.

Garry Wroe.

The majority of men wore moustaches at the time.

A great number of men could be described as dark, jewish (later amended to foreign looking).

The most precise parts of the description were the overcoat, the tie pin and the watch.

Lots of rich men (however rare for Whitechapel) might own a black astrakhan overcoat.

Not many men would own a 'horse shoe' tie pin.

Only the tiniest minority in the country would own a massive gold watchchain
with a red stone hanging from it.

The chances that someone would own all three, come to Whitechapel , and not be the man of Hutchinson's description are so miniscule as to be non existant.

It would be incredible if a barber owned one of these articles.

If a barber owned these articles then he would wear them.

If a barber owned all three of these articles then it would be unforgettable.

With all the publicity surrounding Hutchinson's description, someone (and probably lots) of people would think of Chapman if he wore articles of this
description.

If Chapman had pawned these articles, a pawn shop owner would recognise this description in the papers.

Chapman was not a 'toff' but an imigrant barber.

The police never caught JtR.

Abberline never caught JtR

It is probable that the police never found JtR because they were looking for someone of the wrong description and profile.

Therefore the police, and Abberline's opinions are interesting but not of major importance.

(sorry Garry, to write like that -it's because I'm making the effort to not be controversial).