Tweet
The reason Abberline believed what Hutchinson said in his statement to the police was because he wanted to believe it. He genuinely thought that Hutchinson was providing the first concrete evidence as to the identify of JTR, that he had truly seen JTR, had provided a detailed description and had stated he could identify the man. It does look as if Abberline soon came to realise that his immediate hopes of getting JTR via Hutchinson were false hopes. Its hard to believe that Abberline (and other officers) didn't then consider the possibility that Hutchinson may have been more involved in MJK's killing than he had said. However, the fact is that they did not arrest Hutchinson for the murder(s) and didn't even consider him a suspect. Of course, Hutchinson's description of A man may have thrown Abberline and the others off the scent for a while but these were experienced detectives, etc, and wouldn't have taken that long to realise the trail laid by Hutchinson was a cold one. Other witnesses had described potential JTRs as 'foreign' looking so its not much of a step to go from foreign to Jewish especially in the context of the East End of 1888.
Hutchinson didn't come forward until after the inquest but perhaps he was just sweating it out. It was not until the inquest heard the evidence of Sarah Lewis that Hutchinson would have known he could possibly be identified as having been standing by the entrance to Millers Court shortly before the murder appears to have taken place. Until the inquest, he may have been hoping that no-one would come forward to say he was there or, indeed, not known anyone would give such evidence at the inquest. But, once the inquest was told that information and, afraid that he himself might be considered the killer, he decided the best course of action was to come forward at that point. He may simply given the police a wholly ficticious description of the A man he said was with MJK simply to throw suspicion away from himself as much as to gain attention. That in itself suggests he was protecting himself, but it does not prove that he murdered Kelly.
What various cities in the world can evince in the nature of graffiti is somewhat beyond the point isn't it ? You must keep in mind the nature of the later Victorian East End: overcrowded, dirty, poverty-stricken, mutli-ethnic, large population of poor, often Jewish, immigrants, etc, etc. It beggars belief that the juwes graffiti was the only anti-semitic graffiti in the Whitechapel/Spitalfields area in 1888 and the only reason it was wiped out was because the piece of Eddowes' apron could have inflamed a tense situation that already existed in the East End with or without the JTR murders. This is the only reason the graffiti took on any particular significance at all. To think that the graffiti was written by, or even specifically selected by, JTR is adding two and two together to get five. Its adding an unnecessary stage to events.
Re the shirt found partially burnt in MJK's fire grate, I though it was a boy's shirt belonging to Mrs Harvey's young son. At an alleged 5ft - 6/7ins A man would have been a bit too big to wear it to protect his clothes from MJK's blood. Maybe they were burnt to provide light, heat, etc, but maybe just burned out of pique or anger. Who knows ?
What is true is that we should avoid thinking we know when in reality we don't. Speculation and supposition, no matter how convincing, is not hard evidence. It can point us in one direction or another, leave room for healthy and friendly debate but, in the final analysis proves nothing.
Hutchinson didn't come forward until after the inquest but perhaps he was just sweating it out. It was not until the inquest heard the evidence of Sarah Lewis that Hutchinson would have known he could possibly be identified as having been standing by the entrance to Millers Court shortly before the murder appears to have taken place. Until the inquest, he may have been hoping that no-one would come forward to say he was there or, indeed, not known anyone would give such evidence at the inquest. But, once the inquest was told that information and, afraid that he himself might be considered the killer, he decided the best course of action was to come forward at that point. He may simply given the police a wholly ficticious description of the A man he said was with MJK simply to throw suspicion away from himself as much as to gain attention. That in itself suggests he was protecting himself, but it does not prove that he murdered Kelly.
What various cities in the world can evince in the nature of graffiti is somewhat beyond the point isn't it ? You must keep in mind the nature of the later Victorian East End: overcrowded, dirty, poverty-stricken, mutli-ethnic, large population of poor, often Jewish, immigrants, etc, etc. It beggars belief that the juwes graffiti was the only anti-semitic graffiti in the Whitechapel/Spitalfields area in 1888 and the only reason it was wiped out was because the piece of Eddowes' apron could have inflamed a tense situation that already existed in the East End with or without the JTR murders. This is the only reason the graffiti took on any particular significance at all. To think that the graffiti was written by, or even specifically selected by, JTR is adding two and two together to get five. Its adding an unnecessary stage to events.
Re the shirt found partially burnt in MJK's fire grate, I though it was a boy's shirt belonging to Mrs Harvey's young son. At an alleged 5ft - 6/7ins A man would have been a bit too big to wear it to protect his clothes from MJK's blood. Maybe they were burnt to provide light, heat, etc, but maybe just burned out of pique or anger. Who knows ?
What is true is that we should avoid thinking we know when in reality we don't. Speculation and supposition, no matter how convincing, is not hard evidence. It can point us in one direction or another, leave room for healthy and friendly debate but, in the final analysis proves nothing.
Comment