Hutchinson and antisemitism ?? A possibility?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Well, Levy was merely saying he didn't like to roam the streets at night and pass by rather ruff-looking characters, that's all.

Amitiés,
David

Yes and taken at face value it's a fair comment. But where you want to build a case around those 3 men you could quite easily speculate about the nature of their comments and arrive at a conclusion they were lying. Which one of them said the square should be watched? Odd eh......suggesting the square was dangerous but didn't trouble themselves to take much notice.

The point I'm making is we could quite easily project the way we think and do things onto other people - but that would be entirely fruitless - what we need is some evidence.

[FrankO]

I would agree with this entirely.

Hi FM,

I, for one, wouldn’t agree with that. Lawende didn’t see much either, he even said he doubted “whether he should know him again”. It’s just that he did look at the couple while the other two didn’t. The reason why little notice was taken of the couple was probably because there was nothing outstanding to be noticed, nothing out of the ordinary. Still, Levy’s remark does remain a bit odd indeed. Although, on the other hand, his remark may just as well have been the result of the general fear that lived among the inhabitants of the East End, without having any factual base.

You could quite easily pull this to pieces as you could with Hutchinson or anyone else.

I agree with you that you could pick out any Ripper witness and place questions on their testimony, however, Hutchinson’s obviously was different in a number of ways. Firstly, his description was clearly far more detailed than the average description. In that way his description is an exception. Secondly, Hutchinson’s account doesn’t disclose any reason for being there, but it does present a larger-than-life suspect. That sticks out. Thirdly, his account fits exactly with Sarah Lewis’ account and timing of a man standing across from the entrance to Miller’s Court, looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out. Fourthly, he only came forward after Lewis had given her account. In those 4 respects Hutchinson is in fact different.

I would say that either Hutchinson was telling the truth or lying for the obvious reason - he wanted a reward. Anything else is too much of a stretch without at least a modicum of supporting evidence.

I wish there were an obvious reason, but, seen in light of the facts, there is none either way. That’s just it. I have little doubt that he was there between 2 and 3 a.m. doing exactly what he and Lewis said he was doing, but it’s perfectly possible he was innocent of Kelly’s murder and only came forward when he did to prevent becoming a suspect.

All the best,
Frank

[DVV]

Well, Levy was merely saying he didn't like to roam the streets at night and pass by rather ruff-looking characters, that's all.

Amitiés,
David

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Fleetwood Mac,

No, it was Levy.

Fair enough DVV. Still a strange thing to say though when he didn't get a good look at him but felt he was a dangerous character. Similarly - didn't one of them say something like: "the square should be watched"? What for?

Point I'm making is you could pull to pieces these statements and call them liars - which would help where your thesis depends on it.

How can you get a reward if you're lying (ie : if your suspect leads nowhere) ?

Amitiés,
David

Reward gained from being in the spotlight rather than financial?

Pure speculation of course - just like Hutchinson being an anti-semite and/or having something to do with the murders.

[DVV]

Hi Fleetwood Mac,

Isn't Lawende reported as saying something like: "I don't like being out at this time of night with those types of characters around"?

No, it was Levy.

I would say that either Hutchinson was telling the truth or lying for the obvious reason - he wanted a reward.

How can you get a reward if you're lying (ie : if your suspect leads nowhere) ?

Amitiés,
David

[Fleetwood Mac]

If you want to be technical, just as many questions could be raised of Lawende as Hutchinson, such as why he saw so much when Joseph Hyam Levy and Harry Harris saw so little, when they were walking with him? Infact, you could pick out any Ripper witness and place questions on their testimony.....Hutchinson is no different. None of it means that they weren't telling the truth.

I would agree with this entirely.

Isn't Lawende reported as saying something like: "I don't like being out at this time of night with those types of characters around"? Seems odd assuming he would have been accustomed to seeing prostitutes with clients on the streets.

You could quite easily pull this to pieces as you could with Hutchinson or anyone else.

I would say that either Hutchinson was telling the truth or lying for the obvious reason - he wanted a reward. Anything else is too much of a stretch without at least a modicum of supporting evidence.

[DVV]

DVV:

That's irrelevant, Adam. Mary was well known to her neighbours, and brang her clients home. You can't compare.

Oh, it's definitely comparable. Because you said before:

When you're soliciting, you have to be visible, haven't you ?

And my point was that in the majority of Ripper murders, there had been few, if any reports of seeing the victim just prior to their being murdered. The case of MJK is no different. That she took them home has nothing at all to do with what she was doing when she was still out on the streets!

Lawende and Schwartz are our best witnesses, since Mrs Long didn't see the man's face.
And since there are doubts about Stride being a JtR victim (although I personally have little doubt), I'd say Lawende is our best witness. He's in fact the only man of whom we can safely say : yes, he has seen the Ripper face.

Lawende and Schwartz? Really? What about PC Smith? Being a serving police officer on the beat that night, I would have thought his testimony should be ranked very highly in value.

If you want to be technical, just as many questions could be raised of Lawende as Hutchinson, such as why he saw so much when Joseph Hyam Levy and Harry Harris saw so little, when they were walking with him? Infact, you could pick out any Ripper witness and place questions on their testimony.....Hutchinson is no different. None of it means that they weren't telling the truth.

A number of reasons ? Which ones ? Hutch said he met the man again on Sunday morning...and waited 30 hours more...

Work, Travel, Family, Illness (probably got pneumonia out of standing in the rain that night!)....you name it. 3 days is not a long time.

Cheers,
Adam.

Hi Adam,

do you seriously think that Eddowes was well known in Mitre Square ?

do you seriously think that the man seen by Lawende wasn't the Ripper ? (PC Smith could well have seen the ripper too, but as already pointed out, since some doubt Stride's canonicity...)

as to Hutch - family, travel, illness???
well, he was dossing in the VH, and on Sunday morning, he was traveling...in Petticoat Lane...!

Amitiés,
David

[Fleetwood Mac]

My opinion would be Ruby that there is a certain amount of looking for a mystery - that is the starting point/the objective - an objective that seems to lead the 'evidence'.

Yet what Hutchinson says is not so unbelievable. Apart from speculation is there any evidence to suggest Hutchinson is lying? There are things that I find odd - particularly hanging around for an hour - but then I'm not George Hutchinson and whereas in my mind I would have gone and had a beer or something it's not a stretch to believe that in Huthinson's mind he found some value in hanging around that had nothing to do with the murder. People are very different (obviously) and projecting what you would have done onto another person is fruitless for obvious reasons - unless of course you know that person well and have a reasonable basis for predicting his/her thinking.

In terms of the anti-semitism - it's easy to link Hutchinson with anti-semitism simply because there was 'groundswell of opinion'. You have to come up with some evidence that Huthcinson was anti-semitic - as opposed to he must have been because of the views of other people. You see I could point to the fascists who marched in East London in the '30s and they were met by far greater numbers including local Jews - so 40 years later East End Jews were in the majority thinking rather than there being a groundswell of opinion against them.

To be honest Ruby - for any speculation to be believable it has to be based in some sort of fact at its core. And you're not presenting any evidence that people can use to build a case round Hutchinson lying or being anti-semitic.

The best you offer is that there is no record of anyone else seeing the well dressed bloke - and you have a point there. Sounds unbelievable - particularly where you want to build a case round it. But it could have happened - depends on where the well dressed bloke had been for the night. Now presumably he wouldn't be hanging round in the pubs - it's possible he turned up in a cab....or I dunno..had an overcoat wrapped up tightly and then we he met the victim he opened it up to display his wealth. Of course this is speculation - the point I'm making is that were you to sit down for 2 minutes you could list 10 possible reasons why Hutchinson is recorded as the only bloke who remembers seeing the other bloke - and all of them would be just as grounded in fact as your anti-semitism theory.

[Rubyretro]

Hi Hunter....

Can only speak from my background. I'm a working class lad born and bred on council estates. And the way it works is the working class chase status and attempt to transcend their socio-economic position (through material possessions). Clothes can be an indicator of wealth and something to aspire to - and I can categorically state that the working class take notice of the clothes other people are wearing. It is not a stretch to me to suggest Hutchinson would have taken notice of what someone from a rung up the ladder was wearing.

But - I find very little reason in him hanging about for upto an hour - though I would concede that we're all different and have our personal ways of doing things. You're a pimp? No reason to think you have to stand outside for an hour to keep things in check. You use prostitutes? Then find another one down the road within 5 minutes.

And killing out of anti-semitism? What's the point when no one would have known that you were making a point.

Hi -the point about the antisemitism is twofold..firstly to cause trouble for
jewish people by making it look as if a jewish person was doing the killings
by comitting the murders in proximity to jewish clubs and synagogues.
-a fact recognised by Sir Charles Warren when he ordered the graffiti rubbed off. So why would a jewish person have wanted to spark riots and a backlash against his own people, then ?

He suceeded in making everybody suspicious of jews and the police were looking for a suspect with a jewish profile. You may think that the police were right -but they certainly never caught anyone did they !!

-secondly, he was a sexual killer who targetted prostitutes soliciting for jewish customers (see the first post in this thread, and Ben's reply).
He wanted to 'punish' prostitutes who slept with jews -deplaced hate if you like.

As to working class people noticing how posher people were dressed :
we've got the poorest area in Whitechapel, teeming with working class people
(have a read of descriptions of this place, to see how many people were out on the streets at night at the weekend), but not one single other one of them noticed a 'toff' in an astrakhan overcoat, gold pin & flashy gold watch
with a red stone, and those button boots ! funny that ! -either those working class people weren't so observant at all, or Hutchinson made him up..

If he made him up, then his choice of description has some significance..or do you think that it sounds haphazard ?

[Adam Went]

DVV:

That's irrelevant, Adam. Mary was well known to her neighbours, and brang her clients home. You can't compare.

Oh, it's definitely comparable. Because you said before:

When you're soliciting, you have to be visible, haven't you ?

And my point was that in the majority of Ripper murders, there had been few, if any reports of seeing the victim just prior to their being murdered. The case of MJK is no different. That she took them home has nothing at all to do with what she was doing when she was still out on the streets!

Lawende and Schwartz are our best witnesses, since Mrs Long didn't see the man's face.
And since there are doubts about Stride being a JtR victim (although I personally have little doubt), I'd say Lawende is our best witness. He's in fact the only man of whom we can safely say : yes, he has seen the Ripper face.

Lawende and Schwartz? Really? What about PC Smith? Being a serving police officer on the beat that night, I would have thought his testimony should be ranked very highly in value.

If you want to be technical, just as many questions could be raised of Lawende as Hutchinson, such as why he saw so much when Joseph Hyam Levy and Harry Harris saw so little, when they were walking with him? Infact, you could pick out any Ripper witness and place questions on their testimony.....Hutchinson is no different. None of it means that they weren't telling the truth.

A number of reasons ? Which ones ? Hutch said he met the man again on Sunday morning...and waited 30 hours more...

Work, Travel, Family, Illness (probably got pneumonia out of standing in the rain that night!)....you name it. 3 days is not a long time.

Cheers,
Adam.

[harry]

If,and I say If,Hutchinson needed an alibi,then placing another man in her room would be an ideal choice,and the choosing of an individual so different in dress and ethnicity,a thoughtfull consideration.Not a unique idea.The'Other man did it alibi'has been around a long time,and looked at closely what other reason could he give for being there.A murder was committed not more than thirty yards from where he stood.A man was seen there.There is no evidence of witnesses that it was Hutchinson,but could he be sure that attention would not at sometime be directed against him.He states aquaintance with the victim,and the police would be seeking aquaintances.The question we have to ask,as no doubt he did,would the police be successfull in that respect,and how long would it take.

[The Good Michael]

so I take it that you find ...something...in my arguments believable and convincing enough to have made that crack...

I'm saying that it is interesting enough to write a book about. We know virtually nothing of Hutchinson, so you can make up anything you want and it will be good enough for fiction. As a theory, it's nonsense.

Mike

[Stephen Thomas]

And killing out of anti-semitism? What's the point when no one would have known that you were making a point.

You are a thoughtful person, FM.

[DVV]

Hi Adam,

Nobody saw Kate Eddowes between her release from the police station and her sighting by Lawende. Nobody sees Liz Stride for a matter of hours after she leaves her lodging house that night. There aren't too many witnesses to the movements of Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman either.

That's irrelevant, Adam. Mary was well known to her neighbours, and brang her clients home. You can't compare.

Lawende wasn't the only other witness in the JTR case, and there's no proof at all that Hutch's man didn't exist.

Lawende and Schwartz are our best witnesses, since Mrs Long didn't see the man's face.
And since there are doubts about Stride being a JtR victim (although I personally have little doubt), I'd say Lawende is our best witness. He's in fact the only man of whom we can safely say : yes, he has seen the Ripper face.

London was and is a big place, DVV, even if Hutchinson didn't leave the area. There's any number of reasons why he might not have been able to come forward until the Monday - it's not like he waited a month.

A number of reasons ? Which ones ? Hutch said he met the man again on Sunday morning...and waited 30 hours more...

Amitiés,
David

[Adam Went]

DVV:

Nobody saw Kate Eddowes between her release from the police station and her sighting by Lawende. Nobody sees Liz Stride for a matter of hours after she leaves her lodging house that night. There aren't too many witnesses to the movements of Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman either. And yet we can confidently say that all of them were soliciting, or atleast open to the idea of attracting clients if possible, for a drink, and maybe for a doss - so why should the Kelly murder be any different?

Lawende wasn't the only other witness in the JTR case, and there's no proof at all that Hutch's man didn't exist.

London was and is a big place, DVV, even if Hutchinson didn't leave the area. There's any number of reasons why he might not have been able to come forward until the Monday - it's not like he waited a month.

Fleetwood:

Wouldn't remember the details after 3 days? Some of his impressions might have been a little blurred but the basics should remain the same.

Besides that, we know that many men liked to go around dressed up like they were wealthier than they really were - even in danger areas. If the man happened to be mugged, his muggers would probably be in for a rude shock once they realised he had little or no money or valuables to take....

Ruby:

I've no desire to get into a debate with you over such a rubbish post. Clearly you've convinced yourself that Hutchinson must be JTR, so it's best we just agree to disagree.

Hutchinson, IMO, is on par as a suspect with the likes of Carroll, Sickert and Gull.....

Cheers,
Adam.