Hutchinson and antisemitism ?? A possibility?

[Abby Normal]

Sorry Abby -I've just gone back and read your post...

I just totally agree that the murderer was not someone who killed in a 'random frenzy' (he'd have been caught if he had), but was rather very intelligent and cool headed. Even the dates suggest that he waited for specific times rather than just let rip ( so to speak) when he had the urge.

I also totally agree that if he was someone who functioned normally the rest of the time, then it is probable that he needed to give himself a moral justification -as you said- for killing those particular women; there were alot of prostitutes in London out every night.

Personally, I think that his MO went back before Berner Street. I said at the
beginning of my thread that there were jewish sites near the place of every murder :
(Buck's Row - opposite Brady Street Ashkenazi Cemetery.
Hanbury Street - Glory of Israel and Sons of Klatsk Synagogue situated
at no. 50a. Synagogues at 19 Princelet St. and 17 Wilkes St.
Berner Street - St. George's Settlement Synagogue.
Mitre Square - beside the Great Synagogue.
Miller's Court - beside Spitalfields Great Synagogue, Church St. ( Fournier St.)

That Jack was an anti-semite would make him similar to alot of men of his time. By choosing to leave the apron piece under the Goulston Street Graffiti (whether he wrote it, wrote it earlier or chose the spot for existing graffiti) he makes it clear that there is a jewish link. His action was inflamatory, as Sir Charles warren recognised. That Hutch was anti -semite -if you believe that he made up Astrakhan Man- is clear by his choice of 'villain'.

After that -I don't really take much notice of the witness accounts at Berner Street or Mitre Square : try coming home from an evening out and describing someone accurately that you passed for a minute !
two examples : 1) my step daughters were caught up in Poland in a murder enquiry and had to give a description to police for a 'robot portrait' of some guys that they had spent the evening with -they had a terribly hard job and even left the mostache off one guy !!
2) I once accused a guy in the street of being a shoplifter in my shop; I am a
very mild and shy person, and I did it because I was certain -having talked to the guy in broad daylight. but I was wrong (as it turned out).
If you add in that there are lots of witness statements and some plainly are of different people, in the dark, for a few minutes -then I don't think that they're worth anything..

I don't think that any of them worried Jack either -until the MJK murder.
I think that it is different both because it may have been alot more personal, and also I think that Sarah Lewis really DID get a good look. If you imagine that Hutch knew very well who SHE was, and was afraid of being recognised in the street after the inquest, then you have a reason for him coming forward as 'damage limitation'.

Hi Ruby
Thanks for the reply.
Im curious-do you think JtR's main motivation for the killings were just because he was anti-semitic and wanted to get Jews in trouble? Or that he did not like prostitutes having sex with Jews so he killed them? or some combination of the two?


In my opinion, I beleive JtR killed women because he liked to/had an "urge" to and prostitutes were the easiest targets. Later he blamed Jews to throw suspician off himself.

I am just wondering what your thinking is on what was the main motivation/s of JtR to kill women/prostitutes.?

[Rubyretro]

I think that I would go along with Marc : needed a moral justification for himself (to excuse his fascination with mutilation ) for killing these prostitutes, so gave himself a 'reason ' to kill prostitutes that slept with Jews whom he felt were 'filthiest' (one's that he didn't sleep with himself). It also handily threw suspicion off himself and stirred up trouble for the jewish community.

MJK might have been a bit different though -in that he may have known her, and he may have wanted to use her room -both for the comfort and the privacy.

[Abby Normal]

I think that I would go along with Marc : needed a moral justification for himself (to excuse his fascination with mutilation ) for killing these prostitutes, so gave himself a 'reason ' to kill prostitutes that slept with Jews whom he felt were 'filthiest' (one's that he didn't sleep with himself). It also handily threw suspicion off himself and stirred up trouble for the jewish community.

MJK might have been a bit different though -in that he may have known her, and he may have wanted to use her room -both for the comfort and the privacy.

Got it-thanks!

But why did he not explicitely blame jews in a letter, grafitti, etc until night of the double event? Why not do that after the first couple of murders?

I postulate because the night of the double event is the first time that he feels he was seen well (Schwartz) and by a jew, he knew he was seen by a jew, so now he does the GSG to blame a jew and throw suspician off himself. he then blames a jew even more directly after MK murder to the police. The direct jew blaming by the murderer is what I believe ties together the threads and comes back to GH.

BTW, I think your explanation of the details of GH's "suspect"-rich jew/Astrakhan man is brilliant. I always wondered how he came up with all the details of his dress and appearance(Horse shoe pin!?! )your idea explains it.

Keep digging on the GH/groom/rich horse owner angle-I think you may be onto something there.

[Rubyretro]

[

BTW, I think your explanation of the details of GH's "suspect"-rich jew/Astrakhan man is brilliant. I always wondered how he came up with all the details of his dress and appearance(Horse shoe pin!?! )your idea explains it.

Keep digging on the GH/groom/rich horse owner angle-I think you may be onto something there.

Some words of caution here Abby -I am in no way a 'Ripperologist', and these are just my theories -so please don't go away with the idea that I 'know something' that someone else doesn't : there are plenty of people that will disagree with me, and if they have a good argument against, then I respect them; It was pointed out on these forums in the last few days that one of the enduring 'hooks' about the JTR Mystery is that, whatever your theory, you can find facts to support it.

Nonetheless, no one has yet shown me the total error of my thinking : I still believe that Hutch was JtR because here we have the suspect on the scene of the crime without doubt, at the right time, with a '**** and bull' story of
his reasons for being there, and fitting both the geographical location and the
profile (in my opinion) of the killer. What's more, as soon as Hutch became known to the police and public, the killings ceased. I think that in a contemporary crime, it would be fair to say that Hutch would be a main 'suspect'.

Of course, it must be true that the childhood and youth of any serial killer has an influence on his personality -I just defy anyone to say the contrary.
So, anyone that believes that Hutch is the killer must agree that it is important to look at his earlier life.

Well, we know incredibly little about Hutch. One thing that we do know is that he was described as being an unemployed 'groom' as well as a labourer..

Garry Wroe has pointed out to me that there is no clear proof that Hutch ever was a groom, other than the fact that it was reported as such in all the papers at the time. He told me that, either a journalist could have made it up and the other papers have repeated that 'mistake' or Hutch was lying as he was hardly a reliable witness;

I have already said that my experience of gifted liars leads me to believe firmly that they weave fact and fiction together in order to be convincing and so that they don't contradict themselves. Therefore, I don't believe that Hutch would lie about anything that was unimportant (seemingly) and could be verified -particularly as he was staking his life on it. I would go as far as to say that he is the witness in which I have the most faith (except for the existence of A Man that night, and for his
innocence of the crime); When Richard mistakenly quoted Hutch as having known Mary 5 years (impossible) and not 3, I had to try and invent a scenario of the police putting the words in his mouth -I just could not imagine that Hutch would lie about
something like that.

I don't think that we can 'cherry pick' reported facts in the case either, because we like them or not; There is no hint of evidence to suggest that Hutch was not a groom; It's just possible that he wasn't (it's possible that Catherine E. never went hop picking either), but it's most probable that he was.

If Hutch was a groom it is fair to say that he worked with animals. It is fair to say that he would know how to cut up a dead animal, or 'despatch' an animal by cutting it's throat. It is fair to say that grooms habitually carry knives. It is fair to say that
grooms were literate (although Garry has also pointed out that schooling was obligatory by this period).

It is fair to say that A Man's description resembles that of a horse owner (go look at the photos of them all in 1888, in their astrakhan coats, and their grooms with their billycock hats). Indeed the infamous Karen quotes the Lausanne Gazette as saying "black leggings and button up boots" as part of Hutch's description (I should like to see this description in the original french, as I'm bilingual). There are not many men in leggings -alot of horse owners though..

Whilst Bob has convinced me that Hutch most probably went to Essex for a labouring job, it is nonetheless true that
Toppy's father & sister were born in Essex, Toppy's sister had her first job there and died there. IF Toppy is Hutch there IS still a link...

None of this proves anything of course -but it certainly does leave an interesting area to explore..more interesting than pouring over the infamous forgery of Maybrick's supposed diaries at any rate !!!!!!

[Marc]

But why did he not explicitely blame jews in a letter, grafitti, etc until night of the double event? Why not do that after the first couple of murders?

Hi Abby, there are certainly many variations that can be made around JtR and late 1800's antisemitism, but IMHO, this hard feeling toward jews was (possibly) merely a 'frame' for his hatred of women.

If I should summarize what is on my part PURE 'guess work', I'd say that JtR probably saw most women as 'whores', the worst ones being prostitutes, and among the latter, those engaging in sex with jews as being the best 'death deserving' victims.

I'd see this obsessive behaviour as a double 'satisfying process' :
1° Taking pleasure in killing and degrading women body
2° Feeling a sort of achievement in sweeping the East End clean of its
worst caracters.
Like if saying 'I'm doing a dirty job, but it must be done, and those I deal
with in conducting my business definitely deserve it'.

FWIW, the regularity of JtR killings and the increase in violence, culminating in MJK, looks a lot like a personal crusade IMHO.

Perhaps I'm wrong (again all this is pure SPECULATION ) but how
to explain the 'double event' and the risks taken with Mitre Square murder without the need for JtR to demonstrate something, to himself and the public in general ?
Probably, some other serial killer would have called it a day after Stride murder...JtR just didn't.
'Something must be done'....

[Abby Normal]

[


Some words of caution here Abby -I am in no way a 'Ripperologist', and these are just my theories -so please don't go away with the idea that I 'know something' that someone else doesn't : there are plenty of people that will disagree with me, and if they have a good argument against, then I respect them; It was pointed out on these forums in the last few days that one of the enduring 'hooks' about the JTR Mystery is that, whatever your theory, you can find facts to support it.

Nonetheless, no one has yet shown me the total error of my thinking : I still believe that Hutch was JtR because here we have the suspect on the scene of the crime without doubt, at the right time, with a '**** and bull' story of
his reasons for being there, and fitting both the geographical location and the
profile (in my opinion) of the killer. What's more, as soon as Hutch became known to the police and public, the killings ceased. I think that in a contemporary crime, it would be fair to say that Hutch would be a main 'suspect'.

Of course, it must be true that the childhood and youth of any serial killer has an influence on his personality -I just defy anyone to say the contrary.
So, anyone that believes that Hutch is the killer must agree that it is important to look at his earlier life.

Well, we know incredibly little about Hutch. One thing that we do know is that he was described as being an unemployed 'groom' as well as a labourer..

Garry Wroe has pointed out to me that there is no clear proof that Hutch ever was a groom, other than the fact that it was reported as such in all the papers at the time. He told me that, either a journalist could have made it up and the other papers have repeated that 'mistake' or Hutch was lying as he was hardly a reliable witness;

I have already said that my experience of gifted liars leads me to believe firmly that they weave fact and fiction together in order to be convincing and so that they don't contradict themselves. Therefore, I don't believe that Hutch would lie about anything that was unimportant (seemingly) and could be verified -particularly as he was staking his life on it. I would go as far as to say that he is the witness in which I have the most faith (except for the existence of A Man that night, and for his
innocence of the crime); When Richard mistakenly quoted Hutch as having known Mary 5 years (impossible) and not 3, I had to try and invent a scenario of the police putting the words in his mouth -I just could not imagine that Hutch would lie about
something like that.

I don't think that we can 'cherry pick' reported facts in the case either, because we like them or not; There is no hint of evidence to suggest that Hutch was not a groom; It's just possible that he wasn't (it's possible that Catherine E. never went hop picking either), but it's most probable that he was.

If Hutch was a groom it is fair to say that he worked with animals. It is fair to say that he would know how to cut up a dead animal, or 'despatch' an animal by cutting it's throat. It is fair to say that grooms habitually carry knives. It is fair to say that
grooms were literate (although Garry has also pointed out that schooling was obligatory by this period).

It is fair to say that A Man's description resembles that of a horse owner (go look at the photos of them all in 1888, in their astrakhan coats, and their grooms with their billycock hats). Indeed the infamous Karen quotes the Lausanne Gazette as saying "black leggings and button up boots" as part of Hutch's description (I should like to see this description in the original french, as I'm bilingual). There are not many men in leggings -alot of horse owners though..

Whilst Bob has convinced me that Hutch most probably went to Essex for a labouring job, it is nonetheless true that
Toppy's father & sister were born in Essex, Toppy's sister had her first job there and died there. IF Toppy is Hutch there IS still a link...

None of this proves anything of course -but it certainly does leave an interesting area to explore..more interesting than pouring over the infamous forgery of Maybrick's supposed diaries at any rate !!!!!!

Your so modest! well since you brought it up on disagreement part i will say that I don't neccessarily agree with your theory of JtR targeting prostitutes who solicite jews(although that is not out of the question). IMHO I think his main motivation is he killed because he liked it and killed them where and when he had the opportunity (random). The jew blaming came later to throw off suspician.

However, you got to give credit where credit is due, and your theory on the description of A-man is the first time I have seen anyone come up with a valid reason of how GH came up with it. It has always driven me nuts, especially that horse shoe pin!?!

[dixon9]

Rubyretro
Detective Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Avignon, France
Posts: 102



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry Abby -I've just gone back and read your post...

I just totally agree that the murderer was not someone who killed in a 'random frenzy' (he'd have been caught if he had), but was rather very intelligent and cool headed. Even the dates suggest that he waited for specific times rather than just let rip ( so to speak) when he had the urge.

I also totally agree that if he was someone who functioned normally the rest of the time, then it is probable that he needed to give himself a moral justification -as you said- for killing those particular women; there were alot of prostitutes in London out every night.

Personally, I think that his MO went back before Berner Street. I said at the
beginning of my thread that there were jewish sites near the place of every murder :
(Buck's Row - opposite Brady Street Ashkenazi Cemetery.
Hanbury Street - Glory of Israel and Sons of Klatsk Synagogue situated
at no. 50a. Synagogues at 19 Princelet St. and 17 Wilkes St.
Berner Street - St. George's Settlement Synagogue.
Mitre Square - beside the Great Synagogue.
Miller's Court - beside Spitalfields Great Synagogue, Church St. ( Fournier St.)

Ruby,would not any killing in the Whitechapel area (at that time) have a jewish site near by?

Dixon9
still learning

[Rubyretro]

Ruby,would not any killing in the Whitechapel area (at that time) have a jewish site near by?

Dixon9
still learning

[/QUOTE]

I've questioned this myself -but there obviously weren't synagogues & cemetaries in every single road of Whitechapel. There must have been prostitutes pretty much everywhere though.
The attitude of the Police & population towards jewish suspects, and the graffiti, would suggest that the murder sites struck a chord with people at the time. I think that I read on these forums a couple of days ago, that it even crossed Sir charles Warren's mind that someone might be wanting to
throw suspicion on Jews, rather than being one himself.

I just don't buy the image of a JtR who melted into the crowd one minute,
flew into an uncontrollable murderous frenzy when the fancy took him, and
less than a minute after faded back into the population ( For example, I know a schitzophrenic man, and when he has stopped his medication, you could tell just by looking at him that he was ill and dangerous);
I think that Jack planned the murders, had surveilled the chosen sites, knew when the policeman would pass, how many people would likely be around, and even knew by which route he would leave..

That he felt driven to mutilate dead women is undisputable -but just the regularity of the dates should tell you that he was able to rein it in enough to wait until the 'right' moment..

[dixon9]

fair points ruby,but imo JtR mainly killed at random,as i cant see the Annie Chapman killing being a thought out murder.With the sun coming up in some backyard says to me(in that case) this was a random killing.
Anyway sorry from moving away from the point of this thread.


Dixon9
still learning

[Rubyretro]

fair points ruby,but imo JtR mainly killed at random,as i cant see the Annie Chapman killing being a thought out murder.With the sun coming up in some backyard says to me(in that case) this was a random killing.
Anyway sorry from moving away from the point of this thread.


Dixon9
still learning

Well, except if he already knew that prostitutes working that street habitually used those yards, and if he'd already wandered into the yards at that time on other occasions without being suprised and knew that there was a fence to shield him..maybe he felt confident enough to take the risk & feel able to disappear into the busy market afterwards ?

[Livia]

Hello Ruby,

Earlier in this thread, it was said that little is known of George W T Hutchinson's early life. Here's some information which may be of help to you. I've checked each of these citations and added the 1871 census for George senior and also the 1891 census info for George W T Hutchinson and also his baptismal record. All seems to be correct with one exception, on the 1871 census son George is listed as 11 years old, when he should be only 5, but all other entries on that census page appear to be correct as to other members of the family in regard to age and place of birth.


George Hutchinson (father of GWTH)

Birth 1827 in Chelmsford, Essex, England

Death 1895 in Lee, Kent, England

Parents: John Hutchinson (-) Hannah (1792-1875)

Spouse & Children

Spouse Jane TOPPING (1832-1880)

daughter Emily Jane HUTCHINSON (1861-1932) m. James Knott 1886

daughter Elizabeth T Hutchinson (1863-1870)

son George W HUTCHINSON (1866-1921)


2nd marriage

Spouse & Children

Emma Gin (1850-)

son Herbert HUTCHINSON (1890-)

1827

Birth

Chelmsford, Essex, England 6 source citations
1841 England Census
1851 England Census
1861 England Census
1881 England Census
1891 England Census
England & Wales,



Age: 14
Residence Chelmsford, Essex, England
1 source citation
1841 England Census

Age: 24 Residence
Chelmsford, Essex, England Plumber
1 source citation 1851 England Census

1858 25 May Age: 31 Marriage to Jane TOPPING of Cambridge
Shoreditch, Middlesex, England

1861 Age: 34
Residence Hornchurch, Essex, England
Plumber
1 source citation
1861 England Census


1871 Age: 44
Residence Norwood London England
Plumber
1 source citation
1871 England census

1881
Age: 54
Residence Eltham, London, England
Plumber
1 source citation 1881 England Census

1890 Age: 63 Marriage to Emma Gin
Wandsworth, London, , England


1891 Age: 64 Residence
Lee, London, England
Plumber
1 source citation 1891 England Census

1895 Age: 68 Death
Lee, Kent, England
1 source citation
England & Wales, FreeBMD Death Index: 1837-1915

Dec 30th 1866 Baptismal record for George William Hutchinson
Father George plumber, mother Jane
St Luke West Norwood

1891 George W T Hutchinson
69 Warren St St Pancras London
Lodger age 24, Plumber

He has 4 police constables as neighbors living in the same lodging house. (Edwin Douch, Thomas Saunders, Harry Nichols, William Hutley, all in their mid to late twenties)


I couldn't find any indication that GWTH was involved in the grooming trade. His father was a plumber since 1851, his brother in law was a foreman, but it doesn't say where.

If you're interested in any of these documents, please pm me with your email address and I will send them to you, as I think there may be too much to upload here. I'm planning to let my subscription to Ancestry lapse early next week and I'm not sure if these documents will still be available to me, even though I've saved them to my account, but not to my computer.

Sincerely,

Livia

[Rubyretro]

Thank you very much Livia -and I will PM you my address.

Infact, you are opening up a few can of worms here as you are assuming that the George Hutchinson of the case and George "Toppy" Hutchinson (as he is known to us here on Casebook are one and the same. Many people on Casebook would disagree with you. It is for that reason that I sometimes try and leave Toppy out of an argument as it weakens that argument for some people and may or may not have anything to do with the discussion.

For myself, I do believe that we are talking about the same person. That is just a belief.

I was aware of all the the information that you have put forward as it can be found on victorianripper.niceboard. Since that source is evidently a mixture of facts and deliberate red herrings, I now hesitate to mention it as it would be 'laughed out of court'.

Thank you very much, as you have now confirmed independantly that a) Toppy became a plumber simply because it was the family trade and he must of grown up knowing something about it, and had an 'entrance' and b) a few years after the crime he was lodging with some policemen. Indeed, the Terrible Karen (I've yet to forgive her for the eel like way she drew me down the garden path with smoke & mirrors over the Antipodes) has Toppy down as a 'scholar', aged 14 (you didn't mention that ?).

That still leaves a gap between age 14 and 22 (IF Toppy is Hutch) and he could have been a groom (teenage rebellion etc), & left home to work .

TO BE DISCOVERED .................................................. ........................................

[Livia]

Sorry, he is listed as a "scholar" on the 1881 census. His mother
apparently died the year before and there is only GWTH, his father George
and his sister Jane (age 19) living at the home.

When I say I could find no evidence of GWTH being a groom, I mean there is no city directory or any other sort of this kind of listing. For what it's worth, I didn't find any listing for his father either. At least none at the known addresses or under the occupation of "plumber".

There was no shortage of George Hutchinsons for that time period living in London, so those that don't think GWTH is the same GH that was a police witness and knew MJK, may be right. I understand that it was GWTH's son Reginald who claimed this. I don't know one way or the other, I just enjoy doing research and since I've finished combing the records for my own family history, I have a few days to spare.

I'll read my pm now and start sending you the documents. Best of luck with your own research.

L.

[Livia]

Ruby,

Check your pm's please. The email address you posted isn't working.

L.

[caz]

Of course, it must be true that the childhood and youth of any serial killer has an influence on his personality -I just defy anyone to say the contrary.
So, anyone that believes that Hutch is the killer must agree that it is important to look at his earlier life.

Hi Ruby,

Well I'd say it could be the contrary, in that a serial killer's personality would have had an influence on his childhood and youth. It's the same outcome - ie a look at Hutch's earlier life could be important if it were to reveal signs of a warped personality: sudden and unpredictable loss of temper; lack of discipline and focus; contempt for authority; inability to keep a job and so on. But we do have to get the right Hutch first.

None of this proves anything of course -but it certainly does leave an interesting area to explore..more interesting than pouring over the infamous forgery of Maybrick's supposed diaries at any rate !!!!!!

I hope you meant 'poring', Rubes. I doubt that the owner of the 'diary' (singular) would appreciate you pouring anything over it.

I don't think the overall case evidence supports a fully-fledged anti-Jewish angle to the murders right from the outset, and the racial/religious/political/moral 'campaigning' serial killer tends to be seen only in the movies. (I strongly suspect it's only when the Peter Sutcliffes of this world are finally buckled that they claim to have been "cleaning the streets" or "obeying God's command".) The real life versions almost always prove to be more basic and predatory: "If I feel like ripping someone to pieces I jolly well will", and the victims reflect the killer's laziest route to achieving his ends, by being the easiest to come by and to overpower.

If Jack wasn't Jewish, imagine the boost to his peace of mind all the while the focus was on 'Leather Apron' types. After his close call in Hanbury St, he really didn't need the focus to drift away from this stereotype. But it wasn't until double event night, when he set out equipped to do some more damage, that he'd have needed to think about the trail he could be leaving, and whether it required a more Jewish flavour. I doubt he hated the Jews any more or less than he hated women, prostitutes, the police - or his fellow man in general. He'd have sold his granny for sixpence if it helped fund his 'habits'.

The idea that he slaughtered Mary Kelly, without a care about any female witness to his presence in the court that night, but was afterwards compelled to tell the cops he was there and quit the killing habit forever, even though there was no chance of anyone placing him in that room beyond reasonable doubt and putting a rope round his neck, has always struck me as a stretch (excuse the pun) too far.

The modern perspective, with its cctv and forensic evidence, is no use here. Today we have ways of putting a criminal in his place that the likes of Lewis (and even Cox) never had and never will have. In 1888 a killer like Jack would have laughed to scorn the idea that Lewis could have done for him. He didn't even care about Lawende and co, or we'd never have heard of Kate Eddowes.

Love,

Caz
X