Hutchinson and antisemitism ?? A possibility?

[Adam Went]

Fleetwood:

Sarah Lewis stated that she saw a man standing opposite Miller's Court as if he was watching for somebody to come out. This corroborates atleast that part of Hutchinson's statement, who also said that he waited outside the Court for around 45 minutes waiting for somebody to re-appear, and then gave up.

Also, we know that MJK was way behind in the rent and probably on the verge of being kicked out of her home, so it's not a stretch to imagine that with Barnett absent and with no money in any case, that she was outdoors soliciting clients - hence, why Hutchinson saw her, hence why she asked him for money, hence why she linked up with the other bloke, hence why Hutchinson followed them.

Perhaps Hutchinson was a bit disappointed that MJK didn't "Say That You Love Me", and wanted to tell the bloke she went with instead to "Go Your Own Way".... but none of this suggests that Hutchinson was telling "Sweet Little Lies" .....ha, ha.

Rubyretro:

So you avoid suspicion by coming forward to the police, naming yourself as the last person besides the killer to see the woman alive, admit that you know them personally and come up with a lavish statement? Yeah I'm afraid I'm not quite seeing that one.....

In any case, if he was JTR, why wait till the MJK murder to come forward? He had been seen by numerous other witnesses before that, it's not like the MJK murder was different. Unless you think that he killed MJK and only MJK, which in turn means that MJK was not killed by JTR - neither of which sound very likely.

He could just as easily have come forward to the police and provided them with a very generic, vague description of the killer, not admitted that he knew the victim and got away with it just as easily.

Anyway, what reason would Hutchinson, a humble labourer, have to brutally kill these woman? What possible motive would he have?

There are so many - SO many - more suspects that are a million times better than Hutchinson as JTR, and his inclusion, IMO, is little more than scraping the bottom of the barrel. Naming another suspect just because it can be done.

Cheers,
Adam.

[DVV]

Hi Adam,

-nobody saw Mary soliciting that night after the Blotchy episode, except Hutch;
-Astrakhan Man seems a fabrication and in any case, has little to do with Lawende's suspect;
-Hutch made his statement on Monday evening, after the inquest;
-Hutch's second sighting of his suspect on Sunday morning is unbelievable.

That, of course, isn't a proof that he was JtR, but at least it makes him an unreliable witness.
And I don't see why JtR wouldn't have been a "humble labourer".

Amitiés,
David

[Rubyretro]

Hi Rubyretro,

This is assuming the witness was Toppy, which I personally don't believe.
Note that Toppy was a bit young to be a likely Sailor Man.

Amitiés,
David

Hi !
I can see nothing that leads me to disbelieve Reg Hutchinson, that his father was the George Hutchinson who was a witness in the JtR case. I have never seen that the Hutchinson family have ever tried to profit from the fact or shown any reason to lie about it. Reg's comment about the Royal Family &
'someone like Randolph Churchill' fits our George (his witness statement did resemble Churchill, and I believe that there is a link with his past as a groom,
and that he would have seen both Churchill and the Prince of Wales at the
races).

Certainly Hutchinson would have been a bit young to be Sailor Man, but I am still sure that he was the man seen by Lawende. Lawende would have seen someone in the pitch black, by his own admission for only a few instants,
and he wouldn't have paid close attention as he could not have known the significance of what he was seeing, in advance. Lawende said that the man had a cap on, a scarf and a moustache -so the face was quite hidden -he also said that he would be incapable of identifying the man again.

[DVV]

Hi Rubyretro,

well, let's say I have a completely different view on Hutch.

Reg's story about Sir Randolph doesn't make Toppy a likely Hutch, imo.

Amitiés,
David

[Adam Went]

DVV:

But common sense should tell you that Mary would have been soliciting, given that she was known to be in the prostitution trade in the past, that she had been at odds with Joe Barnett and he had no money anyway, that she was 29s behind in the rent and on the verge of getting kicked out, and had to make money from somewhere.

What does Lawende have to do with anything here?

Monday was only 3 days later, and that might have been out of Hutchinson's control....as a labourer, he probably had work, or had to travel away again over the weekend - after all, he had just returned from Romford. Anyway, if he'd waited until after the Inquest and still hadn't had the police after him, all the more reason not to come forward if he was in some way responsible, eh?

And no, unreliable witness (although I don't believe that's necessarily the case either) doesn't equal JTR. Otherwise, Matthew Packer should be a suspect as well, right? Among plenty of others....

Cheers,
Adam.

[Garry Wroe]

I can see nothing that leads me to disbelieve Reg Hutchinson, that his father was the George Hutchinson who was a witness in the JtR case. I have never seen that the Hutchinson family have ever tried to profit from the fact or shown any reason to lie about it.

If Reg simply related a story he believed to be true, he wasn't being dishonest. But this does not mean that the story he was told was true.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[DVV]

Hi Adam,

But common sense should tell you that Mary would have been soliciting, given that she was known to be in the prostitution trade in the past, that she had been at odds with Joe Barnett and he had no money anyway, that she was 29s behind in the rent and on the verge of getting kicked out, and had to make money from somewhere.

What I'm told of, is that nobody, except Hutch, has seen Mary after she went back home with Blotchy, although some of her neighbours was coming and going. She wasn't seen in the streets, nor in a pub...nowhere.
When you're soliciting, you have to be visible, haven't you ?

What does Lawende have to do with anything here?

Lawende described a real man. Hutch did not.

Monday was only 3 days later, and that might have been out of Hutchinson's control....as a labourer, he probably had work, or had to travel away again over the weekend - after all, he had just returned from Romford. Anyway, if he'd waited until after the Inquest and still hadn't had the police after him, all the more reason not to come forward if he was in some way responsible, eh?

Absolutely not. Hutch never said he left London that weekend. On Sunday morning he said he was in Petticoat Lane, at the market, where he saw the suspect again...What a joke...

And no, unreliable witness (although I don't believe that's necessarily the case either) doesn't equal JTR. Otherwise, Matthew Packer should be a suspect as well, right? Among plenty of others....

There's a big difference between Hutch and Packer : Sarah Lewis' testimony. And Packer never said he knew Stride for about 3 years.

Amitiés,
David

[Marlowe]

Evening News 10 November 1888

"Mrs Kennedy is confident that the man whom she noticed speaking to the woman Kelly at three o'clock on Friday morning is identical with the person who accosted her on the previous Wednesday."

Marlowe

[Fleetwood Mac]

Fleetwood:

Sarah Lewis stated that she saw a man standing opposite Miller's Court as if he was watching for somebody to come out. This corroborates atleast that part of Hutchinson's statement, who also said that he waited outside the Court for around 45 minutes waiting for somebody to re-appear, and then gave up.

Also, we know that MJK was way behind in the rent and probably on the verge of being kicked out of her home, so it's not a stretch to imagine that with Barnett absent and with no money in any case, that she was outdoors soliciting clients - hence, why Hutchinson saw her, hence why she asked him for money, hence why she linked up with the other bloke, hence why Hutchinson followed them.

Perhaps Hutchinson was a bit disappointed that MJK didn't "Say That You Love Me", and wanted to tell the bloke she went with instead to "Go Your Own Way".... but none of this suggests that Hutchinson was telling "Sweet Little Lies" .....ha, ha.

Is it such a stretch that he wouldn't remember those details? With the bloke being a wealthy man there's a fair chance Hutchinson would have took notice just by pure instinct - in the same way some people take notice when a Ferrari goes down the street - surely a witness would remember more about an unusual person than your average working class East End bloke.

Then you would have to ask would such a man go wandering round the streets begging to be mugged - and I have to say that is indeed problematic. Unless of course there were other relatively wealthy men who are known to have wandered the streets late at night - such a Dr Barnado - and it follows thus it wouldn't be as unbelievable as we assume.

Then there's the problem of him hanging around for 45 minutes/an hour - believable?

[Hunter]

Hello Mac,

I hope you know you're treading in shark infested waters here... which I've never understood because everything about Hutch is based on supposition and from that we get some of the most staunch supporters of a "suspect" that have ever been encountered.

[The Good Michael]

Mac is taking a different approach where Toppy is Hutch, but is still the murderer. Because the first part is undoubtedly true, I'm fine with the second part as a theory. I like this approach. The groom and the anti-semitism I don't agree with.

Mike

[Rubyretro]

Fleetwood:

Sarah Lewis stated that she saw a man standing opposite Miller's Court as if he was watching for somebody to come out. This corroborates atleast that part of Hutchinson's statement, who also said that he waited outside the Court for around 45 minutes waiting for somebody to re-appear, and then gave up.

Also, we know that MJK was way behind in the rent and probably on the verge of being kicked out of her home, so it's not a stretch to imagine that with Barnett absent and with no money in any case, that she was outdoors soliciting clients - hence, why Hutchinson saw her, hence why she asked him for money, hence why she linked up with the other bloke, hence why Hutchinson followed them.

Perhaps Hutchinson was a bit disappointed that MJK didn't "Say That You Love Me", and wanted to tell the bloke she went with instead to "Go Your Own Way".... but none of this suggests that Hutchinson was telling "Sweet Little Lies" .....ha, ha.

Rubyretro:

So you avoid suspicion by coming forward to the police, naming yourself as the last person besides the killer to see the woman alive, admit that you know them personally and come up with a lavish statement? Yeah I'm afraid I'm not quite seeing that one.....

In any case, if he was JTR, why wait till the MJK murder to come forward? He had been seen by numerous other witnesses before that, it's not like the MJK murder was different. Unless you think that he killed MJK and only MJK, which in turn means that MJK was not killed by JTR - neither of which sound very likely.

He could just as easily have come forward to the police and provided them with a very generic, vague description of the killer, not admitted that he knew the victim and got away with it just as easily.

Anyway, what reason would Hutchinson, a humble labourer, have to brutally kill these woman? What possible motive would he have?

There are so many - SO many - more suspects that are a million times better than Hutchinson as JTR, and his inclusion, IMO, is little more than scraping the bottom of the barrel. Naming another suspect just because it can be done.

Cheers,
Adam.

Lawende has everything to do with it -either he was lying, or Hutchinson was,
in their descriptions of the suspect. If Hutchinson was JtR, then he was himself the man seen by Lawende.

Obviously MJK was soliciting that night, and I don't think that anyone has ever disputed that. I dispute the fact that she ever met Astrakhan Man -
I can see no proof whatsoever that Hutchinson knew MJK, or had ever given her shillings in the past (but he might have done). If we allow that Hutchinson was lying in his description of Astrakhan Man, we are not bound to believe anything else in his statement that can't be verified. I dispute the fact that Hutchinson had to 'virtually admit' to knowing MJK. Hutchinson sought out the police to tell them specificallythat he knew MJK because 'his defence' for being where he was , was being a friend of MJK. I certainly believe that Hutchinson followed MJK home that night (he may even have accompanied her) and waited to see if she would go out again (as he said)........or if she was safely asleep.

I think that he waited until the inquest was over to come forward because he wanted to see if the witness who he knew had seen him outside MJKs would give his description to the police, and whether she would be able to identify him if she passed him in the streets of Whitechapel. If she recognised him and he had not come forward voluntarily, despite the enormous amount of publicity over this murder, then he would have too much trouble protesting his innocence.

He told the police that he was an unemployed labourer ; I take this to mean the fact that he was working on building sites
(since he later became a plumber, there is a logical progression, as he would meet plumbers on building sites). He may have been employed as night watchman on a building site at an earlier date. Builders did not work on Sundays at this time -frankly, I wonder if they worked on Saturdays either. When Hutchinson came back from Romford (quite a trot) , he was obliged to walk -despite there being a train and omnibus connection, because he didn't have the money. he presumably
came back to Town as he thought that he would get work on Monday. Why on earth would he have left London again that weekend ??

I think that Hutchinson was JtR and did all the canonical murders; I think that it is logical that he came forward to present himself as a witness to the police for Kelly (a positive identification by Sara Lewis), but there is no reason that he should have presented himself as a witness for the other murders even if he had been seen : in the case of Elizabeth Long, she had only
seen his back, in the case of Stride the various witness reports were confusing, and in the case of Lawende there was a mistake made -Lawende said that the suspect was around 30 ( Hutchinson was 22), and had the look of a 'sailor', which he wasn't
(nb, Lawende said that he would not be able to identify the suspect, as he had only seen him for a few instants in the dark ).

Personally my hunch tells me that Hutchinson left London after Eddowes (accounting for a gap in the murders), and came back when he realised that the suspect descriptions in the papers were on the wrong track (he couldn't leave to go back to
his sister after Kelly, a few days after saying goodbye to her, without work, just after a murder -again, his description maybe circulating, and not if he wanted to come back to Whitechapel).

I have huge sympathy for Abberline (as already evinced in this thread), but I think that he didn't spot JtR when he had him in front of him -and that is because the police had built up an erroneous profile. I have to say now that I am utterly amazed by the people here on casebook that seem to want to put huge importance onto 'who' the police thought they were looking for:
WHY ? Despite JtR operating in a tiny radius, various witnesses, huge police operation & press coverage he was never caught ! Isn't that that because he was someone totally different to the man the police were looking for ?? The police were wrong and the proof is in the pudding surely !

You know Adam, I just can't think why you imagine that Hutchinson as 'JtR' is 'scraping the barrel' ? That some one chooses a suspect from an admitted forged diary, a poor soul who had convieniently comitted suicide at the wrong date, a
sad mentally ill person, a jewish polish immigrant..or someone who's just got a comic book 'scary' photo, is certainly scraping the barrel . Choosing someone who is in the right place at the right time (with no shadow of a doubt) and shows all the comportment of a prime suspect, can hardly be described as 'scraping the barrel' !

I have left until last the reason why Hutchinson chose that particular false witness description ...because I believe that it is the most important detail that we have..
I started this thread demonstrating that JtR didn't choose his victims at random, but rather that he wanted to kill prostitutes who targeted jewish customers (clubs) and that he was virulently antisemite.
Hutchinson didn't only describe a suspect a million miles from himself, he also chose to describe a 'cartoon' jewish suspect.
The fact that his jewish man wasn't effectively the sort of jewish immigrant worker that one would see everywhere around Whitechapel, but someone who would stand out enormously is, to my mind, of the upmost interest; I think that it's a clue to his motive.
Hutchinson was a former groom and I believe that his false 'suspect' was a description of one (or an amalgamation of)
jewish horsebreeders (the 'horse shoe' tie-pin, symbol of the Farriers Company of Essex,the black Astrakhan overcoat (for
owners), the peaked cap (lawendes description -and worn by grooms). I believe that he developed his antisemitism in hating this/these horse owners. Hutchinson described his 'suspect' as a 'toff' -and Reg Hutchinson described his father as saying that the murders had 'less to do with ordinary people' and more to do with the Royal Family or Randolph Churchill 'or somebody like him'.
I will say here that I absolutely don't believe in any type of 'conspiracy' (Royal or otherwise), but I do believe that Hutchinson/Toppy was JtR, and what he says is extremely pertinent; Did the prototype for Hutchinson's 'Astrakhan' man mix with Churchill and the Prince of Wales (future Edward VII) at Newmarket (where the 'Autumn Double' is run).

I repeat -Hutchinson did it, he hated jewish people (rich jewish 'toffs'), and we need to trace his early life as a groom to find out why ...(and maybe prove that he WAS JtR).

[The Good Michael]

Ruby,

You need to write a book. Good fiction is always welcome.

Mike

[Hunter]

My point has been verified.

Amazing.

[Rubyretro]

Ruby,

You need to write a book. Good fiction is always welcome.

Mike

"Good Fiction" is always based on themes and characters which are believable and convincing...

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

Thing is that these people and events are real...