Hutchinson and antisemitism ?? A possibility?

[Rubyretro]

Hi Ruby....

There are only so many times I can beat the drum of evidence over speculation - so I suppose we'll simply have to agree to disagree.

Best of luck with your theory and uncovering a few important snippets!

Hi Mac ! I've been thinking the same thing !!!!!
Still -I know that other people read these things so that I feel that I have to reply.. This site has really given me 'the bug' to do some research and I'm finding it fascinating so far. I think that it will be a great 'hobby', because apart from JtR and Hutchinson, all the period details are enriching.

What I really want now are people used to doing research to give me some pointers (Gary ?!);
Here are my ideas to begin with so far :-
-the jewish historical society on the Essex site (looking for jewish horse dealers in the late 19th century).
-the Schwartz jewish horse dealers in Germany and their suppliers in Romford, and possibly elsewhere in Essex.
-the blacksmiths accounts, with client names, which I see exist in the Essex archives.
-the list of crimes and their perpetrators in the Essex archives around 1886
-the list of un-elucidated crimes in the Essex archives around this date
-the horses which won Newmarket around this date (particular interest in the Autumn Double -the owners, trainers & whether Randolph Churchill and/or the future Edward VII were present)
- whether there exists the accounts (I'm guessing 'yes' from the amount of info on the Newmarket site) for the stud farms which interest me
-whether I can find George...and preferably 'Topping' ...Hutchinson
-whether I can find why he left his job, and if he was sacked
-if I can see as many old photos pertaining to this milieu as possible and see if Astrakhan Man is identifiable

Well if anyone want to nosey about, they can. I think that Hutchinson is
traceable, and any real proof of his guilt will lie in his past....

[Rubyretro]

Not necessarily. One of them could have been accosted, struck out at her in anger, killing her, and they created a ripper-like scene to escape blame. Do I believe this? No, but it's as plausible as believing that Hutchinson wasn't thoroughly checked out and then became Abberline's darling for a few days.

Mike

Michael, that three mutual alibis would kill a woman and then fake the M.O.
of a serial killer (they almost certainly never saw the autopsy photos) is much much more unlikely than the fact that a suspect was questioned by the police, at a time when no forensic proof existed, and they failed to spot the killer.

[Rubyretro]

Maybe Hutch belonged to a secret organization like the FreeHorsemen and people wearing gold horseshoes belonged to a rogue sect. Hutch was trying to set up the Grand Master jockey with a prostitute in order to expose him in the paper, but the Grand master offed Kelly. Hutch fled the scene and hid out for 30 hours before coming to Abberline. Hutch was consequently raised up in his own order of Freehorsemen to Master Jockey and sent to Orkney where he helped create the Kirkwall Scroll. Another man was given his name and left in London as a decoy, only no one cared. Then Reg was born.

Mike

Is this what's called 'Trolling ' ???
I wondered what that was ..

Insults and Trolling won't convince anyone..

(dear me, I AM getting you worried aren't I. That's because you can't actually refute that 'horse shoe'/groom link, can you ? you haven't actually got the gall to suggest that a man would throw out a totally random abstract word like 'horse shoe' and that by huge coincidence it was a word directly linked to his job description. So you try and get around it by playing 'silly buggers').

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi again FM,

All of this, like I said in my previous post, doesn’t mean Hutchinson had anything to do with her death, but as far as I’m concerned, there’s a very good chance that he wasn’t telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth about his being there.

I could go with there's a decent chance that he wasn't telling the whole truth. But no more than that.

Which, to end this post, brings me to your repeated point that ‘it wouldn’t stand up in a court of law’. We are not in a court of law here, but even if we were, there’s no use in approaching an old case like the Ripper’s like that. Based on what we know, nothing important would stick in whatever court of law.

Cheers,
Frank

I'm not so sure about that. Because a man seen entering the room with a jug of beer - suggesting he expected to be there for a while - who didn't intend to stay the night - and didn't need a room for sex - and didn't come forward to clear himself - now I'd hazard a guess that this man would be of far more interest to the police than someone who came forward to admit he was outside for an hour.

[The Good Michael]

Is this what's called 'Trolling ' ???
I wondered what that was ..

I prefer to call it dealing with the madness in a satirical way.

Mike

[Rubyretro]

Hi again FM,

In my previous post I was just reacting to Adam Went’s claim that Hutchinson was no different than any other Ripper witness and your agreement with that. Your reply post hasn’t changed that.

Hutchinson gave no reason for being there in the first place, virtually no reason to go out of his way to take particular notice of the man, no reason follow the couple, no reason to wait that long.

If he thought Kelly’s punter was the Ripper or wanted to harm her in any other way, he would have had reason to memorize what he looked like, follow the couple, etc.. If he was planning to mug him, he might have had reason to take a good look at him, follow the couple, etc.. If, out of jealousy, he wanted to remember Kelly’s punter for future encounters, he had reason to memorize what he looked like, follow the couple, etc..

Yet, the only very thin reason Hutchinson gave was that it surprised him to see Kelly in the company of such a well dressed man. That’s way too thin compared to all the trouble he took. And therefore, a healthy reason to question his veracity.

All the other witnesses were there for a mundane reason: they were there for a fleeting moment, on their way home or to work, which was quite easily checkable.

As to the fact that Hutchinson’s description was much more detailed than that of other witnesses, my guess is that modern experts in the field and experienced police officers would be wary of Hutchinson because of his detailed description alone.

Furthermore, you discount my post as ‘stringing together a few issues which could be disputed’, which is way too easy for my taste. First of all, they shouldn’t be observed in isolation, as you tried to do, simply because they aren’t isolated issues. They are issues that are quite firmly linked together by Hutchinson’s account and his coming forward after Lewis’ testimony.

All of this, like I said in my previous post, doesn’t mean Hutchinson had anything to do with her death, but as far as I’m concerned, there’s a very good chance that he wasn’t telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth about his being there.

Which, to end this post, brings me to your repeated point that ‘it wouldn’t stand up in a court of law’. We are not in a court of law here, but even if we were, there’s no use in approaching an old case like the Ripper’s like that. Based on what we know, nothing important would stick in whatever court of law.

Cheers,
Frank

You know -I would absolutely believe Hutchinson's reason for noticing and memorising the man and I don't think that it's a thin reason at all (although the lighting poses a problem); my problem is that no one else did notice the man, and that such a man would ever be there in the first place. Let alone the fact that Hutchinson added in the 'red stone' , thought that he saw the man again in Petticoat Lane, the man had a horse-shoe symbol on him (and hutchinson was an ex-groom) , and that hutchinson only came forward to volunteer this remarkable and detailed description after the inquest (and after a witness had come forward to place a description of himself at the scene of the crime in the right time frame).

[Rubyretro]

I prefer to call it dealing with the madness in a satirical way.

Mike

Aha ! Big Clue to Your Character ! : what you "prefer" to call something is
not necessarily what it is. continue trolling me and I will report you to the administrators.

I started this thread, and if you can't reply to each point ( that is to each FACT and then prove that the hypothoses linking them are illogical), then please go away since your contribution is not useful.
(that's what this site recommends, I see)

[Marlowe]

"Rubyretro",

Please explain to me how I distorted the facts. Thank you.

[Rubyretro]

"Rubyretro",

Please explain to me how I distorted the facts. Thank you.

You distorted the facts by being totally selective in your account of the description given by Hutchinson of the man he claimed he followed back to Millers Court with MJK : to whit "Astrakhan Man".
This amounts to lying by omission.

[The Good Michael]

I started this thread, and if you can't reply to each point ( that is to each FACT and then prove that the hypothoses linking them are illogical), then please go away since your contribution is not useful.

I have responded to the lack of facts. You have created a bizarre story that is the antithesis of factual. What do you want, support? It won't happen. Horseshoes, grooms, and anti-semitism. Wow. Just wow!

Mike

[Rubyretro]

I have responded to the lack of facts. You have created a bizarre story that is the antithesis of factual. What do you want, support? It won't happen. Horseshoes, grooms, and anti-semitism. Wow. Just wow!

Mike

Horse shoes : Hutchinson gave a "witness statement to the police with the description of a man who he INFERRED was the ripper"

Hutchinson described this suspect as wearing a gold pin on his tie in the form of a horse shoe.

Hutchinson is described as being an unemployed GROOM/labourer

Hutchinson described this 'suspect' as looking jewish (amended by the police
to 'foreign looking' , as his description was considered so inflammatory )

JtR left a piece of Catherine Eddowes' apron under some graffiti which was
quickly rubbed out by Sir Charles Warren as it was considered inflammatory.

All the JtR murders took place in proximity to synagogues, jewish sacred spots or clubs.

A description by the only believable witness of JtR does not describe a jewish looking person.
(ALL TRUE STATEMENTS)

I would hope that some people might be interested enough to do some research on Hutchinson's early life themselves -because that is where 'proofs' will lie..

[FrankO]

I could go with there's a decent chance that he wasn't telling the whole truth. But no more than that.

So, we agree to an important extent and that's good enough for me, Fleetwood.

I'm not so sure about that. Because a man seen entering the room with a jug of beer - suggesting he expected to be there for a while - who didn't intend to stay the night - and didn't need a room for sex - and didn't come forward to clear himself - now I'd hazard a guess that this man would be of far more interest to the police than someone who came forward to admit he was outside for an hour.

Although I don't know if your comments on his intention and need would hold up in a court of law , I agree that Mr Blotchy Face should be of interest to the police. More than Hutchinson, who firmly linked himself to the court and Kelly on that fateful night? I don't know, it might depend on the accepted time of death.

Cheers,
Frank

[FrankO]

I would absolutely believe Hutchinson's reason for noticing and memorising the man and I don't think that it's a thin reason at all (although the lighting poses a problem);

Can you tell me why you would absolutely believe this, Ruby?

Frank

[Marlowe]

You distorted the facts by being totally selective in your account of the description given by Hutchinson of the man he claimed he followed back to Millers Court with MJK : to whit "Astrakhan Man".
This amounts to lying by omission.

I'm afraid you've been snared by one of my traps. I never said that the witness I was quoting was Hutchinson, did I?. It was Mrs Kennedy who I was quoting. She said everything I wrote there and what little difference there was between HER description and Hutchinson's description, I placed in parentheses. They were clearly describing the same man. There can be ZERO debate about this. Hutchinson is a good suspect, but the narrative needs to be changed. Hutchinson's description is the same as Kennedy's, but upgraded. Why? That should be the main question.

[Fleetwood Mac]

So, we agree to an important extent and that's good enough for me, Fleetwood.

I'm sure we do Frank - but then perhaps we'd agree that 'a decent chance of him not telling the whole truth' does not equate to 'major suspect'?

Although I don't know if your comments on his intention and need would hold up in a court of law ,

Ha! Yes....well....were I the judge and jury..... ;-)

I agree that Mr Blotchy Face should be of interest to the police. More than Hutchinson, who firmly linked himself to the court and Kelly on that fateful night? I don't know, it might depend on the accepted time of death.

Cheers,
Frank

A man who was seen going into her room with a load of ale - inference being that he was planning on being there for a while - and didn't come forward to exonerate himself versus a man hanging around outside who did come forward? Surely logic dictates that the blotchy faced fella is better placed - regardless of whether not he murdered her? Let's say you didn't know anything about this case and you were presented with two options: in the room and declined to come forward versus not in the room and came forward - on that basis which would you go for?

And of course you're leading me down the accepted time of death route....point taken....yet did anyone see him leave and at what time?

Now surely these two facts mean this fella is the most likely: a) he was seen going into her room b) he didn't come forward to clear himself - you could argue he wouldn't come forward out of concern for being fingered but then you could argue that were he innocent he'd be falling over himself to tell his story rather than have others decide in his absence - which is effectively disenfranchising yourself from the right to a trial including a defence - surely a better defence is to explain your reason for being there versus offering no defence whatsoever?